Re: Battlefield 3

by A_Bearded_Swede Wed Mar 02, 2011 1:30 pm

dragoon9105 wrote:Nice and it looks like dragging dead teamate around might be an actual game mechanic (Ever have someone you needed to revive but they were out in the open and would get sniped every time you picked em up)

Plus bloodspatter that isn't yours can hit you it looks like. unless that was a scripted effect.

If those are both game mechanics, i'll be very excited. ^.^

by Gauz Wed Mar 02, 2011 5:12 pm

I'm going to drag all the dead bodies into a house and have a tea party.

by Elabajaba Wed Mar 02, 2011 5:14 pm

Dragging dead bodies isn't in mp, apparently.

by KristallNacht Wed Mar 02, 2011 7:43 pm

Gauz wrote:I get early beta access with Medal of Honor (of which I regret buying )

How in the fuck can you regret buying medal of honor?

by Gold Spartan Wed Mar 02, 2011 8:08 pm

KristallNacht wrote:
Gauz wrote:I get early beta access with Medal of Honor (of which I regret buying )

How in the fuck can you regret buying medal of honor?

I only got to play the meh SP, due to not having XBL. Wasn't terribly impressed by the game.

by Gauz Thu Mar 03, 2011 12:17 am

The Single Player was pretty okay.

The Multiplayer is pretty bad imo.

by **Angatar** Thu Mar 03, 2011 12:19 am

Combat Mission is the only game mode worth playing because the others tend to have spawn killing issues, but all the Combat Mission maps are large enough that spawnkilling is rare. Also, since the snipers were patched to not always be OHK it's actually pretty fun.

by KristallNacht Thu Mar 03, 2011 1:19 am

Gauz wrote:The Single Player was pretty okay.

The Multiplayer is pretty bad imo.

please don't be one of those people that liked black ops and mw2 single player

by Gold Spartan Fri Mar 04, 2011 6:38 pm

KristallNacht wrote:
Gauz wrote:The Single Player was pretty okay.

The Multiplayer is pretty bad imo.

please don't be one of those people that liked black ops and mw2 single player

tbf, at least those single players aren't 5 and half hours long at most.

by KristallNacht Fri Mar 04, 2011 7:53 pm

that because it doesn't take any skill to weave 8 hours of nonsensical storylines together

by dragoon9105 Fri Mar 04, 2011 8:07 pm

8 hours? i can clear a cod campain in an afternoon

by Gauz Sat Mar 05, 2011 2:49 am

I disliked black ops and MW2

a lot

by KristallNacht Sat Mar 05, 2011 3:10 am

dragoon9105 wrote:8 hours? i can clear a cod campain in an afternoon

i was choosing a number at random to illustrate a point

by Divine Virus Wed Mar 16, 2011 1:51 pm

by Vtrooper Wed Mar 16, 2011 5:52 pm

MATADOR, that is my response

by KristallNacht Wed Mar 16, 2011 9:25 pm

there are some serious military tactics issues in those trailers.

there isn't any 360 degree security in most cases. All the Marines forgot their weapon safety rules, and medal of honor rushes are all of the place.

the graphics are good, and dialog felt natural.

EDIT:

the sniper in that second one would have been fairly capable of fucking that entire team.

and an AT-4 doesn't do that much damage. a M136 can only penetrate 12 inches of steel and is a shaped charge. its not gonna send a shockwave out to fuck an entire building up.

by **Angatar** Thu Mar 17, 2011 12:14 am

I think the AT4 bit was just to show off Frostbite 2.0, rather than be realistic.

The sniper was going for no scopes.

by KristallNacht Thu Mar 17, 2011 2:47 am

but the problem with showing off frostbite 2 like that, is that the scene was more scripted than simulated.

by **Angatar** Sat Mar 19, 2011 10:48 am

So what would have rather had them do, shoot the AT4 and have nothing happen because that would be real?

by Ruski Sat Mar 19, 2011 2:47 pm

I think the building was already weak from earthquakes, since that city is suppose to be earthquake central.

by Onyxknight Sat Mar 19, 2011 5:05 pm

Ruski wrote:I think the building was already weak from earthquakes, since that city is suppose to be earthquake central.

that or the building was rigged with explosives.

by KristallNacht Sat Mar 19, 2011 7:19 pm

but no sniper would have explosives sitting next to him.

and yes, they'd have the building not fall down and have each pane of glass on it break...

since realistic is still better than over the top shock and awe.

if they want it to be flashy, than they can call in an air strike.

by Divine Virus Sun Mar 20, 2011 2:47 am

Battlefield (now thanks to BC2) + the Frostbite engine are well known for the destructible enviroment. In fact, it's of the its selling points. So not only should the building fall to the ground, it should be as detructive as it can be not only for the sake of improving plus keeping the features of the game/engine but especially considering the sheer size of the structure being discussed right now.

Also, video game is a video game at the end of the day. Small doses of realism are welcomed but doses to the extent of possibly taking the fun out of a game or taking away even an explosion/structure destruction in this case, is not. (IMO)

by KristallNacht Sun Mar 20, 2011 7:24 am

being destrictible is one thing.

being destructible to a sheer over the top level that wouldn't be any better than a scripted sequence? not so much.

if they want to make it 'fun' and shock and awe-y, they can use an air strike.

by Divine Virus Sun Mar 20, 2011 1:41 pm

Shooting a launcher though makes it more personal. Just simply pulling up your walkie or lapstop or whatever, and then watching the planes roll in would be kinda boring. Plus, THAT seems more scripted then just using the launcher.

Now if they did it in a different way like say with a drone or something more interactive then that would be cool. But anyways, this video was just simply to show off the new engine.

by Sponsored content