[Game] Battlefield 3
- Thread starter Ralfst3r
- Start date
...and I doubt at AT4, no matter what type of round/warhead is in it, will be that powerful. That building looks like it was hit with a GBU-12.
Upvote
0
True, but if its the singleplayer they are showing, we will talk about that. Waiting for the multiplayer scenes
Upvote
0
The graphics are beyond anything we've ever seen in a military shooter including next level character animations. Plus, the sounds are, if not the best, some of the best ever, there is a sp segment that actually looks decent for a BF game, and its got some well done effects like suppression that always seem to look like *** in other games. But forget that ****, we're the RO community and this game isn't indie so let's nitpick!
Upvote
0
YouTube - Mega64: IF YOU'RE NOT INDIE, F**K YOU (HD)
My gripe is just this: DICE is acting like no one has been doing FPS for the last 4 years with this kind of single player. "Oh, a proper BF title has never had a proper SP, and we feel like the time to do one is now."
Uh, hello, criminal unawareness of market saturation. DICE feels like they owe themselves a full-blown SP experience....that's their prerogative. But when I'm playing MP, what I see that sucks or is under-developed, guess what I'm going to blame for that? Yep. Wasting 5 months creating scripted events, to compete with Activision, when you could have been developing features for MP and polishing them to a lethal shine that would have made Treyarch devs weep into their special forces beards.
I want to be enthused about the SP, but every video they've shone has done the opposite. The graphics are beautiful, the characters are flawless, the sounds are quality....but none of that is covering up the fact it's old hat and done in the best tradition of "Call of Duty Super Soldier" where everything that happens in game will happen to them yet fail to kill them.
Honestly, all these modern warfare games should take a page from RO. We don't need or want to play super-hero soldiers. Mix it up. Let us play different characters from within the storyline, or just a random guy in every squad in every level. Maybe when you've got a squad (stupidly) going on the roof to shoot a sniper with a weapon they could have shot from the street.......the game asks you to pick who you're going to play during that scenario. One of the guys going on the roof, one of the guys repelling attackers on the ground....
We don't need to feel epic, we accomplish that easily on our own. What we do need is to have at least some of the Hollywood bull**** mediated.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
The BF3 team is huge. According to DICE, the sp portion of the game is being done by a part of the team that has no impact on the quality of the mp. They're a seperate part of the dev team that wouldn't have been improving the mp if there was no sp.
Other than that, I completely agree about scripted, cliche campaigns, and it being overdone. I don't mean to downplay the stupidity of that decision. However, we've all known that for years and years. Let's not make our discussions just as cliche.
Upvote
0
So you already played HoS SP? It should be obvious that HoS' campaign will most likely be nothing but mp maps slightly modified with some objectives to destroy and no storyline/arc of suspense whatsoever. That's why I'm ok with BF3s SP or what I've seen so far from it, because you should either do it right(as in a proper SP experience) or not at all, because nobody needs UT3 style SP.
Upvote
0
We'll keep saying it until it seems like the market hears us. How many years did the market spend on forums saying "WW2 is dead, move on!" before someone finally heard us?
The same will happen until they finally hear "Black Hawk Down is dead!" and move on.
Besides, there's precious little else to say about those videos other than "gee, that looks purty."
I can read, smart ***. They're not doing a true storyline, but imagine most game's standard SP today....but not so much Band of Brothers in the Middle East. And more focused on the BATTLE. So you get your level prompt, "Basra - August 4th, 2014"
"Delta Squad approaches the burnt out police station..."
And you're in as just a member of delta squad. Not "Cpl. Johnson, the new but loveable rookie who will eventually save the day. He takes orders from Sgt. Hawkins, the rough and very black commanding officer. He gets ammo from Pvt 1st Class Maloy, the nerdy and awkward heavy weapons specialist with glasses."
Next level, you're a different person in a different squad. This would free them up to not have to force every cinematic event on us. Maybe these events happen, maybe they don't, but they're not following such a rigid, movie-esqe formula.
CoD: Modern Warfare almost did this. The part where you play a soldier that ultimately dies in a nuclear explosion. Nuclear explosion aside, that had impact. I played the level right and **** still went south. I was enjoying the whole game up until you get stuck playing Soap and saving the world. More of that, prz.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Identification with the soldier you are playing is essential. And yes I want drama in my games. Not BS drama like getting killed 50 times in MW2, but authentic drama. I don't just want to play random missions as random soldiers, that's what MP is for.
Upvote
0
Who said random missions?
Take the mission demo'd so far. Strip out the long-term soldier identification. Tell the player who they are at start, so they have the audio cues to work with. Craft a narrative around that soldier, in that battle, and then move on. You still have the earthquake, can still have the ohsocool getting knocked out of the jeep by the falling building....but these seem more like tales from the lives of soldiers, instead of the chosen one seeing every amazing thing that happened in the 2014 Iranian Conflict.
The narrative becomes about the war, and not a narrative purely about the player and his band of bullet absorbing flunkies. Think about how many historical war records are gotten and delivered. The personal notes of hundreds of soldiers, strung together, tell the story of the war. That's the kind of FPS, mega-conflict scenario I'd like to play. Then they can globe trot all they want, throw at out as many different locales as possible, and it won't seem half as ridiculous as it is today.
Take the mission demo'd so far. Strip out the long-term soldier identification. Tell the player who they are at start, so they have the audio cues to work with. Craft a narrative around that soldier, in that battle, and then move on. You still have the earthquake, can still have the ohsocool getting knocked out of the jeep by the falling building....but these seem more like tales from the lives of soldiers, instead of the chosen one seeing every amazing thing that happened in the 2014 Iranian Conflict.
The narrative becomes about the war, and not a narrative purely about the player and his band of bullet absorbing flunkies. Think about how many historical war records are gotten and delivered. The personal notes of hundreds of soldiers, strung together, tell the story of the war. That's the kind of FPS, mega-conflict scenario I'd like to play. Then they can globe trot all they want, throw at out as many different locales as possible, and it won't seem half as ridiculous as it is today.
Upvote
0
True, I'd much rather they didn't make a singleplayer at all to be honest. The Bad Company games have pretty much made it a requirement now for them to make a contrived and scripted SP game when all we really care about is MP. I love good SP games, but that's not what I play Battlefield for.
SHOW US MP FEATURES!
Last edited:
Upvote
0
They gave DA2 94% so they lost any credibility with me.
Apart from trying to impress teenagers with slo-mo and lots of swearing; it looks pretty immersive. I like the first person weapon model positioning and the fact you can see more of your body than in other mainstream shooters.
Also they have not lied about anything just yet. They never promised mod tools (I think we all under the agreeance however, that they should be included) but I will try to enjoy this game for what it is.
If it turns out to be all bull**** and ends up being a console-fest then i'll kick up a stink. Otherwise I think this is going to be a good edition to all the other excellent PC games out this year.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Sure it's kinda lame but you also have to remember it's a teaser. It's alot easier to notice details of the new destruction system in slow mo.
Upvote
0
I think it was more for the visual impact of seeing your squad rise up and suppress the face of the building. The clip didn't exactly let you savor the destruction.
Upvote
0
Are you grasping for hate straws? You can see the impact of their bullets either hitting in or around where the supposed sniper is. They aren't randomly firing at the face of the building.
Upvote
0
Are you grasping for disagreement straws? Where did I say I saw they were randomly shooting at something other than the sniper? All I said was it was to capture the drama of your squad standing up and unloading. The clip cuts to the logo pretty much as soon as the glass blasts outwards.
Upvote
0
Speak for yourself mate, some of the best SP gaming i've done in war themes shooters had no protagonist, no real storyline or arc to speak of, and that is precisely why i loved them.
I'm talking things like the R6 games, which basically had no story at all, you where just sent on random missions that got progressively more advanced, and that was it really. Sure they tried to link the missions togeather in a plot of sorts, but really, all you did was play individual missions.
On paper that may sound incredibly simplistic, but in practice, it kicked arse! It was differen't every time, and your play was never constricted by BS plot devices and scripted "ohh teh drama" moments and rubbish cutscenes. It was tactical gaming, the pure essence of what a war game should be in my mind, and not a sappy hollywood war-movie wannabe.
I'll take that every damned day over a CoD style SP, without question or hesitation. Of course, you're free to disagree, and feel that's not what you want from an SP game, but don't tell me "nobody wants that", because i most certainly do!
Upvote
0
It would have cost you $60 with SP or no SP. For the price, you're getting free content. What is there to complain about? They would not have made more content in the MP if there was no SP - that is what paid DLC is for (EA probably won't allow DICE to release free content even if DICE wanted to).
Even a scripted SP campaign with a story (even if corny and bad) that is only 6 hours long and only good for one play through is better than nothing.
Upvote
0