Battlefield 3: 64-Player on PC, Teaser

By Jim Rossignol on February 4th, 2011 at 10:21 am.


Game Informer have the scoop on Battlefield 3, and they’ve announced some details: “Several standout features that defined Battlefield 2 return to the fold, including 64-player multiplayer on PC, jets, and the ability to go prone.” So that’s interesting. We should get to see the full unveil at GDC at the beginning of March.

Exciting but ultimately content-free teaser trailer below.

__________________

« | »

, , .

120 Comments »

  1. Njordsk says:

    Useless piece of video, but still can’t wait.

    Roll on GDC ! Roll on fall !

    • El_MUERkO says:

      Listen to this (from Webhallen pre-order):

      Features:
      • Frostbite 2 – Battlefield 3 introduces Frostbite 2, the incredible technology that takes animation, destruction, lighting, scale and audio to new heights. Built upon this powerful game engine, Battlefield 3 immerses players physically and emotionally to the world around them like never before.

      • Feel the Battle — Feel the impact of bullets and explosions, drag your fallen comrades into safety, and mount your weapon on almost any part of the terrain. Battlefield 3’s cutting edge animation, spectacular visuals and real as hell battle gameplay attack your senses and make you feel the visceral warriors experience like no other FPS.

      • Unparalleled Vehicle Warfare — The best online vehicle warfare experience gets even better with a fitting sonic boom as fighter jets headline impressive lineup of land, air and sea vehicles.

      • Urban Combat — Take the fight to iconic and unexpected places in the USA, Middle East, and Europe including claustrophobic streets, metropolitan downtowns, and open, vehicle-friendly landscapes as you fight your way through the war of tomorrow.

  2. Brumisator says:

    did they just slap that PEGI 18 logo on there to make themselves seem more badass?

    • diebroken says:

      Heh, that and the music in the video seems very close even closer to The Terminator score by Brad Fiedel (can’t believe no one has mentioned this yet, on RPS!), which sounds good to me… can’t wait. “Welcome to Dewty”!

    • Kollega says:

      Well, technically it’s similar to the Battlefield theme music, but yeah, it’s also kinda similar to the Terminator’s score.

      /nitpicking

  3. Kid_A says:

    I like how bringing back stuff that was needlessly cut out of Bad Company 2 is being touted as a great new feature. Looking at you, jets and going prone.
    Also, given that I can go play on a 128-player BF2 server right now if I so choose, 64 seems… pretty meh. But then Call of Duty seems to have established 18 as the max recently, so… Depressing that something that was standard in BF1942 is a huge feature now.

    • AwesomeOwl says:

      Uhm, skewing the facts a little, are we?
      They’re saying that some features that were in a previous game, that were taken out in a subsequent game, are returning for this game. Sure they may not be revolutionary but they’re not saying they are..
      I’m inclined to say haters gonna hate..

    • Alexander Norris says:

      Moaning that these limits are somehow being imposed by idiotic or greedy developers kowtowing to console hardware requirements is pretty daft. The PC versions of MW2 and blops have 12/18 as a hardcoded limit in part because of developers refusing to remake their game so that it takes advantage of the PC as a platform, yes, but also because the game was designed around that playercount. Look at the joke that are CoD4′s remaining servers – it’s nigh impossible to find anything below 20-slot and the majority of servers are 50-man TDM servers, in a game designed for 12 people.

      BC2 was designed around 24 players and for the PC release they just made the maximum 32, without bothering to redesign the game around that. The result is that 32-slot BC2 servers are perpetual slaughterhouses and playing on them is completely pointless; assuming you’ve got any interest whatsoever in playing tactically, which is, y’know, kind of the point of Battlefield games.

      tl;dr a 64-man player limit is perfectly fine as long as the game is designed around it, and complaining about just that number as if increasing it would somehow magically make the game better is bad.

    • HermitUK says:

      Indeed. Massive numbers does not equal a better game. In fact, even back in CoD4 I preferred smaller servers of 12-18 players, over the 40 player Shipment grenade fests most servers seemed to love. It’s all about getting a good balance between player numbers and the maps.

      Go play on a 32 man TF2 server, then tell me that’s somehow better than the default maximum of 24 players. Any tactics are quickly buried under explosives and/or 8 man sentry nests.

    • Maykael says:

      I completely agree with Hermit and Alexander. Both TF2 and BC2 are shit on anything but the default 24 player count. We’re gonna play BF3 on 24-man servers if they don’t design the maps to accomodate 64 people.

    • DrGonzo says:

      Alexs point is true but completely irrelevant. The point being made was that these games should be being designed for more players in the first place. Not just given bigger player counts.

      And playing BC2 tactically, ha!

    • SamC says:

      Why all the hate for BC2?

    • Tei says:

      BC2 is a hybrid of BF2 and Counter-Strike for consoles.
      There are no reason to hate it, but is not the real thing.

  4. pepper says:

    Bastards. Just no. 1942 already had 64. We have had the 128 limit promised years ago.

  5. Flameberge says:

    To be fair, is one thing to pick up from the video: looks very much like they’re keeping it in the yawn-inducing modern day, or ‘near-future’ setting. It’s odd really. 7-10 years ago we all used to complain about how all FPS were WWII shooters. Since Modern Warfare, they’ve nearly. all been ‘modern’ shooters. Also makes me wonder – aside the PC centric features – how exactly they’re going to differentiate it from Bad Company 2.

    • Davie says:

      What we need are some late-Renaissance shooters. For a change of pace.

    • Thecreeperskg says:

      Or some dinosaur-age-rock-shooting FPS games… too Flintstone? o.O

    • Zogtee says:

      Right, the past is done, the present is done, and the (near)future is done! What are you asking for again?

    • Cugel says:

      I’d like to see some generic 60s/70s Cold War era shooters (or games in general actually). I think I couldn’t stomach the CODBLOPS-style history revisioning of, say, the Bush Wars (some American game studio trying to tell me that “apartheid South Africa wasn’t all that bad actually”). But if you just took the general aesthetic, with the environments, arms and equipment of the era, I think it could probably be pretty cool.

    • Martha Stuart says:

      Im pulling for a 2000 BC FPS with spears and blow guns and everyone wears loincloths.

    • Zogtee says:

      The idea of a stone age CoD game is growing on me. Slings, rocks, stone knives, an epic mission to take down a mammoth, and finally take on the terrorist bastards in the village behind that hill over there, the ones who keep grabbing our wimmins.

    • Kakrafoon says:

      I have no complaints about the Battlefield games being set in the Modern era, or 20 years into the future. Reason: I’d like the game to be able to play around with a bit of futuristic hardware and gimmicks. The lack of the vehicle sensor package for the Vietnam upgrade, for example, is realistic – but I don’t like it. It is the one thing that saves me from people trying to sneak-boom my armoured buttocks. Of course, what I really want is a comeback of the motion sensor the support class had in BF 2142. I could always slap that onto my vehicle… ah, those were good times.

    • rochallor says:

      if you want the period you accept the truth, those evil South Africans were fighting communist backed forces in neighbouring countries and supporting indigenous factions, if you want a game about the cold war you need to accept that it wasn’t black and white. Who do you think funded those wars (hint begins with U and ends with SA). Still, expecting an understanding of the realities of trying to build a first world country and sustain it in the middle of Africa from some generation xyz nerd who probably works as a web designer in islington and would probably piss himself if he had to fire a gun in real life is probably a bit much.

      Funny how all those anti-apartheid types have conveniently forgotten to watch the ramifications of their great victory as the only advanced country in Africa slides slowly into oblivion.

    • Alexander Norris says:

      We definitely need more sci-fi shooters, though.

    • A Little Lebowski says:

      @rochallor
      “An advanced country” does not legislatively outlaw 80% of it’s citizens right to choose who governs them based on the colour of their skin. In fact, I’d go as far to say that would be the opposite of “advanced” and in fact fucking barbarism writ large.

    • wazups2x says:

      Have you not seen Red Orchestra 2: Heroes of Stalingrad?

      64 player, pc exclusive, WWII shooter. I bet it will be even better than BF3.

  6. Overlai says:

    Oh no, not prone!

  7. Fire_Storm says:

    Yeah, this “franchise” has gone on long enough. And on the basis of that, “I’m out”

  8. JohnnyMaverik says:

    All I care about is mod tools so we can pc up the damn thing ourselves.

  9. Crimsoneer says:

    I kind of wanted a less crap version of 2142…

    • WMain00 says:

      2142 was good fun! It was just unfortunate the net lag made it unplayable, the tanks were useless, and the guns felt underpowered.

      But apart from that good fun!

    • Kakrafoon says:

      What lag? The game ran near perfect for me and my buddies. Also, the tanks were real killers, especially the Hovertank thing – but you needed a competent gunner/spotter/engineer, preferably in the same teamspeak channel. Communication and teamwork can make 2- or 3-man-teams infinitely more deadly in Battlefield. It also helps to slap an infantry detector widget underneath the tank, to save you from 1-shot-kill-hits to your engine compartment.

    • Koozer says:

      The only game I’ve played more than 2142 is the Galactic Conquest mod for 1942. I liked the fact tanks weren’t nigh- unstoppable death machines as in BF2, but were actually support. I liked the lack of jets, and the giant flying battleships were a brilliant idea ruined by the capabilities of the engine.

  10. bonjovi says:

    not the prone again, unless they will make it so it takes 10s to go prone, or we gonna see dolphins again XD

    @Flameberge
    if not WWII, not modern, not near future, what setting would you like to see shooter in? far future? trench warfare (although this done properly might be fun)

    I like WWII setting, modern or not too far removed future. hate lasers, unless we’re talking quake, but that’s different breed of FPS.

  11. jplayer01 says:

    Sigh, there’s something wrong with the genre when the ability to prone and 64 player servers are features they can advertise. :/ Welcome to ten years ago?

    • Cugel says:

      Yes, I cannot concur more whole-heartedly.

    • briktal says:

      “I hope this has at least 64 players and prone” “Heh it probably won’t it’ll be a Call of Duty crapgame pay $5 to buy your next magazine”

      “Yes we’ll have 64 players and prone”

      “Lol if they have to tell us that the game’s in bad shape”

    • trillex says:

      Might be because they are the features most people ask about and complained wasn’t in BC2.

    • Jason Moyer says:

      I have a feeling that prone was missing from BC2 largely because of how shitty it was in BF2, so they went a full dev cycle without it knowing they could focus on making it work better for BF3. At least that’s what I hope. If it’s the same old BF dolphin diving I’ll pass.

    • DrGonzo says:

      The reason I heard them give for its absence in BC2 was that the 360 and PS3 ran it at such low resolutions it made it impossible to spot someone who was prone, and it would just become a sniping war.

  12. Staggy says:

    Is anyone else reading this as “Battlefield 2 HD” rather than a full blown sequel?

    • B0GiE-uk- says:

      I’d be happy with that!

    • Staggy says:

      @B0GiE-uk

      So would I come to think of it. At this point I just can’t envision something that isn’t new. I feel that this path has been well and truly tread before. I also think that Dice are also more risk averse since Mirrors Edge and that might keep them from doing anything revolutionary.

      Here’s hoping they continue to avoid killstreak rewards and make core class functionality available from the start, not 3 unlocks in.

    • Joshua says:

      Battlefield 2 HD + Destructible Enviroments + Even bigger battlefields?

      (That actually sounds quite awesome).

    • Staggy says:

      When you put it like that *puts on tinfoil hat of eternal optimism* I can’t wait!

      I’m surprised no one’s mentioned BF-Play4Free yet, will that be a decent enough stopgap or will BC2 sustain me until BF3 come out?

  13. Heliocentric says:

    I never understood the beef about prone, yes its not realistic, neither is it realistic that you can die from 2 sniper rifles to your foot or a pistol round to the head isn’t fatal or that people shot by a tank cannon can be instantly revived by shock paddles or that you can fall thousands of feet and open your parachute 2 feet above the ground or splash into a pool of water or worse yet board a vehicle and suffer no damage (yes you can dive into vehicles, even aircraft, check the awesome skill videos out.) its not realistic that the commander has a scan which reveals everyone on the map without exception (or did special ops get an out from that) its not realistic that 2 tanks next to each other can automagically repair each other because the driver is an engineer…. But by all means, complain about dolphin diving.

    • Martha Stuart says:

      you can die from 2 sniper bullets in the foot, its called massive blood loss and blunt force trama. also you can survive a point blank shot to the head from a pistol round. a certain political figure just survived such a wound in Arizona. she was shot from less than 36 inches away and the bullet penetrated her skull, and she survived.

    • Theory says:

      People aren’t necessarily right about why they dislike something. Dolphin diving was a problem because it was a case of “press tedious button sequence to win”, with AFAIK no downside.

    • wengart says:

      However, she was well and truly incapacitated and only survived thanks to being within reach of a hospital.

    • Heliocentric says:

      Your good to go senator, beck back to the fight.

  14. coldvvvave says:

    Bf2 for me was:

    Ahtimulmus.

    Ahtimulmus.

    Dolphin divers everywhere.

    Ahtimulmus.

    Ahtimulmus.

    Grenade spam.

    Ahtimulmus.

    Ahtimulmus.

    Someone teamkills me.

  15. segazuko says:

    Somehow I knew opening the comments sections there would be some sort of whining about these awesome news.

    Go die in fire.

  16. HermitUK says:

    I’m looking forward to a return to the massive map sizes of Battlefield 2. Conquest in Bad Company 2 is fine, but the maps are usually too small to allow for successful flanking and sneaky point caps, which often means one team ends up getting spawn trapped.

    Also Jets :D

    • Akare says:

      Yeah, very happy about the 64 player announcement. Big maps with plenty of vehicles combined with frostbyte’s destructible terrain should make for a great game, and a step forward from BF2, just in other ways than player count.

    • Batolemaeus says:

      Bf2 maps didn’t feel so massive to me after the enormous bf1942 maps with incredible viewing distance. In bf2 you could just walk a few seconds and you can’t bee seen. It all felt so cramped. :(

      All I want from Bf3 is a bf1942 remake but with a few updates around the rough edges of that game. Mostly a squad system and some reworked spawning mechanics.

  17. Martha Stuart says:

    jets are fine with me as long as the add in some type of lock-on to the missile weapons so you can actually shoot them down.

    • Kakrafoon says:

      Oh yes please. There needs to be a way for the grunts on the ground to keep the jets from pasting them every time they venture out in the open. Having fixed stinger or AA emplacements is clearly not a solution, because the pilots will just learn their locations and chuck a bomb into them every time they pass nearby just to be on the safe side. I kind of liked the way Battlefield 2142 had no jets, but only gunships that were at least a bit susceptible to ground fire.

  18. Njordsk says:

    Lots of hate and pessimism here…

    We’re talking about battlefield here, not the bad company spin off !

  19. battles_atlas says:

    Why is tv reception so perennially bad during war games? just fiddle with the aerial for fucks sake.

  20. DiamondDog says:

    Wait, so some of you are complaining because…. they’re trying to give you what you wanted? Wow.

    I had a lot of fun with BC2 so I’m interested to see what they’ve done with this now that they sort of have two separate games going. If Battlefield 3 just ends up being BC2 with bigger maps it might be a tad disappointing.

  21. starclaws says:

    Oh joy … #6 in the series of tanks, atvs and helicopters. I want my aerial dogfights, aircraft carriers, destroyers and submarines on the PC.

    Remember this?: “After revealing that the PC version of Battlefield 1943 would release over two months after the XBLA release, DICE is attempting to cool the heads of angry PC fans on the EA forums. Producer Gordon Van Dyke explains that Battlefield 1943 will be the first PC game to use DICE’s Frostbite Engine, which was already used to create the console exclusive Battlefield: Bad Company.”

    I understand Battlefield 3 on a multi-console release will have a major sales day compared to just BF1943 but I sure hope it comes out in 2012… Or maybe a combo release date for a pack of BF3/BF1943. They might win me back with something like that.

  22. kororas says:

    Its going to be AWESOME!!!!

  23. AbyssUK says:

    I know I’ve said this before… but WHY NO CODENAME EAGLE 2… man i love that game…

    Basically battlefield with biplanes, wwi tanks and zeplins.. much more fun.

    • kororas says:

      Props for codename eagle. I didnt really like the spontaneous exploding. Apparently looking at wikipedia there is a mod for it on BF2. 0.o

  24. Mattressi says:

    I really want to get this…but I’m not going to upgrade from XP in the foreseeable future (I’m broke and see no reason other than for a select few games that require it). This saddens me :(

    • Jimmy Z says:

      Well since you’re still running XP, I doubt you’d have the hardware to run the game anyway, so no worries there.

    • Mattressi says:

      Because the system requirements of games have greatly increase in the last 5 years?? I can honestly run just about every modern game at maximum settings with no lag. The only exception to this that I’ve found is ArmA. Any multi-platform game I can run beautifully.

      I don’t understand why not having the latest, greatest (almost exactly the same as its preprocessors) OS means that my hardware must be crap.

    • 7rigger says:

      True it can’t be as bad as the old days, when BF2 demanded I upgrade my 2 year old GeForce 4 Ti 4600. Just for one crappy effect.

      Still, I did get a GeForce 6. And it was worth it ;)

  25. Gunder says:

    I wonder how many years after release before it will be playable.

  26. Dreamhacker says:

    My pro-BF3 comment disappeared? Censorship! ;)

    What I wrote was: I’m still tired of WW2 shooters and the BC2 game mode feels like too little, too late, so please Dice, give us a BF2-clone with improved graphics!

  27. Ertard says:

    Holy shit, why the hate? This is fantastic. Expecting 128 players with quite possibly a very (way beyond CryEngine 3) graphically intense engine is a bit much. 64 players are fine, besides, I hardly ever enjoyed that with my 1000 hours or so of BF2/2142. 32 is where it’s at in my book, even though many disagree. But now you have 64 again!

    Prone though, is kinda shit, but I doubt they will let dolphin diving happen again, so it’s allright.

    By the way, this is not a console port. There has been no information as to that being true, and PC exclusivity of a multi-million seller on console? Bwahahaha, get real.

  28. rocketman71 says:

    And then server files won’t be released, map packs will be sold, console game modes won’t be ported… And all that is assuming the game will be released for the PC. With DICE “super talented” teams, you never now.

    Sorry, not buying. Fuck DICE and fuck EA.

    • Joshua says:

      You are starting to sound like the Glenn Beck from video games: They did this! ITS COMMUNISM!

    • Ergates_Antius says:

      Thats all just idle speculation and you have no evidence to suggest any of those things will happen.

      If you’re going to get angry about things, get angry about things that have actually happened, not about things that just might

    • Nogo says:

      Telling an entertainment company to go fuck themselves for not living up to your leisure time standards is a bit silly imo.

  29. psyk says:

    You guys do realize if 1943 was released on pc your heads would explode and your keyboards would be worn away by the amount of WAAAAAAA messages you would write.

    “WE WANT THE WORST MOST GIMPED OUT BF ON THE PC WOOOOOOOOO”

    You guys have no idea what you want and will never be happy.

  30. Joe Maley says:

    BFBC2:
    Whines about no prone, and a 32 player cap.

    BF3:
    Whines about prone, and a 64 player cap.

    I hate anyone who isn’t completely ecstatic about a release. They said they were take special care for the PC, and we won’t know for sure until it’s released.

    Even BFBC2 which was a “console-port” still contained dedicated servers, extra graphical features, dx11, and non-laggy input.

    The only thing that concerns me is whether or not they will be releasing the server files and mod tools.

  31. KilgoreTrout_XL says:

    Oh. I thought the comments were going to be about how fucking sweet this will almost certainly be.

    But self-pitying speculation on how men in suits are conspiring against your good time is fun too.

  32. The Great Wayne says:

    Planetside.

    /thread.

  33. badoli says:

    Hate me if you will, but the original Desert Combat Mod for 1942 was still the best.

    Bombers? Check!
    Hard to fly helicopters? Check!
    Maps, that don’t feature every freakin vehicle thats in the game, but focusing on certain aspects? DOUBLECHECK!!!

    Man, i miss that game.

  34. kibayasu says:

    Tentatively excited while reserving concerns over map size and/or design. It’s a fact of life that the same maps that are on the PC will be on the console. While I would love to see the scale of 1942 through 2142 return, that’s not really feasible even with a console limit of something like 16 on 16. MAG did some interesting things with its large number games, but thats not really Battlefield.

  35. Juiceman says:

    I’m not too worried about map size, the fact that there are fighter jets lends me to believe they will be pretty sizable. Flying for 5 seconds and then immediately having to turn around, due to map size, seems like it would be a pretty obvious issue. They may even just be pushing back the boundaries of the map for the fixed wing aircraft and leaving infantry and other vehicles with a smaller area to work with.

  36. egg651 says:

    To summarise what I, and probably most other people want:
    - Pretty graphics, but still optimised. Also, none of those super low-res console friendly textures please.
    - Mod tools! Project Reality on Frostbite, anyone?
    - Maps MADE for 64 players, not maps with an increased playercount awkwardly shoehorned in just to shut us PC gamers up about ‘consoleification’.
    - This one’s probably a bit more personal, but, Wake Island?

    In general: If you must release this for console, make it for PC first and then port it there. Not vice versa.

  37. Pantsman says:

    I hope this won’t make me feel silly for buying BFBC2 in Steam’s Chrimbo sales.

  38. Fathom says:

    Contrary to belief, vacuous pessimism is not cool. It’s annoying. Next time anyone thinks of posting with that mentality, just don’t. Write it to yourself in your journal before you go to bed, maybe that way you’ll read it later and think “wow, who the fuck actually takes the time to write this?”.

  39. amassingham says:

    Hmmm.
    That trailer seems miiiiighty familiar
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYc3vOmof_8

  40. My2CENTS says:

    64bit with an engine like Frostbite, yeah right.

  41. Personoic says:

    I hope this version of the Frostbite engine is more GPU intensive and less CPU intensive than bad company 2. By being PC centric it can take advantage of the better graphics card found in most PCs rather than having to rely on the CPU to do almost everything.

  42. DOLBYdigital says:

    Guessed the video would be useless but at least they confirmed 64 players which means the maps will be huge and hopefully make vehicle combat worth while. I also hope they have proper AA weapons…

    Actually if I could just ask for 1 thing, it would be full mod support. Please…. please… i am literally begging DICE, remember your roots! You would not exist if it wasn’t for modding support (at least the members of Trauma Studios) who were key in making BF2 the awesome game it was. Sadly I doubt EA would allow this but I will still hold out a glimmer of hope!

  43. wazups2x says:

    Red Orchestra 2: Heroes of Stalingrad!

  44. Nallen says:

    I love Battlefield but I still want World in Conflict the FPS

Comment on this story

XHTML: Allowed code: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>