Battlefield 3: The RPS Reader’s Take

By RPS on September 10th, 2011 at 9:00 am.

Joe looks exactly like this

Last week, two RPS competition winners and myself (that being Alec, assuming the omni-voice of the hivemind for this post) headed over to Stockholm to visit DICE and see/play Battlefield 3. You’ve already read some of my thoughts on what I saw, but what about the readers? Well, one of them did himself a nasty leg injury on the first morning and wasn’t actually able to see the game, which was a terrible shame. Fortunately the other, Joe O’Connor, was left unscathed. Apart from the fact that his plane home nearly blew up, anyway. Are RPS competitions cursed? Maybe. Maybe. Anyway, he’s alive and well, so here’s what he thought of Battlefield 3: take it away, Joe.

I was lucky enough to win Rock Paper Shotgun’s competition to visit the DICE offices in Stockholm to play an early version of their new game Battlefield 3. Whilst there I played one of the co-op missions and watched the game’s Producer, Patrick Bach, play through a portion of the single-player campaign, a night-time mission featuring an assault on Tehran. Alec’s already talked about exactly what we saw, and some of the things that Bach said, but this is what I felt, as someone who’s played games for as long as he can remember, from an old, battered Amstrad to Nintendos and PCs.

One of the first things that hits you about this game is just how meaty and visceral it feels. Everything around you, from the fiery light of an explosion blossoming for a moment, to the dust and stone chips kicked up by wayward bullets, to the harsh thuds and sharp barks of battle, it melds together to form a truly impressive illusion of physical involvement in battle. The videos DICE and EA have released show how incredible it looks, but they’re not the full story: great care has gone into how the game actually feels, and it feels… right. It’s war, in every fibre of its being.

At the round-table discussion he held, Bach told us that he wanted the single-player campaign to have a similar feeling to the multi-player game, with large numbers of AI working in concert with the player. And to a very large extent it works: your AI teammates are so there, whether they’re working with you to fire a flare into the sky, or giving you a leg over a wall into the battle, that the illusion that you’re just looking through a window at a real war, with men bleeding and sweating and dying, is palpable. It’s a really great trick, and one I think you need to experience if you’re going to properly understand it. Other companies have tried it before, but none have got it quite as right.

Bach really seemed to care about the images that people keep in their minds once they’ve stopped playing. As Alec’s already posted, Bach doesn’t want people to have the option to kill civilians in- game, even as ‘collateral damage’. It’s not the image he wants people to have of the game. I was concerned that this might mean that Battlefield 3 would, therefore, be a sanitised version of war, a self-censoring Hollywood-style production, but I think what he said next is really a good point.

Bach said: “Games are where movies were in the 30s or 40s, when it went from a technical spectacle to ‘hey, wait a minute we can actually use this to tell something, be political’ and things like that. I think we are on the verge of seeing things like that.” Battlefield 3 isn’t trying to be Apocalypse Now, about the horrors of war on the civilian population, but then again it’s not trying to be. Look at “No Russian” as a classic example of how not to talk about that sort of brutality in games: although it was a tiny part of Modern Warfare 2, the image people so often take away from that whole game is the pointless murder of unarmed civilians. Much better for the things people remember about Battlefield 3 to be the things Bach and his team are interested in: either scripted moments of awesome, or emergent activities which can take advantage of the tech they’ve developed.

The best example I saw of this was as Bach played the single-player game. As he joined a charge down a hill an AI teammate was sent flying by a mortar round. As Bach ran past, his vision flicked momentarily to the fellow soldier, desperately trying to raise himself to his feet, obviously injured. The beautiful animation they’ve developed meant this throwaway moment did more to create the atmosphere of real people involved in battle and war than a dozen scripted moments. This, however, served to make it all the more jarring a few minutes later when a scripted moment drove the player into a slow-motion tumble backwards from a burst-open doorway, cocking and shooting the shotgun as he fell. For a game that tries to hard to pull you in, I was almost pushed straight back out. It was just a moment, though, and the rest of the time the sensation of reality and being a part of a real war was upheld very well.

If, in the film-making scale it’s a spectacle-filled Hollywood view of war, then it’s a beautiful, immersive, compelling view of war. Not being told anything about the storyline (Bach was frustratingly tight-lipped) it’s impossible to say whether it’s going to be strong on that front, but who knows, it could still become gaming’s first real exploration into the reality and morality of war. DICE have form with creating interesting characters: the dialogue in Bad Company 2 is good enough that there were several occasions when I halted en route to the objective to listen to the banter between the characters, and chatting to the other guys on the trip suggested that I wasn’t the only one.

That, of course, won’t matter to the legions of people who’ll buy Battlefield 3 just for the 64- man battles that the PC alone is going to get. We didn’t get the option to try this out, but if the verisimilitude of the single-player and co-op games can be carried over, then that should be a hell of an experience.

So what have I taken away from the trip? Notwithstanding memories of far too many beautiful people than is fair for one country, I remember dying the most. The moment I lost track of my co- op partner in the mélee, got a little too far ahead of the line of heavy armour, and was caught in a crossfire of sniper bullets and RPGs. Or the split-second of cockiness that let a hidden enemy pounce on me with his knife, driving it into my neck with a screen-shaking thud and terminal exhalation of breath. These are the things which come back. What if I’d done that differently, chosen that gun instead, communicated with my partner that little bit better. Most of all, what comes back is wanting to jump right back in, not to have to let someone else have a go. I want to go back to the war.

, , .

102 Comments »

  1. syntax says:

    Delicious.

  2. nearsighted says:

    Looking good, pity about Origin…

    • Theodoric says:

      Origin’s not that bad really. Quite a bit cheaper than Steam for some games, even.

    • Lewie Procter says:

      On the topic of pricing, Origin is pretty bad. EA’s own games go on sale at other DD outlets more frequently than they do on Origin, EA often do sales that are limited to a few different countries (and even promoted a sale that wasn’t available in the UK via their UK twitter feed once!), and standard prices for lots of their games are higher on Origin than elsewhere.

      There will be some exceptions, but from what I’ve seen, Origin pricing ain’t great.

    • felisc says:

      I hope they will have some winter sales !

    • tungstenHead says:

      Which is a terrible pity because I do prefer buying from the developer direct when possible. Yes, even if it’s a ginormous corporation. But then again, I suppose this pricing thing is a bit of an attempt to appease their retail partners, both digital and brick & mortar. Also it’s a shade greedy, but whatever.

      One man’s greed is another man’s maximizing profits for the fiscal quarter. … Which makes it alllll the better, amirite?

      (Also congratulations and thanks for the write-up, Joe. Sounds like you enjoyed yourself immensely.)

    • chackosan says:

      The price point looks to be fixed according to region. In my country (India), Origin prices match the retail prices, which are more than 50% cheaper than the equivalent prices on Steam, which are global standard:

      http://postimage.org/image/202qen9fo/

      (Conversion rate at the moment: 1 USD = (approx) Rs 47)

      But there’s a bookstore that stocks games right across from my office and there’s also this great service called Flipkart that delivers games right to my doorstep, so I think I’ll stick with retail for now, excepting those games that aren’t released here.

    • PatrickSwayze says:

      @Lewie.

      So what if the games are priced cheaper at places other than origin?

      Customers are free to shop where they please!

    • Ba5 says:

      Origin is a good thing. Competition for Steam is a good thing. If, for example, Origin did offer Space Marine while Steam was still not carrying it, that would be a blow to Steam, and Newell would be pressed to improve on that aspect.

    • nofing says:

      Origin might be a competition for Steam in the US (from what I’ve heard, they had some amazing deals there), but for almost every other country, their pricing is just awful and thus not really a serious competition.

    • Synesthesia says:

      I know i’ve said this already, but maybe if i repeat it enough someone who can help will read it. Origin is NOT good. Its regional pricing is ridiculous, support is a piece of shit.
      We southamericans are scammed into extremely inflated euro prices, for if i speak spanish, i must be from spain! I guess their suits didnt read about the colonization of america, but well. So much for the no oceans thing, huh.

      I even tried contacting support on this: The forum thread received 0 replies, and trying to open a ticket resulted in a loop where i couldn’t register, in the clusterfuck that ea user database is. Im sorry for competition, but origin is just NOT GOOD.

      I want to be able to buy this, and all i get is the feeling that i cant get their toys dirty with my spic hands. Fuck them.

    • HolyLiaison says:

      @Ba5 Space Marine is a Steamworks game. I’ve had it pre-ordered for over 2 months on Steam.

    • bill says:

      Origin is NOT A GOOD THING.

      It might be competition for steam – but it’s not good competition. Because it’s the attempt of a big publisher to take total control of the sale of their games – and if that works then they’ll be able to implement whatever crazy insane pricing, policy and DRM they like – because they’ll be the only game in town for EA games.

      And if it’s successful, all the others will follow suit – and we’ll have to buy games on different services for every publisher.

      And in Japan they don’t sell half their games. Mass Effect 1 is about 40 quid, Mirror’s Edge is close to 60 quid. They never have sales.

    • Kaira- says:

      @Bill

      You can buy EA-games digitally elsewhere than just Origin, you know.

  3. Lazaruso says:

    Shut up about the game! All we want to talk about is the hellspawn at EA and their satanic software, ever again!

    • Askeladd says:

      Well, then lets start boycotting all their games. I know. Its hard.

    • tanith says:

      “Its [sic] hard.”

      lol
      Yeah right. :D

    • skinlo says:

      Boycotting is actually very easy. You just don’t buy the product.

    • armyofdan says:

      First I boycotted BF3 because of Origin but then I got drunk and bought it anyway after seeing some new trailer.

    • Askeladd says:

      @skinlo

      That’s the hard part.
      I like Dice and their games.

  4. felisc says:

    Weren’t you supposed to record a podcast, you lazy ?

  5. Hides-His-Eyes says:

    Battlefield 3 isn’t trying to be Apocalypse Now, about the horrors of war on the civilian population, but then again it’s not trying to be.

    • westyfield says:

      I think the first “trying to be” shouldn’t be there.

    • hilltop says:

      Indeed. This kind of typing error has never happened with regular rockpapershotgun contributers.

      This is an outrage.

  6. Kadayi says:

    Nice write up Joe. Looking forward to experiencing this for myself when it’s released.

  7. Chockster says:

    Excellent write up Joe :)

    I was on the trip too (with VG247) and Joe’s summed up a lot of my feelings about the game, in a much more succinct and readable way than I can. And I feel exactly the same way about his last point – I really can’t wait to get back.

    Also: The Swedish are a beautiful race.

  8. Binary77 says:

    Yeah, top job Joe, cheers for that. And kudos for getting the word ‘verisimilitude’ in there!

    I think this game will be just the ticket for me, as someone who’s grown tired of COD, but still wants a solid military FPS, without having to go full-on simulation style.

    I know it’s a tired argument, but what’s your stance on this versus COD?

  9. AmateurScience says:

    A great read, thanks!

    I’m finding myself more and more interested in BF3. I don’t really play FPS much (last one I got all the way through was Half-Life 2 + episodes), but this seems like a good place to break the habit of a lifetime.

    Also, I hope the other chap’s leg is ok? Seriously bad luck there!

  10. mkultra says:

    SO REAL

  11. Rii says:

    Terrible luck for the bloke who wasn’t able to make it, hope he’s ok!

    Is anyone else not particularly impressed by BF3′s graphical prowess? Don’t get me wrong, I think it looks good, and I’ve no issue with emphasising performance over shinies or what have you, but the narrative accompanying this game that it represents PC POWA UNLEASHED leaves me expecting somewhat more than I’m actually seeing. This is not exactly the Crysis of 2011 is wot I’m saying.

    • jp0249107 says:

      I think it looks great. But my opinion differs from most as I’m easily impressed and a recent convert from the evil satanic church of consoles so my standards are easily met lol. Heck, I think the RO2 beta looks beautiful :)

  12. Ridnarhtim says:

    Completely unrelated, but I’ve only just noticed this: I thought this was an English site? Why are the dates in that nonsensical US format?

  13. neems says:

    On the down side, has anybody looked at server pricing yet?

    Multiplay – the only UK server provider I could find with any confirmed pricing at the moment – have a deal on for 50% off pre-orders, for the duration of the contract. For a 64 player server – which is where you really want to be if you’re a clan thinking of hosting it’s own server – you’re looking at £64 a month. That is including the 50% discount – so normal pricing is £128 per month.

    I certainly won’t be playing on my own clan server :-(

    • metalangel says:

      As I said to you on Eurogonks, neems, that’s just plain ridiculous, the days of using an old PC with some extra RAM as your dedicated server are gone… meanwhile EA and their ‘nominated hosting company’ count their monopoly money (as opposed to Monopoly money, which is worthless)

    • Sheng-ji says:

      That is crazy, absolutely crazy – and there’s no way to claw any of that back through advertising or similar? Even then, I don’t see how you could earn more than £10 a month.

    • neems says:

      Hey MetalAngel, how goes it?

      It’s something isn’t it? I’m hoping you were right about other providers entering the fray. Obviously even at 50% off I won’t be going there, but hopefully that pricing will change. I’m sure there will be plenty of servers up when the game launches – official servers and the big gaming communities – but I wonder if there will be enough.

      EA / DICE aren’t exactly renowned for havng enough server capacity at launch, and it’s a fair bet that most pc gamers will make a bee-line for the 64 man servers, at least until the novelty wears off.

    • pepper says:

      Oh shit. That’s massive.

      I know some of the providers of BF3 servers already have sold in the thousands. Makes good money for those company’s…

    • CMaster says:

      £2 a slot, while pricey, is far from unheard of though, especially if EA are taking a cut.

    • HexagonalBolts says:

      Didn’t Battlefield 1942 have 64 player games, or has my brain gone fuzzy? Was the pricing cheaper for those?

    • neems says:

      Okay, just checking prices again (it was a few days ago I originally checked) and gameservers.com are listing 64 player BF3 servers for £53.35 a month (£49.24 for a private server) which is obviously a fair bit better (and no mention of ’50% discounts’).

      So we can take from this that (a) Server hosting isn’t limited to one company in each region (woot!) and
      (b) I need to be less hysterical?

      Still, not cheap (still outside our effective price range in all honesty).

      Any advance on 83 pence a slot?

    • Nick says:

      it had up to 128 player.

    • CMaster says:

      On multiply – existing BF games are £1 a slot. Brink is £2 a slot. You can get a 20% discount if you pay for a year outright.
      I think you’re perhaps being a little unreasonable – BF3 is pricey, but not ridiculously so. You’re looking at paying for a very big server – that means you should have a big community to play on it, so can spread the cost. Your complaint seems to be based purely on the fact that BF3 allows big servers. If they’d limited them to 16 players, the cost would be smaller and you wouldn’t have noticed?

    • Unaco says:

      Do you HAVE to rent a server from a supplier like them? Can I not just get the dedicated server software and run it on a spare rig?

      Also… I don’t think that’s being unreasonable. Those prices are f*cking ridiculous.

    • Nick says:

      “Can I not just get the dedicated server software and run it on a spare rig?”

      Nope. As far as I know anyway, hence the lovely web based server browser, all controlled by EA.

    • neems says:

      In all honesty, it never occurred to me that double the players means double the price. No economies of scale I guess? In this case, the non-discounted price from Multiplay is double the price per slot, so the largest BF3 server will cost you four times as much as the largest BC2 server.

      In fairness to Multiplay, they are saying that server load is double that of BC2 per slot, so presumably a 64 player server has a horrendous cpu load.

      Still, the fact remains that we are talking a lot of money, and quite possibly less servers.

    • DazedByTheHaze says:

      Most server providers have their own, free test servers up at launch. You will find me on the swissquake (providing services since 2000?) servers hah.

    • metalangel says:

      The whole appeal (for me) of the PC version over the 360 version would be the bigger maps and more players. Then you see this cost.

      There just seems to be an endless stream of little niggles to put people off BF3…

    • Shooop says:

      And then they wonder why some people get angry at them for no mod support or public server files.

    • Synesthesia says:

      and again, people who dont live in first world countries can only play in high latency brazilian servers. I AM UPSET. Guess ill just stick with RO2. Activate wallet-vote power!

  14. Tretiak says:

    So, lots of scripts, illusion of destruction, not a single civilian hurt and some fancy graphics make a great game?

    • Chockster says:

      - Scripts are only in when they need to push the gamer onwards.
      - Civilian damage? why do you need it? DICE don’t want to waste their time talking to the mainstream press about how you can shoot little girls in the face in their game. They want to make games.
      - fancy graphics kind of help to sell the experience, don’t you think? or there’s dwarf fortress, if you prefer.

    • trigger_rant says:

      I for one am sure to prefer Dwarf Fortress to most any other game, anyday.

    • gwathdring says:

      Shooting civilians is so edgy! And relevant!

      Honestly, I mostly surprised there are even going to be civilians in the game. I understand them making realistic background, but in that case there isn’t much harm in making them fragile. But I’m fine either way. I don’t think the ability to shoot civilians is an important part of the experience. At all.

    • coldvvvave says:

      I always wondered why some people even want to shoot civilians in games. Is it about immersion? Come on, I doubt that most grown up people even CAN immerse themselves into any game. It’s impossible, at least for me. I see pixels and polygons. But I don’t see a reason to shoot civilians even when they are not real. It’s stupid.

    • Vinraith says:

      The main positive I can think of is that allowing civilians to be shot/killed allows you to put in rewards for minimizing collateral damage.

    • ukpanik says:

      “Civilian damage? why do you need it? ”

      For the feeling you have made a big mistake when you do.

    • Tretiak says:

      Operation Flashpoint (ten years ago) had civilians. I don’t remember any problem with this.

      PS: Gameplay > Graphics.

    • Nethlem says:

      Civilians can add ALOT to all kinds of games, you just have to take a look at Counter Strike to see what i’m talking about.

      Civilians should allways be a vehicle to deliver some kind of gameplay mechanic or NPC interaction, but not in there soley for the reason of “hey here you have the option to shoot 5 babies in the face without consequence, or move on!”.

      And as such they are just ideal for FPS games if done right. In FPS games your usual means of interaction with the in-game enviorment is shooting. Having something mobile/interactive there that you shouldn’t shoot, or maybe shoot, or maybe only shoots you when you shoot the wrong guy, opens the game up for alot more interesting Player – NPC interaction.

    • BathroomCitizen says:

      Well, civilians would be good for a bit of immersiveness.

      I think that it’s not important that they become part of the gameplay: I already actually feel bad if I mis-shoot and accidentally kill one. This should be the consequence.

  15. HexagonalBolts says:

    Thanks Joe! Well written. Was there anything negative or that could be improved upon that you experienced?

  16. Jimbo says:

    Other dude’s friends are gonna be really impressed when he comes back from seeing BF3 and has his leg all bandaged up.

  17. mjig says:

    I don’t know, everything I’ve see so far gives me the feeling of overly cinematic linear COD style gameplay.

    I’m sure multiplayer will be great, but singleplayer has looked so bad it makes me wonder why they’re even bothering.

  18. Unaco says:

    “it could still become gaming’s first real exploration into the reality and morality of war”

    Too late. Cold War Crisis already did this.

    • poop The Third says:

      And Cannon Fodder.

    • Donjo says:

      “Look at “No Russian” as a classic example of how not to talk about that sort of brutality in games: although it was a tiny part of Modern Warfare 2, the image people so often take away from that whole game is the pointless murder of unarmed civilians.”

      Well, I thought that was a very pertinent image to take away from a game about war. Civilians die in huge numbers in any war, I was talking to a Bosnian taxi driver last night, he came to Ireland with his family to escape war…. well, despite my po-facedness I’m looking forward to BF3 :) I’m sure the actual realities of war will eventually be explored in a future FPS!

    • Shortwave says:

      “it could still become gaming’s first real exploration into the reality and morality of war”
      That comment is so full of arrogance I can’t even believe it, haha.
      Seems like something that COD would say. And no I’m not trying to be a COD troll.
      I seriously mean that.

      Sorry BF3 but you are not the FIRST REAL exploration into the reality and morality of war.

      If you want to look at another nice modern example.. While playing RO2 beta recently I remember at being mind blown when I heard a soldier who was bleeding out scream for his mother.. It made my spine tingle. Then I watched a shell land on him and his body tear into pieces.

      This is something I find very unlikely to see happen in your now converted arcade shooter. Instead I expect to see a poof of dusty red-like stuff evaporate into thin air whenever I shoot someone and maybe a random swear word belted out.. : / That isn’t realism to me, sorry. And what morality will be learned when you are censoring all the worst parts of war out? Because I get to watch a scripted scene of my comrade being sniped in the face? This kind of thing happens every minute in a 64 player RO2 map.. And their head actually explodes and goes missing..

  19. trigger_rant says:

    So what is RPS take on Battlefield 3 not having any form of mod tools? Doesn’t matter because it has shiny graphics or….I mean not having them pretty much is a statement that would go something like this: “We dont care about our hardcore Battlefield fanbase, we will get enough 13 year olds to buy this”.

    • Unaco says:

      It’s OK, I’m sure they have plenty of DLC planned to make up for the shortfall of modding tools.

    • DazedByTheHaze says:

      Ever tried to make an level out of one of the new engines? Or tought about the work involved building an editor like Crysis has? To many resources needed on both sides, the Mod-Scene and the developers. Grassroot shooter developers are a thing of the past. Newcomers are better off with simpler indie-stuff. More money, less work. No point for an editor in AAA-titles anymore.

      And that out of the mouth of an once passionate Quake3 player and mapper. Recognize… ;). Grow up guy’s.

    • Nick says:

      You don’t know what you are talking about Dazed.

    • Unaco says:

      Yes Dazed… because the PC modding community has, thus far, shown its staggering incompetence, inability to grasp and use tools provided, and generally never produced anything of worth.

      Oh wait… no, that’s complete bullshit, and the PC modding community have shown, time and time again, that no matter how poorly designed & documented, obfuscated, complex, complicated, difficult it is to make mods for something, they’ll pull through and do it. For DICE to come out and say “Sorry, our tools are too complex, you can’t have them because you’d only hurt yourself” is an insult to the intelligence, diligence and dedication of the PC modding community, and patently a load of bull. Release the tools, and the community will figure it out themselves, and get it working. It’s what they do.

      Withholding the mod tools, and coming out with crap about them being too complex is a screen… it’s so they can milk their customers with DLC and map packs.

    • Donjo says:

      DazedByTheHaze – not sure if serious…. Look at the massive amount of Portal 2 maps… people have cracked the uncrackable Far Cry 2 engine because they want the to learn how to mod it… if the tools are there people will figure it out and then probably make tutorials to teach others….

    • Shooop says:

      And not to mention RPS is the very site that reported why Origin’s TOS are so worrying and that particular part still hasn’t been changed.

      Left hand knows not what the right one is doing obviously.

      So then, how about that Serious Sam fellow?

    • Shortwave says:

      I found their comments about mod tools being to complicated insulting and hilarious at the same time.
      Did their mothers never teach them to think before they spoke? Or if they have nothing nice to say to not say anything at all.. HAHA. Two “golden” rules those dinks should really utilize.

  20. joe2 says:

    sounds great, too bad they couldn’t spend a few hours coding an in-game server browser.

    oh wait they actually did – the console version has it. i guess they are just shoehorning PC users into their social networking portal because they can. between that and Origin EULA, i’ll be skipping this game.

    • Chockster says:

      The Server browser is in battlelog. You can view it while you’re still in the map,(alt-tab, or on a second monitor) choose a new server and the game drops you to the new one. I think it’s worth waiting to see it before you decide not to buy the game.

    • Chizu says:

      alt-tab huh, I hope you can change that. I want to be able to run this as a non-steam game so I can at least still use the overlay to chat to friends.
      The abitlity for it to be placed on a second monitor sounds pretty hand though.

    • celewign says:

      why not just get autohotkey then instead of being a little bitch and expecting devs to bend over for your smallish stupidest wish>

    • Shortwave says:

      Yea’ Joe, why the hell would you ever expect an in-game browser?
      STFU.

  21. MichaelPalin says:

    I thought we all agreed last time that most war games are NOT at all like real wars. You repeat that a couple of times and, unless you have been in a real war, I think you are doing an undeserved favor to all this war porn games. From the top of my head, I remember at least two high building collapsing in trailers from Battlefield 3 and, of course, no civilians. That is not real war.

  22. mingster says:

    I want to know more about how the guy injured his leg.
    And more about the plane nearly blowing up.
    What happened?

  23. Eukatheude says:

    Nice read, thanks Joe.

  24. Navagon says:

    Nice write up, Joe. I don’t know if Battlefield 3 is the direction I want FPS to take (Stalker just nails it for me). But this does seem like the SP will be worth playing just for the experience. It’s just a shame that this experience seems like it will be solely determined by the player’s compliance with the developer’s intentions.

  25. Nethlem says:

    Wow.. i think i would have gone on to play the game even with a leg injury.
    That leg injury won’t go away that quickly, that chance to play BF3 on the other hand just vanished :D

    But i hope the guy recovers well from the injury without any permanent damage, best wishes!

  26. mkultra says:

    Honestly, I feel pretty bad for Joe. He wins a prize, gets to go see the next-in-series near the end of development from one of the greatest multiplayer franchises of all time, and they show him single player.

    • metalangel says:

      Bad for him, and slightly concerning there’s something they don’t want to tell us. All we’ve had is a series of heavily edited trailers and mudslinging from EA execs that would embarrass a fanboy.

    • Shortwave says:

      Call me embarrassed.
      I wouldn’t shutup about this game months ago.
      Now I just want to see is “Battlefield 3 flops, blames pirates”.

      But life, it’s not that easy.

  27. Jubaal says:

    Good feedback Joe and well written. Thanks

  28. Dances to Podcasts says:

    Visceral. Verisimilitude. Someone’s been reading too many games reviews…

  29. My2CENTS says:

    I would love the day when everyone that was blinded by the hype realize that this is not a revolutionary game, its just a game with a very good marketing team behind it.

    • Shortwave says:

      Theres enough comments here that lead me to believe not everyone is fooled.
      I for one am disgusted by EA these days.

  30. Synesthesia says:

    reply fail dammit

  31. Shortwave says:

    Day one DLC with old reused maps.
    No mod tools.
    Need multiple programs running to play it.

    Sorry but flashy scripted videos won’t sell me.
    I’ll enjoy the open BETA and buy the game (WITHOUT THE DLC) on sale, maybe.

    EA you need help.
    This isn’t Battlefield 3.

  32. akeso42 says:

    “Bach said: “Games are where movies were in the 30s or 40s, when it went from a technical spectacle to ‘hey, wait a minute we can actually use this to tell something, be political’ and things like that. I think we are on the verge of seeing things like that.””

    “Look at “No Russian” as a classic example of how not to talk about that sort of brutality in games: although it was a tiny part of Modern Warfare 2, the image people so often take away from that whole game is the pointless murder of unarmed civilians.”

    No offense to the writer, but that’s a really terrible argument. “No Russian” was great for gaming precisely because it made you re-examine the nature of your actions, games, and perhaps on some scale war. In a sense, this idea argues either that gamers aren’t ready for images like “No Russian.”
    People didn’t like “No Russian” for many of the same reasons people didn’t like “Apocalypse Now” when that film came out; it showed them a side of the story they were VERY uncomfortable with.
    Arguing that a game should pull it’s punches because it makes people uncomfortable, like not allowing for civilian death’s because the industry isn’t read yet, is a sugar coated way of saying “we’re too cowardly to deal with that issue and risk it affecting our sales because we offended people.”

    Frankly, that is one of the things I respect about IW and Activision as apposed to E.A. (who pulled the taliban from another shooter if you remember) and DICE.
    One company has a history of standing up to the world and saying “Games are art, and as art we’re going to deal with things that make you uncomfortable.” DICE is saying, “games may be art, but if we push things it could hurt our bottom line.”
    I cannot respect that second position.

    What made movies like “Apocalypse Now” profitable and no longer offensive to society [like "No Russian" was to the general public] was that people MADE movies like “Apocalypse Now.” Even if the world isn’t ready for a game where civilians exist and can be casualties, not making those games acknowledges those concerns as valid and fails to push the industry to evolve. In short, statements and people like this HURT the industry.

    I mean, would anyone respect someone who said: “yeah, the industry needs to grow and we’re not there yet, but it sure as shit ain’t gonna be us who pushes it there”?
    Cause that essentially what this amounts to.

    TLDR Version:
    Saying we should pull our punches because people aren’t ready for it only ensures people never will be. This is bad for the industry.