Gloom Too: Battlefield 3: Single-Player Shots

By Jim Rossignol on October 7th, 2011 at 4:47 pm.

Sir, are you abseiling up into the sky?
Hey, DICE have released a batch of images of the single-player campaign. Aside from all that visual noise from the announcement trailers, I still don’t have a really good grip on what this is going to be like, but I can’t wait to see. I am presuming there’s a bit of jet-fight action, at least. Ooh, there could be a fight for the WIT of this one…

Click on images for a full-size version.








__________________

« | »

, , .

94 Comments »

  1. doeke says:

    Viewing the full-size screenshots on a less-than-gigantic screen doesn’t really work unless you rightclick->open in new tab, because of the popup you’re using.

  2. Thirith says:

    I know that graphics don’t make a good game – but damn, do these look nice! I love good lighting in games… They make a game world feel so much more tangible.

  3. asshibbitty says:

    You’ll shoot at assorted ethnicities and then it will be over.

  4. LionsPhil says:

    Battlefield…singleplayer?

    I’m scared and confused.

    • Koozer says:

      It’s like making a server versus bots with 1:63 team ratio, but on a reeeaaally long and thin map.

    • roryok says:

      its ok, its just like when you try to play multiplayer but don’t have friends.

      that’s the only way I ever play games.

      ….

      *sniff*

    • nubbuka says:

      Actually, I can’t wait for the single player.
      The experience that I got from the BETA was amazing. It has been a while since I was expecting something this much.
      IMO, even Bad company’s single player wasn’t that bad. It was alright, just like any other storyline.
      At least that’s what my memory tells me. I can never trust him…

    • Nick says:

      Bad Company 1 singleplayer was quite fun, 2 was a bit crap.

  5. applecado says:

    Looks bloody fantastic. I’ve started playing some BFBC2 multiplayer again in anticipation. I am still rubbish.

  6. Shooop says:

    And round and round goes the merry-go-round of RPS on BF3. For every article about what’s going horribly wrong with the game there’s another one that looks like it was written under the supervision of EA.

    Anyone notice the huge neon “FOLLOW” sign above that one guy’s head in the shot 8 down from the top? That’s all you need to know about this game.

    • Jim Rossignol says:

      “For every article about what’s going horribly wrong with the game there’s another one that looks like it was written under the supervision of EA.”

      So we can’t be excited about a game and worried about its failings at the same time? Goodness. My mind is TOO FLEXIBLE.

    • roryok says:

      Anyone notice the huge neon “FOLLOW” sign above that one guy’s head in the shot 8 down from the top? That’s all you need to know about this game.

      GOOD!

      I hate having to know stuff about games before I play them.

    • westyfield says:

      Redox, is that you?

    • Ergates_Antius says:

      So, articles talking about “what’s going horribly wrong with the game” are good and proper, but articles that say anything positive are corrupt and “written under the supervision of EA”.

      At least you’re keeping an open mind about things….

    • Richard Beer says:

      Shooop, your thinking is immature. One day you’ll realise that no issue is black and white, and not all things are either all good or all bad. This isn’t a PS3 or Xbox, Modern Warfare or Battlefield, PC or console kind of website.

      Life has a deep layer of complexity. Perhaps you should read more and comment less until you realise that.

    • Orija says:

      I think what Shooop means to say is that the game has certain features that their description alone seems hyperbolic in nature.

    • Shooop says:

      First of all, when those failings may actually end up costing you the rights to products you own (Origin bans), the security of your computer’s files (intellectually vague EULA) aren’t those pretty big failings?

      And what exactly have you been excited about? Just the graphics and high player count. There’s been no talk of how the weapons shoot, how good or bad movement is, how the vehicles work, how well the maps are made, how much you can destroy the environment… None of that. Just “Hey guys it looks so pretty!”

      If this were just the Frostbite 2 engine you were previewing it’d make a lot more sense. But this is a game here, we’re supposed to do more than just look at it.

    • Ergates_Antius says:

      And I think what Shooop means to say is that this game is clearly terrible and anyone who thinks otherwise is an EA shill.

      At least, that’s how it came across.

    • Shooop says:

      @Richard Beer:

      What the living hell are you babbling on about even?

      My thinking that it’s kind of confusing that a website which has often been the first to report major flaws in an upcoming game (which effect the end user as much or more than their game or computers) is seemingly excited about said game only because of how it looks is immature?

      Oh no! It must be horribly immature of Alec to enjoy Rage for its interesting and believable characters! He should have written a two-page essay about how id’s mega-textures are the greatest invention of the century!

      Good lord, it was horribly immature of the RPS staff to like Deus Ex: Human Revolution so much because its graphics are very bland compared to most other major titles this year!

      Yes. It is so immature to be more interested in a game for how it plays instead of how it looks. Why whatever was I thinking?

    • HothMonster says:

      “And what exactly have you been excited about? Just the graphics and high player count. There’s been no talk of how the weapons shoot, how good or bad movement is, how the vehicles work, how well the maps are made, how much you can destroy the environment… None of that. Just “Hey guys it looks so pretty!””

      Absolutely no word about any of that, except of course the open beta. But I mean what can you find out about a game by merely playing it?

    • Shooop says:

      @Ergates_Antius:

      What I’m getting at is I’m confused by how RPS is the first source I see reporting on problems with BF3 but is almost hyperbolic about how good it looks – and nothing else.

      Yes it is a looker, definitely a monumental achievement in real-time graphics. But that’s apparently the only reason to be excited about the game from what little the previews are telling me.

      If there’s something under that polish that’s awesome I’d like to know about the details.

    • Ergates_Antius says:

      In that case, I revise my interpretation of your post.

      I’m not surprised that this is the case though – we’ve been *seeing* BF for far longer than it’s been possible to play the thing.

      Also, although past performance is no guarentee of future performance, the previous BF games* have been well liked, so a new one automatically generates a certain level of excitement.

      *the MP bits anyway.

    • Chandos says:

      I am personally glad that RPS is not commenting very heavily on gameplay, as the game is still in beta and a lot can change. It is relatively safer to comment on the engine because at this point you can bet they are gonna keep it.

    • DzX says:

      At this stage there’s no way they’re going to significantly change the core gameplay; the game’s released this month..

    • Chandos says:

      The core is Battlefield, that’s all I need to know about it. As for other aspects, there can still be changes to balancing weapons, vehicles, movement, etc. Isn’t that the point of a beta?

    • DzX says:

      A proper beta yes….this isn’t a ‘proper’ beta though, this is a demo – don’t be fooled by the marketing blurb designed to lower your expectations, this is a demo of a game released in a few weeks. There’s no way in hell, whatever Dice say, they will be able to take the massive amount of data they’ve collected from all three platforms and dramatically alter the weapons and so forth in that short a time frame.
      They might be able to change somethings such as the net-code’ but if they’d be fools to significantly alter weapons based on the records of a minority of players based on two maps…

    • nubbuka says:

      @DzX If you are talking about the BETA that is currently available, this is a month to two months old build. They have received a lof of feedback from the Alpha stage and the Beta stage as it is and I hope they do imply some of them.
      Although I do wish that Battlefield 3 was a bit more common with what we loved in Battlefield 2, but I can see beyond that and accept it because except the small changes its an excellent game with a great feel to it. Although it adapted itself to the current generation of FPS’s, straying away from his roots that are Battlefield 2, I hope that maybe somehow some of them can still be found.

      @Shooop As people said, the game isn’t out yet, so discussing the game’s feel now will be incomplete. Maybe some points that could be used as comparison when the full game is released.
      Did you play the Beta yourself? As I understood from your comments, you did not. If so, I recommend you trying it out, you have about 2 days left :3
      I don’t understand why did you think this article was such a big hype. Just like any other game, RPS updates us with the pictures that have been released for our eyes to enjoy of. No over quantities of excitement were found in this article by myself, and about wanting to see what will become, like all of us who are interested in the great sequel of a beloved franchise.

    • Chandos says:

      Not sure how this lowers my expectations. I played the beta and it looks and plays awesome, imo. If anything it raised my expectations of the final version.

    • Shooop says:

      nubbuka, do you not remember Bad Company 2? The demo (another thing we learned is DICE doesn’t make betas, they just call their demos that) ended up running better than the actual boxed disk or download from whatever online store carried it.

      Fast forward and same thing happened with 2010′s Medal of Duty.

      There will be no changes made to what you’ve already seen and played so far at least for a month if you’re lucky. That’s just how DICE operates – like a crackhead fumbling in their sofa for their pipe.

  7. Belmakor says:

    I hope there is turbulence when I fly into that storm cloud.

  8. roryok says:

    I’m skeptical about them giving us the ability to fly a jet in the single player version. Sounds like cue for a CoD style rails section.

    But I shall remain optimistic. Check out the scratches on that cockpit canopy. Yum yum.

    • Ergates_Antius says:

      Doesn’t the pilot sit in the front seat? Looks like you might be the navigator or weapons officer (or whatever they’re called). He flys, you shoot things. Or something.

    • roryok says:

      Yes! that does make more sense.

    • Christian says:

      Which was the only thing on a CoD-game I enjoyed (I don’t remeber which one it was…but it was a few years back): sitting in that slowly circling plane and shooting at green glowy dots. That was quite meditating and looked nice.
      And knowing that I’ll be able to get out of the plane and have fun in the remaining game (I just assume BF3 will be like that) is just win/win.

    • Dozer says:

      @Christian which makes it all the more disturbing when the footage was released real AC-130 Spectre gunners shooting at real Talibs in a similarly relaxed way…

      (disclaimer: I haven’t seen the footage in question, just heard allusion to it from others on the internet, so this post probably counts as trolling if you were to take it too seriously. So don’t! Have a pinch of salt. They’re free.)

    • rayne117 says:

      Why not watch it then? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0

      Form your own opinion on it for the greater good of mankind.

  9. Ergates_Antius says:

    I don’t know how I feel about the single player. “Meh!” probably sums it up best.

    The BFBC2 single player was, well, OK. Didn’t do anything wrong, and it was fun, but nothing special and quickly forgotten about.

    To me, Battlefield games have always been about the multiplayer. I not entirely sure why they even bother with the single player element. Maybe they feel they have to, to compete with the CODs etc, and I wouldn’t be surprised if lots of people by a BF game and never use the multiplayer side of things.

    • roryok says:

      I wouldn’t be surprised if lots of people by a BF game and never use the multiplayer side of things.

      I’d probably be one. When I do find the time to play games, I prefer getting lost in a story, even a bad one, than getting my arse handed to me by bunch of gamers who’ve had a giant head start on me. I used to love the intimacy and banter of a good LAN party, but I just can’t get into the online multiplayer thing.

      Am I the last of my kind?

    • tungstenHead says:

      It’s a well kept secret that nobody plays games online. That’s hyperbole. I think that the general rule of thumb for Xbox Live Gold subs is half of the Xbox 360 install base. So clearly there is a big audience of people that do not play games online there at least. When it comes to PC and a huge game like BF3, maybe one quarter of people will stay offline with it. I remember Stardock releasing figures for Demigod (which is a multiplayer centric title) a few years ago that said about 80% of buyers never even *attempted* to take the game online. I understand that Demigod isn’t Battlefield 3, but it’s informational insofar as the common perception that no one plays games singleplayer is a tremendous untruth.

      I had read an article a few years ago, and I really wish that I had saved it. I am undoubtedly misremembering things here, but I believe it was on Gamespot that I read it. It revealed that something like 50% of people that played Battlefield 2 and Unreal Tournament 2004 didn’t play online. UT2k4 had magnificent bots and it was a generally fun game even offline, but BF2′s botmatches were abysmal. Keep in mind still that this was a few years ago and I’m likely misremembering the details, but the core of the article was the shocking revelation that even with multiplayer centric shooters, people tend not to play games online.

      Now, I don’t know the business wisdom of putting both gametypes in a single package, but presumably there’s some sort of incentive to do so. With map packs, doing anything in your power to get people to buy them makes some sort of sense, and by packaging your multiplayer game with the singleplayer “demo” you can increase audience, maybe? Or perhaps multiplayer is relatively cheaper to make than singleplayer with all the scripting and animations in these games, so the multiplayer is used to increase the longevity of the package. Both packages have traditionally been in most games and so they continue to be. Definitely, multiplayer only games have not traditionally done as well on consoles. The singleplayer element in BF3 is, without doubt, influenced more by console than PC, but I enjoy a good singleplayer romp as much as the next digital-trigger-happy fool.

    • Vagrant says:

      If you removed the characters from Bad Company 2′s single player, the game’s single-player would have been a rather dry diversion. This game seems to take the typical military brovado of other shooters, instead. Not that it means bad things; BC2 did have some memorable combat moments.

      The idle chatter in Bad Company 2 are some of my favorite bits of dialog in games. The almost-4th wall humor of the Predator conversation was fantastic.

    • brooklyn67 says:

      This comment reminded me I never even finished the first single player scenario in BFBC2 and I’ve logged Oh-my-God-what-have-I-done 226 hours in there. I found CoDMW2 exactly the opposite. Loved the single player and could never get into the multiplayer.
      The side chatter being good will get me back to the BFBC2 single player. The side chatter in No One Lives Forever gave me some of my favorite gaming moments ever. God I’d love a new version of that.

    • Dozer says:

      A similar story with Il-2 Sturmovik back in the day. That was a game that worked well in single-player but was much much more rewarding to fly online, ideally with a squad as part of an organised dynamic campaign vs other squads. (There’d be map squares that would change to your colour if you destroyed enough enemy tanks, and factories you could destroy to limit your opponent’s access to replacement aircraft – it was epic!)

      But the developers were very clear on the forums – a tiny percentage would buy the game and play online, and a disproportionate amount of people who play online would also be posting in the forums about the game.

    • Iskariot says:

      @Royok.
      I feel the same. The last time I played a game online is 10 years ago or so. Generally speaking I just don’t like the human interaction in games. I play games to escape reality, not to be confronted with annoying kids whining about this and that…
      I only buy games if they feature a solid singleplayer mode. Which means 12 ours minimum if I am to pay full retail price. If the single player is 8 hours or so I wait for a discount of at least 50 percent.
      If the game’s single player is less than 8 hours I won’t even acknowledge its existence.

  10. Orija says:

    You never so this aberration of a comment.

  11. Lewie Procter says:

    “Follow”

    Edit: Of hey, I wasn’t the only one put off by it.

    • PeopleLikeFrank says:

      It’s a screenshot of one of the exciting mix of sassy multi-ethnic characters who make up your squad. Roy Follow, Juan Opendoorando, Sergei Czechpointinof, and Hugh ‘Press E now to not die’ Jazz.

      … what’s the problem?

    • KillahMate says:

      “Sergei Czechpointinof”

      +1

    • Shooop says:

      You win at the internet, Frank sir.

    • nubbuka says:

      @PeopleLikeFrank

      Haha the first time I read your comment I thought to myself:
      “Lol those fools actually thought that they wanted to tell the player to follow him.”
      Then I read it again and sadface’d myself.
      “Press E to not die” is my middle name :3

  12. Khemm says:

    If only Dice decided not to make the SP a shooting gallery like CoD, but something less linear.

  13. Chaz says:

    Is it just me or are graphics in games looking better than real life these days? Is there anyway I can switch off the depth of field in my eye balls so that I can have everything in focus?

    • LionsPhil says:

      Short of needing glasses or some sort of head trauma, anything you look at should be in focus, since the eye re-adjusts as you glance across the scene. DoF in computer graphics is, like lens flair, emulating the limitations of a camera, and makes very little sense if you’re supposed to be looking through eyeballs. :/

    • Shooop says:

      Head over to your nearest LIMB clinic.

    • asshibbitty says:

      It is technically possible with a VR helmet and some cameras. DoF is one of the ways depth perception works so I imagine it won’t be very comfortable.

    • Shooop says:

      @asshibbitty:

      The good news is it’d make any driving commute an exciting experience. For you and everyone else along the way.

    • vodkarn says:

      Depth of Field in video games makes no sense to me, as anything I look at with my eyes is in focus… so I have to move the cursor over EXACTLY what I’m looking at… which makes no sense. I always turn it off.

    • Koozer says:

      The problem is eyes DO see the ‘depth of field’ effect – if you’re focused on something in the foreground objects in the distance will be unclear and visa versa. DoF in games can’t really be 100% realistic until they start tracking where we’re physically looking at the screen, but I reckon making whatever the crosshair is over in focus is a good halfway house for now.

  14. Fierce says:

    There’s a rumour, less than a week old, that Valve and EA are in talks to get BF3 on Steam.

    Might RPS be looking into this?

    Also, as an aside, I’ve been having trouble posting comments reliably lately. I would post, CTRL-F5 when I don’t see it, try re-posting, be given an error that I’ve already posted it, and then be given an error about spamming when I’ve tried again hours later. The link provided to contact RPS if the system is mistaken with my efforts also leads to an ‘Oops, Cannot Find Page’ page. Not the best place to put my issue, I understand, but if this comment actually makes it through it would be better this is seen than my having to roll the dice on the emails below with a 1/4 chance I get the right person.

    Cheers.

    • Christian says:

      I was wondering about the same thing (BF3 on Steam). I’m waiting with pre-ordering, but I guess that’s just rumours so I’ll eventually order it from TheHut and live with Origin (after all, I read it on FudZilla..).

      But: does anybody know something solid about this?

    • HothMonster says:

      From what I understand they are talking and have been since this all started months ago. I imagine a guy from valve saying we wont force origin on players but we really want your game on steam and a guy from EA saying we won’t get rid of the origin requirement but we really want our game on steam.

    • Fierce says:

      Here’s the link source if anyone was curious.

      The link implies more progress than just “we’ve been talking about it since this whole thing started”, possibly all the way to “we’re sort of close and might actually ink something in time for release day”.

      That’s the part I’m really curious about. While I’m one of the ones waiting to see, what I really need to know is if something will be signed, implemented and available in the Steam store before the pre-order for Karkand bonus deadline on Origin expires.

      It really wouldn’t make sense to wait past Oct. 25th, when the ‘BF3 on Steam’ date stays stuck at “TBD”.

    • Tyshalle says:

      According to PC Gamer this morning EA quashed that rumor. Don’t look like it’s happenin’, folks.

    • vodkarn says:

      Even if it was, wouldn’t you still need to use Origin? That’s what most people (myself included) have a problem with, isn’t it?

    • Fierce says:

      @Tyshalle

      Got a link to that? I can’t seem to find it being quashed anywhere.

      Are you going to a different regional version of PC Gamer perhaps?

  15. Owain_Glyndwr says:

    Do we know anything about the story yet? Is it going to be a full on World War III thing or yet another Balkans/Iraq expy?

  16. skyturnedred says:

    Looks nice, too bad I’m still using XP.

  17. Eukatheude says:

    FOLLOW

  18. Corrupt_Tiki says:

    Is anyone else confused by the subtitles in the last picture I get checking flaps and brakes, but what the hell are ‘stabs?’ anyone keen to elaborate?

  19. Iskariot says:

    If they add a decent 12 hours or more campaign with good replayability and a good AI for single player I will buy this for certain. I am not the online multiplayer type.

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>