You Blew It All Up: BF3′s Donya Fortress Trailer

By Nathan Grayson on April 27th, 2012 at 1:23 am.

What is he shooting? The world may never find out. (But it's probably a person with a gun.)

Having watched Battlefield 3′s Donya Fortress map trailer, I have to imagine that bulls in, on, around, or stealthily tunneling under China shops are feeling a bit miffed. All of their meticulous plotting and planning – their years of drawing maps and diagrams, of learning how to draw with hooves – were rendered moot the second Battlefield 3′s Close Quarters map pack burst onto the scene. It is no simple manshoot – for that would imply that it only shoots men. Walls, floors, stairs, bridges, pillars, and ceilings crumble into tiny bits of ballistic debris, and then that debris crumbles into smaller debris. And yet, a single US flag continues to billow in the center of it all, probably shedding the fabric equivalent of a single tear. Stirring stuff, that. Be stirred – perhaps into some form of reverent casserole¬†- after the break.

So yeah, it all blows up quite nicely, but I’m still a bit skeptical. I got to play the Ziba Tower¬†map during GDC, and the whole thing felt a bit… off. BF3′s movement speed felt like it wasn’t quite tweaked properly for tight, dimly lit corridors, which led to a few unnecessary deaths. The map itself was, however, a nice mix of up-close-and-personal and impressive verticality, making it a bit more versatile than, say, a typical Call of Duty location. At any rate, Close Quarters will be getting intimate with your wallet in June. Better still, it’s coming a week early on PS3! I can’t even begin to imagine how thrilling that is for all of you.

__________________

« | »

, .

60 Comments »

  1. psyk says:

    Soon you will be played once more, just not with this dlc.

  2. lorddon says:

    Right EA, enough aping MW3. Get back to the hot tank on tank action.

    • neonordnance says:

      i know a lot of people have been saying that CQB is apeing COD, but i think the DLC is much more a response to the popularity of the smaller maps. operation metro is one of the most popular maps precisely because it is super-intense and close-quarters, and i think more close-quarters maps are needed to even out the game. not to mention B2K was exactly the opposite, with its gigantonormous vehicle-centric maps.

      i for one am super-pumped. operation metro is one of my favorite maps and i can’t wait to see destruction 2.0 in action. having a shooter where you can destroy literally everything has been a hope of mine for a long time.

      plus the new guns are looking really awesome.

      • xGhost4000x says:

        Operation Metro is one of the most if not the most unbalanced map in the game. In conquest the entire battle is fought in one area if the team with higher elevation makes it to the point first.

        • neonordnance says:

          nah, it’s a good map! it’s just not meant to be played with any more than 32 players. ideally, it should be played with around 24-28 players. that way there are enough corridors that it doesn’t become an impossible bottleneck.

          • defunkt says:

            This.

            DICE can’t win. They give gamers options (server size can be up to 64 players on any map) and also the tools to exercise those options with discretion (RCon protocol can change the rotation on the fly to suit player numbers) and they’ll still come up with a bastardized formula (64 player metro 24/7) and blame the developer for it. Metro 12-v-12 is brilliant.

          • shaydeeadi says:

            DICE could of won if they made maps the way they did in BF2, with different out of bounds areas for different player counts to make the playground fit everyone in. Instead they made tiny little maps for console and big-ish maps for PC, shoved them in a single playlist and gave the CQ64 versions 2 more flags max. Really lazy design for a team 4 times the size of BF2.

          • PoulWrist says:

            @shaydeeadi but they did, there’s Conquest Large that takes the full map and just Conquest that’s a subset of the map…

          • shaydeeadi says:

            @PoulWrist: Seine Crossing, Noshahr and Damavand to a limited extent are larger on their 64p variants. But for the bulk of them it’s just a different flag placement with the same homebases (this actually limits it to Seine for the extended size 64p map.)

            Which is poor, look at the difference in the Karkand/Sharqi 64 maps compared to the 32. Loads more playable area, different flag placements to accomadate the playcount. Why couldn’t they do this stuff for BF3s vanilla maps? Operation Metro? They didn’t even use the whole rush map, bloody awful.
            Then you have these Close Quarter maps, which could of easily been a singular building on a far greater map, that they could of reused it as a rush base as well. That then would of made their infantry focused stuff for the people that want it and still kept the vehicle players/big map players satisfied.
            Not to mention there is an infantry only option in the server browser if tanks scare and upset you.

          • sneetch says:

            @defunkt

            Good points, I regret ever thinking that a 64 player 24/7 Metro server would be fun. It was fun, the first match when we got the centre flag first and we were slaughtering them as they tried to push in… the second match when they got the centre flag… well, that was just painful.

            It’d be nice if metro on 32+ players opened up one or more streets down the sides of the metro station to allow others route around the combat areas for both sides. Put trucks and burning cars down there to block LOS and prevent it being sniper ville and it would make the maps fun with larger numbers IMO.

            It’s strange that a lot of people seem so opposed to the idea of BF3 with smaller maps or without vehicles, my favourite moments in BF3 are the close-in squad-to-squad fights.

      • stretchpuppy says:

        Metro is an awful map. I haven’t looked up stats for it but among my group of friends nobody cares for it. It’s okay you like it though.

        Looking forward to this DLC.

        • Kestilla says:

          You can speak for yourself, obviously, but that is not why I play Metro. All talk of constant camping is bullshit, first of all, because as has been previously stated, the game devolves into this behavior when the maps are overstuffed because no one knows what is going on, with so many people rushing around and deaths per second. It’s ridiculous.

          The maps are not designed for more than 16 – 24 players, generally, and any more ends up with people spawning directly in the enemy’s base because the spawn points are at their limit. The latest patch fixed this somewhat, but it doesn’t change the fact the maps are at their truest form with a small amount of players. A Battlefield Bad Company 2 amount of players. When that’s in place, it plays just like any map, and Metro isn’t any more imbalanced than the others. Server operators frequently screw this up though.

      • Asuron says:

        The only reason why its popular is because people use the stupidly tight spaces to grind up items. Thats all. You can camp areas for hours on end just racking up the points to get your unlocks. Its why you see servers put 24/7 metro games with huge tickets, because the kills go so fast.

        Once people are done grinding on that stupid course they go back to the better maps, Which is pretty much only B2K, Caspian Border and Operation Firestorm. Everything else is just kind of poor in comparison

        • Sparkasaurusmex says:

          I love playing BF3, but those maps (the B2Ks, Caspian and Firestorm) are the only ones I ever join. Can’t say much about the rest, but they left a bad taste in my mouth early on and I haven’t really seen them since. When I get bored with my favorite maps I just play an entirely different game until I get the itch for BF3 again.

          I’ll wait to see wot RPS thinks on this DLC but I doubt I’ll pick it up. Next one, though, should be awesome.

          • TWeaK says:

            What about Kharg Island? I’d say that’s up there with the others you suggested, especially since it’s one of the few maps with the scout heli. The Russian team’s stationary AA does unbalance things a little bit mind.

          • PoulWrist says:

            I enjoy Kharg Island and Canals… the port area in canals is great.

          • Kestilla says:

            Now that they’ve fixed the MAV most maps aren’t as annoying anymore.

          • Sparkasaurusmex says:

            Sorry, I do play Kharg also. It’s okay. Never really liked Canals. I think I will give these maps another go. Maybe I will find them more enjoyable with smaller number of players.

      • BwenGun says:

        I concur. To be honest I really enjoy Metro and the other smaller BF3 maps, especially with smaller player caps, simply because they remind me a lot of the original Modern Warfare’s multiplayer, before the series went all silly-pants with the kill streaks. But with the added bonus of it being battlefield 3, meaning more weapons, and more attachments to play around with (which I find half the fun to be honest.) And of course it looks pretty and exploding walls are cool.

        Which is not to say that the big maps aren’t fun as well, but that’s sort of the point of all this. If you want to play large vehicle maps there’s the 64 man conquests maps, which were added to wonderfully with B2K. Whereas if you like the smaller, and shorter maps there’s only really Metro and Bazaar, possibly Seine Crossing at a stretch. That their bring out new maps to add more variety to that option is cool, and there’s also in the very end the fact that the DLC afterwards is going to be vehicle centric. And conversely I suspect I will garner very little enjoyment out of that sort of map pack because I suck at driving both tanks, jeeps, planes and helicopters. So unless I can work on my C4-ninja-fu between now and then I suspect those maps will feature me dying in a variety of pretty explosions. =D

      • alilsneaky says:

        Metro is only popular because it’s the best place to grind out the attachments and unlocks…. you get 4-5x faster exp there cos it’s a huge meat grinder …

        It’s really sad if you think about it, this is what gaming and gamers have devolved into.
        Maybe degenerated is a better word.

        • Kestilla says:

          Metro is perverted by servers jacking the player count up to 64. That has no bearing on whether the map is fun or not, but I will say it is extremely important to “grind” those items because if you don’t have a good scope, you can’t see your enemy. If you don’t have the Sniper’s Straight Pull Bolt, you can’t snipe very well. If you don’t have the countermeasures on the plane, kiss your flight wings goodbye until you die enough times to get them.

          The game would be so much better if they would stop the unlock nonsense and let people enter onto an even battlefield, but hey who am I to ask for anything so obvious. As a colonel in the game, it’s not so bad. As a newbie with nothing, it’s the most frustrating thing I’ve ever played. Yet, Bad Company’s unlocks didn’t have as much of a bearing on player success as they do now.

    • neonordnance says:

      Oh, and the next DLC is 100% tank-focused!

  3. mobz11 says:

    http://lukash.de/s/6545
    Scary! This snake is scary! Ha ha! Realistic the Snakes

  4. Capt. Eduardo del Mango says:

    Ah, BF3.

    It’s the game I want, really – since they broke TF2 (and I contend what really broke it were the first class updates – everything else was just crumpling it further) I’ve just wanted a nice, straightforward, well populated multiplayer FPS to jump in to when I was bored, shoot some people, and jump out. BFBC2 – first one I’d played since BF:V seemed like it… Until you start playing it and you start with a pistol then +5 EXP BRONZE MEDAL +100 EXP! MULTIKILL +10 EXP YOU HAVE UNLOCKED NEW SHOELACES! ACHIEVEMNT UNLOCKED GET NEW SHOELACES +100 EXP YOU HAVE UNLOCKED THE ARSE SCRATCHING/NOSE PICKING MULTITOOL FOR YOUR PISTOL!

    Man, it’s just too much fucking hassle. This cack ruins games.

    • neonordnance says:

      i could not disagree with you more, sir. persistence is what keeps me coming back to multiplayer shooters. gameplay is what makes them good, but persistence is what keeps me interested after the first 50 hours.

      • Amun says:

        I would contend that genuinely fun gameplay should be all you need to keep you entertained past the 50 hour mark.

        • Snuffy the Evil says:

          To be honest, I didn’t really start having fun with BFBC2 until I had unlocked everything. Now t, but ihat there’s no pressure to get points to unlock more things, I’ve actually started to mix and match my loadout and done a bunch of experimenting with the various toys. The unlock system keeps people playing, sure, but it also keep a lot of this fantastic content away from people who aren’t willing or able to put in enough time. This is what also turned me off of vanilla Battlefield 2- the available unlocks were interesting and fun to use but the effort required to unlock them was insane.

          I believe RPS posted some article in the Sunday Papers about developers use similar strategies as casinos to keep people playing (instead of investing money, the player invests time or somesuch). I don’t want to make a career out of playing a game. I want something I can play for an hour or two on the weekends to unwind. I feel that ranking/progression systems artificially cripple what may otherwise be a fantastic game.

      • Sparkasaurusmex says:

        BF1942 didn’t have any of that and it was awesome for thousands of hours. I guess the whole concept was fairly novel at the time, and that surely helped, but I don’t think a good, fun multiplayer game needs these gimmicks to remain playable after 50 hours. I don’t dispute that you enjoy the persistence, as I think persistence is great in games, but it doesn’t necessarily have to be so gimmicky. This really came to light when they started selling the upgrades.

      • Shooop says:

        You are the embodiment of everything that is wrong with modern FPS gamers.

        If good gameplay isn’t what it takes to hold your attention, but instead just a carrot on a stick then you should find another hobby.

        • neonordnance says:

          And you, sir, are the embodiment of everything that is wrong with PC gamers on the internet. You are certainly entitled to your own opinion, but don’t start telling me I’m not allowed to play games anymore because you don’t agree with me.

          Go find another website.

    • PoulWrist says:

      Except it’s not at all like that. And it’s enjoyable to be told that you did something, it helps direct gameplay that you get a bonus for suppressing, assist kills and so on.

  5. DOLBYdigital says:

    Looks like it will even out the maps so there is a good mix of big, medium and small maps. So I am all for this although I would like it if they had no grenades and maybe even a no explosive option so you could play this with just guns and knives. Would be sweet!

  6. Bungle says:

    I am really excited about this DLC! Oh wait, I’ll be playing CS:GO instead and will be playing on a never-ending supply of free maps and custom mods! Enjoy your $100 video game, BF3 players!

    • cappstv says:

      Thanks, I am sure I will have a great time.

    • Silvermarch says:

      Good for you.

    • coldvvvave says:

      game I like > game you like

    • PoulWrist says:

      Where’s the destruction in CS:GO? Oh right, not there :( And where’s the map variety? Oh right, not there because noone wants to play anything but de_dust :(

      And it has a legacy of asshats far larger than BF3. And the 100$ price of admission keeps many asshats out. I’m perfectly happy to pay for quality over quantity :)

      • Xari says:

        Did you really just call BF3 quality over quantity

        Did you even see the weapon trees?

    • sneetch says:

      Thanks, I will enjoy it!

      What a nice man, I sure hope he comes back.

  7. Spider Jerusalem says:

    yup. still can’t get into this.

    iso: mods.

  8. dxm says:

    I’ve always preferred BF to COD because I found the latter too twitchy, spawn – shot in the face – spawn – shot in the face.
    When metro was in the beta I was disappointed.
    However, since the game came out I’ve learned to really enjoy metro, experiencing some really exciting, intense games on that map.
    So I shall almost certainly be buying this dlc when it comes out.

  9. NeuralNet says:

    Have they fixed suppression yet?

  10. Bluerps says:

    Ah, so english china shops are destroyed by bulls. In Germany, they are destroyed by elephants. Once again, RPS has taught me something!

  11. Siresly says:

    DICE is basically saying they’ve successfully attracted CoD type players with shitty maps like Metro (reportedly being the most played map of the game) and they’re branching the series out into these tiny infantry maps to satisfy that part of their playerbase. The future of Battlefield grows ever more grim.
    http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-04-26-battlefield-3-the-state-of-play

    I will say that Grand Bazaar is a-ok for a small infantry-focused affair. But that’s not the type of map we’ll be seeing here, the maps being limited to 16 players or whatever it was. They’ll all probably be a lot like in that video, only more autoshotguns, explosives and instadeaths on spawn. The Predator shredding of the environment looks unavoidably exciting, the only thing about this DLC that does, but that really is just windowdressing.

    On some level though I don’t necessarily mind that this thing exists. I haven’t played a CoD since the fourth one, this might be ok just for the sake of variety. But then that’s what I thought about Metro…

    • PoulWrist says:

      DICE is developing maps to make BF3 have much varied content and be enjoyable on multiple scales. I’ve only played CoD once, on the first free weekend of MW3 some months ago. I enjoy close quarters battles, and I always gravitate towards relative tight areas of any map, finding the large open areas too filled with nothing but death from stuff you have no hope of defeating. No, I’ll be at the borderpost and hill in Caspian Border, the seaport in Canals, the warehouses and factory in firestorm and the city area in the B2K maps. All that open land is just asking to be sniped by some asshat lying stationary the whole game in an inaccessible location or blown up by some guy driving a tank. Which seems to be the most problematic thing to do in the game.

      • Siresly says:

        Patrick Bach touches on that in the EG interview. My reaction to that is, yeah, it’s pretty cool when a map is varied enough to allow a broad range of players to play the way they prefer at any moment. That is part of the essence of Battlefield I feel. Which just serves to make this DLC look bad since these maps are much less narrow, in all sorts of ways.

        I haven’t tried it or even checked, so I don’t know the server situation, but there are at least filters for infantry only 16 player matches, if you want to limit things. It’s basically up to the community to decide if that’s of interest.

        On a sidenote, I absolutely love how Origin now pops up an ad for BF3 shortcuts every time I boot it up. Can you turn that shit off?

  12. sharks.don't.sleep says:

    MOAR BLURR!

  13. sephiroth says:

    dice are clueless

    most of the original maps are ‘cod style’ and the rest are tank heavy as if there are only 2 possible map types and nothing for those of us that like big maps and tactics. IMHO tanks kill tactics in bf3 due to OP or n00b depending on skill of those around you.

    CQ is almost QQ for me. if i want small maps ill play cod:mw or maybe CS:S for better slightly bigger maps. small maps is not why I play BF

    tanks everywhere dlc is going to suck as bad for the oposite reason, it will FORCE me to play eng or maybe support (probably not) so i can do something to the tank pack that will end up hunting me.

    endgame is what I face now not the 3rd dlc as the broken game is getting more broken :( ironically the dlc I know a name for is the only one that i hold any hope for.

    now this is a game : http://youtu.be/OXeIDnet21E?hd=1

    • Shooop says:

      No, they’re the opposite in fact if you look at it from a business point of view.

      They know the only way to compete with CoD is to be CoD. It’s the people buying it and deluding themselves into believing it’s a different game who have no clue.

      • sephiroth says:

        “They know the only way to compete with CoD is to be CoD”

        yes you are quite right that is exactly what they think, and its business 101 today to copy other peoples win in the hope of getting epic win for yourself

        this business model is flawed and broken and will soon come crashing down and if it doesnt then im going to move planet. somehow.

        I expect battlecod 4 to be out next year and that it will be a massive fail due to cod players buying cod and BF players and everyone else buying either ARMA3 or doing something else, tribes is much fun atm and its free so makes me think twice about paying real moneys for my teamwork shooter fix, sorry EA you just beat on price and gameplay enjoy.

  14. Tony M says:

    “reverent casserole” :) gold

  15. capntao says:

    It is perhaps worth considering that those who have the misfortune of reduced funds and, as such, reduced hardware specs have a MUCH easier time playing on smaller maps with a lowered player count and less explosions (less or no vehicles.)

    I myself had to avoid anything over 32 players until I was able to upgrade to a modern PC.

    • Shooop says:

      If you have reduced funds then why are you buying DLC?

      • capntao says:

        compare DLC cost to the price of a new PC and you may see why some choose to limp along with what they’ve got.

        that being said, i shed a tear for the days of Desert Combat, the free fan-made granddaddy of all this manshoot madness…

        does anyone with actual modding experience know if the apparent abandonment of FPS mods is due to willful blockading by the parent companies or more to do with the complexities of creating content that meshes with the visual quality of a AAA title?

  16. Aloe says:

    BF3 suddenly dishing out all these COD maps… geee, just imagine all the LMG spraying and explosives that they hardly showed in that trailer

  17. Moonracer says:

    I’m excited for this DLC , but the video scares me. I realize they are tying to make the action look as intense as possible but it looks way too crowded. BF3 infantry works best when it is spread out a bit and the are pockets of action. When there is the calm quiet hall that tempts you to solo until you turn a corner into an enemy squad.

    These trailers should at least start off with a couple seconds of quiet tension before the storm. Or flicker in shots of the areas intact and empty, pre-fighting.

  18. buzzmong says:

    Around the one minute mark, that sort of top level shooting across a courtyard, I’m sure I’ve…yes. It was a CoD:MW map.

    I appreciate people have different tastes, and while I enjoy CoD, I’ve bought BF games for the bigger mixed unit battlefields.

    This DLC is going completely against what I personally buy games from the BF series for, so it won’t be getting my money.

  19. TODD says:

    People enjoy progression systems? AND fast-paced close quarters maps? In MY Battlefield?

    http://i.imgur.com/NPvHO.gif