Do You Have A Flag? Battlefield 3’s End Game

By John Walker on January 31st, 2013 at 6:00 pm.

I do hope you hold an opinion about Battlefield 3. It’d be awful to found without one. If you’re lacking, can I suggest: “I really think they made it fall too graphicy since Battlefield 2,” or, “While the tanks may roll more impressively, it’s hard to forgive the angle of the helicopter blades.” Those should get you by. Or you could see if there’s something new you can pick up in this End Game trailer, March’s final expansion to the series that’ll reintroduce flag capturing, and dirty bikes.

If only all wars were just about capturing a flag.

End Game also includes four new maps designed to be appropriate for the chasey-chases you see in the vid, two other vehicles (although they don’t boast which), and a new dropship, capable of plopping vehicles into the fray.

EA seems keen that players pick up End Game as part of a £40 bundle, that includes all five expansion packs, but doesn’t list itself as including the original game. However, there’s a £45 bundle on Origin with the lot.

, , , , .

86 Comments »

Sponsored links by Taboola
  1. SuperNashwanPower says:

    Eddie Izzard joke, highly approved of

  2. Brun says:

    and a new dropship, capable of plopping vehicles into the fray

    Wonder what that is? Maybe like a CH-53 or something similar?

  3. mehteh says:

    sigh, more DLC for this console focus shooter? cant wait for Consolefield 4…

    • Theodoric says:

      The lads at DICE actually tried to please us PC-folk, probably a bit more than EA-wanted them to (64-player servers, for one), so don’t be too harsh on their game.

      • Stupoider says:

        Aye, DICE gave us 64-player servers out of the goodness of their hearts. It’s not like there was any precedent to include 64-player servers… in a game called Battlefield, ‘n’ all..

        • Brun says:

          Precedent? What the hell is this, a legal proceeding? They could have changed the server size if they wanted – they would have taken criticism if had, but it’s their game.

          • Stupoider says:

            Precedent in that most Battlefield games before it had 64 player servers. Heck, there were servers that could handle even more players in BF2. Of course there was pressure on DICE to include 64 player servers, out of the ‘goodness of their hearts’ ‘n’ all. It comes off as throwing PC players a bone that should’ve been included regardless.

            Is precedent a word you’re not used to? Does that have anything to do with this?

            “but it’s their game” is a nice excuse for anything devs do these days.

          • dontnormally says:

            I MISS COMMANDER MODE

          • banski83 says:

            Oh God, yes. I miss Commander Mode too. Used to love supporting squads with ammo drops and artillery barrages. Really wish they’d expanded upon it, instead of doing away with the whole thing in BF3.

            It was a wonderful thing on the rare occasions when you had competent squad leaders requesting support, and actually capping the flags you asked them to. Loved it. Inevitably got stabbed by some dirty knife wielding sonova skulking around the starting area though. Good times. :)

          • BooleanBob says:

            Don’t think you know something about the commander.

        • Theodoric says:

          Not if you compare it to Battlefield Bad Company 2, which actually was very much of a console game (and still ported well enough, by the way).

          • Stupoider says:

            Bad Company was always a console spinoff, when I said Battlefield I meant the main franchise with BF2142 being the predecessor to BF3.

          • Premium User Badge

            PoulWrist says:

            BFBC2 was an excellent multiplayer game. And so is BF3. Maybe I’m a dirty console peasant for enjoying the smooth as silk framerates and immediately responsible mouse and keyboard controls, wide FOV, extreme graphics scaling and great player experience…. I don’t know. Judge me on that if you want.

          • Stupoider says:

            I’d probably love it too, if I hadn’t played the games that came before.

          • Koozer says:

            I have come to the uncomfortable conclusion that Bad Company 2 is actually better than BF3.

    • SkittleDiddler says:

      The fact that the PC version doesn’t even have integrated voice chat totally discounts your opinion.

      • Machinations says:

        There is integrated VOIP – in the battlelog. I agree it should not have been done this way, but this is not evidence of ‘consolefield’, obviously.

        If it was,m you wold be restricted to 24 players per server, but you are not, are you – you get 64 players.

        What exactly else is there to complain about? I am certain I will not be surprised.

        • SkittleDiddler says:

          If it’s a feature that only works under blatantly limiting conditions, it’s not integrated. I can’t even use the Battlelog system to communicate with the people I’m playing with unless I “invite” them to a match.

    • Machinations says:

      Um..the game is excellent on the PC, not sure what you are talking about. Perhaps you could..elaborate on why the title is ‘console centric’. Thanks.

      • larme113 says:

        Not the poster you are responding to, but I will explain how bf3 destroyed any dignity the franchise had. It is a major regression from its former glory.

        -As described, VOIP is not integrated into the game itself making squad and team organization on pubs near impossible
        -no commander mode. Take it or leave it, I enjoyed it
        -Focus on infantry combat over vehicle combat
        -poorly balanced unlock system
        -NO MOD SUPPORT
        -poor map design (The best freaking maps are the remade bf2 maps ffs)
        -Gimped frostbyte 2 destruction compared to other games. I cannot believe they regressed this
        -Covered in enough filters to make you forget red and yellow were even colors

        All of this every single point except one can be forgiven if they had done one little thing. The absolute worst crime to the series, which is near unforgivable:

        NO FOCKING MOD SUPPORT

        It is a crime to the series. I have played battlefields since 1942 came out and I can tell you I put many many more hours into forgotten hope, desert combat, and project reality than the base games 10x over.

        Hell, the map design and inclusion of true sea battles and weighty aircraft give 1942 base game alone more lasting power than bf3.

        But I suppose this is what happens when BC or BF3 are your first games in the series. You simply never knew the glory of what bf was.

        -A Long time fan

        • Brun says:

          My first game was BF2 and if I remember correctly the emphasis on vehicle combat was one of the biggest *complaints* about that game, and it continues to be a huge complaint for similar games (PlanetSide 2 has received a *ton* of criticism about vehicle combat).

        • SkittleDiddler says:

          I’m just going to come out and say it: I played BF2 and I absolutely hated it. I hated the elitist player base, I hated the wonky shooting mechanics, I hated the dominating jet wankers, and I hated the overall clunky feel of the game. I play BF3 and find it superior in every way other than VOIP integration.

          I just don’t get the reverence BF2 holds with so many people.

          • larme113 says:

            I stand by every single point made, so do many many longtime fans of the series. Also you must have missed out on all the amazing mods which made the game 10x better, something which bf3 will never have.

            Also, if you like the more casual arcade style combat, bad company 2 does it much better.

          • Premium User Badge

            PoulWrist says:

            Agree. BF2 is a terrible game compared. And I don’t want integrated voicechat… course, it could be a toggle, but leaving it out isn’t terrible, and besides the game comes with community tools and voicechat for the way it wants you to drop in with friends in premade groups. That that’s not how players play isn’t really a fault of the game.

    • phelix says:

      Please, grown-ups are talking here.

    • f69 says:

      It’s much better on PC.

    • Monkey says:

      Really don’t get the hate towards BF3, apart from the lack of proper voip, it is SO much better on PC. Also I now wonder why every game doesn’t have a Battlelog, it really is brilliant.

      Anyway the bike part made me think of Road Rash, which is good…

      • quintesse says:

        I would agree with you…. if only the server browser and the totally obnoxious way they handle disconnects didn’t completely and totally ruin everything.

        If you never ever have any problems with disconnects you probably don’t even know what I’m talking about but in my case I could personally strangle each and every one of the people who decided to design and implement (and keep) that piece of shit. The game itself is pretty cool though.

        • Fleurry says:

          Are you talking about where if the server hiccups you lose all progress up to that point? That’s caused a few moments yelling at the poor computer monitor for me.

        • DodgyG33za says:

          My favourite feature on battlelog is the way in which it forgets that I live in Australia every time I log out. Seriously though, I love the platoon and friends part, just wish it was part of the game UI. I have absolutely no interest in using voice with some random on a public server, but hey, I recognise that isn’t everyone.

          BFBC2 is more of a battlefield game than BF3 in my opinion. The gameplay is slower, there is a greater incentive to play as a team, the destruction really does make a difference to gameplay, and the different guns and unlocks actually seem to handle very differently and make a difference. But then I always preferred to play INF only in BF2 – I never fly and hate getting randomly killed.

          BF3, especially the DLC, has turned it into a glorified COD4.

    • Premium User Badge

      Joshua says:

      Wut? A lot of the focus actually is on the PC, especially with the DLC (with the exception of the Close Quarters expansion). In fact, a lot of console gamers complain that quite a bit of the new maps are too big for 24 player gameplay.

      Sure, the game focusses more on infantry combat then the earlier games (Which is not a bad thing IMO), and it does not have integrated VOIP with the exception of in Battlelog. Yes, that is a bit of a shame for pub play. Personally, I can live without it. I have teamspeak.

  4. werix says:

    Um, was that a blimp I saw during that dog-fight scene at the end? Intriguing, but probably not enough to get me back into the game since they announced their premium shenanigans.

    • Premium User Badge

      Joshua says:

      How is premium a shenanigan, exactly? It is simply “Pre-order all the DLCs and get them at a lower cost then buying all 5 of them individually”. It is not as if the Premium users get major advantages over anyone else.

      (And before someone shouts “Priority in join qeue!” – that is a server side setting. Everyone has it turned off, and to be fair: You never need to qeue on a full server, as there is dozens of others around doing the exact same thing, and if you absolutely want to join a certain server, you already figured out how to get VIP acces to it anyway…)

    • Premium User Badge

      Joshua says:

      Also, it turns out that the blips are flags in the new game mode “Air Supiourity” (or whatever it is how ya spell it) – which is conqeust gameplay, but everyone is flying a jet.

  5. Orija says:

    They have even managed to make the multiplayer look like a linear, corridor affair.

  6. Eggy says:

    Why is youtube so freaking slow these last few weeks. All that buffering is driving me nuts.

    The video is nice and I love to play CTF again. My main problems with modern shooters like BF3 is that the time to kill is too low. Makes for boring twitch shooting gameplay.

    • Fleurry says:

      Yeah I played Quake Live before switching temporarily over the BF3. Change is very jarring.

  7. FakeAssName says:

    The “premium” thing includes the base game, which is kinda required for the DLC to work.

  8. Sam says:

    I do! I do have an opinion on Battlefield 3. I genuinely get put off playing it for very long by the deep sense of missed opportunity.

    There’s one map from the Close Quarters pack that is just beautiful, set in a run down factory that could be straight out of a Stalker sequel. But instead of exploring this fantastically detailed world, I find myself compelled to run bang bang bang run bang bang die.

    Even keeping to the high-action stuff, I’d prefer it without multiplayer. Flying the smallest type of helicopter around the maps, swooping about and ambushing tanks is a joy. But because the game is moderately balanced (and I’m not very good) that lasts a couple of minutes before I’m shot down and the fun is over. I’d love to play a version where my helicopter, my magical repair blowtorch and I are set out to fight a huge AI controlled force.

    In short, I think BF3 would have spawned some of the greatest game experiences if it had modding support.

  9. Mathute87 says:

    This game for PC is excellent. Yeah, it’s not Bad Company 2 levels of fun FOR ME, but it works perfectly fine. The “consoleisms” are there, but it’s not THAT bad. After playing it on console for over a year, when I switched to PC I asked myself: “How could you be SO STUPID?”

    Thank god I didn’t get Premium for the console version.

    And I’m excited for this mode. Looks fun enough. Too bad that there will be even MORE desert, as if BF3 needed more brown and yellow in its maps.

    • elmo.dudd says:

      “This game for PC is excellent.”
      “The “consoleisms” are there, but it’s not THAT bad.”
      That sounds like a game which managed to mostly survive console support, not one that is an excellent PC experience.

      • Mathute87 says:

        Oh, sorry about me missing a part in that sentence: It is excellent on the technical side. It’s still mostly an arcade-y shooter that tries to be realistic at times (and fails), while trying to approach to the CoD players (and fails, but this should be a good thing, but it isn’t).

        The mindset sucks no matter the system you’re playing it in.

        I like the game for what it is, but the poor map designs and making the recon useless again (I can’t begin to explain the amount of use I was as an agressive recon in BC2) makes it a sniper-fest in most modes. Rush, which is the most fun, IMO, sucks because of this. And yeah, this isn’t a new problem, but in BC2 you had more ways to deal with this stuff. Or at least that’s what I think.

        But, yet, I enjoy it most of the time. Don’t know why.

        • Premium User Badge

          PoulWrist says:

          Can’t say the sniping is as bad as it was once, but I agree, assault recon in BC2 was excellent. BFBC2 was really a great game, and I’m sad that they removed all the excellent destruction of that game. Every map, as time progressed, felt like it was a true battlefield with everything changing organically. Having to adapt and adjust to the changes in the map layout and the ability to punch holes in walls just put it a cut above the rest. And still does to this day.

          I hope there’s going to be a BC3 with battlelog support for that superior experience to that terrible ingame GUI.

          Rush isn’t as great in BF3 as it was in BC2, but it’s still the best gamemode for several maps.

    • Fleurry says:

      I personally disagree. I played extensively on the PS3 and then picked up the PC version on sale for Black Friday. Great game for the console because of all the “gimmicks” (for lack of a better term). Vehicles, mortaring, sniping, rockets and the large maps all feel great on the console because they avoid the controller’s weakness, actual gunfights. I personally feel that mindset carries over to the PC and makes it feel lackluster.

      I know the Battlefield series made it’s name on those “gimmicks” (again, not using it negatively), but it still has to be underpinned with actual shooting and I just don’t think it’s there for me.

  10. cronach says:

    John, you failed to mention Air Superiority mode, which is shown at the very, very end of the video. Easily the most exciting part of this upcoming update! BF 1942’s Coral Sea anyone?

  11. SkittleDiddler says:

    There’d better be dinosaurs.

  12. Dowr says:

    I’ll purchase this (and continue to play the actual game) if they stop selling weapons; seriously, why am I the only one bothered by this?

    • Brun says:

      PlanetSide 2 sells weapons, does that bother you as well?

    • ulix says:

      Which weapons are in the game that you cannot get through other means (than buying them)?

      • Premium User Badge

        darkChozo says:

        DLC weapons are only available if you own the DLC and are usable on non-DLC servers. So he’s right, though I’m pretty sure this is something that’s been the case for a while (didn’t BF2 have expansion pack exclusive weapons?).

        If he’s referring to the weapon/vehicle unlock packs…. ehh? It’s not at all difficult to unlock all the weapons for the classes (I wasn’t too huge into BF3 and unlocked them all before the unlock packs were even announced), and they’re all so similar power-wise anyway that it doesn’t matter after the first couple of hours.

      • Premium User Badge

        PoulWrist says:

        There aren’t any. There’s a knife skin and I think maybe a pistol that was exclusive to premium and preorder.. and the devs have certain special weapons configurations that aren’t available to players, but other than that there is nothing.
        You CAN buy a “headstart” pack, which unlocks all weapons for you, so you don’t have to go through the “grind”, though I found it amusing and enticing to play to unlock certain things… not that I’ve ever used the majority of weapons other than sparingly. You find some that are your favorites and stick to them.

  13. Tei says:

    wait… BF3 had 4 expansions? when this happened?

    • Eclipse says:

      expansions is a big therm, let’s call them DLCs… they add new maps and stuff to the multiplayer

  14. Shooop says:

    And after the video ends, I want you all to close your eyes and imagine what the modders could have done with this game.

    Make sure you’re not in a public place. People might get worried if they hear you screaming in impotent but righteous rage.

  15. tungstenHead says:

    YEAH! You get ‘em, RollieThePollie! You get ‘em all!

  16. phelix says:

    See that flag, spambot? Capture it and you’ll have something real to talk about. Trust me, that flag’s gonna look great on your Citroën.

  17. mseifullah says:

    As much as I liked BF3, I absolutely refused to continue playing after the first Premium DLC content was released.

    I could understand (not really though) charging a little extra for the first DLC (Back to Karkand) maps because it was intended to be a “get this extra stuff for free” pre-order incentive — though a timed exclusive period for pre-order folks would have been better. But then they introduce Premium, which is basically the same price as the full game. In my case, I had a $10 off preorder, so it actually was the same price that I paid for the full game. That much money for additional content after I’ve already paid such a high entrance fee just crosses the line.

    By putting ALL the additional content behind a paygate and limiting people to only playing on the original maps they basically converted all non-Premium copies of BF3 into a paid-for demo experience.

    Once the Close Quarters DLC was released I stopped playing the game. If the price for Premium ever goes down to $20 or less, I’ll consider it. Until then I’ll keep my converted-to-demo version of BF3 uninstalled.

    • Premium User Badge

      darkChozo says:

      You know, this isn’t a new thing. BF2 had an expansion pack released about four months after the original game for thirty dollars, with eight new maps, ten new maps, eight new guns, and a couple new pieces of equipment, and the guns were usable in the base game. Compare to Premium: 50 dollars for 20 maps, 20 guns, “10+ vehicles” (I think it’s around 15, not sure though), and some other minor goodies. That’s actually more content for the price, especially given that I’d guess the average BF3 map takes a lot more to make than an average BF2 map (quality of design aside).

      Just because something is downloadable, doesn’t it make it new and scary and bad. Premium is an expansion pack, and nothing else. There are some abusive DLCs out there, but this isn’t really one of them.

      [if you object as much to Special Forces as much as you do Premium, I apologize. But there are a lot of gamers who see any DLC and shout “OMG DLC RIP OFF BLAHHH”, even when it’s neither new nor particularly out of place]

      • Brun says:

        Agree. The much-beloved and sacred BF2 did the same thing, except that its “Premium DLC” was called an Expansion Pack and you had to buy it in a store. The term “DLC” has an undeserved negative connotation associated with it on RPS.

      • mseifullah says:

        I don’t have a problem with well executed DLC. That is, DLC that’s not being sold to me as something that was obviously already made but then cut from the game, and DLC that has a reasonable price taking into consideration the quality & volume of the new content alongside the already paid price of the base game. BF3’s additional content obviously wasn’t made and then cut from the game, but I do think that the price is unreasonable considering the already paid amount for the base game.

        My biggest gripe is that the non-standalone additional content content cost as much as the required base content. And because the “BF3 with Premium” package quickly became the default way to buy the game through sales channels, all non-Premium copies have basically been cut off from the rest of the community. Premium DLC owners even get priority when joining servers, further excluding non-Premium players from playing on decent servers for the maps they already have access to.

        Considering the price of Premium, it’s as if I’m being asked to pay for the game a second time in order to rejoin the rest of the players; the message I’m getting is “pay-up again or only play a small subsection of all the available content.” That’s why I feel as if my copy of BF3 got converted into a demo. It’s not a feeling of entitlement, it’s this feeling of being asked to pay for the game again if I want to continue to play in the same capacity as I was before and to continue to play with everyone else. It’s a pricing issue. I paid the $15 for BC2: Vietnam because it seemed like a fair price considering the content and what I had already paid for the base game.

        With BF2, I do believe that the expansions should have been $20 or less if they weren’t stand-alone expansions. But even in BF2’s case, there were free maps and mods made by the community so there wasn’t this situation where ALL post-release content was put behind a paywall.

  18. Parge says:

    PC gamers whining that every game is ‘consolified’ are nearly as annoying and moronic as the console players you’re whining about.

    You are PC Gamers, and I expect better of you. Its embarrassing.

    Battlefield 3 is PC gaming at its best.

    • SuperNashwanPower says:

      I heard your entire comment in the voice of this man

    • Machinations says:

      Battlefield 3 *is* PC gaming at its best.

      Origin is crap though, EA should have used Steam, but EA – is well, EA.

      There are a number of minor grievances, but overall BF3 is probably the best shooter ever made. I had over 600 hours in BF2 and 300 hours in BF2142 and an undetermined but likely embarassing number in 1942 and vietnam, so I know these games well.

      I was also upset by the lack of VOIP without the battlelog, but I tend to use Ventrilo/TS instead.

      • Premium User Badge

        PoulWrist says:

        This. But Origin is used so little that you hardly notice it… Battlelog launches it for you and it autosigns in and that’s that. A very smooth experience. Sure, could’ve worked with steam too, and that’s a shame, but meh… it’s not a great inconvinience and it certainly doesn’t detract in any meaningful form.

  19. The Random One says:

    I’ve had no interest in Battlefield 3 until now, but the prospect of taking a flag back to base on a sweet dirtbike is strangely alluring.

  20. nanophage says:

    Question for those that that think the map designs are poor, Me being a amateur level designer I wonder what do you think makes them poor? Is it truely bad mechanics or a case of not being designed to a specific gamemode? Or is it just because you wanted a remake of Battlefield 2 (ie. larger open maps etc.. Or is is the desert setting used in all the maps aside from the urban ones?

    • Premium User Badge

      PoulWrist says:

      The maps generally are designed for specific gamemodes, but they’re available to play in most of them. This does expose some rather dull moments in some of them.
      The “poor” part of some of them is more down to a lack of spacing things out, or too much nonsensical open space, or not enough spots for cool stuff to go down.

      I enjoy the maps where I can go somewhere and have some good infantry on infantry fights, hiding from vehicles in the ruins. I find that unless yuo’re with a buddy on voice vehicles are more of a deathtrap than anything, and I really enjoy the feel of the shooting, so I tend to head straight to infantry friendly grounds and start laying down fire with a LMG or AR :)

    • SkittleDiddler says:

      I think it all comes down to personal playstyle. I find BF3’s Wake Island to be a boring travelthon, while others (mainly pilots) swear by it. The same goes for Karkand. And Scrapmetal seems to be very popular, but I’ll gladly bypass it for any other CQC map. I just don’t like playing on them.

      BF2 players seem to have the most complaints about the maps. They bitched about the Bad Company 2 maps too. They’re also going to bitch about the BF4 maps. So yeah, it’s all based on personal preference.

  21. Dominic White says:

    I picked up BF3 vanilla for $10 during a big sale on Origin, and the Premium expansion for £10 off Green Man Gaming later on.

    All things considered, that’s bloody good value. Shopping around pays.

  22. DXN says:

    Unfortunately I find it pretty much impossible to play most MMS’s after playing so much Arma 2 (and BF2: Project Reality before that). All the planning, tactics, coordination and variety is addictive! But I do love the BF3 flash – the animations, sounds, visuals, all that. Hopefully Arma 3’ll be a lot closer in that regard.

  23. Raquel says:

    I laugh at the sheep that buy premium and then complain about EA’s greed, bahah

  24. Corrupt_Tiki says:

    Honestly, I quite like the combat; absolutely hate the vehicles, they just feel wrong in every conceivable way.

    My thoughts;

    * Jets do not fly remotely like that.
    * Helicopters do not fly like that.
    * Tanks should have better aiming (Automatic range finding etc)
    * AA needs to be boosted.
    * Guns need more oompf
    * Less hax0rs

    =

    Actually, screw it, I’ll just keep playing ArmA 2. I do find it sad that I immensely enjoyed BC2, but can’t stand BF3. Too many hackers, not enough servers (I only like HC mode, bullets are supposed to be ridiculously lethal) Everything just feels too arcadey for me to enjoy I guess. And all the ridiculous expansions, I’m not going to essentially re-buy the game, just to enjoy a few new maps and a few new vehicles/weapons.

  25. Snoken says:

    Michael Bay “EXPLOSIONS” and wtf hands-free motorbike co-piloting with 180° turn-able no-spine soldiers. I bet that comes in handy when you want to pleasure yourself. I really miss BF2…