Hands On: Battlefield 3

When EA made claims that Battlefield 3 may topple Modern Warfare 3 this Christmas they were certainly being optimistic. But there’s a fever building around BF3 that makes it seem a very likely contender for second place. And having got my hands on it, it’s not all talk. It’s big, fat war.

By now you’ve probably seen moving pictures of the Frostbyte 2 engine, and realised that this is some impressive stuff. Quite how impressive is hard to see until you’ve sat in front of it when frenetic battle isn’t happening. For me it was the shadows of clouds rolling over the tarmac in front of me. Perfect depictions, uncannily real. But apparently it’s not a game where standing still and staring at the ground is encouraged. In fact, someone was so offended that they even shot me dead!

And then we'll shoot them with our guns.

We were playing Operation Metro, a ‘rush’ multiplayer match set in the heart of Paris, our given goal to make our way to the Eiffel Tower. Rush is one of three multiplayer modes they’ve announced so far, alongside Conquest and Team Deathmatch, about which they were very pleased to say they were including. And it was repeated that this would all be controlled through Battlelog, which will be free.

The Russians have taken control of the stock market exchange in Paris, and we’re tasked with shooting them all in their heads and reclaiming territory. They’ve got some anti-aircraft tech at the other end of the park, too, and we need to do something about that. By blowing it up.

The mission, and it really did feel like a team mission rather than a multiplayer zone, was divided into three sections. But they blend invisibly together. As we succeeded in completing given tasks, spawn points would advance forward, and the locations shifted in tone. From outside in the parks of Paris we were soon fighting in the subway, racing down train tracks and through carriages, before emerging into a tough firefight in the streets. Each of the three zones is big enough to host its own team deathmatch, we’re told, and yet the action is fast enough that the whole game is completed in under half an hour. It’s big, but you’re covering ground fast, whether on foot or in a handy tank, especially if you’re using your skills to the advantage of your four-man squad.

There’s four classes of soldier, with the emphasis always on soldier. The person playing the Assault class is also the medic, and can heal teammates. But they’re an essential weapon on the frontline, not someone mopping up at the back. Engineers can repair a vehicle that others can’t, but their ludicrously powerful rocket launcher is the real reason to play them. Support soldiers have a hefty machine gun, and can help out others by providing ammo. And the Recon, well, he provides intel oddly enough. But also does a lot of shooting.

Those skills can be applied sensibly. Say your tank breaks down, fizzing and popping at the side of the road, while your engineer is fixing it the others can use it as an impromptu gun platform to continue the battle. And DICE say there will be more unlocks and upgrades for the soldiers than in any Battlefield before. They’re calling the classes a “foundation to customise”, with equally customisable weapons.

Maybe a Support soldier will take advantage of the biped attachment for his weapon, letting him improve his accuracy from any stable location. He could provide suppressing fire, which even if it’s not hitting the enemy will still be recognised by the game. It will reduce the combat efficiency of the enemy, and the game will recognise that and reward you with recognition.

I was especially taken with some Brink-style leaping. Hitting the jump button while running toward an obstacle has you bound over it with fluid ease, meaning your fun isn’t interrupted. And it feels awesome-cool to do, too.

There’s lots of destruction, too. And not just where it’s prescribed. As perhaps we’ve come to expect after Bad Company 2, shit blows up wherever you hit it, meaning convenient enemy cover can be efficiently removed with some heavy weapons. And the weapons get heavy. There’s going to be a huge range of boats, tanks, helicopters, and with particular enthusiasm in their announcement from DICE, the return of jets.

The build we played was pre-alpha, yet felt remarkably stable. A lack of a kill cam meant things could often feel frustrating, but presumably that’s something that could be added later in development. They’ve announced the 25th October for the release, which with their MW3-competing plans isn’t a deadline they can miss. I have a sneaky suspicion this one is going to go big.


  1. tigershuffle says:

    looks awesome……. watched the Tank battle demo last night

    only just rebuilt my pc………and been a cheapskate i may have undersold my self again :S

    • godgoo says:

      I just rebuilt too, but went high end(ish)- it hurt my wallet so there’s that, but yeah! all these autumn/winter games can’t come quick enough!!

    • Arca says:

      Rebuilt mine too but went all out and got all the high end stuff. Pretty happy I made that choice!

    • Brutal Deluxe says:

      I was totally uninterested in B3 until today. I even picked up B2 during the last steam sale, and who knows, maybe I’ll actually play it in anticipation of this

    • egg-zoo-bear-ant will e 91 says:

      I upgraded last year to the highest end that wasn’t extortionately overpriced because of being “cutting edge.” Gonna get another of the same graphics cards to run in tandem with this one, more rams and a solid state drive, and totally replace a lot of it. Really pleased though as the biggest investments I made when I intrepidly custom built this unassuming beast- the i7 and the graphics card- are still going to be put to good use. Makes me feel less guilty about not getting a powerful laptop and making do with that as the super main control panel, as everyone else was doing, and now if they want to upgrade they have to start from scratch.

      Also, I think it might be the last hardware upgrade I have to do in a really long time, what with cloud computing, and games getting to a level where they can pull off all the gameplay they want, and they are just allowing for more anti aliasing and better shaders etc. Will the next gen really be a massive jump in costs to make AAA assets for allover again? I think with IDTech 5 and UT4 and Crytek 3, they’ve reached a detail level that is ideal for most games, and they are just buttoning down on streamlining the process,

  2. Dana says:

    Great singleplayer game.

    • godgoo says:

      weirdly gentle troll?

    • Dana says:

      Why ? I haven’t seen any multiplayer footage so far. Except for that tiny metro map, which one could mistake for CoD easily.

    • godgoo says:

      ‘which one could mistake for CoD easily’

      *refuses to bite*

    • papabear says:

      Prooly a RO2 fan.

    • Ergates_Antius says:

      Why? Because this article was specifically about the multiplayer aspects of it…

    • Dana says:

      And BF2 as well. Bad Company 2, not so much.

    • studenteternal says:

      As a RO2 fan, I am still excited by this battlefield.

    • Dana says:

      So far they gave me nothing to be excited about. Im still waiting for 5-10 mins of raw multiplayer footage. 32v32 on a big map with all the vehicles.

  3. godgoo says:

    Wanty Wanterson wants it now!

  4. McDan says:

    This will be awesome! Even if it doesn’t outsell modern warfare 3 it will probably still be the better game.

    • jon_hill987 says:

      Yes, but a re-release of “Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing” will be better than MW3 so that isn’t saying much.

      BF3 does look good though.

    • Jolly Teaparty says:

      I would actually be more excited by a Big Rigs sequel than MW3. No, really! I think a game where they intentionally made the racing as hilariously broken as possible as a homage to Big Rigs would be great.

  5. Ergates_Antius says:

    I like the sound of moving the MG from the medic to the support – would fix one of my gripes with BC2.

    Whats all this nonsense about “pre-alpha” though? Beta is a working version used for testing/bug fixing. Alpha is code in development. Pre-alpha should be a design document. If you can play it can it really be pre-alpha? I call “newspeak bullshit” on it.

    • tigershuffle says:

      yeah …pre-alpha makes it sound like you are stealing the very thought processes of a Dev.

      We should call the Inception team in to make sure they release free of charge DLC ;)

    • kyrieee says:

      Those words don’t mean anything when spoken to the public, it’s just “ignore any bugs we might have”
      Beta is “try the game for free”

    • Ilinx says:

      I’m so glad others have noticed this. E3 this year seems to have been swamped with ‘pre-alpha footage’. Seems like it’s just a way of saying ‘It looks rubbish because it’s nothing like what the game will be like, unless you like it, in which case it’s exactly what the game will look like. Also, bugs don’t count so nyerrrrrr.’

    • Ergates_Antius says:

      “ignore any bugs we might have” would be covered by Alpha though

    • James Allen says:

      I think the problem is that “beta” now means “demo”, so “alpha” is really “beta”.

    • FriendlyFire says:

      Beta – Software is feature complete.
      Alpha – Software has undergone some testing internally.
      Pre-Alpha – Try at your own risk.

      This is not marketing speak, it’s a fairly typical methodology and naming convention.

    • Sigh says:

      To be fair John Walker did conduct this interview in one of the DICE developer’s brains three dreams deep. I’d even wager that what he was seeing was pre-pre-Alpha. John started to ask about things like dedicated servers and lean but then all of the people in the room stopped talking and looked at him…

    • Ziv says:

      People want to see games, the earlier the better. This pushed developers to show footage as soon as possible, which means sometimes exposing an untested (pre) and not feature complete (alpha) version of the game.
      You can see that on the wii U, all the games displayed at the nintendo conference were either 360 or PS3 versions of the game.

    • Samuel Bass says:

      Wow, sometimes it feels like people, ‘net denizens in particular, are just looking for things to be cynical about…

      Ahhhnyways, in game development terminology, Alpha is the point where you have verified with QA that everything intended to be in the game IS in the game and working. Not good, but working.

      Consequently, pre-alpha means it’s not verified as functionally content complete yet. My current project is pre-alpha, and will be for some time, but it definitely has working software. You can play it and everything:)

  6. Alexander Norris says:

    Excellent! They’ve gone back to the classes from 2142, which was the best Battlefield.

    • Fierce says:

      I noticed that as well. What’s even better is they’ve adopted the suppressive fire mechanic from Project Reality!

      It really seems like they’re trying their best to incorporate the best of everything that has happened since Karkand first loaded up on a 64 player server back in 2005.

    • 4026 says:

      @Alexander Norris: Agreed, but quiet. You risk waking the beast…

    • Durkonkell says:

      I have also noticed this, and am greatly pleased! I think the class system in 2142 worked really well and made some kind of sense too. Infantry cross-trained as combat medics? Sounds fine. Medics cross-trained as machine gunners? Erm…

    • Maykael says:

      Do people still play 2142, cause I was thinking of buying it?

    • Alexander Norris says:

      @Maykael: yep! It’s still got a healthy playerbase. Quite a lot less than BF2, but more than enough that you can always find a healthy server.

    • westyfield says:

      2142 had a bit of suppression, but it wasn’t effective until the Nvidia bug came around that blacked out the entire screen whenever the ‘slight blurring’ suppression effect should have showed.
      2142 had the best classes though – Engineer and Anti-tank, Assault and Medic, Automatic Rifleman and Support being the same made it way more fun than BF2 or BC2 for me.

    • MiniMatt says:

      Actually re-installed 2142 last night as all the BF3 footage is giving me an uncontrollable urge to man shoot. A fair few servers still up and running. Turns out I’ve forgotten how to do anything other than get shot however.
      Looking forward to re-enacting the Paris scene from Team America in BF3 though, please tell me the Eiffel Tower counts amongst the destructible scenery :o)

      edit: oh, and I think patch 1.51 for 2142 now includes the expansion pack for free

    • jonfitt says:

      I played a metric ton of BF2 back when it was new through all the expansions, and then I played a hundred weight of BF2142 through the expansion.

      But since then I lost touch with the Battlefield community. I don’t know if the majority moved on like I did, or if Karkand is still busy on a Friday night?

      If you compared peak to peak I’d guess that Battlefield has more hardcore (someone who plays until they know every map nuance backwards) fans than Modern Warfare. My guess is there is a surprising number of people still playing BF2 and they will all pick up BF3 on day one.

    • Nick says:

      It had the best version of the class system, for sure.

  7. inertia says:


  8. Moni says:

    (Suppressing fire)…will reduce the combat efficiency of the enemy, and the game will recognise that and reward you with recognition.

    Is the reducing combat efficiency an in-code mechanic, or does that just mean, players getting shot at, naturally, tend not to stick their heads out?

    Either way, I like the sound of that, it gives players like me (people with terrible aim) a role in the team.

    • Koojav says:

      I hope they do it like in Americas Army 2 – when bullets we’re flying near you your accuracy was drastically reduced.

    • Magnetude says:

      I think they’re making an actual mechanic out of it – in the single player videos the screen reacted as if the player had been shot when a sniper was suppressing the squad on the roof.

      The idea that you get points for it is really fucking cool. I guess this is also why they took medic’s MG away – spamming suppressing fire as well as spamming medkits everywhere would give them way too much of a points advantage.

    • rupert says:

      apparently the people being “suppressed” get blurry vision, ive read on other sites

    • jonfitt says:

      In Arma2 I’ve spent many a minute cowering on the floor as a building get shredded by a machine gun!

      But I think they would have to have a suppression mechanic for it to work in a Battlefield game. Nobody really cares if the get shot as respawns are easy, so while a good player will keep their head down, many will just run out and shoot back.
      I like the idea of mild blurriness meaning that you are less effective in shooting and presumably can be out manoeuvred by a flanking team.

    • Jimbo says:

      I really like the idea of the game forcing suppressing fire to be effective. It’s something I’ve thought about often playing these types of games. You really can’t have a game come close to representing the flow of actual combat until you implement a suppressing fire mechanic. Unlike real life, nobody really cares about ‘dying’ in a game, so the effectiveness of suppressing fire needs to be enforced artificially.

      Hopefully they won’t bottle it and make the ‘suppressed’ effect too weak. If they get it right it will put a much greater emphasis on teamwork, which should hopefully elevate BF3 above the typical Team Deathmatch style experience most of these games still offer.

      I kinda hope they forget all about K:D ratios and shit too, and put the emphasis on achieving objectives / winning the round. But maybe that’s too much to ask.

  9. Kominaut says:

    Awmg, that review was phenomenal.

    I can’t wait to get my grubby little knappers on that beautiful game.

  10. Koojav says:

    Seems like a good reason to update gaming rig. But I’ll wait with that for first impressions after the game is released.

  11. man-eater chimp says:

    I haven’t played BC2, but by destroying scenery can you actually create cover?

    I definitely need an updated rig, consoles holding back graphics have allowed to play most games on reasonably low settings but I really need an update…

    • Fierce says:

      By scenery, I’m taking you to mean the various buildings one can enter and exit. In BC2, there were maybe 5 or 6 stock assets for buildings which would stand unless significant amounts of speed holes (oh Simpsons…) were introduced to its architecture.

      From there, they’d collapse and kill everyone inside but would still create a pile of rubble convenient enough to crouch into and take cover from choppers, or knife ambush any foolish snipers who scoped up nearby without clearing it first.

      I’m going to go out on a limb and predict that post-destruction cover will still be a part of BF3. Laying waste to every asset on a map just leaves you with a flat, barren killing field. Which wouldn’t be fun.

    • Magnetude says:

      Some of the chunks coming off the buildings in the Metro video looked very waist-high…

  12. rupert says:

    lets just hope the server browser isn’t awful like previous other battlefield games

  13. Chris Evans says:

    I’m really hoping that they release some really nice friendly system requirements for this, would be a right downer if it turned into a Crysis where you need the very cutting edge equipment to run it to its’ potential.

    • Fierce says:

      I hear these are being run on a GTX 580. So take from that what you will.

    • Magnetude says:

      Fierce: I heard they had 3 graphics cards running the earlier tech demo videos.

    • Clavus says:

      Still it has to run on the consoles too, so I expect it to run fine on less powerful PC hardware too.

    • subedii says:

      Pretty much.

      To max the game out is probably going to require current hardware, but considering that it’s got to run on consoles as well, you’re probably going to be able to run it well enough to match console visuals if you’ve got an older system.

      Just as long as you don’t start complaining about how your XP system with 1 GB of RAM should totally be enough to run this and it’s all DICE’s fault for running an “unoptimised” engine etc etc. :P

  14. skyturnedred says:

    Noooooo, I hate flying vehicles!!!! Mostly because I’m such a bad pilot myself, but also because I just wanna play the infantry guy, leaving the vehicles to others.

    • sgt. grumbles says:

      So do so?

    • HeavyHarris says:

      That’s the beauty of the PC my friend, you can join infantry only servers! God I love me some PC master race

  15. Jubaal says:

    The games in the Battlefield series have always been my multiplayer man-shoot of choice. As lovely as this looks I can’t see much difference from BFBC2 besides prone and jets. Can anyone enlighten me?

    • The Hammer says:

      The size of the maps, really. Bad Company 2 is, for the most part, more of a close-quarters game, which I suppose you could say is concerned with big spec op squads – whereas 3, like 2 and 1942 before it, has full 64 player support: armies versus armies. It’s a difference of scale.

    • crusty1 says:

      A cunning play on words or fluke?
      For those that want enlightement….link to geomerics.com, these guys are supplying the 3rd party plug in that frostbite 2 is using to such great effects… its called ‘enlighten’ & I have seen it run on lower end gfx cards as its using its own direct to metal (gpu) code meaning it will look good even on PCs using XP.

  16. ShadowBlade says:

    Why so brown and grey. Colour? Hello… colour?!

    • AfternoonTea says:

      This is a Battlefield game, the only colours allowed are brown and grey (and possibly dark green if you are feeling verdant). Looks amazing so far, though the proof will be in the stability and ease of play which will be the key for me and what led me to quit playing BF2 seriously.

    • Spider Jerusalem says:

      All the better to see the muzzle flashes, my dear.

  17. CaspianRoach says:

    Damn it I just found out that Frostbite2 doesn’t support DirectX 9. But I don’t want to switch to Windows7 :(

    • Alexander Norris says:

      There’s about a million reasons why you should switch to Windows 7, and DX10 is among the least important of them.

    • InternetBatman says:

      I was dubious after Vista, but Windows 7 is a clear and definite improvement. At this point though you might just want to wait for Windows 8.

    • CaspianRoach says:

      And there’s at least one why I shouldn’t — my PC won’t gain in performance by switching, only lose. Yes my PC is fairly old but I still can play most of the games on low graphic settings. After all story and gameplay > graphics.

    • James Allen says:

      Windows 8 is being designed for tablets. Just go with Windows 7: it’s the least terrible Microsoft operating system!

    • Commisar says:

      well then, either upgrade your OS/PC or GTFO of Battlefield 3

    • Thants says:

      If your computer can run Battlefield 3 its not going to have any problem with Windows 7.

    • crusty1 says:

      Very odd. The main lightning effects they are using aren’t direct X limited. I guess they want to use teselation for more geometry

  18. torchedEARTH says:

    “A lack of a kill cam meant things could often feel frustrating”

    Won’t see you on hardcore then.

    The one thing that will break this game for me (although I will play it do death) is that you can now lie flat, and wookies being able to lie flat is going to be a real bitch. You mark my words.

    • Alexander Norris says:

      Wouldn’t it be amazing if for once, a game didn’t include sniper rifles at all?

      Imagine that; a Battlefield where Recon gets SMGs/shotguns and there’s nothing longer-ranged than an M14 with ACOG.

    • Mad Hamish says:

      As long as the snipers use actual sniper rifles and not bloody shotguns I’ll be happy. I can get shot by snipers on the other side of the map all day, should have kept my head down. But I rage when it’s a neostead from the middle of nowhere. Shotgun snipers were the most ridiculous thing in BC2. Hopefully slug ammo is gone or at least redone.

      They’ve said that you can spot snipers by the sun glinting off their scopes if you look near them, which seems pretty cool. Out sniping snipers with my G3 was one of the greatest pleasures in BF2 and BC2.

    • The JG Man says:

      They’ve confirmed that when lying down with a bipod out, your movement is limited to the angle the bipod is at and if someone looks at you, they’ll see a light reflection from the scope. Not to mention there’s a timed animation for going prone, so whilst a good sniper may be powerful, they’re not broken.

    • YourMessageHere says:

      “Wouldn’t it be amazing if for once, a game didn’t include sniper rifles at all?”

      If by ‘amazing’ you mean ‘shit’, absolutely. Gigantic maps and 32 players a side with no sniper rifles – that makes perfect sense.

      Snipers weren’t overpowered in BF2. They’re vulnerable to just about any vehicle, plus arty and UAVs. Add in the limited view angle and the sun glint thing and, well, they better make the sniper rifles more powerful to compensate for how hard it will be to snipe, frankly.

    • subedii says:

      Don’t forget bullet drop / travel time.

      Unlike most FPS’s you can’t hit the target just by lining them up in the crosshairs. The further away they are, the harder they are to hit, at least assuming they haven’t stopped for a quick tea break or something.

    • Alexander Norris says:

      Yes; because annoying one-hit-kills you can’t defend against and game elements that encourage camping like a retard instead of going for the objectives are exactly what a game like Battlefield needs.

    • aircool says:

      They should force snipers into two man teams – spotter and shooter. Then leave the squad marksman role to an assault guy with a (non sniper rifle) rifle and scope. DoD:S had a great option that allowed you to limit class numbers, or not use them at all.

      The only thing worse than facing an enemy team full of snipers, was having your own team full of snipers and no-one to support you when taking objectives. The K/D ratio culture doesn’t sit comfortably with teamwork based games.

    • Donjonson says:

      That’s a great idea actually- a sniper/spotter combo, not sure how it’d work but I’d like to see it! Anyways, really looking forward to this, I haven’t played any other online shooter except for Modern Warfare and CODBLOPS, I’m looking forward to some actual team based combat!

    • wengart says:

      The addition of ballistics in BC2 made it a lot harder to be killed by snipers. Very often if you kept moving you would be fine, and you knew when you were asking to be sniped.

      The more egregious issue caused by snipers was the “I am Vasily Zaytsev” syndrome. You would have your whole team running around trying to headshot people when they had absolutely no business trying to do so.

  19. SprintJack says:

    19 minutes of MP gameplay.

    Damn, 25th October can’t come soon enough!

    • Alexander Norris says:

      That’s… actually being played with a mouse and keyboard?! That’s a good sign.

      Also, the 25th of October is my birthday. I guess I’ll have to gift myself BF3. :D

    • subedii says:

      All the footage that DICE have shown off to date has been running on PC’s. That includes live demonstrations such as at E3 and the like.

      It’s been a particular point they’ve been keen to emphasise.

  20. rupert says:

    prone + gillie suit + sniper = super camper

    • El_MUERkO says:

      /artillery strike inbound

    • subedii says:

      Recon classes aren’t going to have access to artillery strikes anymore IIRC, though I could be wrong there.

      More importantly, in order to counter balance the effectiveness of prone (which is why it wasn’t in BF:BC2 in the first place), they’ve basically been making a few tweaks. This is from an IGN hands-on:

      link to uk.pc.ign.com

      Prone could be dangerous to the balance, as it makes players incredibly hard to discern at a distance, but to balance this DICE is finding new ways to make the cost match the benefits. You might be harder to see, but your lens will flash if a player looks at it, and getting up and laying down takes time that will cost you if someone is close.

      So basically harder to spot, but if they know where you are, then they can probably get you. You’ve then also got to factor in things like suppression, because as soon as you’re spotted and they’ve put that luminous orange arrow over your head, I wouldn’t be surprised if there was suddenly a tonne of suppression heading your way, even before someone can take you out.

  21. Apocalypse 31 says:

    I’ve never been more excited for a game release…..so I don’t have to hear about it anymore.

  22. goldrunout says:

    I think that in a game like this you should always know how you died, without any killcam. I admit it is something really difficult to achieve in something like battlefield, but for example i love Counter strike more than BC2 also because of this. Death should never be frustrating..

    • Mad Hamish says:

      I never saw what was wrong with a bit of frustration to be honest. It’s a bad word in games these days. It’s like a test in my opinion. You can let the game get the better of you, get angry, play badly then quit or you can temper your resolve, calm down, concentrate and double your efforts.

      When people get shot 5 times in a row by the same sniper in BC2 they’re awful quick to blame the “camper” when it’s actually their own damn fault. Man, how did people survive at all back in the day when pretty much every game was frustrating.

    • Alexander Norris says:

      The mentality that shit = good just because it’s old shit is something that makes no sense whatsoever. Age doesn’t make stuff that is critically unfun suddenly become fun, and what is bullshit now was still bullshit ten years ago.

      Game design has progressed since the days of Sierra adventures and the Quake railgun.

  23. Lobotomist says:

    How does it compare to BFBC2 gameplay experience ?

  24. KauhuK says:

    I would kindly meet you RPS following folks in the field of battle.

  25. Viol3ntHoegaarden says:

    not one bite on the second place comment…

    • HeavyHarris says:

      The uncomfortable truth is that MW3 will outsell BF3, but in my mind, and the minds of many others, BF3 will be far superior. And there’s the distinct possibility it will sell better in the long run. Hell BF2 is still getting sales.

  26. Cuttooth says:

    Honestly, the only thing that can disappoint me about this game at this stage is the apparent lack of individual magazines. It was one of the little things that set Battlefield apart from the rest, and you hardly see it in any FPS any more.

    • westyfield says:

      Gosh, yes, I’d forgotten about that. I recently went back to BF2142 and BF2, and my automatic ‘reload whenever I stop firing’ reflex cost me dear.

  27. Ertard says:


  28. killmachine says:

    I was especially taken with some Brink-style leaping. Hitting the jump button while running toward an obstacle has you bound over it with fluid ease, meaning your fun isn’t interrupted. And it feels awesome-cool to do, too.

    yea. i think every future shooter will have that “freedom of movement” kind of thing. in brink it feels awsome. i saw it in prey2, too and saw one guy from a forum mentioning that modern warfare 3 also has the parkour thing, but i havent seen it for myself.

    if you played brink and know how it feels to mantle over an obstacle you dont want to ever miss it again. every other shooters movement feels totally outdated when youre used to brink.

  29. squirrel says:

    If MW3 is to be launched before this game, MW3 still stands a chance. Otherwise…

    • subedii says:

      Otherwise it’ll still stand a chance?

      I mean let’s be honest here, CoD is a juggernaut. Regardless of how good BF3 is, it’s fairly unlikely to usurp CoD as the top online shooter, and it’ll need to pull off a real coup to do so.

      Really though, I don’t think anyone should care about that. As far as I’m concerned the crazy success of CoD has acted like a magnet, or a freaking black hole for all the cuss-kiddies and jerks of the internet. It’s left other online communities generally better off.

      The part that got annoying with BF:BC2 was the way that it drew in a lot of former CoD players who then started complaining endlessly about how the weapons were “nerf guns” and the like, and generally trying to play the game as Wookies in the Mist instead of attempting for actual objectives.

      Same’s likely to happen to BF3 of course, but I’ll be happy enough if most of the guys who obsess over K/D ratios and little else just end up sticking with Modern Warfare 3. At this stage it’s unlikely that BF3 is going to be a failure or anything (especially considering the reception that BF:BC2 got), so everything after that is gravy.

    • Spider Jerusalem says:

      Yeah. I mean, I’m fine if CoD players want to keep playing CoD.

      I’d rather all the BF2 players come out of 2005.

  30. Petethegoat says:

    Oh boy! We get to fight the Russians in wonderful brown and grey!

    Seriously, is no one else tired of the constant antagonising of Russia? :/

    • lurkalisk says:

      Russia is the modern Nazis. Not because it makes sense, but because we all need Nazis, and now that the Nazis are, well, natz here anymore, we have to blame something for fictitious warfare. That something is China.

      Oh wait… They chose Russia… Does any game dev have any understanding of world history?

    • YourMessageHere says:

      I’m even more tired of protagonist goodies = USA, to be honest. Coming from Dice of all people, too. The game’s shooting looks fun, but I have no particular interest or enthusiasm in fighting either for or against the Americans OR the Russians; I dare say most non-US/non-Russian players feel the same. I’d not want to play as British Army either, mind. I can say, however, that I’d rather have an AK or a Dragunov or a T90 than an M4 or an M40 or an Abrams. In all likelihood the available armouries are as much of a reason for setting this as US vs Russia as anything else.

      Why can’t this be ‘about’ (as much as any MP FPS game is about anything besides the shootage) two rival mercenary outfits/’contractors’ or something? You know, the new era of proxy wars and outsourcing and all that. It’d make more sense of the “everyone gets to pick their guns” thing too.

    • lurkalisk says:


      I’m actually surprised they don’t make a game about the Swedish armed forces (of a somewhat fictitious sort, obviously), as they easily could.

    • Man Raised by Puffins says:

      I suspect the Russians would be flattered more than anything else, given that, in reality, they probably aren’t capable of projecting power much beyond the Caucasus while game devs show them merrily kicking the stuffing out the worlds best funded military in its own backyard.

    • Rii says:

      What Puffin Man said.

    • jonfitt says:

      What I would like to see is a game with genuinely dual sympathetic sides. The only thing I could think of off the top of my head would be the IDF vs Palestine. Each side can be portrayed as the hero or villain.

      Perhaps they could have the EU + other UN nations versus the USA. Completely unrealistic, but you could write it so both would have a sympathetic reason for engaging in conflict.

    • Alexander Norris says:

      It’d be nice if we had a game where the US is the protagonist and Russia the antagonist and each country’s motivations is described with even a speck of realism. Bit tired of seeing “evul Russians!!111!” as a thing when “Russians invading because of US interventionism” is a) much more nuanced and b) much more original (which isn’t saying much).

      Also, y’know, not assuming the US is invading foreign countries to deliver puppies and joy.

    • stahlwerk says:

      @Alexander Norris: World In Conflict + Expansion comes to mind.

    • BoZo says:

      “Why can’t this be ‘about’ (as much as any MP FPS game is about anything besides the shootage) two rival mercenary outfits/’contractors’ or something? You know, the new era of proxy wars and outsourcing and all that. It’d make more sense of the “everyone gets to pick their guns” thing too.”

      An old (and insanely buggy) game called Söldner had a similiar story to this actually.

  31. gornmyson says:

    I’m going to add myself to the very-excited-person list for this. I was excited about BC2 and I’ve played it for 200+ hours, but this looks so much better

    I’ve also recently updated my PC, with the exception of the graphics card. Now going to start saving my pennies for the best card I can buy in late September.

    Looking forward to blowin’ things up with fellow RPS’ers!

    (first comment ever after longtime lurking BTW, woo! Hello!)

  32. Dana says:

    Sounds ok.

    • HeavyHarris says:

      The Duke Nukem preview you were looking to comment on is that way —>

  33. Katana111 says:

    I know it’s really picky but a weapon can have a ‘bipod’ attached to it not a ‘biped’. This game cannot be released soon enough for me. Just enough time to get my P.C. upgraded.

  34. banski83 says:

    Does anyone know if they’e keeping stuff like the Commander role and the squad mechanics in place? Silly question, but I’m curious to find out if they’ve changed/improved stuff in that area.

    • subedii says:

      Squad mechanics yes, you’re still in squads of four.

      I don’t know about the Commander.

  35. Nallen says:

    System Requirements! I need them!

    And also a saving plan.

    • Mommenaizer says:

      You can have them…
      Windows Vista or Windows 7
      Core 2 Duo @ 2.0 Ghz
      2 GB RAM
      DirectX 10- or 11 GPU


      Windows 7 64 Bit
      AMD or Intel Quadcore-CPU
      4 GB RAM
      DirectX 11 GPU with 1 GB RAM

      and i think 15gbs of space needed

      looks like you dont need a nasa computer thing to get it running. So maybe you can spend your hard earned cash on different things.. like many many hats inn tf2 or other usefull stuff

    • SprintJack says:

      These are made up. No oficial word on system requirements yet.

    • Mommenaizer says:

      dont kill the messenger… i read it on a, i think trustworthy, german gaming website..

  36. Ziv says:

    “He could provide suppressing fire, which even if it’s not hitting the enemy will still be recognised by the game. It will reduce the combat efficiency of the enemy, and the game will recognise that and reward you with recognition.”
    SO great. What I absolutely LOVE about Bad Company 2 is that even people who aren’t very good at FPSs can hop into the game and play and feel like they’re contributing to the fight, whether by spotting or by driving tanks. It looks like they’re going to improve on that. I just love that.

    • aircool says:

      Yep – I’m one of those people. Looking forward to seeing how the suppressive fire works. It’s a mechanic that never really shows up in games, but is an important tactical concept. It’s something I try in current online FPS’s, but the MG’s never seem to present enough of a threat to make people keep their heads down.

      Saying that, it does sort of work (BF2142 did it best, even if it was an extremely bizarre way of doing it), but you never get the recognition (via ingame rewards) unless you actually kill someone. However, the point is that you pin the enemy, killing someone is just a bonus. So yeah, I’m interested to see how that works out as my twitch skills are practically non existent these days.

  37. Jad says:

    And DICE say there will be more unlocks and upgrades for the soldiers than in any Battlefield before.

    Every time I get excited about this game I read something along these lines and I get stopped cold. I absolutely hate this trend, where those who have been playing longer not only have the natural advantage of knowing the maps and the game systems better, but literally just have better equipment. Everyone says that even if you’re not that good at the game you can help your team by repairing vehicles or reviving people, but in BC2 you had to unlock those basic class abilities. Which is one of the most idiotic and baffling design decisions I’ve ever seen in an otherwise well done game. And whenever DICE makes statements like the above, all it says to me is that they not only haven’t learned from their previous mistakes (and locking out basic class abilities was not the only crime of the unlock system), but are doubling down on them.

    • Heliocentric says:

      Hear hear, I love customising, I hate unlocking. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING!!!

    • Spider Jerusalem says:

      It depends on if the base weapons are complete ass like they are in BC2, or if it’s just a whole bunch of flavor that you can tailor to a playstyle.

  38. Gorgol says:


    EDIT: awesome, it worked. (Just trying out my new capitalised nickname with link to my twitter page :> ).

  39. Pattom says:

    “Battlefield 3. The manshooter to shoot all manshooters in their men.”

    You can have that one for free, EA.

  40. Fuxalodapus says:

    Have they improved the reload animations and at least learned that the M4 has a bolt catch on the side?
    They spend all that effort on fancy dust effects but can’t get basic weaponry detail accurate?