Battlefield 3’s Caspian Border 64-Player Map

Holy shit. It’s the bit at 0:38 with all the vehicles, for me.

So, the PC is getting 64-player maps, and that means some pretty serious battles on a wide scale. And jets. Clearly this is showing the game at its best, but those shots of dogfighting and general ground combat are ludicrously pretty. There’s so much going on in the audio-visual department that I suspect I’m going to need a lie down after a game of this. Bring it on.


  1. shaydeeadi says:

    Dear god, it’s wonderful!

    • Lobotomist says:

      The map is so big its ridiculous !!!

    • coldvvvave says:

      It looks just a bit bigger than Heavy Metal and Harvest Day from Bad Company 2, though.

    • TODD says:

      Coldvvvave, this map looks significantly larger than Harvest Day and Heavy Metal, and a good deal more complex. Remember also that the size of Heavy Metal, the largest map in Bad Company 2, is deceiving; because it is so narrow yet obstacle-free, there is almost always a defined front line that limits the scope of the fight to about a third of the map. On the other hand, Caspian Border looks like it could theoretically support half a dozen distinct, involved fights occurring at the same time that would have a meaningful impact on the broader outcome of the game.

    • Saldek says:

      Dear god, it’s wonderful!

      You took the words right out of my mind!

  2. DarkNoghri says:

    Man, I need to get a job so I can upgrade my computer for this.

    • Ultra Superior says:

      And then you need to quit the job so you have time to play this.

    • PatrickSwayze says:

      If you can run Bad Company 2 you will be fine. Alpha ran like a doozy

    • Joshua says:

      @ Patrick

      So it runs better then BC2?

      THATS AWESOME! I’d give you a hug, but I can’t afford the plane ticket.

  3. Brise Bonbons says:

    This is the first bit of news/video/whatever to actually pique my interest for BF3. It does so to a degree, but mostly just leaves me longing for a decent combined arms simulator.

    I will watch more carefully now, however – it’s an impressive showing. In fact, perhaps I’ll watch it again…

    EDIT: DarkNoghri makes an important point; my computer will not do this game justice, and I don’t have the money to upgrade it right now. Ah well…

  4. Jockie says:

    The trailer almost made do a fist-pump. As a generally cynical and not particularly excitable person that’s quite the thing.

    I’ve already been scouring the shops for PC upgrades because I want to experience the game in its full glory.

    • Commisar says:

      sorry, but its going to be a consoltarded piece of crap and it requires Origin, don’t you even read RPS? I suggest pirating it to show EA/DICE to NEVER develop PC games again /sarcasm (it actually looks great, just repeating some older opinions of RPS)

    • Bedeage says:

      @Commissar. Lolwut? Get a life and lose that sense of entitlement.

    • Barnaby says:

      I’d form the exact same question to you Commisar. The whole “pirate it to show them their mistakes” attitude is generally frowned upon from what I’ve seen on RPS. If you don’t want to support the game don’t buy it, don’t pirate it, and send the company an e-mail or post on the forums telling them so.

    • valient says:

      I woke up this morning just to watch for this trailer, after work today i went to store and bough me a brand new i5 2500k(up from Q9550), 8g ddr3 1600 ram(up from my ddr2-800) and a new mobo for all this, already have an 5870 that should still perform well.

      Thats how awesome this trailer was to me.

    • BurningPet says:

      I blocked commisar a few days/weeks ago, did i miss some interesting drama?

    • rayne117 says:

      “sorry, but its going to be a consoltarded piece of crap and it requires Origin, don’t you even read RPS? I suggest pirating it to show EA/DICE to NEVER develop PC games again /sarcasm (it actually looks great, just repeating some older opinions of RPS)”

      Nope, Bedeage and Barnaby just doesn’t know how to read past the first sentence.

      Lose that sense of ignorance, you two.

    • Ergates_Antius says:

      For goodness sake, he even put a “/sarcasm” in there! It couldn’t have been made clearer.

  5. Davee says:

    Saw it earlier from a comments link, but blimey. That actually looks quite good. Sure got some of my interest back towards BF3.

  6. TimA says:

    Oh god I need a new computer, don’t I?

  7. Turin Turambar says:

    Slooow RPS. This is sooo from four hours ago.

  8. Inigo says:

    [Obligatory Origin Comment]

  9. MrArarat says:

    This, along with X-Com are going to be my “must buy” this year…

  10. simonh says:

    1:34 is the best, what is that?

    • KenTWOu says:

      One guy from youtube says it is Wall-E.

    • Tei says:

      Looks like one of these robots to disable explosives.
      link to

    • jt29 says:

      It’s a bomb disposal robot, I think, though one that can go 10x faster than any real one that I’ve ever seen footage of. I’m already seeing 64-player robot motorsport emerging on some obscure server.

    • IDtenT says:

      @jt29 That reminds me of the Moonbase Alpha races. :D

    • PleasingFungus says:

      *squeak squeak squeak*



    • Saldek says:

      One guy from youtube says it is Wall-E.

      “Wall-E” as in “Wall-Encounterer”? (Definitely not “Wall-Evader”)

      And will it have a slick interface like ArmA? Will you hear anybody saying “Wall-E! .. engage …. Wall at .. 9! … o’clock.”?

  11. Dana says:

    Finally its a Battlefield 3 not Bad Company 3.

    • TormDK says:

      Alpha testers says it’s closer to being BC3 than BF3 though :) Your milage may vary.

    • El_MUERkO says:

      I played the Alpha and I think that opinion is largely down to the map and mode we were playing, it’s Rush mode in a small urban environment, with one vehicle in the first section. So of course it’s going to look and feel like a Bad Company game, the game that Rush was introduced to.

      I’d expect the Beta or Demo to be a Conquest map with planes to show the more BF2 aspects of the game.

    • skurmedel says:

      A question, have they nerfed the rocket spam? It can be quite annoying on some BC2 maps, especially that snow map with all the houses.

    • El_MUERkO says:

      We only had access to the basic rockets, an RPG and a MAWS I think, and they seemed to have low splash damage against troops and didn’t seem spammed.

      I’ll saw this though, as the Alpha went on I saw less and less of the final section of the map, I worry that as people learn the maps and unlock better kit the advantage will be firmly with the defenders in Rush maps.

      It’ll be interesting to see what DICE will do to balance the game as that happens.

  12. westyfield says:

    I posted this in the previous BF3 comments thread, but it was a bit late: Karl Troedsson confirmed that there will be a commo rose in the PC version of BF3. I know a lot of Battlefield fans will be glad to hear that.

  13. mrfredman says:

    This looks awesome, but remember that everything EA has showed so far for BF3 is running on a high-end DX11 PC that is yet to really be available on the market.

    The DX9 version of this game will not look quite as good.

    • KenTWOu says:

      There is no DX9 version of this game. Battlefield 3 is DX10/11 only.

    • Stochastic says:

      DX11 graphics cards have been available for quite some time now. I suspect that a modern PC with 8GB DDR3 RAM, quadcore Sandybridge CPU, and GTX 560 Ti or Radeon 6950 or better could run this game quite competently.

    • Vandelay says:

      Possibly, but I’ve yet to play a game on my i5 Sandy Bridge, with 4GB of pretty fast DDR3 RAM and a 2GB 6950 with tessellation and other DX11 features enabled that has been really playable (although that is only two games I’ve tried – Metro 2033 and Crysis 2.) I hope this will be different, but I haven’t got my hopes too high just yet.

    • evilbobthebob says:

      I suspect Frostbite 2 will be very well optimised. It is going onto current gen consoles after all.

    • kael13 says:

      @Stochastic It pretty much all depends on your GPU these days. Beyond a core i7, you’re not really using the CPU enough to warrant extra power and most people have more than enough RAM. A solid card and good drivers will make all the difference.

    • Stochastic says:

      For the most part that’s true, but CPU’s are still important. If you plan on running a game like BF3 at max settings at 1080p resolutions or greater, there will undoubtedly be moments when you will be bottlenecked by your CPU. It’s not really necessary to overclock a Sandybridge CPU to 4.5GHz+ if you want good performance, but if you’re running a 3.0 GHz Core 2 Duo or slower you’ll probably be limited by that. Let’s just be thankful that modern day PC components are so cheap and powerful!

    • El_MUERkO says:

      I have a q9550, 8gigs of DDR2 and (most importantly) a Radeon 6970.

      I was playing the Alpha on it’s maximum available setting at a resolution of 2560×1600 and getting good FPS. I dropped it down to 1920×1080 to record video and it was smooth as butter even with FRAPS running.

      BF3’s engine is built from the ground up to support multiple CPU cores, it’s 64bit and loves all your RAM. From a ‘Looks Vs. FPS’ point of view the Alpha version is already spanking many other recent games.

      If you’ve got a half decent rig now the game is going to run well with some tweaking, if you upgrade to a 2010/2011 GFX card then you’ll be laughing.

    • El_MUERkO says:

      Here’s the three gameplay videos I made:

      Unfortunately I was still messing with FRAPs, went away for the weekend and the Alpha ended, so they’re not the most exciting :(

    • nrvsNRG says:

      you have 8GB DDR2,you say it loves RAM,I have 4GB DDR3(nothing special), with high end cpu+gpu,are you reccomending I need more?

    • El_MUERkO says:

      I couldn’t tell you how much of a performance boost it’ll give you, but I can say it runs like a dream on my system so if yours is any way close to mine you should be fine.

    • nrvsNRG says:

      thx man,i’m sorted :)
      (i have no trouble at ALL with bfbc:2 or any other games, but the reason i ask is because of the bigger maps and i was thinking to double my ram)

    • DigitalSignalX says:

      Awesome vids, thanks for those.

    • Tuco says:

      Actually everything they showed us so far was running on a single GTX 580, so you are full of crap.

  14. Theory says:

    Going to echo the people above me: I’m now interested again.

    Get the HD download here, it’s worth it!

  15. slick_101 says:

    I am so Pumped for this game. I don’t care that I have to run origin on my comp to play this. Heck. I’d even sell my first born to the devil to my mits on this!…

    On another note. Have they released the specs for this yet?

  16. JonClaw says:

    The hit reg looks much better this time around.

    • db1331 says:

      The hit reg in the alpha was lightyears ahead of BC2. There was only one instance where I felt I was cheated, when I shot someone in the chest with a shotgun from 10 feet out and didn’t get a hit, then promptly got killed. That could have been lag though. It was nothing like BC2 where you could shoot someone in the head, hear the headshot sound, see blood fly out, yet not get a hit.

    • shaydeeadi says:

      That is great news! I persevere with the pumps on BC2 and it makes me want to punch old ladies, so improved hitreg on the shotties is :)

    • gwathdring says:

      BF2 is pretty bad about that. And then sometimes they’ll survive long enough to kill you, ragdoll-spasm and register the hit after you’ve already been screwed. A couple of times I’ve seen someone die without their death registering. BF2 had some really weird netcode issues.

  17. dontnormally says:


  18. db1331 says:

    I hope the beta is this map and not Metro/Rush like the alpha. Also, Activision and Infinity Ward should be fucking EMBARRASSED to show anything about MW3 from now on, if not so already.

    • Kenny007 says:

      Agree wholeheartedly, but they’re probably too busy making room in their vault for the boatloads of cash that people are going to throw at COD4.5.5.

      It’s unfortunate really.

    • xGryfter says:

      I’m pretty sure the guys at Sledgehammer Games are taking some serious notes on this for their CoD project and if any one can breath new life into the franchise it’s them.

  19. TheGameSquid says:

    This trailer has my hatred for multiplayer gaming fighting against my love for shooting vehicles.

  20. Arca says:

    Jets! They look even better than before!

    *fap fap fap fap fap*

    • Tams80 says:

      At least use a cover.

      *hands over blanket while looking in the opposite direction*

  21. Ogun says:

    Fuck me sideways. I’m tempted to pre-order this again.

  22. says:

    Speaking of taking it to Activision…

    link to

  23. endintears says:

    Holy shit is right!

  24. skyturnedred says:

    Looks cool. Except I couldn’t care less about the vehicles and stuff, I’m an infantryman! All I did in BF2 was play Karkand or some other infantry only maps.

    • Fumarole says:

      I’m with you. Being bombed for the tenth time in a row because the asshats on your team who reached the jets first promptly flew them into hillsides is no fun.

    • Vandelay says:

      This is pretty much my experience of BF2 as well, which is why I never been that fussed on other BF titles. It was just no fun when you were on foot. I was either sniped or bombed. Strangely, it was not something I felt with BF1942, where infantry didn’t feel quite so hopeless, although I didn’t take that one online quite so much.

      Still, it has been quite sometime since I played BF2 and I’m much more versed in the world of multiplayer shooters now, so I’m willing to give this one ago.

    • noilly says:

      ground-based AA needs to be worth a damn

    • Knufinke says:

      God, I hated the jets in BF2. If you had some skills flying those things you were invicible. Battle was over. And on the ground you could just stare at the sky and hope for the best. It was so ridiculous.

    • gwathdring says:

      Yes, think the biggest issue in BF2 was how damn near impossible it was to take down a jet or helicopter with AA. I remember hitting helicopters pretty solidly with a tank blast or a carefully guided anti-tank missile, or two solid hits with an AA turret and coming up empty handed. Sure, it makes sense AT and tank blasts aren’t going to down a helicopter in one shot just based on how much damage they do to other vehicles in the game … but it was so hard to get a hit against air vehicles with anything, dedicated AA included that finally scoring a shot and out-maneuvering the flares felt like it should have been more important. The effect wasn’t in the slightest proportionate to the skill required.
      If one team wins the air-supremacy battle whether or not you win the control points and the match, it stops being fun to play infantry. Which is a shame, because so few people can take part in the air-supremacy battle.

      When I first started playing, it felt pretty well balanced. The trouble is, people got really really good at using the air vehicles and got good at remembering exactly where all the AA turrets were and the game wasn’t re-balanced to account for how effective the community learned how to be in the air. It took a while after release for infantry to feel really vulnerable. I think the people who really got hosed were the armor users, though. Armor was loads of fun in BF2, and so was trying to take it on with C4, mines and anti-tank missiles. You had to worry about artillery, jets, and helicopters, but generally if you were good or were used to the much-harder-to-aim 1942 tanks, you could at least make a helicopter pilot pretty nervous about closing for the missile strike. Once the jet fighters started getting really good, though, there are servers where you might as well not even hop inside the tanks.

  25. Axyl says:

    My Sweet Dick, It’s Magic! <3

  26. ShadowHunter says:

    It’s all looking very nice, but all the unlocks and power growth in Bad Company 2 (not to mention the claims that you’ll be able to “unlock for years” in this one) leave me completely uninterested. I suppose I’m a bit of a dinosaur in this regard, but I have a deep and abiding hatred for games that design themselves around extrinsic rewards, basically becoming Skinner Boxes, especially when that results in intentional and accepted differences in power levels for different players. I miss the days when it was all about the fight.

    Anyway, Frostbite continues to impress at least. I’m anxious to see what they do with it going forward.

    • gwathdring says:

      I don’t like the unlocks either. Even in BF2 it was quite distressing. At first, I didn’t mind becasue I unlocked new levels pretty quickly and got all the unlocks for my favorite classes. But by the time I started branching out to the other classes … it would have taken an amount of play time that felt a hell of a lot more like work to be able to unlock the weapons for those classes. And some weapons really left you outmatched against opponents of the same class type. TF2 was really refreshing to me because at least for the first half of it’s run, most of the new weapons had noticeable, exploitable downsides rather than being strict upgrades. That felt so nice after years of playing BF2 too casually to really stand a chance of getting the top tier weapons.

    • Baka says:

      I understand where you’re coming from, but Bad Company 2 didn’t have this problem at all. Unlocking ammo and medkits was a bit questionable, but those were unlocked in a few dozen minutes and all weapons (besides maybe the AT 4) were sidegrades.

    • ShadowHunter says:

      It’s not really an issue of “I don’t have those weapons” or “it takes a long time to get those weapons,” it’s the fact that there is an intentionally non-level playing field. I can handle balance issues that are being ironed out, and understand that balance that is even the least little bit asymetric is pretty much always going to be a work in progress, but when a system is intentionally set up so that some individuals are simply granted more power at no cost in other areas (as you mentioned, I think the way TF2 handled it’s early additional weapons is a good example of how to do it right) I find it difficult to take any satisfaction away from a fight.

    • ShadowHunter says:


      I don’t know a great deal about the weapons themselves, and it’s even possible that they may have been balanced, or at least were intended to be. But then there were the Specialisations that made you resistant to damage or made your weapons more accurate or other things of that nature. For me, that constitutes a major problem.

    • Mad Hamish says:

      DICE have said that they don’t have upgrades that will increase your damage. So no magnum rounds. I’ve been playing APB reloaded recently and the upgrades are done pretty good in that. Each upgrade has as big a disadvantage as is it has an advantage. So it effectively becomes specialisation rather than upgrading.

  27. Lambchops says:

    Could we have a fully fleshed out single player game with the jet stuff? Pretty please with a cherry on top.

  28. arigram says:

    Looks like BF3 will be a tasty appetizer to prepare one for the main course of Arma 3

  29. oceanclub says:

    Dear Call of Duty:

    Eat My Shorts.

    Yours Sincerely,

    Battlefield 3

  30. Jahandar says:

    Is it just me or do those jets seem slower? (which may actually be a good thing. I liked aircraft in BF1942 better than BF2)

    • gwathdring says:

      They seem a lot slower to me. If it’s not just an illusion, this means they’ll probably be more vulnerable to AA and one another, and easier for new players to take a spin with. Both very very very good things.

    • LionsPhil says:

      They seem really, really slow.

      But then if they flew at a realistic speed they’d probably cross the entire map in a split-second, and engagements would all be at ranges where the enemy are less than a spec of pixels.

    • Commisar says:

      no, from what the devs have said, jets at max speed will be faster than BF2 jets

    • CMaster says:

      They were going so slowly I’m pretty sure real jet fighters would fall out of the sky.
      Porbably a good thing in the name of gameplay though.

  31. Danny252 says:

    Dear player at 0:55: Leading your target – you’re doing it wrong.

    Also, is anyone else starting to get headaches from the RANDOM STATIC TO INDICATE CHANGE OF SCENE every 5 seconds, and a soundtrack which has similar amount of?

  32. Robin_G says:

    This all looks very exciting. I’m just bitter I have to miss out, I’m really starting to notice my set up is ageing. I can’t complain, I have gotten many solid years out of it.

  33. yhancik says:

    They sure love that glitch effect.

  34. Felixader says:

    I have to be bluntly honst here for a moment.

    I haven’t been a soldier for very long
    (just what you have to do in germany, wanted to go into deployment in foreign lands but well they were cutting mony and they didn’t have any places left back then, perhabs better that way. However)

    and it still made me feel a bit weird for a moment when that guy knifed his enemy AND then grabbed said enemys dog tag.
    Just a wee bit.

    • nrvsNRG says:

      cool…..that means it works!!

    • westyfield says:

      Yeah, I kinda understand. I mean, isn’t the point of dog tags to make identifying bodies easier? Stealing the tags from a body just seems a bit dickish to me.

    • Commisar says:

      Interesting, i thought Germany got rid of the draft recently?

  35. FakeAssName says:

    Sure that’s nice EA, but dust off those Pandemic IPs in the back corner and come back with a Star Wars Battlefront version of this and we will talk.

  36. GT3000 says:

    So I guess the bitching about using Origin is dead then? Yeah that’s what I thought.

    • zeroskill says:

      The bitching about Origin will start again once everyone realizes they have to use it in order to play this game.

    • FakeAssName says:

      Bitching about Origin will only die when Activision launches it’s own DD/content delivery/DRM site (or just starts using .battlenet for all of their PC releases).

      that or when people start actually using it and forget that it’s even installed because you don’t have to have the client running to play the game.

    • zeroskill says:

      Still wont believe a single word EA says, they also said you dont need Origin in order to play Battlefoeld 3 before. Now DICE is a different story. They are a great studio and have proven to be trust worthy. EA not so much. If DICE would just stand on their own two feet and wouldnt take orders from EA we could even get mod tools for this. How awesome would that be.

    • Lemming says:

      Nope. I have self control. I admit this looks amazing fun, but I’m not putting Origin on my PC for anything. I want that shit to die.

    • nrvsNRG says:

      sounds completely fine to me thankyouverymuch.

    • gamma says:

      @ nrvsNRG

      be a good EA’s QA unpaid employee and beta test Origin service to all of us in the fence, don’t forget to report back your frustrations if any, we all welcome in advance.

    • nrvsNRG says:

      AAAAHH!! i cant tell if you know i’m being sarcastic and really want me to do those things or dont know i’m being sarcastic and are just being mean!?
      (btw,i’m kinda on the fence too and want someone to beta test origin for me aswell)

    • gamma says:

      @ nrvsNRG

      Thumbs up for sportmanship there :) (and reading my mind)
      It is imo the only reasonable issue with Origin is given EA track record the odds are that first costumers will suffer considerably. But then waiting for their feedback goes against all thoso promos of the pre-order.

      It is NOT lightly that I will finaly give in to Origin. We’ll see, coin tossed when money ready!

    • FakeAssName says:

      the program itself works fine, I ran into a problem with clinet patches resting to the default of wiping saved game installers, but I think that got fixed (I reported it at least) and it’s always a bad idea to rely on game managers to backup installers anyway.

      other than that: it installed cleanly, starts quickly, the UI is clean and direct, patching could use some work (but that’s just in that it’s kinda hidden under the game “info” button), the store isn’t obnoxious (other than that it’s set to be the default tab, changeable, but that still pissed me off as I don’t think it should ever be a default).

      the tech support people were generally helpful and there seemed to be always someone available on live chat (I had a problem at 3am PST), their account system database is all kinds of fucked up because EA has got a shit ton of various divisions that all have their own user database, but that isn’t something unfixable and doesn’t really relate to the Origin client.

      so the client itself is just fine, however the current game support for Origin is a punched drunk. the newer titles should work just fine because they are being directly developed to work with it, but older titles that were designed to call into a older EA service are kinda sucking ass ATM because they haven’t been properly retrofitted … yet …. hopefully, at least I’d like to be able to play 2142 at some point (TBH I haven’t checked on it in a while).

      the Origin as a form of DRM is kinda separate from the client, the client is really only a game manager/downloader/store and you don’t need the client running or even installed because each title that uses “Origin” calls in to the DRM server on it’s own (as in: the game calls in, not the client … even if you launch from the client). it’s kinda pointless to uninstall though as you need it for patches, so if you did uninstall you would need to re-install for the patch and then uninstall again … better to just mothball it to use only when you need it.

      I’ve said it before but it’s allot like using as that “Comrade” game manager from Gamespy.

      outside of the few minor issues I listed, Origin’s only real problem is the bleeding hearts of steam addicts. but ya know, since the games don’t require the client to be running; it really shouldn’t be that hard to add an origin game to steam as a “non-steam” program … so you (theoretically) can still run this stuff with your beloved client, you just wont have the achevos.

    • Commisar says:

      yep, my thoughts exactly

    • gamma says:

      @ FakeAssName

      I’m assuming that was experience along with the Alpha, though this might be irrelevant according to the game client’s apparent independence from the Origin service (I might not trust EA too much but I do trust DICE)…

      Anyway thanks for input, I’ll keep collecting and roaming the forums.

    • FakeAssName says:

      This was back in June just a a little after it launched (I haven’t played with it much since then as I don’t have many EA titles that are on it ATM, I meant to get Alice but my “shit that costs more than $10” fund ran out) but it did have a “beta” tag on it that I’m not seeing anymore.

      seems like a good time to test to see if Dice found some free time from BF3 to scratch it’s ass and get one of it’s older titles up to speed.

    • enobayram says:

      I’ve spent hours on the train today, not playing Terraria, because Steam told me that it’s trying to update, but can’t reach its servers (there was no Internet). I hope they succeed in producing real competition to Steam…

  37. Dobleclick says:

    I feel the urge to repeat your words: HO – LY SHIT!!!

    • Lambchops says:


      Oh wait , , , wrong series . . . carry on!

  38. Tei says:

    My only problem with this, is that this map looks bad. Seems a big flat surface. Wtf?. No hills, no mountains, I don’t see any strategy than straight to the enemy lines.

  39. Jake says:

    [Obligatory reply fail]

    • Sleepymatt says:

      Hehehe… made my night with that one, winner of the thread right there!

    • gwathdring says:

      Well played, sir. Well played. Took me a moment.

    • Lambchops says:


      Knew there was a reason to read to the end of the comments.

      @ SleepyMatt

      See you’ve got the obligatory decleration of victory well covered. Good work sir!

  40. Nalano says:

    PC multiplayer is BACK!

  41. RakeShark says:

    Being a former 11H that got caught somewhere between 11B and 11M during the MOS reshuffle, I will say the *clunk* of the Hummer-Jeep thing window at about :42 in the video set a goddamned shiver down my spine, towards both the “OMG I remember that sound” and the “FUCK I remember that sound”.

    DICE have really nailed the sound design on this. I don’t know how much of this I could play.

    • Vorrin says:

      Yeh, I agree, and think that many share our opinion, bad company 2 was the only game whose sound effects (music aside) I heard being praised around in the last few years (and this seems to be an evolution of that).

  42. TooNu says:

    It looks like a nice game.

  43. PearlChoco says:

    I don’t see how this game differs from BFBC2, except for the gfx.
    Why all the hype?

    • celozzip says:

      the maps are bigger like in bf2, i guess thats about it…

    • Spider Jerusalem says:

      Might have to do with the big flying metal bits.

      And the 64 player servers.

    • Tei says:

      BF games have a variety of tanks, copters, jets and weapons, big maps with lots of players. Strategic combat. A lot of tank vs tank vs jets action. Is a lot more going on. BC2 is more so infantry can have fun with riffles and all. Different game, different mindset.

    • LionsPhil says:

      Because the gamer is a predictably shallow creature, and this has graphics that use a lot of bungholiomarks to render and will help them sleep at night telling themselves that spending all that money on nVidia trouser-padding was worthwhile.

      I liked games better when you could see what was going on, rather than a screenful of glare, bloom, blur, blood, and particle clouds.

    • Vorrin says:

      Cause it’s supposed to be bad company 2 minus the consolization (ie. grossly simplified game, all in all)

  44. Isometric says:

    I smiled when I saw all those vehicles. So wonderful.

  45. Text_Fish says:

    Puh. Quake 2 did 64 player better than that. :P

  46. LionsPhil says:

    Arghl jesus stop trying to give me seizures with the flashing and raping my ears with the buzzing and ow.

    (Nitpick: don’t those jets fly straight through the cables supporting that huge tower?)

  47. Kevin says:

    Oh man, that’s no Marine F/A-18D, that’s a Navy Superhornet. What I wouldn’t give for there to be three-wire carrier traps in this game to weed out the Top Gun wannabes from the guys who put in hours into Falcon 4.0 and the Jane’s games.

  48. matrices says:

    Tri-SLI GTX 580 rig ready for action. (More like ready to be rendered obsolete by Kepler in Q4 anyway, but I digress.)

    Shit, look at all that action onscreen. This game was made to be played on 120hz screens.

    And the jets move slowly – thank God. Seems like the easiest fix to the BF2 farce where I racked up 9:1 KDR just flying around Oman.

  49. Bilbo says:

    if I didn’t know how battlefield games play I’d find this very exciting, but it’s the same arcadey guff we’ve been playing for years. it doesn’t matter that it all looks so nice in concert because it will

    • matrices says:

      Why.wouldn’…? (Also, why do you type like that?)

      I mean, BC2 looks 80% as good as what you see in this trailer already.

    • Bilbo says:

      Because people don’t play battlefield like that. I thought i made it fairly obvious. Bad Company 2 doesn’t look like this either.

    • GenBanks says:

      Maybe it doesn’t look like that all the time, but I’ve had pretty epic moments in all of the Battlefield games.