Battlefield 3 Close Quarters Video Blows. Up. Everything.

I hope those glasses are destrictible
When buildings are collapsing and jets are being all “newwwwwwwrhghghghggh”, it’s easy to forget that the Battlefield 3 engine does small things as well. Subtle explosions. Personal blowey-uppies. I’d imagine that’s the reason for DICE making the Close Quarters map pack: to show off their microexplosion technology. They spent hours crafting those mini-bangs, so maps that showcase them are needed: the Close Quarters maps are a series of four infantry focused maps set in, with added destructible bits. It makes me way happier than the ten new guns it adds as all I care about is the chandeliers.

This video shows off Ziba Tower’s smashy bits, a Skybar where death is aiming at you from all angles. DICE are calling all the debris “HD Destruction”, so what better way to see it than in a tiny box in the middle of this article.

It’s out in June.

Via VG247


  1. TwwIX says:

    Yeah, that’s just what we wanted. More clusterfuck maps. Yipee! Thanks for ruining one of my favorite franchises, EA! This is what they delayed the commo rose patch for? Bunch of assholes.

    • President Weasel says:

      I don’t want to be that guy, but surely you can happily play all day on “24/7 Jet Combat Big Maps!!!” and similar servers for all the wide open vistas and being killed by snipers you can’t even see that anyone could possibly want.

    • PoulWrist says:

      I really hoped I was faster in my post , but I got too longwinded and one of you chumps managed to get in first :| But let your hating go on! Everything is ruined in your life and nothing old can ever be good again. Blablabla, go suck a main menu.

      • dsi1 says:

        I wish I had a main menu to suck :(

        (Actually I avoided BF3 but you opened yourself up for that and I had to take the shot)

    • ulix says:

      I know Battlefield isn’t really known for close quarter maps, but these are the maps I liked most in BF3:
      Grand Bazar, Seine Crossing & Teheran Highway. Operation Metro not so much, but only because its badly balanced.

      • Brun says:

        I wouldn’t even call Seine and Tehran (or even Grand Bazaar) CQB maps. They’re really more like medium range maps, with a few bottlenecks that facilitate CQB.

      • sneetch says:

        Yeah, there are too many chokepoints on the way into B (or C in large) it’s too easy lock down the losing side. I enjoy it when the teams are “balanced” enough that that doesn’t happen.

      • jonfitt says:

        Seine and Grand Bazaar are great maps. Tehran seems to lack focus with people capping all over the place with no real battle lines, but it’s good enough.
        They are close-med range maps though, and I think that’s where BF3 shines. The larger maps just become dominated by the hierarchy of vehicles.

        • DrGonzo says:

          Grand Bazaar is ok, but Seine is as bad as Metro in my opinion.

          • jonfitt says:

            Grand Bazaar has that central meat grinder point which in my opinion is most like Metro. Seine has many fronts which get fought over. Unless someone gets fought back to their spawn it’s rarely anything like Metro.

          • mrosenki says:

            True with the meat grinder, but at least its approachable from several directions making flanking possible. Something I still find difficult in Metro.

          • battles_atlas says:

            The Back to Karkland map pack really shows up the urban maps in BF3. Metro is awful, and Bazaar and Seine both have serious flaws. None come close to Karkland.

          • Cerebulon says:

            I don’t really consider Grand Bazaar to be all that much of a chokepoint map. People somehow manage to cram themselves into that central market corridor when there’s plenty of open map around the block. I’ve had one of my best matches, both in terms of points and fun had, driving an IFV around the streets with a good crewman to repair and cover my back while slowly advancing around the block capturing every point repeatedly, clearing mines and taking out countless brave engineers.
            Yet most people hung around in that central corridor.
            There are FOUR other control points.

    • sephiroth says:

      TBH if you own a console and want this type of stuff you own COD if you own a PC and want this you own CS and if you dont like this you own a BF game, EA fail

      almost looks kinda fun from the trailer unfortunatly the way the game actualy plays means it wont be. USAS frag round and rpg spam map anyone?

      tbh If they make the snippers more realistic (1 hit kills at close range) I could get in to this but it will just be cluster frak and woefull imho.

      maybe by the time the next map pack comes out they will do it right and not cater to the cod crowd maybe

      • Lamb Chop says:

        Ironically, the one thing that COD actually does pretty well, at least for MW2 which is the last one I played, is map design. Battlefield 3’s map design is atrocious. Granted, it’s a lot easier to balance a map around 6v6 than it is 24v24, but battlefield either offers wide open maps where infantry combat is absurd and travel times far too long or they go close quarters and suffer from horrible bottle-necking. They then try to ‘solve’ the bottle-necking by giving out a lot of explosive weapons, so you can blow people out, but there’s no finesse. You should never look at a position a person has taken and have to say, “there is literally no way for me to flank this.” I think a lot of it is down to the fact that they’ve made levels that function both as rush and conquest maps. Rush is ideally linear but a linear conquest is awful.

        • SexualHarassmentPanda says:

          I wouldn’t exactly say MW2 had good map design. There were 2-3 decent maps, but a majority of them were designed quite poorly with abusable terrain and poor spawn locations.

        • sephiroth says:

          24 vs 24 is an odd size its the 32 v 32 for the big maps and then they are ok for not getting to much open space for infanty but a complete mess on the tight closed maps.

          I think someone on the DEV team likes to stand at one end of some stairs or corridor and spam explosives at someone on the other side and thinks its the best gameplay EVA!! they are wrong its crap.
          Didn’t stop them making half the maps to that exact design and now we get a nice shiny dlc of even more of it.

          Im not the most veteran of BF players but I I joined the series for what very few other shooters offer BIG maps and teamplay *without it being arma which is a little to realistic for my tastes. they seem to be going away from this design just cause a different game sells insanely well. shame

    • abigbat says:

      Congratulations on being that guy TwwIX. Don’t buy it, the end.

      I personally am looking forward to it – there aren’t enough infantry focused maps, and more variety is always a good thing.

      You can wait for the next expansion, assuming you aren’t still off needlessly fuming in a corner somewhere.

    • Eukatheude says:

      How does this new map stop you from enjoying the ones you like the most, exactly?

    • GenBanks says:

      The autumn expansion pack is called Armoured Kill, which presumably means that it will feature big open world maps. Not everyone has the same tastes as you. There are plenty of infantry only deathmatch servers which remain full most of the time.

      Your post basically amounts to “Why didn’t you give me the expansion pack with the stuff that >I< want in it FIRST!!! I HATE YOU!!!"

    • b0bl00i says:

      Yeah, what the hell are they thinking. Let’s take one of the best team shooters ever created..dumb it down and name it BF3..then let’s launch it with xbox maps so everyone hate it even more.
      Cannot believe how stupid EA and Dice are. They had my last cent.

    • yobobjm says:

      This doesn’t even feel like battlefield anymore, just a COD competitor. sigh

    • Alfius says:

      Thing is, BF3 did its level best to attract a fair slice of the COD audience. My beef is that it succeeded and now servers are full of whinge-ing children and sometimes even the server itself will kick you for using a ‘banned weapon’. Honestly I’m surprised EA allows weapon or any other sort of bans on ranked servers, it really does bugger up the game dynamic and all because of the sheer arrogance of some sever admins who think they know how the game should be played.

  2. Brun says:

    Hopefully they make up for this with the “tank combat map” and the “special surprise” map.

    • PoulWrist says:

      “make up for it” how so, make up for what, exactly? Catering to what others than yourself might like? How terrible they are. Maybe they’re making up for all those huge maps with all that empty space where nothing happens and the close quarters combat is what makes them fun?

      • Brun says:

        I’m sorry, but it sounds like you just had a few bad experiences on the big maps. Your opinion is at LEAST as biased as my own if not more so.

        That said, if I wanted CQB I would play Call of Duty. But large-scale warfare is much more entertaining.

        • PoulWrist says:

          No, I’ve had tons of experiences, I just don’t see all that land being used for anything, ever. Everyone rushes towards capture points in some way or other, and most of the land is brakish, just something tanks and planes and helicopters can fly around in and fight with. It all goes down as CQB with sniper support around the chokepoints.

          • Doesn'tmeananything says:

            Yeah, exactly. Large-scale warfare in BF3 is basically all close-quarters, where flying vehicles usually compete with each other and land armour just helps pushing the objective with heavy infantry support.

          • Jools says:

            That’s because BF3’s big stock maps are terribly designed, something that’s painfully obvious when you put them alongside the Back to Karkand maps. Every single map has the same general design: huge, pointless open spaces between the main spawns and a bunch of cap points clustered around next to each other in the center. It’s absurd and serves absolutely no purpose except to give planes a big enough area to circle through.

            It’s really weird to compare Gulf of Oman, where you generally have constant fighting in the open spaces between points, to something like Caspian Border, where literally nothing happens outside of a few tight, clustered cap points. I have absolutely no idea what DICE was thinking.

        • Doesn'tmeananything says:

          The thing is, though, BF3 gunplay dynamics and map design are very much different from that of CoD, plus the teamwork is actually encouraged and rewarded. All that makes for quite a different, if many times better, experience.

        • Sweedums says:

          I personally prefer the larger maps too, they give you so much more freedom to play how you want, and yes, that does include camping with a sniper, but really, camping snipers are the easiest snipers to deal with. the problem with CQB in a game like this, is that it will increase the effectiveness of explosives vs infantry ten-fold, and people who use RPG’s on infantry are already a real annoyance on the normal maps.

          As for the “empty space where nothing happens”…. it simply caters to a mixture of playstyles instead of always on, close up carnage. it allows people with tanks and APC’s and stuff to fight from a distance, where they are strongest. it also just means there are more ways to bypass chokeholds if your team sucks and you get trapped in the spawn or whatever. in small maps like metro it just silly if you get held in your spawn and theres nothing you can do

  3. AtomicB says:

    CQB is by far the worst part of BF3. If all the maps were like the majority of metro, I’d never play the game again.

    • PoulWrist says:

      Except CQB is the best part of BF3, where all the running about in huge open terrain playing “spot the pixel” and trying not to get killed by a thousand recons playing the bushugging way. No, it’s all about running to a capture point and fighting around that. All that takes place outside that is just a kind of downtime.

      • SexualHarassmentPanda says:

        Battlefield has never been about CQB. The only reason they are adding it is to cater to COD fanboys.

    • Brun says:

      To be fair, Metro is actually decent as an Assault map. The problem is, everyone plays it on Conquest, for which it is woefully ill-suited. It’s also included on the default map rotation for the Conquest gametype, so it is included on almost every 24/7 Conquest server that has a lazy admin.

      For the most part I agree though, Battlefield has always been more fun on big, open maps.

    • Doesn'tmeananything says:

      The key to Metro Conquest when playing USA is to have a buddy with whom you can communicate and rush the back stairs on B that lead to ticket office and the area behind the flag. It’s the least guarded point and controlling it easily disrupts the defence of the other team.

      Oh, and never play that map with 64 people.

  4. PoulWrist says:

    Looks fun :) Great to have the game expand to be more versatile and fit to diverse tastes in gameplay style. And looking forward to seeing how they manage to make destruction work better on interiors.

    Now let’s listen to a bunch of haters on how Battlelog is the worst thing ever (which it isn’t) and how there should be a “Main Menu” (which there’s no need for) and how Origin is the reason they don’t get BF3, and a bunch of other things, how BF3 should only be about tanks and jets and not about shooting guys with guns. Yea, haters, why don’t you just shut up and play a different game? It’s not like I’m a total fanboy of BF3 at all, I just think it’s an amusing game to play a few games of here and there.

    And it’s 50% off today at if you didn’t see it and were wondering.

    • Tokamak says:

      Is this supposed to be satire?

      • PoulWrist says:

        Satire on all the ridiculous hating you always see on threads about BF3. How it ruined the franchise, how it’s the worst game ever, how origin is the worst garbage ever, how it really needs a main menu to be a good game, how battlelog is horrible. All this stupid ass whining that comes across as so pathetic that it’s not even funny. Such a demanding bunch of assholes that cry for NOTHING. What they want already exists and they don’t want anything different and if something is different then it’s the worst thing ever.

        Maybe EA should just have DICE make a new game for every different BF map, that would probably put these people more at ease. Then they could “not buy” the one with close quarters fighting, and it could be called “BF CQB” and there could be a “BF Tank battles” and a “BF jet battles”, but never anything th at has it all.

        And that’s what I don’t get. All this crying over how one game mode or one map or whatever ruins it for all those who want to play the other game mode… fucking idiots.

        • Brun says:

          First off, I completely agree with you about the morons that whine about Origin and Battlelog. Origin is the same thing as Steam. I think the way that EA pulled all their titles from Steam to sell on Origin was a bit underhanded but rational business decisions, etc. etc. If EA wants to sell their games through a shitty Steam knock-off then they’re more than welcome to, it makes no difference to me.

          As for Battlelog, it’s functionally equivalent to a server browser within the game. To me that means there’s no difference between it and having a “main menu” as you call it. The social networking “features” are just gravy that I will never use or care to use. So the complaints about that are equally moronic.

          What we’ve been discussing here is the actual game – you know, the gameplay part. Not stupid frivolous crap like Origin and Battlelog.

          As for why I’m wary about this emphasis on CQB – I’ve watched too many games and franchises destroy themselves by trying to be all things to all people. It’s an easy trap to fall into especially when your franchise becomes a multi-million dollar behemoth. Battlefield’s specialty was always medium to large scale maps with vehicles. Now they’re trying to appeal to the CoD crowd by including more CoD-like maps and infantry combat.

          So while I’m not fundamentally opposed to “gametypes and maps that appeal to people besides myself,” the inclusion of highly CQB focused maps in Battlefield – a franchise which has for so long been about large-scale warfare – is indicative of a worrying trend.

          • PoulWrist says:

            A worrying trend when the next map pack is supposed to contain “the biggest battlefield map ever” and be all about tank warfare? Something that I personally think will be quite dull, because it means everyone will run around as engineers and try to fix tanks.

            No, I think that BF3 handles the CQB quite well, and I think with the many tweaks the upcoming patch will bring that the game can only grow better.

            And I still would like to see an example of that ingame serverbrowser that is as versatile to develop updates for and is as comprehensive as battlelog. Because I must admit I can’t remember ever seeing one…

          • shaydeeadi says:

            Since all the other maps have been for all modes, why couldn’t they of done that for these packs? Make a large map suitable for conquest. Then make one of the buildings insanely detailed and use it for the TDM mode, maybe even use it as a final base for rush mode? Thats gonna save resources.
            EDIT: Turns out it’s for all game modes but limited to 16 player, great?

            The team making this game is supposedly ‘4x the size of BF2’ so why not give something for everybody at once, then do that 3 times over? Why segregate players and produce divisive content?
            EDIT: Still divisive, since it will all have to run on it’s own servers.

    • His Dudeness says:

      Is it spot-the-drama-queen day today?! How can it be ‘hating’ if all I’m doing is putting my money where my mouth is. Since I don’t like how EA treats their customers (perma-bans for forum posts, EULA) and how they are trying to force Origin on customers, ergo I don’t buy any of their games. To me it is only consequent to spend my money on more deserving publishers and/or developers. Looking at EA’s sales figures it’s no loss to them and equally it isn’t to me either since I get my entertainment elsewhere without having to worry about EA’s next ploy trying to rape their customers. Simple really.

    • iteyoidar says:

      Shill spotted!

    • SelfEsteemFund says:

      Nice try, EA.

  5. Caddrel says:

    Interesting use of punctuation in the title.

  6. PodX140 says:

    I haven’t played BF3, but I will say that this looks like CQB done right, at least, it’s hectic enough. Even the small maps in COD and such are very brief exchanges of gunfire, but there isn’t much that actually happens from it apart from one guy dropping to the floor. In this, it looks like there is a very high density of environmental features that react to being shot, so it really ramps up the confusion.

    • PoulWrist says:

      Ever play Soldier of Fortune multiplayer? this looks like it.

      • Gnoupi says:

        But with throwing knives at your opponent’s throat. And shooting their feet off.

  7. Orija says:

    Whatever happened to DICE saying they would never charge players for map packs?

    • jonfitt says:

      Citation needed.

      • zind says:

        link to

        Yeah, they were talking specifically about BC2 at the time, but still, “We don’t ever want to charge for our maps and insisted to EA that this attitude was crucial when it came to keeping our community happy and playing together” sounds like a pretty committed statement.

        Sorry DICE, you are EA now. Dies irae, dies illa; etc etc.

        • jonfitt says:

          Thanks. That’s hilarious.

        • Clavus says:

          Difference was, all the free Bad Company 2 maps were rehashes of existing maps in new modes, often with a few new areas unlocked. I don’t think EA was willing to fund DICE to build free maps.

        • sophof says:

          The “playing together” part is the crucial part imo. i don’t mind them asking money, since I will simply not buy. The problem is that this fragments the community and ends up hurting the game. When the expansion is out, it will be extremely hard to find good games, I’ve seen it happen in BF2 as well for instance.

          Also, in a more general reply to most replies here, them shifting this focus to just extending a very bad part of the game means the developers are not put to work on fixing bugs and maps. It is a bit of a kick in the nuts to charge people for maps when pretty much all of the current ones are broken in a way. The game was clearly released untested for any balance. It shows contempt for the consumer imo.
          If I read the replies here it is as if Valve does not exist and has this thing down to perfection…

          Point is, I hardly play the game atm, this will not invite me back. On the contrary. It is this bitter kind of dissapointment that lies behind the ‘whining’.

    • Shooop says:

      There is no DICE, there is only EA.

    • Chaz says:

      And whatever happened to mod support and being able to create your own maps? At one point community mod support was seen as something important to provide to give your game better longevity. Now of course they don’t want you to make your own maps, they just want you to buy theirs.

  8. Sweedums says:

    I would have happily given this DLC a miss and waited for the vehicle map pack… but then i noticed in the trailer that they are adding the L86A1…. and i WANT that…. dam you dice!

    • Svant says:

      Isnt that already in? Added with Back to Karkand or something?

      • Tams80 says:

        No, that’s the L85A2, a bullpup assault rifle. The L86A1 LSW (light support weapon) has a longer barrel and has a bipod (also bloody heavy in comparison). It’s a light machine gun. You could compare it to the FN Minimi, which in real life is actually replacing it.

        I think it’s great that it’s being included. Hardly any games have it. Other people seem excited to see it too. The L86A2 would have been better, but really in game it would just be a name change.

        • Sweedums says:

          I just love the look of that series of weapons, the L85A2 was the first gun i worked to unlock in B2K, not many games have em. my favourite being the Project reality incarnation.

          Also love the L96 sniper

  9. El_MUERkO says:

    I like how the furniture can take more punishment than the walls :)

  10. jonfitt says:

    It’s hard to see what the heck is going on in that video, everything is just exploding and shattering.
    It reminds me of the love/hate relationship I have with Metro. A large BF3 map has not enough kills, a cqb map has too many.
    For me Seine Crossing is the perfect balance of close-mid range fighting.
    The main problem I have is with the explosives. They’re just way too useful, and you’d be a fool not to exploit that. There’s nothing to save explosives for, just spam away. Some servers try and ban them, but banning certain weapons and play styles on a server basis is the nadir of what’s good about community run servers.
    I would like BF3 to adjust explosive weapon quantities on cqb maps. Let’s say one RPG and a couple of grenade launcher grenades. That way they don’t become the predominant weapon.

    • Craig Pearson says:

      Ex. Plos. Ions.

      • jonfitt says:

        Explosions are all well and good when you’re the one causing them.
        Less so when you’re the one unable to move forward because the enemy team is continually spamming rockets at the corner they know you have to walk around.
        Plus: cool guy don’t look at explosions.

  11. Baka says:

    Destruction in 480p?
    Official 1080p explosion goodness I say!: link to

  12. Mordsung says:

    While I personally play BF for the more open world feel, releasing these 4 maps is a good idea and here’s why:

    They just eliminated any reason to play MW3. Now BF3 has it’s classic huge BF maps AND has CQ maps like CoD.

    I know a lot of CoD fans who dislike BF because of the map size, this will bring those people into BF and it’s an optional map pack, so those of us with no desire to play those map types can just skip it.

    Remember guys, this game has dedicated servers, so the map packs don’t carve up the community like they would in a match making system, as there’ll always be the “X Map 24/7” severs or ones that maintain rotations free of expanded maps.

    • Steppenwolf says:

      I definitely agree, I want vehicles and I want close quarters so why limit the BF3 experience? I always wanted a reason to bust out my striker! Besides, they’re coming out with two more expansions to suit everybody including the largest map they’ve ever made.

    • Shooop says:

      Yes it does carve up the community – it does it on a much more intimate level.

      Say you’re in a game clan and some people buy the map packs. The worst kind of division is this kind.

      • Mordsung says:

        Map/Content packs in BF2 or 1942 didn’t carve up clans back then, I don’t see them doing it this time. Hell, among my clan/guild, we pony up and buy games/content for those of us who may be a little poor one month.

        If you’re in a clan with people who aren’t willing to buy each other games/content, then you’re not in a very good clan.

    • Wut The Melon says:

      I agree with your statement, but not with the sentiment. Clearly an “BF3 is worstgameevarOMG…” is not needed, but I think you’re right in saying that DICE tried to widen their audience with BF3 and appeal to more gamers. That’s fine, you’d think: bigger, objective based maps and game types for the likes of me, smaller, clusterfuck maps for the twitchy shooter fans and both for the ones who can enjoy either.

      It just doesn’t work that way. I’m not going to start an entire discussion on the subject (‘dumbing down’ anyone?), but it’s a fact that they have needed to make compromises that have driven Battlefield towards the twitchy, runaround shooter stuff you can find in CoD. I’m not trying to say nobody should enjoy the game now, but I miss the objective and team based, slower, mechanics of BC2 (only other BF title I ever played). I can’t stand a twitchy FPS (I would have been a Halo fan if it weren’t published by Microsoft, in other words, if it had been on PC) and half of the time the maps and the other half of the time the twitchiness of the shooting (low time to kill) and a third half of the time lack of server balance just annoy me too much to play the game. And even then another quarter of the time Origin, Battlelog or the game itself just decides to crash (originally more).

      Now, perhaps ‘I should just buy another FPS’. But now I’d like to hear the name of a not-too competitive, objective-based, non-twitchy FPS with a relatively high time-to-kill. One that’s on PC, please. Whereas I think the things BF3 improved on and CoD has long since perfected can be found in almost any FPS.

      • Mordsung says:

        BF3’s TTK is about the same as BF2s. The only reason BFBC2 seemed to have such a high TTK was due to the horrible hit detection, which has mostly been fixed in BF3.

        Also, CoD isn’t a twitch game. I mean, if you’ve only experienced military shooters than maybe CoD is a twitch game, but go put in a few hours of Tribes, Quake or Unreal (really any version of any of those games) and CoD and BF will be like a relaxing, slow, methodical walk through the park.

        Also, put in a few dozen hours in a true twitch shooter and you’ll score top of the boards in BF3 or CoD nearly every time.

        Don’t limit yourself, play many shooter genres and you’ll become better at all shooters. Twitch skills can help in your BF/CoD/CS etc games, and the methodical strategy of slower FPS will also help you in twitch games like Tribes/Quake/Unreal.

  13. MadelineX says:

    I just want to be able to shave the support class HD Mustache in the next ExPack.

  14. RizziSmoov says:

    If there’s nobody laying prone in a corner with a claymore, using USAS with frag rounds or using M320 or RPG/SMAW on this map I’ll feast on my own excrement.

  15. SkittleDiddler says:

    I’m cool with any BF3 map that keeps the Metro scrubs and MW transplants out of my playtime.

  16. ArtyFishal says:

    CQB with all that dynamic destruction looks awesome. Can’t wait!

  17. shaydeeadi says:

    Why is someone placing C4 at 0:33? seems unnecessary.

    • Baka says:

      Never seen a bigirpall video, eh?

      • Mirdini says:

        I find it hard to decide whether actually playing the game is more fun than watching bigirpall work his magic.

  18. hosndosn says:

    Finally they caught up with Red Faction ca. 2001 and actually *use* destructible environments for gameplay?

  19. EthZee says:

    But… but… you have a gun right there! A gun! Use it! Use the gun!

    • Chaz says:

      Who needs a gun. This is BF3, you can just shine a flash light in peoples faces for more impact.

  20. TheEn4cer says:

    Just more CRAP. F-U EA and F-U DICE

  21. cappstv says:

    I hope “Vertical Gameplay” means there is map of nothing but stairs.
    All my best moments in BF3 involved stairs.

  22. buzzmong says:

    CQB isn’t what I want from BF games, I (used to) buy CoD for that.

    BF is about the larger maps, ample flanking and free flowing combat. BF2 had that down aside from Heli/Jet rape. BF3 just about manages it (on about half the maps).

    But this? No, it’s not what I bought BF3 for, and as such, won’t be recieving my money.

  23. Fumarole says:

    People survive firing an RPG indoors? Right. And I’m not talking about the warhead’s detonation.

    • spongthe1st says:

      Yes actually, it’s one of the few rocket launchers that actually let you fire ‘safely’ indoors – I mean, it’s designed as such to facilitate firing at a tank from within a building, say, out of a window.

      You wouldn’t actually want to go firing one from room to room.

      And in any case if someone is standing behind you their face is coming off. So, it’s not that safe, at all, actually – you just won’t ruin yourself unless you fire it point blank into an adjacent wall.

  24. Phantoon says:

    How is it I’m the only person here complaining about the guy in the title image having no expression at all?

    Slap “deal with it” on him and you’ve got yourself another picture for the damned meme!

  25. starclaws says:

    This is for 16 people max TDM and SDM folks. This wont be 48 people on metro that you all seem to hate when metro is more for 16-24. This is for competitive type play. The problem with CQC is that servers run too many people on them. We’d rather know if its going to be free or not. Not what your reskin of the coop tower lobby level will be like. That’s what this map shown is. The coop tower level but redone some and went over the top with debris spraying everywhere. Everyone knows when you shoot a flower vase with a rifle bullet that pieces fly thousands of feet away from it as it explodes in thousands of pieces. /sarcasm

    RPG/M320 already takes 2 shots if not a direct hit. Plenty of time to shoot them. Stop cowering and dying from the 2nd shot and kill them while they spend hours reloading. USAS frag rounds are getting semi nerfed as well and it already takes 2-3 direct hits to kill someone and a full clip indirect to kill someone. If they shot their whole clip before you shot them? You deserve to die. If they used the regular shotgun they would likely kill you FASTER and you would whine about that instead.

  26. Ruffian says:

    Lol the forum has gone to war! For real though what’s with this Close vs. Long range debate? I thought that was the point of BF – a mix of both. that said I do agree with the general sentiment that (and I don’t think it’s just the maps fault) they’ve made BF a bit too CODy. Still a fun franchise but it is certainly not as fun as it was.

  27. Jabberslops says:

    I know a lot of people complain about the cost of map packs and such and the people who call those people whiny bitches, but map packs are bad when they cost money. Only the people who buy them can play them and if not enough people buy it you won’t have many people to play with. If the server has it in the rotation everyone without the maps will be booted. Every game that has a pay wall on new content has this problem.

    EA should make all the maps free to play and they should charge for everything else that isn’t part of the maps. This will never happen unfortunately.

  28. Dakia says:

    So lets take a game that shines when it is anything but CQB, make an entirely CQB expansion with OP weapons, and call it good?

    I’m sorry, these sort of stupid decisions are the reason I quit playing BF3. Case in point. Javs one-shotting air assets with no tone.

  29. Whetevs says:

    Fine; flamethrower requested

  30. Shadowcat says:

    That video made me think of F.E.A.R.

  31. MistyMike says:


  32. spongthe1st says:

    I had always hoped Battlefield would become the most enjoyable balancing point between CoD/MoH/MW’s arcade-ness and the ARMA series impenetrable complexity (which was enjoyable when things all fell into place on a server, sadly this was too rare to warrant the time investment) but unfortunately this hasn’t come to fruition.

    I didn’t really enjoy Battlefield 2 that much and was sorely disappointed by BFBC2. I’ve avoided BF3 because I don’t see it going in the direction I had hoped – that is, more of the CoD/MoH/MW and less of the ARMA. This trailer pretty much solidifies that idea, I’m hard pressed to tell the difference between this and the aforementioned arcade-y, unlock-chasing spamfests.

    Essentially, I hoped it would become Red Orchestra in a modern setting with some seriously streamlined team-building and organisational tools and features.