A Thrilling Minute Of BF3: Armo(u)red Kill

Putting the 'whee' in 'wheels'

I’m just going to pretend that this is a full trailer for Battlefield 3’s Armo(u)red Kill, and not a video showing how you can buy into their crummy Premium service. So why don’t you, me, and that guy over there all agree that the first 38 seconds of the trailer’s 1.53 runtime is just white noise, or Joe Pasquale telling a joke – it doesn’t exist. It a glitch in the Matrix. To make this work we’ll just have to live the lie. Can you do that? For me? I don’t ask for much.

I hate how DICE are very good at DLC and EA are very bad at selling it. Armo(u)red Kill makes sense as DLC, with DICE attempting to make themed conflicts as expansion, in this case vehicle battles across the biggest maps the Battlefield series has ever had. That’s good DLC: trying to push the game in different directions, really doing what they can to see how ludicrous they can be with their game. Then EA use it to parp off Premium. I don’t have a problem with people saving monmey by buying DLC in bulk, but Premium’s two-week exclusivity over the level, as well as the Premium only XP boost weekends, is basically buying an advantage. Pay-to-win in all but name.

Anyway, with that out of the way, ooh explosions! The snow map looks purrty, and the night map will be glowing with the husks of burning dead tanks when I’m done with it.

It’s out in September.


  1. PoulWrist says:

    Premium is fine. Discounted content if you buy it up front. It’s like prebuying everything else… only you get more here. And you get no end of people proudly announcing how they prebought one game after another on steam.

    • Sayori says:

      I’m sorry to inform you but Premium is NOT fine.
      OP weapons are not fine.
      Queue priority on servers community pays for is not fine.
      It’s not fine to not be able to get into BF4 when you have paid for BF Premium.
      Overall it’s not fine to justify their monetizing shit with CoD Elite which indeed is a premium service not affecting the game at all.

      • Sayori says:

        I forgot to mention that if you already have the first DLC you don’t even get a discount. You paid for 2nd copy and you are being ripped off. No code to give it away to friend…

        • Hug_dealer says:

          ummm 4x $15 = $60. not the $50 i payed for with premium. So i got a discount, even though i owned b2k.

          if you dont own b2k. its 5 x $15 = $75 which is even better savings. So regardless everyone saved money.

          Also, please tell us what OP weapons are in the game? Cause you really have no idea what you are talking about.

          • SkittleDiddler says:

            You know how to verify when a weapon is OP in Battlefield 3? When everyone starts using it at the same time. That stupid L86A2 is a perfect example: it’s hyperaccurate over any distance, more lethal than any other LMG in the game, and every doofus support player with a Premium account is using it ATM.

          • Misnomer says:

            It’s all in your head. The L86A2 is actually worse than its nearest counterparts, the M27 and the RPK (starting weapons). Those two do the same damage, have the same mag size. RPK has better first shot power and only slightly worse movement spread. M27 reloads way faster to make up for slightly higher vertical recoil, but has predictable horizontal recoil to counter while the L86A2 jitters.

            link to symthic.com

            None of the DLC weapons are OP. I agree it stinks to be killed by something you don’t have in a game you bought for full price, but in this case you really are not at a disadvantage.

          • SkittleDiddler says:

            Statistics are great and all, but real-world experience is telling me the L86A2 is overpowered, as is sometimes the case when an new undertested gun is unleashed upon the Battlefield populace. I’ve been the victim of too many consistent long-distance headshots with that LMG to think otherwise. It’s far too accurate at long range.

            On a side note, would you go so far as to say that there is no gun in the history of the Battlefield franchise that ever needed a nerf? I’m not accusing you of this personally, but that seems to be the reasoning when nerf-opposers start to come out of the woodwork. “That gun’s not OP, you’re just a newb L2P” is a standard response when concerns are brought up about weapon power and effectiveness.

          • PoulWrist says:

            I can’t say the L86A2 is very accurate. I had way more success with the M27. The L86 has the advantage of bullpup bonus and extended mag capability. But I can’t say I found it very powerful. Cool, sure, but not powerful. Maybe with certain upgrades for certain areas… I fiddled with the L85 and made it a long range killer with the bipod and heavy barrel. Is fun. But it’s not very good for closequarters.

          • Misnomer says:

            I am not anti nerf, the M16A3 desperately needs a nerf right now. Actually I am in favor of removing it from the game entirely and making the M416 the base US assault gun, but that won’t happen. The reason a lot of people are that way about nerfs is what happened to the UMP-45, F2000, USAS and IRNV scope…. when DICE nerfs they often nerf to oblivion and then slowly build back over many many patches. The UMP-45 is still hoping for some love after the beta got it nerfed.

            I have 100 kills with the L86A2 right now, not a huge amount, but I feel comfortable saying it is not OP. It is possible you were playing against a hacker or just have a psychological effect from something you don’t have. It really is not all that different than the M27 or RPK and each of those has advantages over it in certain aspects (reload on M27 is a big advantage for support class).

          • SkittleDiddler says:

            “I feel comfortable saying it is not OP. It is possible you were playing against a hacker or just have a psychological effect from something you don’t have. It really is not all that different than the M27 or RPK and each of those has advantages over it in certain aspects (reload on M27 is a big advantage for support class).”

            And I feel comfortable stating that it is OP, specifically at long range. Look, whether you mean to or nor, you’re being a bit condescending by using terms like “psychological effect” and “in your head”. I’ve got 238 hours in Battlefield 3, and I think that gives me the right to judge the effectiveness of the armory based on personal experience alone. People can quote statistics all day, but in the end only actual playtime dictates results.

            DICE have proven time and time again that they are incapable of properly testing new equipment before they release it into the wild. I certainly don’t think the L86A2 has shown itself to be immune from that.

          • Misnomer says:

            So I have a hundred hour more in game than you and I have actually used the L86A2, so how does that weigh in your experience scale?

            I agree that things are more than just their stats, but in this case there is very little about the L86A2 that stands out.

          • SkittleDiddler says:

            “So I have a hundred hour more in game than you and I have actually used the L86A2, so how does that weigh in your experience scale?”

            I guess that means I’m being delusional and that the all those one-shot L86A2-toting support players I keep running into are simply expert long-distance marksmen. Yeah, that must be it.

            We’ll just have to agree to disagree here. Next topic: The 93R — Valid BF3 Weapon or Easy-Mode CoD Transplant?

          • Terraval says:

            @Skite You are either encountering hackers or simply wrong. The L86A2 shares the standard assault rifle damage model, meaning at point blank it does 25 damage. The 2x headshot multiplier means it can do a max of 50 in one shot. If you think you’re getting one-shotted at *long range* with the L86A2 then it’s hackers or you simply are not. At long range the L86A2 is a minimum 3 headshot kill or 6 bodyshot kill.

          • SkittleDiddler says:


            “One-shot” was an abuse of standard terminology on my part. I was attempting to refer to the L86A2’s accuracy and not the actual number of bullets it takes to down a target (hence the included marksmen reference).

          • mncxdas88 says:

            What is more… play on some less populated servers. You might actually like it and meet a nice clan you can join and get a free VIP slot.


          • PopeJamal says:

            Can I pee in this contest too?

      • db1331 says:

        What OP weapons does Premium give you? The knife reskin? Or do you mean the weapons from the CQ pack, which are not Premium-exlusives at all?

      • PoulWrist says:

        What weapons? There are no weapons exclusive to premium, other than a reskin of the knife.

        Queue priority I think I’ve made use of … once. Why would I bother spending time waiting in a queue, even when I have priority, if I can join a different server without queue?

      • MasterDex says:

        I like how everyone is attacking your OP weapons comment and ignoring the far more encroaching queue priority. OP weapons can be sorted in patches. Queue priority? That’s stepping on toes that shouldn’t be stepped on.

        If EA makes moves similar to this in the future, I find it hard to see them retaining a strong PC community in their FPS titles. The bread and butter of a strong PC community is the community’s ability to create and regulate their own communities.

  2. jonfitt says:

    I can’t help feeling that it’s going to be very annoying to be stuck without a vehicle on such an enormous map after all the geniuses have sped off with empty APCs and empty Jeeps.

    • Tei says:

      Could be. But is the small price to pay for a vehicle intense game. You can play infantry in a million other FPS, but combined militar operations with tanks, jeeps, infantry, copters, jets, boats… only in battlefield and some militar sims.

    • apa says:

      Yeah, it’s going to be wonderful. All the other guys in the squad are snipers in furry suits 1000 km from the action, idiots take jets and helos and use them as a private taxi to zoom to some uber camping spot and couple of griefers blow up the tanks and jeeps in the base. BF with random players is just great.

      • kuroyume says:

        So don’t play with random players… find a server you like, join the community and soon they will not be randoms but people you know.

        shameless plug: you could come play with us at link to battlelog.battlefield.com

        It’s a no-nonsense server with a ton of good players and an active community

    • rektide says:

      The Close Quarters expansion has been great. After growing tired of having to smoke-grenade my way into a nest of snipers and putting the original aside for a couple months, CQ has been awesome.

      I tend to agree though that the large scale combat breaks down all too easily. Defense, wait and get me play on the ground, with what the hell ever going on up in the air, jets blowing up &c in a seemingly different world. Trekking around to a site, only to have it be heavily defended, with your team spread out all over the place, is a hard vicious thing to adapt to & thrive in.

      As usual, I just wish the public servers could muster up the will to play as a team: the main fault I think AK is going to fall on it’s face over. BF2142, I have to say, had a lot of really good squad action even in public servers; unsure why it’s so damned rare in 3.

  3. fr0y0 says:

    I don’t know, I bought Premium (albeit at a discount) and I think it’s a pretty good deal.

    Now, that “main game + Premium” thing on the other hand is typical EA behaviour.

    • Silvermarch says:

      What’s wrong with it? Its the same as releasing a “GOTY” edition without the subtitle, and seems like its for people that don’t have BF3 yet.

      • fr0y0 says:

        Sure, but 70 bucks? That’s just not an amount I’d want to pay for a game, regardless of the amount of content. It’s a big investment. I only spent money on Premium because I’d already played the game for nearly 200 hours and knew that most of the content is or will be relevant to me.

        • Hug_dealer says:

          $70 is not a big investment. $70 is taking yourself and your wife/girlfriend/significant other out for a decent dinner, not super fancy, but a nicer place. Unless you happen to get a few beverages to join the meal. Then you spent way more than $70.

          $70 is not a significant investment. If you only made $20,000 in a year, $70 is less than .004% of it.

          I know this because when i lived alone and made that much, i was able to support my expensive gaming habit.

          • SkittleDiddler says:

            $70 is a big investment to those of us who, for whatever reason, ration a gaming budget every month.

          • Vorphalack says:

            ”$70 is taking yourself and your wife/girlfriend/significant other out for a decent dinner,”

            Or put another way, $70 means NOT taking your wife/girlfriend/significant other out for dinner because you blew it on an over priced computer game.

          • TheWhippetLord says:

            I don’t think I’ve ever met anyone worth a $70 date. I mean, that’s nearly £45. Talk about flash.

          • EPICTHEFAIL says:

            Or you could spend that money on some other games. Just sayin`.

        • PoulWrist says:

          It’s for new players, after all. And complaining that prices go down with time is silly.

    • rektide says:

      If we were on BF4 now, and me back at level 3, and my opponents all up to level 27, I’d hate life. I probably would not buy. Given the slow progression system FPS’s have adopted, extending the shelf life and asking for more money keeps players like me still on EA/Dice’s hook.

  4. Misnomer says:

    “but Premium’s two-week exclusivity over the level, as well as the Premium only XP boost weekends, is basically buying an advantage. Pay-to-win in all but name. ”

    Exclusivity over the level is a bum deal, but XP weekends are pretty meaningless for the majority of us who purchased. XP means literally nothing but a ticking up number once you have all the unlocks (Edit: Sorry forgot you get some dogtags for levels…woo). Even then, the unlocks do not mean that much.

    Plus, the #1 Weapon in the game right now is the M16A3… the starting rifle. No kidding, that is all the competition players use. So even complete newbie can’t complain too much.

    Now you won’t have all the attachments, but you don’t get those through XP you get them through kills. XP weekend won’t help you. Plus, people can actually pay for those separately (something not advertised in this video) if you have more money than time.

    AND Premium Edition Battlefield will be out for $70 (that is what they are selling here CORE+ALL DLC). That is only $10 more than the game cost on release and you get every DLC as well as the core game.

    I think the whining about Premium is pretty baseless here other than the two week map exclusivity bit.

    • Wild_Marker says:

      That’s because of the one feature noone is discussing, because EA does not advertise it too much. That is, the ability to jump queues. Basically, if you’re premium, you get to be ahead on the queue when entering a server, meaning that you literally rob non-Premium users their spot in the queue. As a non-premium user, I found it insanely frustrating. It’s worse that pay-to-win, it’s “Pay-to-play the game you’ve already payed for”. it’s basically giving the finger to non-premiums by saying “Oh you payed 60 dollars? Well that other guy payed 110 so he’s going straight to the top of the queue”

      • Misnomer says:

        Server owners can actually turn off premium priority queuing. My clan runs a server without it. Mind you we have VIP slots so clan members will bump you out, but in theory every PC BF server could actually disable this function. Filter out servers running it and you won’t get as frustrated.

        What is more… play on some less populated servers. You might actually like it and meet a nice clan you can join and get a free VIP slot.

        • Hug_dealer says:

          how dare you bring in logic to conversation.

          Also the only time a queue is involved is when you are trying to join an already full server, you could easily hit the 1-5 open slots button and be in a game instantly instead.

      • kharnedge says:

        How often do you actually have to wait in queue? Even when there’s a queue of 4-6 people on my preferred server it usually only takes 5-10 minutes to get in as a non-premium.

        • Felixader says:

          Wow, only fife to ten minutes!

          (Or were you beeing sarcastic?)

      • Euphoric says:

        The queue jumping is a pretty pathetic thing to whine about. Most of the bigger servers have been offering priority slots for $5 or something like that since the beginning – and it’s not like there aren’t 10k other servers…
        And how well do you think it actually works for us Premiums? With 150k Premiums sold if you jump into a queue that just happens to have 5 Premiums in it, you go NOWHERE, and have to wait anyway. It was a marketing thing pure and simple – stop crying.

      • Borborygme says:

        I just bought Premium this month and I havent noticed anything different regarding the time it takes to get into a server.

      • DodgyG33za says:

        As one of the few non-premium players down under I have certainly noticed the longer queue times. I play with two guys who have both succumbed to the dark side. Just last night I was first in the queue and a mate 7th, I was still first when he was playing.

        While there may be plenty of servers to choose from in Europe and the US, being geographically isolated means that we have many fewer servers.

        I hate EA for this. And will not be buying BF4 as a result.

    • SkittleDiddler says:

      “Plus, the #1 Weapon in the game right now is the M16A3… the starting rifle. No kidding, that is all the competition players use.”

      That doesn’t really show anything other than the complete lack of originality BF players are known for when building their kits.

      • Post-Internet Syndrome says:

        No, it shows that balance and well-roundedness go further than interesting gimmicks. The M16 is the Mario of the game; excels at few things, competent in most. It really could take a nerf, and it’s getting one in the next patch.

        • SkittleDiddler says:

          There are plenty of other guns in the game that do the job just as well as the M16A3. They are ignored by the masses simply because the M16 series is so notorious within the community.

  5. kharnedge says:

    What makes Premium crummy? The only thing I think they shouldn’t have done is the queue priority, but that still doesn’t make much of a difference. It’s really just a DLC bundle for $50 instead of paying $15 for each of the 5 DLCs. The fact that they even give us the chance to save 33% on the DLC is surprising considering it’s EA. Plenty of games have done this and nobody complained about it then. A couple examples of games that have used a similar system are Saint’s Row 3 and Dungeon Defenders.

    • Post-Internet Syndrome says:

      I agree. As usual, it’s EA:s marketing of it that is crummy. “Own more” and the server queue thing smells bad but is ultimately meaningless. Just like marketing BF3 as some sort of MW killer (which it is obviously not), EA is positioning itself in ugly ways, doing the actual game a great disservice.

  6. philbot says:

    Wow, I’ve read some cynical articles on RPS before, but this one was loaded with it.

    • PoulWrist says:

      Especially since it’s not at all deserved. If BF3 were a bad game trying to constantly sell you more stuff, sure.. but then we have League of Legends being lauded… which is pay 2 win, and gives high lvl players large advantages over newbies. BF3? It’s guns vs. other guns, meaning skills at playing the game weigh in the most. Not whether or not oyu have access to a certain gun, especially since there’s only specialisation within a field to gain by unlocking things.

  7. Slinkyboy says:


  8. Moraven says:

    Paid $60 for the game on release + first expansion.

    Now you can get everything for $10-20 + $50. It would be nice if Premium was discounted for early buyers. If I buy DLC piecemeal I lose out on the other non DLC features.

    I guess if you pick and choose your DLC, you do not lose out as much. (I passed on Close Quarters.)

    They should just make CoD and BF, $7.50 monthly subscriptions that get updated game engine every 2 years. As it is right now, to get everything and be playing on day 1 you basically are paying ~$10/month ($60 game + $50/60 premium).

  9. Didden says:

    Wait… is this one of those Origin only things… still not buying it EA lol.

  10. Hug_dealer says:

    The XP boost definately is not pay to win. The unlocked weapons are not superior to the starting weapons.

    • Ratchet says:

      Correct me if I’m wrong, but the way the 2XP things work you don’t even level up per kit (so you don’t unlock weapons), you just go up in overall rank, which is pretty useless.

      • Hug_dealer says:

        alot of PDW weapons are unlocked by level. But PDW are all inferior to class weapons in most ways, they sacrifice way to much for the little they gain in close combat.

        • absolofdoom says:

          Try out the AS Val if you think that, it’s an incredible weapon. Love using it with recon.

          • Hug_dealer says:

            I have, i would rather kill people in 2 shots with the semi auto, rather than a clip with the As Val and die because im constantly reloading. Semi autos are fantastic in close quarters, As Val is decent, but still a poor choice in alot of cases, on the Close quarters maps sure, its a good choice, but on other maps where combat takes place at all ranges, much better choice weapons.

          • Borborygme says:

            No, Hug. The AS Val actually does better at medium to long range than it does at close range. It has higher damage at longer range than carbines do (14,3 @ 50m+ vs 18,4 @ 40m+), it has a very high rate of fire at 900rpm and very low initial recoil which allow you to drop people at range easily. It’s only drawback is it’s low bullet velocity which makes it harder to hit moving targets. It’s hip fire is inferior to most carbines and equal to the worst. It is the worst PDW to use in close quarters and the most useful in maps where combat takes place at all ranges. Also, it has a 31 round clip when using extended mag, which you should.

          • Hug_dealer says:

            The things you just mentioned about the as val actually work against it.

            It has great 1st shot accuracy, its spot on, but at long range, the low bullet velocity means you have to aim higher than the target, whether other guns sime aim direct. Then the Rate of fire problem 900 is fantastic for short and kinda good at medium, but that kills any long range firepower the weapon has, other than doing single shot. You already mentioned the leading targets problem, so i dont need to say anything about that. Then the AS val is a 5 hit kill at close range, vs most weapons being 4 hit 25 per bullet kills.

            Its a decent weapon, but its not going to beat long range weapons, nor ones that excel at medium range, it is only really equal to other close range weapons, but it has a small clip, which gets you killed because you only killed 2 of the 3 guys in front of you.

            lets not mention that the As val does not have the ability to equip nearly as many good accessories either. The heavy barrel turns any gun into an accurate long range fire weapon, and extends the damage over range also. Sticking a Heavy barrel on the Famas gives me an AS VAL only better, or i take the mtar or acr with heavy barrel. The only classes that could use the AS val and not be better of Gimp themselves is Support or Recon, but in those cases, you shouldnt pick those classes for the type of combat that the AS VAL is designed for.

  11. SuperNashwanPower says:

    Dear Craig

    I think I love (u)

  12. Shooop says:

    You know what I love? That EA used to say they didn’t like pay-for DLC for multiplayer games because it split up the player base.

    • Hug_dealer says:

      Got a quote for that?

      • Ratchet says:

        They said something to that effect a couple years ago when BFBC2 was just out, that they’d never charge for DLC, that free DLC was crucial.

        “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,” – DICE senior producer Patrick Bach

        … assuming “maps” and “DLC” are interchangable in this sense

        link to computerandvideogames.com

        • Hug_dealer says:

          I figured that was the quote mentioned.

          They have not charged for maps. They have charged for full fledged additions to the game. DLC that add new game types, maps, vehicles, guns, perks etc. Just like BFBC2 Vietnam wasnt just a map pack.

          COD charges for maps. Dice doesnt, they provide a significantly larger amount of content to justify the purchase. These DLC packs are bigger than the Booster packs we got for battlefield 2.

          • Vorphalack says:

            ”They have not charged for maps”


            ”They have charged for full fledged additions to the game. DLC that add new game types, maps-”

            Seems like they charged for maps.

          • PoulWrist says:

            Sure, but the maps come with new gamemodes, vehicles, weapons, skins, etc., and are more than just maps. Where in BFBC2 it was just that, maps. No new guns, lvls, stuff to progress in.

          • Vorphalack says:

            Sarcasm and semantics aside, they are doing exactly what they said they would not do, which is sell content which divides the player base. There are better ways to add content in without doing this. Frozen Synapse found a way, BF3 just went the lazy route so people have to pay to keep up.

          • Shooop says:

            So you just have to throw in a couple of weapons too and it’s suddenly more than a map pack? And it doesn’t split up the community, the main problem with any pay-for-DLC in mutliplayer games?

            You EA apologists really are something else.

          • Hug_dealer says:

            no shoop, they add new vehicles, guns, perks, skins, and game modes. Something generally reserved for expansions or sequels……………………………………………….

        • Misnomer says:

          Followed by this weird statement:

          link to oxm.co.uk

          Quote: “DICE has a rich tradition of giving away post-release content for free, lavishing Map Packs on first-time buyers of Battlefield: Bad Company 2, but according to Battlefield 3 executive producer Patrick Bach, free DLC can be as controversial as the paid variety.

          “We actually got a lot of flack for giving away free maps,” Bach told OXM during an exclusive studio visit. “I know it sounds weird, but people got really upset with us. People said: ‘if you’re giving it away, why couldn’t you give it away earlier?’ There were a lot of complaints.”

          “Bach was quick to clarify that free DLC remains a big part of DICE’s future. “I’m not saying that we won’t give stuff away for free – because I know for sure that we will – but it’s just fascinating. Consumers are not used to getting things. There are no free lunches, and people get very suspicious when they get something for free.”

          “Even when it’s free, it’s not free enough – people felt they didn’t get enough maps for free, and that upset me, but we still think it’s a good idea – especially if a company is successful and making a lot of money. I think a lot of people would say the opposite and just think ‘great, more money for us’, but we always think it’s nice to give small things away.”

          • Infininja says:

            People were upset with the free maps because they weren’t exactly that. The first set of maps were just keys to unlock ones already on the disc. The next 5 sets opened up existing maps to more gametypes, so a map that previously didn’t support conquest would. Only the final map pack was sort of new. It had two maps based on single player levels and two maps for the first Bad Company game.

  13. Ratchet says:

    And really, by the time the Premium thing was release, any one who’d been playing it since launch had all the weapons unlocked anyway.

    And there are so many Premium users that I, as a Premium player, still get stuck in queues 5 or 6 deep.

  14. db1331 says:

    How is premium crummy? It’s just a way to save money. If you enjoy BF3, and are planning on getting all the DLC anyway, it’s cheaper. I agree that the 2 week exclusivity is lame, but don’t act like it gives people a pay-to-win edge. I don’t care how well you know the maps, you’re either good at FPS games, or you’re not. It gives no advantage in weapons either. Most of the starter guns are still the best in the game. Even so, you don’t have to buy Premium to get the newer guns. You can just buy the CQ pack. And please, XP is all but pointless in this game. Once you unlock everything you want to use, which takes no time at all, all it does is increase the little number to the left of your name. It gives no advantage at all. You’re starting to sound like those idiots on the BL forums that swear that Premium players have more health.

    Basically, instead of putting out a new $60 game in one year, they are giving me new maps, guns, vehicles, and assignments to keep the game I already bought interesting. And the amount of content in these 4 packs looks to be just as much as you would get from a full game. It sure as hell beats buying a new CoD every year, and $60 worth of DLC on top of it.

  15. Moni says:

    I haven’t played Battlefield 3, does the sort of things in the video happen in game? Like someone flying mere feet above a tank escorting it in to battle, before exploding dramatically as the tanks continue to push forward.

    • Hug_dealer says:

      What happens in battlefield alot of the time cannot be recreated in any other game.

      Such as having a jet blow up and fall on a guy you were shooting at and steal your kill. Angry and laughing at the same time.

    • Misnomer says:

      If you are flying that low… that sort of thing happens all the time. But Hug_dealer is absolutely correct, Battlefield is known for this kind of crazy stuff that you can rarely plan. Some people do manage to plan it and if you search “bf3 stunts” in youtube you will be able to kill off several hours enjoying the hilarity.

    • db1331 says:

      Yes, awesome stuff like that happens all the time. It’s even more awesome when you see it live. There are so many little things that make the experience, that you just don’t get with a CoD. I was flying in a jet the other night and was disabled by an enemy jet. We were flying out of bounds, so I was struggling to keep my jet level while avoided his fire, long enough to get back over the battleground where I could safely eject. Once I got back in bounds, I pitched the nose up, jammed back on the throttle, and ejected. The enemy jet flew directly into my jet, igniting a massive explosion directly beneath me. I fell through the fire and parachuted to safety, while he was obviously killed. The game is a real rush.

    • MasterDex says:

      You know how EA/DICE used the term Battlefield Moments in some promo material? They didn’t coin it, Battlefield players did, after having Battlefield Moments.

      This one time in 2142, I was trouncing the opposition in one of the walkers. Obviously annoyed with my leet winning, the team ganged up and brought two tanks against me. After distracting the tanks long enough for my teammates to get RDX on them and blow one to smithereens, I heard the familar noise of a gunship behind me. I spun around quickly and let off a salvo of rockets, in empty air. I thought I had messed up but then at just the right moment, the gunship came flying into view and made contact with my rockets, plummeted to the ground and landed on the one tank driver remaining, who had hopped out to repair his tank while I was distracted. I don’t recall if we won that game in the end but I’ll remember that moment for the rest of my life and I’ve had many like it, but none quite as beautiful, since. But only with Battlefield.

      So to answer your question – Hell yeah!

  16. derbefrier says:

    booster packs are pay to win huh? So we can expect you to say the same thing about LoL, Gw2, and all the other F2P games that are not considered P2W that have THE EXACT SAME THING. I thought everyone considered this okay as long as people were not locked out of content, when did this change? Did it just change for the 5 minutes it took to think of reason to bash EA? can we expect the same complaining about P2W in your GW2 review or will they get a pass because it not one of the big 3(EA, ACT\Blizz, Ubisoft) please at least use the same standards for all games if your going to be so critical of EA for doing this have integrity to do the same every other game that does the same thing. I expect this sort of double standard out of politicians but I expected more out of RPS.

    • EPICTHEFAIL says:

      Are you allergic to capitalization and line breaks? Also, this is reprehensible, since not only are they splitting up the community with preposterously overpriced DLC, but they are doing it in defiance of their own promise not to do this sort of thing. The issue is not that this is a booster pack, though the article makes a bit too much of a fuss over the double XP, i`ll admit. The issue is the DLC being a shameless ripping-off of the community, while simultaneously splitting it up further.

      • Hug_dealer says:

        And that is your opinion.

        These booster packs provide more content than the ones we received in bf2142 with northern strike, and bf2 with armored fury, and euroforce.

        Dice made a statement they would never sell map packs. And they havent………….Map packs are what you get with COD. Dice is providing new equipment, vehicles, and gameplay modes with every Booster/DLC pack, which is much more than just a couple new maps. So they are keeping their word, and providing the same level of content and support they have always provided, as i made clear earlier in the post with bf2142 and bf2.

        Dice is the same, its simply the irrational entitlement and arrogance of today’s gamer that has grown.

        • Misnomer says:

          I think I am just going to have to follow you around nodding in agreement Hug dealer.

          I always thought that RPS was in that happy middle ground of combating exploitative content all the while accepting that game developer labor is worth paying for. At least that is what I got out of the John Walker DLC thing recently. This BF3 DLC is far from exploitative (this video actually promotes a product that will discount the DLC even further) and as many of us have pointed out, complaints about the XP weekends are pretty distant.

          Seems like this is just standard RPS fostering bias against the military FPS genre they dislike.

          • EPICTHEFAIL says:

            I do not have any particular issues with MMS, and I agreed that the XP thing is overblown. I just think that the DLC is a tad overpriced, and this IS a map pack at heart. I only regret that more companies don`t follow Valve`s example in giving out ridiculous amounts of content for free and milking the goodwill for all it`s worth. If they had EA`s standards, someone would have likely punched Gabe in the face over the whole HL3 deal.

      • derbefrier says:

        Umm how are booster packs splitting the community? I was commenting on the fact that RPS seems to have changed its stance on booster packs. If you believe expansion packs split the community that’s fine. I think its a dumb opinion but that’s not what i was talking about.

  17. Solidstate89 says:

    You crazy Brits and your love of the letter ‘u.’

  18. MasterDex says:

    Here’s hoping the maps are actually large in real terms and not in reality, 20% clusterfuck with 80% no-mans land like most of the “big” maps in BF3 currently.

  19. NightShift says:

    I will not be meeting this DLC on the field of battle.

  20. Kromaxx says:

    Had to do it.

    link to qkme.me

    I paid for premium, the videos I got were…. useful… It was kind of nice seeing how the developers were aiming to shape the new weapons. It was mainly to fill in gaps that the community was asking for, for example, the engineer needing a long range rifle variant.

    I have only had fun twice in Close quarters, both times it was because I played on a map with 16 players max. Anything more than that it becomes a massive shit show.

    I’m very much looking forward to playing this new armoured kill. But i think the tank system needs a rework, tanks should require ammo and places to re-arm.


  21. Arlan says:

    or maybe instead of throwing my money down the drain for premiumisms and eliteisms i can play cs go and wait for the awesomely free community maps.

  22. Goodtwist says:

    It’s interesting how everybody who criticises BF3 and Premium mainly points out the queue jumping and the pay to win model. Those are abominations by its own right, agreed.
    Though, what is the biggest letdown for me is the lack of mod support. I actually never enjoyed BF2, it was only the mods, and here predominantly Project Reality. Oh, let’s not forget that tiny detail called VOIP. I think they invented it somewhere in the 90’s.

  23. zeroskill says:

    Just another nail to the gaming community culture’s coffin. Thanks EA. Oh and thanks to everyone who buy’s into this. You are just as guilty.

    Remember the time when communities would form up around the best games out there like BF2, Quake and Counterstrike, forging their own experiences with server mods and plugins, full conversion mods, community created maps and skins?

    Now it’s buy or die, buy or be left out. Priviliges for the paying at it’s best.