Battlefield 3

[The Scyphozoa]

cod clone...

I dunno, that might be true. To be honest, I don't really care. Single player is not what draws me to the Battlefield series (and considering it didn't even have a campaign at all until the Bad Company series...). I've owned Bad Company 2 since it released and I have yet to load up a single player campaign.

Yeah, anyone who mentions 'CoD clone' seriously to my face will lose any respect I may have for their reasoning and other intemallectual skills.

Actually, based on what we've seen in trailers, it does look like a CoD clone. But that's just the singleplayer. Obviously it means that the singleplayer only will be a CoD clone (not that unlikely), or that the trailer is just not very representative of the game.

[collegestudent22]

Actually, based on what we've seen in trailers, it does look like a CoD clone.

The game is based on realistic warfighting. Of course, it will look similar to other games with the same concept. That doesn't make it a clone.

[The Scyphozoa]

Actually, based on what we've seen in trailers, it does look like a CoD clone.

The game is based on realistic warfighting. Of course, it will look similar to other games with the same concept. That doesn't make it a clone.

CoD is not based on that. And the trailer looked like CoD because of the annoying slow motion, the quick-time event handfighting, the overly cinematic feeling.

[Ortus]

Actually, based on what we've seen in trailers, it does look like a CoD clone.

The game is based on realistic warfighting. Of course, it will look similar to other games with the same concept. That doesn't make it a clone.

CoD is not based on that. And the trailer looked like CoD because of the annoying slow motion, the quick-time event handfighting, the overly cinematic feeling.

Let me rephrase it for collegestudent22 (if I may - if I may not, I'm going to do it anyways). Any game based on modern war and combat is going to look pretty similar to any other game based on modern war and combat. The slang(/jargon) 'clone' is a slight on a game company that unashamedly rips a mechanic from a successful game with the intent to capitulate on another game companies success. Battlefield has done no such thing, ever; Battlefield: Bad Company, on the other hand....

The marketing campaign for BF3, while a little generic, is what you would expect from a modern-era shooter: shocking visuals, epic set pieces, and a mix of suspension-building inaction with attention-grabbing action. Even the inaction within the first few trailers released showed the audience that DICE was committed to producing a truly well-made shooter based on the Battlefield franchise. The characters didn't just shamble, they didn't just waddle or stumble, or pivot their backs on the wall - the characters in the single-player campaign moved, and they moved like a soldier. More or less.


Your argument basically boils down to, "anything within the same genre is a clone of anything else in the same genre". Does that sound right to you? Without even looking at the full story of BF3 and MW3, I can tell you this: BF3 will focus on fighting the modern war as the U.S. knows it, dealing with terrorist forces in an urban/desert/mountainous environment. Will the story go somewhere else and escalate? Damn straight it will. But will it escalate or evolve to the same extremes Modern Warfare did? I don't think so. Battlefield has always been about opposing forces on relatively equal footing, fighting an actual war. Modern Warfare was about a squad of elite commandos who uncovered some huge terrorist plot and then went above-and-beyond the call of duty to stop it. I don't think the focus will be taken too far from stock Battlefield, honestly. DICE should hopefully know better.

MW3, on the other hand, will probably drop you right in to World War 3 and then take the same direction the first Modern Warfare did - an elite squad tracking down those responsible for whatever the hell is going on. While the escalation will still exist, and there will still be plot-lines to unravel, it won't be as steep a change as I expect from BF3. And, frankly, I don't think it will be nearly as meaningful to players... because it will be Modern Warfare (1), but with more countries.

I think there is already a large enough difference in story here to avoid the use of, "CoD clone", and to suggest that something is a clone based on a rough idea of the story in two games within the same genre... I don't think that that is fair at all, to either game.

But then you get in to the mechanics, and /lol your way through a comparison because BF3 offers so much more than CoD ever will - and has from the start.

[The Scyphozoa]

Actually, based on what we've seen in trailers, it does look like a CoD clone.

The game is based on realistic warfighting. Of course, it will look similar to other games with the same concept. That doesn't make it a clone.

CoD is not based on that. And the trailer looked like CoD because of the annoying slow motion, the quick-time event handfighting, the overly cinematic feeling.

Your argument basically boils down to, "anything within the same genre is a clone of anything else in the same genre".

No, my argument boils down to exactly what I said. Slow motion sequences and quick-time events feel gimmicky. An earthquake? Give me a break. I play to finish the squad's objectives, not the game's arbitrary checkpoints that will trigger a completely unrelated natural-disaster-cutscene thing.

The game appears to have regenerating health. That right there tells you a lot about what the gameplay is probably going to entail. You know that part on the rooftop when you're getting sniped at? That is little more than a slightly interactive cutscene. For Xbox 360 players, for example, that part is: Press B. Hold left stick forward for a few seconds. Hold B for one second. Hold left stick forward for a few seconds. Hold right stick right for half a second. Press A. Press Right Trigger. That is a LONG ass-time that I have to sit through doing nothing challenging.

Does there appear to be anything that gives me any options? I believe the only option I was able to take in Black Ops was, at the part where you're supposed to stab the napalm barrels, I didn't know what to do so I just ran past that part, miraculously survived, and the enemies stopped spawning.

The first FPS I played was CoD 1, which did not have regenerating health or infinitely respawning enemies, and I still believe that is what makes the big difference. Getting shot should be a bad thing. I should not be able to ignore it if I just walk back a few steps. There were parts where you had to move quickly, but you also had to decide when it was too soon to avoid getting shot.

Again, I want to say that it is possible the single player game won't be "a CoD clone" as I fear, but the trailer makes it look like it will. It did not show any practical, non-scripted use of destruction, so I still don't know how that will play out. Maybe that will open up tactical options for you. I like the large, open levels of Crysis 2, and how it recommends several strategies, but that game's AI is just a heap of embarrassment.

[Ortus]

Actually, based on what we've seen in trailers, it does look like a CoD clone.

The game is based on realistic warfighting. Of course, it will look similar to other games with the same concept. That doesn't make it a clone.

CoD is not based on that. And the trailer looked like CoD because of the annoying slow motion, the quick-time event handfighting, the overly cinematic feeling.

Your argument basically boils down to, "anything within the same genre is a clone of anything else in the same genre".

No, my argument boils down to exactly what I said. Slow motion sequences and quick-time events feel gimmicky.

So how is that translatable to a 'clone of Call of Duty'? Wouldn't it be more fair to state you feel that slow motion sequences and quick-time events feel gimmicky than to make an off-hand 'clone' comment?

[collegestudent22]

The game appears to have regenerating health. That right there tells you a lot about what the gameplay is probably going to entail. You know that part on the rooftop when you're getting sniped at? That is little more than a slightly interactive cutscene. For Xbox 360 players, for example, that part is: Press B. Hold left stick forward for a few seconds. Hold B for one second. Hold left stick forward for a few seconds. Hold right stick right for half a second. Press A. Press Right Trigger. That is a LONG ass-time that I have to sit through doing nothing challenging.

It is incredibly realistic. I mean, in that situation in real life, it would amount to the same thing. Go prone, move forward a bit, pop up, aim, fire. Not challenging - the challenge is not where the entertainment lies there. On the other hand, if it was a sequence in Modern Warfare 3, you would have to survive helicopters crashing into the building, and nukes going off, and all sorts of other unrealistic nonsense going on so that you could say it was "exciting".

In short:

Battlefield 3 - realistically take out sniper in hotel, enjoy explosion that kills him.
MW3 - have a helicopter crash into your helicopter, yet the AI regains control in the space between skyscrapers and continues on with no problems.

See the difference?

Regenerating health is not a CoD mechanic, anyway - they (and every other FPS) ripped it off from Halo 2.

The first FPS I played was CoD 1, which did not have regenerating health or infinitely respawning enemies, and I still believe that is what makes the big difference. Getting shot should be a bad thing. I should not be able to ignore it if I just walk back a few steps. There were parts where you had to move quickly, but you also had to decide when it was too soon to avoid getting shot.

This, frankly, sounds a lot like those gamers that are nostalgic for games like Mega Man. "In my day, when you died, you had to start the game all over again. Wasn't none of these pussy 'easy' mode options." I absolutely hated playing games like that, before checkpoints and difficulty curves/levels - it quickly stopped being entertainment and started being a chore. Regenerating v. non-regenerating health is a consideration - but regenerating health doesn't make it a CoD clone, any more than Bad Company 2 felt like CoD.

[F117Landers]

Interjecting for just a quick moment:

Release date announced as October 25, 2011

[The Scyphozoa]

Spoiler:

Actually, based on what we've seen in trailers, it does look like a CoD clone.

The game is based on realistic warfighting. Of course, it will look similar to other games with the same concept. That doesn't make it a clone.

CoD is not based on that. And the trailer looked like CoD because of the annoying slow motion, the quick-time event handfighting, the overly cinematic feeling.

Your argument basically boils down to, "anything within the same genre is a clone of anything else in the same genre".

No, my argument boils down to exactly what I said. Slow motion sequences and quick-time events feel gimmicky.

So how is that translatable to a 'clone of Call of Duty'? Wouldn't it be more fair to state you feel that slow motion sequences and quick-time events feel gimmicky than to make an off-hand 'clone' comment?

I didn't make the comment, I defended the comment in light of some things that I don't like that I associate with CoD. "[game title] clone" is not a phrase that I would ever come up with myself, but it's also not something that I would automatically dismiss.

Not challenging - the challenge is not where the entertainment lies there.

It'll be cool to watch the first time. But the first time already happened when I watched the trailer. Those kind of sequences destroy replay value.

If the entertainment is solely based on how realistic the game's creators are able to make that sequence, I can do better. Just get a good camera and a director who knows how to do first-person filming well. Maybe add the character's legs in later. Then put the video on YouTube. Every time one of those button presses I mentioned earlier would happen, put one annotation to pause the video and another that says, "Click the screen to [perform action]." The game is the same, just will worse graphics and more buttons.

On the other hand, if it was a sequence in Modern Warfare 3, you would have to survive helicopters crashing into the building, and nukes going off, and all sorts of other unrealistic nonsense going on so that you could say it was "exciting".

But in a CoD game, that sequence would be entirely pre-scripted. Even your own character's actions. Effectively a cutscene, even more than the rooftop sniper thing. Have you ever actively dodged anything in CoD other than bullets or grenades?

[collegestudent22]

On the other hand, if it was a sequence in Modern Warfare 3, you would have to survive helicopters crashing into the building, and nukes going off, and all sorts of other unrealistic nonsense going on so that you could say it was "exciting".

But in a CoD game, that sequence would be entirely pre-scripted. Even your own character's actions. Effectively a cutscene, even more than the rooftop sniper thing. Have you ever actively dodged anything in CoD other than bullets or grenades?

Dodge grenades in CoD? Don't you mean, hope you kill all the enemies before they think of throwing a grenade at your cover, which is the only cover that exists in the linear hallway/path/etc.?

[The Scyphozoa]

On the other hand, if it was a sequence in Modern Warfare 3, you would have to survive helicopters crashing into the building, and nukes going off, and all sorts of other unrealistic nonsense going on so that you could say it was "exciting".

But in a CoD game, that sequence would be entirely pre-scripted. Even your own character's actions. Effectively a cutscene, even more than the rooftop sniper thing. Have you ever actively dodged anything in CoD other than bullets or grenades?

Dodge grenades in CoD? Don't you mean, hope you kill all the enemies before they think of throwing a grenade at your cover, which is the only cover that exists in the linear hallway/path/etc.?

Ah, I just started World at War, and, yeah. Lotsa nades in that game for some reason.

[F117Landers]

New information added to the top post regarding multiplayer (Tagged with NEW)

New Multiplayer video - Operation Metro (Paris) on Rush.



As for BF3 versus MW3, both have scripted sequences, which is one of the more common ways to portray a story (and show off the game engine), so I choose to base my game preferences off of the amount of time spent on the game, including fixing bugs before release. Also, I view CoD as more of a "Be the action hero and kick-ass all by yourself if you want", whereas BF is more teamwork oriented, "every player provides a type of skill" game. IMO, this variety allows for gamers to choose what style of gameplay fits them better.

[Thirty-one]

so I choose to base my game preferences off of the amount of time spent on the game, including fixing bugs before release.

How do you measure that though? Not that I even try to keep up, but I imagine you'd have a hard time finding the number of hours spent on fixing up either game. Even if you did, would it necessarily tell you that much? Could be there was just a lot more to fix with one? Either way, if the gameplay mechanics are bad to start with then you'll just end up with something like this:

Spoiler:

[F117Landers]

I don't research the game; But if I find obvious bugs, ones that should have been caught in beta testing (such as the numerous ones in Alpha Protocol), and it hinders gameplay, I'll return the game to the store.

[Ortus]

New information added to the top post regarding multiplayer (Tagged with NEW)

New Multiplayer video - Operation Metro (Paris) on Rush.

My God, it's fantastic. But it looks like I'll finally have to replace my GeForce 8800

[F117Landers]

My God, it's fantastic. But it looks like I'll finally have to replace my GeForce 8800

Then you may want to see these (oh, and there's more stuff updated to the list at the beginning of the thread):


Thunder Run Trailer
Frostbite 2 Demo Trailer
Back to Karkand Special - PWN3D

[Thirty-one]

I don't research the game; But if I find obvious bugs, ones that should have been caught in beta testing (such as the numerous ones in Alpha Protocol), and it hinders gameplay, I'll return the game to the store.

That's all fine and dandy, but how would you know which game was the least buggy months before release?

[F117Landers]

I don't research the game; But if I find obvious bugs, ones that should have been caught in beta testing (such as the numerous ones in Alpha Protocol), and it hinders gameplay, I'll return the game to the store.

That's all fine and dandy, but how would you know which game was the least buggy months before release?

Game reviews.

[Dark567]

So I played this today.(Multi only, no vehicles, no menus)

I must say it is as fun as it looks. The gun play is really good.

[Obby]

So I played this today.(Multi only, no vehicles, no menus)

I must say it is as fun as it looks. The gun play is really good.

Whaaa-? How? Was there a demo set up at a convention somewhere I didn't hear about?

[Xeio]

They opened up the alpha, or beta, or whatever they're calling it to a select few (I think you need a certain rank or something related to the previous games) you should be able to google it.

[Dark567]

So I played this today.(Multi only, no vehicles, no menus)

I must say it is as fun as it looks. The gun play is really good.

Whaaa-? How? Was there a demo set up at a convention somewhere I didn't hear about?

I had a friend of mine at EA get me into the Alpha.

[Eseell]

They opened up the alpha, or beta, or whatever they're calling it to a select few (I think you need a certain rank or something related to the previous games) you should be able to google it.

It's definitely not that, I haven't been really into any of the Battlefield games since 1942/Desert Combat.

[Obby]

Warning: You're gonna need some new pants.

Don't say I didn't warn you.

Oh, and there seems to be a list that EA released that contains all the weapons, vehicles, and upgrades, plus the maps that have been announced so far and a couple other bits as well.

[eculc]

Warning: You're gonna need some new pants.

Don't say I didn't warn you.

Oh, and there seems to be a list that EA released that contains all the weapons, vehicles, and upgrades, plus the maps that have been announced so far and a couple other bits as well.

my first thought after reading this: wtf is an "APFSDS-T Shell"?

[Obby]

"Armour-Piercing, Fin-Stabilised, Discarding Sabot" according to wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_(projectile)

[c0smic]

Warning: You're gonna need some new pants.

Don't say I didn't warn you.

Oh, and there seems to be a list that EA released that contains all the weapons, vehicles, and upgrades, plus the maps that have been announced so far and a couple other bits as well.

THAT LOOKS... well, it really needs no explanation, does it?

Can't wait for the beta to come out! Which should be in September right?

*sigh* I wish I would've signed up for the alpha when that was going on

[eculc]

"Armour-Piercing, Fin-Stabilised, Discarding Sabot" according to wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_(projectile)

oh. wikipedia wins yet another point.

anyway, I'm totally ready to drop down some missiles into a building and fuck up anyone inside with one of the jets.

[F117Landers]

Sorry for the lack of updates, been offline for a while due to a fried computer.

Confirmed weapons list is here, below the overview.

[collegestudent22]

*sigh* I wish I would've signed up for the alpha when that was going on

Yeah, you should have. It was awesome. And I say that knowing I will buy this on the Xbox, as I don't like the keyboard/mouse control scheme for shooters. Too twitchy, IMO. Even with that dislike, I thoroughly enjoyed the few days I could play with the Alpha.

[eculc]

since no-one has posted it yet, gameplay video of jets here.

[Amalith]

Just saw this. Apparently battlefield won't have an in game server browser, instead, everything will go through their Battlelog, a webpage.

This is terrible news. When I played the alpha, I really disliked their web based server browser and menu, but figured they just didn't have ingame menus implemented, or removed them to better track alpha usage, so I cut them some slack. But the experience overall felt cheap, similar to many current free to play shooters (slightly worse, even. those usually only require the website to launch initially), and I'm severely disappointed in EA/DICE if that truly will be the system used. Shame, cause up until this point the game was only looking better and better (that caspian border trailer is amazing).

Edit: looking at the source, I'm not sure that that is what Alan Kertz meant with his tweet, despite how sure the article makes it sound. Hopefully he clarifies this soon. Nope, he confirmed that's what he meant. This is bad news for me.

[F117Landers]

since no-one has posted it yet, gameplay video of jets here.

Warning: You're gonna need some new pants.

Don't say I didn't warn you.

Oh, and there seems to be a list that EA released that contains all the weapons, vehicles, and upgrades, plus the maps that have been announced so far and a couple other bits as well.

[eculc]

since no-one has posted it yet, gameplay video of jets here.

Warning: You're gonna need some new pants.

Don't say I didn't warn you.

Oh, and there seems to be a list that EA released that contains all the weapons, vehicles, and upgrades, plus the maps that have been announced so far and a couple other bits as well.

...oh. oops. sorry. =P

[Ortus]

Just saw this. Apparently battlefield won't have an in game server browser, instead, everything will go through their Battlelog, a webpage.

This is terrible news. When I played the alpha, I really disliked their web based server browser and menu, but figured they just didn't have ingame menus implemented, or removed them to better track alpha usage, so I cut them some slack. But the experience overall felt cheap, similar to many current free to play shooters (slightly worse, even. those usually only require the website to launch initially), and I'm severely disappointed in EA/DICE if that truly will be the system used. Shame, cause up until this point the game was only looking better and better (that caspian border trailer is amazing).

Edit: looking at the source, I'm not sure that that is what Alan Kertz meant with his tweet, despite how sure the article makes it sound. Hopefully he clarifies this soon. Nope, he confirmed that's what he meant. This is bad news for me.

If you look at something like League of Legends, this really doesn't have to be a bad thing - I mean, it's EA shoving Origin implementation down DICE's throat and all which sucks, but it could work out. Having said that, I much prefer everything being done within the game.

[F117Landers]

since no-one has posted it yet, gameplay video of jets here.

Warning: You're gonna need some new pants.

Don't say I didn't warn you.

Oh, and there seems to be a list that EA released that contains all the weapons, vehicles, and upgrades, plus the maps that have been announced so far and a couple other bits as well.

...oh. oops. sorry. =P

It was titled a little wierd. Looks like it's gonna be a blast, although I won't be able to play it until I get done with my deployment, which isn't nearly as exciting.

[big boss]

I have had high anticipation for this game since I heard about it, but it seems like EA is just trying to piss of their customers. Soon they won't have any feet left to shoot. 1st they have the debacle with steam whereby the game gets pulled from steam (and in my opinion valve had every right to be upset because they were being blamed by customers for problems that they couldn't control and which were EA's fault.) Then EA announces you must have origin to play BF3, just what I wanted another online distribution service to manage my games...

Then they announce that (for the pc at least) they won't have in game browsing. Rumor is the out of game browser called BattleLog is actually decent so I will withhold judgment on that for now.

Now EA's TOS for Origin has been found to contain some pretty nasty privacy issues.
Here is the Part of the TOS that many people are complaining about. It basically lets EA collect any data from your computer they want, even about software that does not pertain to gaming...

Spoiler:

2. Consent to Collection and Use of Data.

You agree that EA may collect, use, store and transmit technical and related information that identifies your computer (including the Internet Protocol Address), operating system, Application usage (including but not limited to successful installation and/or removal), software, software usage and peripheral hardware, that may be gathered periodically to facilitate the provision of software updates, dynamically served content, product support and other services to you, including online services. EA may also use this information combined with personal information for marketing purposes and to improve our products and services. We may also share that data with our third party service providers in a form that does not personally identify you. IF YOU DO NOT WANT EA TO COLLECT, USE, STORE, TRANSMIT OR DISPLAY THE DATA DESCRIBED IN THIS SECTION, PLEASE DO NOT INSTALL OR USE THE APPLICATION. This and all other data provided to EA and/or collected by EA in connection with your installation and use of this Application is collected, used, stored and transmitted in accordance with EA's Privacy Policy located at http://www.ea.com. To the extent that anything in this section conflicts with the terms of EA's Privacy Policy, the terms of the Privacy Policy shall control.

Source

TLDR: Fuck you EA. I'm not buying BF3 until you fix your shit.

[The Scyphozoa]

Hm, good thing my PC can't run it anyway.

Yeah, fuck you EA.

[Xeio]

It's weird that people are trying to pick apart EA's ToS when steam has essentially the same things...

I already pre-ordered, I don't care. Free Mass Effect 2 and MoH for me.

[Obby]

So, after pre-ordering for the digital copy, I've been messing with Origin a bit. It's actually remarkably similar to Steam (unsurprisingly). The games library is vastly inferior as of right now, but I don't have any problems with it yet. It accepted my codes for Mass Effect 2, Dragon Age: Origins and Dragon Age 2 without an issue, and sent me to EA's website to activate Bad Company 2, after which time it immediately showed up in my Origin list. Now to just figure out why it won't accept my Mass Effect key, and test the download speeds I can get with it. If it's as slow as downloading the installer (600 kB/s? really?) then I'll almost certainly stick to Steam as often as I can, but I don't see why they wouldn't go with a P2P protocol instead of a direct download for the games.