Battlefield 3

[Scruffydog777]

I do some gaming when I find the time. Mostly what I play is BF2 mainly because I find it to be one of the most realistic games and they have such a variety of vehicles you can use.

I was a tank crewman for 2 years in the army, so I like hopping into a tank in BF2. I worked on helicopters in the service for 6 months and got to fly on several missions during the time, so I like the fact you can jump into a helicopter in it.

I've fired the m79 7.62mm and m85 50 cal machine guns, both tank mounted and the 105mm cannon on the M62 tank. I've also fired the M1911 pistol and M79 grenade launcher, plus a bunch of weapons outside the service.

Now I work on jet aircraft, so I'm very familiar with how they fly, the different displays including huds. So Like I said this game is very realistic to me.

Well 2 days ago I recieved an invitation by EA games to join the alpha trial for BF3, a game I'd been long anticipating. I always thought the trial version was called a beta version but they did call this an alpha version. Maybe there will be a beta one to follow.

I got that e-mail just before I left for work. When I arrived home the next morning I downloaded and played it for a while. Didn't have a whole lot of time where I work a 10 hour day. But you start out with an assault kit, with assault rifle with grenade launcher, hand grenades, pistol and paddles and the only vehicle in this version was an apc.

But the big surpise of this alpha version was the name of the map. It was Metro and it was in Paris. How awesome. It was in a park, that had a large pond and off in the distance you could see the Eiffel tower. Today I had planned on posting a couple of screen shots. I especially wanted to see if the map was true to some location in Paris.

Well I was beat when I got home. Took a nap. Got up a short time ago and checked my e-mail. Had one from EA games saying the Alpha trial had closed. What a bummer. What a tease. Now I have to wait til October. I'll have to see if I can find some screen shots or videos someone else has posted.

EDIT:
Here's a video I found. Starts out in the park I talked about. You can see the Eiffel tower at :40. Then it goes down into the Metro.

<iframe width="560" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/8zC7RtkSjpQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[user472884]

Yea this game looks pretty sexy though. The video for the tank battle looked amazing. I'm kinda falling out of FPS games though, Black Ops really killed the genre for me. I'm only anticipating Revelations.

[melovelily]

Bf3 >>>>>>>>>>> mw3

[Future Raptor Ace]

Im worried about this game, it seems that EA doesnt know what the hell they are doing like always! What they fail to understand is if they want to outsell COD they have to win on the consoles not the PC! Yet they are putting all their effort towards the PC ... does not make sense! Yes the PC has better hardware .... but they are being lazy by not using the consoles full potential upon doing this; instead the consoles will get a watered down game. 24 players online for the console is a joke ..... they could get 36 if they really wanted to!
Anyways nice footage Scruffy

[SlipshodDread]

Originally Posted by Jalen

Yea this game looks pretty sexy though. The video for the tank battle looked amazing. I'm kinda falling out of FPS games though, Black Ops really killed the genre for me. I'm only anticipating Revelations.

I've played a lot of CoD in my time (CoD 2 - unknown game hours, CoD 4 - 17 days over 2 accounts, MW2 - 17 days on one account) and black ops has to be THE WORST CoD game I have ever played, by a long shot. Graphics, gameplay, realism, multiplayer etc all took 3 steps back AGAIN. WaW was bad enough, but now this???

Im worried about this game, it seems that EA doesnt know what the hell they are doing like always! What they fail to understand is if they want to outsell COD they have to win on the consoles not the PC! Yet they are putting all their effort towards the PC ... does not make sense! Yes the PC has better hardware .... but they are being lazy by not using the consoles full potential upon doing this; instead the consoles will get a watered down game. 24 players online for the console is a joke ..... they could get 36 if they really wanted to!
Anyways nice footage Scruffy

I agree that they need to focus more on consoles if they want a bigger market share. They obviously focus on different markets, and the bigger market for games in consoles.

Also they are using the consoles' full potential, but it's pretty hard to improve things much when the hardware is already 6 years old. The only reason the games manage to actually get any better is because their game engines become more efficient at using the hardware.

Infinity Ward focuses explicitly on making sure that CoD games run at 60fps. Whereas Battlefield only runs at 30, but that means the maps etc can be bigger and more detailed. You would need a much more powerful machine to do both. My brother's alienware laptop can run Crysis 2 at 60fps in ultimate detail, by comparison the Xbox and PS3 versions of Crysis 2 run at around 60fps on a setting somewhere between low and medium when compared to computers.



I'm getting MW3, mainly because it's the control system I know, and a series I love. But Battlefield will beat it in some areas. I would get both but I will barely even have time to play the 1 when I go to uni in september, so yeah...

[Future Raptor Ace]

Originally Posted by SlipshodDread

I've played a lot of CoD in my time (CoD 2 - unknown game hours, CoD 4 - 17 days over 2 accounts, MW2 - 17 days on one account) and black ops has to be THE WORST CoD game I have ever played, by a long shot. Graphics, gameplay, realism, multiplayer etc all took 3 steps back AGAIN. WaW was bad enough, but now this???




I agree that they need to focus more on consoles if they want a bigger market share. They obviously focus on different markets, and the bigger market for games in consoles.

Also they are using the consoles' full potential, but it's pretty hard to improve things much when the hardware is already 6 years old. The only reason the games manage to actually get any better is because their game engines become more efficient at using the hardware.

Infinity Ward focuses explicitly on making sure that CoD games run at 60fps. Whereas Battlefield only runs at 30, but that means the maps etc can be bigger and more detailed. You would need a much more powerful machine to do both. My brother's alienware laptop can run Crysis 2 at 60fps in ultimate detail, by comparison the Xbox and PS3 versions of Crysis 2 run at around 60fps on a setting somewhere between low and medium when compared to computers.



I'm getting MW3, mainly because it's the control system I know, and a series I love. But Battlefield will beat it in some areas. I would get both but I will barely even have time to play the 1 when I go to uni in september, so yeah...

I agree with you on Black Ops
I have every COD since 2, Played the hell out of 3 and beat it on veteran (probably one of my favorites ... it is so underrated). Went 10th Prestige level 55 in COD 4 as well as beat it on veteran including Mile High Club... COD WAW I beat it on hardened (I liked campaign) but hated online so did not play it much .... COD MW 2 I beat on veteran as well as went level 55 (did not prestige) online.... COD black ops I just did not get (you can see the trend there)! Though I will say the gambling concept they did with online was a good idea but besides that the game looked like crap.
As for Battlefield 3 ... I agree with you on most but I dont think they are using the consoles full potential and it has me frustrated ... they could do more if they were to put more time into it