-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Battlefield 3: E3 2011 Gameplay Trailers
- Thread starter DMczaf
- Start date
Nostalgia~4ever
Banned
Sethos said:
I partially agree, although blowing the full load right now would mean less hype in October. It is like Nintendo's strategy with Zelda.
paranoidfortean
Member
Sethos said:
agreed. i'm just picturing this coming out like bad company 2. not bad, but not amazing.
eternaLightness
Member
Yea, I doubt we'll see much until about a month before it's released.
VGChampion
Member
I rarely ever ski the campaign in a shooter. BC2 was one of the first I just couldn't Play at all. Just wasn't fun compared to MW2's. Luckily the multiplayer was phenomenal and got me my money's worth.mblitek said:
AllIsOneIsNone
Banned
Sethos said:
But you're still thinkin about it, and when they go boom you'll be like zoom!
Nostalgia~4ever said:
Problem is, they already blew their load. A great deal of E3 footage and then everything else is just rehashing that crap over and over, they really blew it prematurely.
A good hype campaign has steady releases up till the release of the retail game with more and more information and better footage being revealed - DICE are really bad at that.
They should take a page out of Rockstar's Hype Book 101.
Nostalgia~4ever
Banned
Sethos said:
how did they blow their load by showing almost nothing?
btw, LAN mode confirmed. Is that old news?
zephervack
Member
Nostalgia~4ever said:
Same old footage but it was pretty cool to see their offices.
Aircrafts/Jets confirmed?
Nostalgia~4ever
Banned
Sethos said:
Of course I remember E3, they showed 45 sec MP trailer and 7 min of Single-player. Plenty? Okay if you're being generous.
Nostalgia~4ever
Banned
Sethos said:
eh I usually follow Zelda hype campaigns so I guess I am used to sparse footage.
YoungFa said:
Haha, you really believe that? A bog standard hype campaign works for all age groups, especially when it comes to gamers. It's so easy to get the older age group pumped for products, it just takes a slightly different approach on how you present it but it's the same deal.
No matter how you slice it, DICE are just fumbling the ball right now.
Anton Sugar
Member
Sethos said:
Agree 100%. We need shitty interviews that tell nothing/rehash E3 and more Battlefield moments throughout the year.
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
It's easier to manipulate an audience if you keep them hungry. I wonder if they'll make the open beta conditional on pre-ordering.Mr. Snrub said:
SneakyStephan
Banned
That must be why the game isn't even in my top 10 anymore of games I look forward to.Sethos said:
It's hard to get excited when nothing at all is shown gameplay wise to get excited about.
Looking for a mp sequel and there is no proper mp footage, well that's where the hype ends then.
Some of us prefer to get excited over tangible things, not empty words.
Nostalgia~4ever
Banned
Anton Sugar
Member
Nostalgia~4ever said:
Come on, now.
Nostalgia~4ever
Banned
Mr. Snrub said:
bad quality yes, but atleast more than a 45 sec teaser.
Anton Sugar
Member
Nostalgia~4ever said:
Never mind the fact that the footage was pulled from the ultimate DICE/EA troll.
4 HOURS OF FOOTAGE TO BE SHOWN
Nostalgia~4ever
Banned
Mr. Snrub said:
eh they just hired some army dude who had no idea how to satisfy gamers. big mistake.
Nostalgia~4ever
Banned
for swedish viewers only I guess, but there is a 16 min long interview with the head animator at DICE. He shows the newsreporter how to work with frostbite.
Interview with Animator Tobias Dahl (swedish)
small summary for the english readers at gaf:
-Shows a in-game tour on the first stage
-DICE says that they must get better in order to compete with the best (the reporter asks why Call of Duty sell better)
-He says that they have about 50 persons at the office testing the game daily and report problems. Tobias Dahl says that his team gets about 40 problems a day he must solve.
-The work tempo is very high at the moment in order to finish the game in a satisfying way.
-Says that frostbite is among the world leading in technology. Talks about the lightning.
-Reporter asks what game is next for DICE - No comment, but that they will try to get even better.
Interview with Animator Tobias Dahl (swedish)
small summary for the english readers at gaf:
-Shows a in-game tour on the first stage
-DICE says that they must get better in order to compete with the best (the reporter asks why Call of Duty sell better)
-He says that they have about 50 persons at the office testing the game daily and report problems. Tobias Dahl says that his team gets about 40 problems a day he must solve.
-The work tempo is very high at the moment in order to finish the game in a satisfying way.
-Says that frostbite is among the world leading in technology. Talks about the lightning.
-Reporter asks what game is next for DICE - No comment, but that they will try to get even better.
Destruction of Battlefield 3 is getting Nerfed
http://www.gamersbook.com/scene/news/destruction-of-battlefield-3-is-getting-nerfed/
IS THIS TRUE?
http://www.gamersbook.com/scene/news/destruction-of-battlefield-3-is-getting-nerfed/
IS THIS TRUE?
-Pyromaniac-
Member
WTF that can't be true. It would make absolutely NO sense to go backwards considering bringing buildings downed worked fine in BC2. I'm calling extreme bullshit.
edit: it even says at the bottom:
edit: it even says at the bottom:
Nostalgia~4ever
Banned
Ostinatto said:Destruction of Battlefield 3 is getting Nerfed
http://www.gamersbook.com/scene/news/destruction-of-battlefield-3-is-getting-nerfed/
IS THIS TRUE?
nope, comes from the article IGN wrote:
IGN said:
For some reason IGN wrote that without an actual source. To clarify:
BC2 = Frostbite 1.5 which introduced Destruction 2.0
BF3 = Frostbite 2.0 which introduces Destruction 3.0 which is also backwards compatible with DS 2.0
Ostinatto said:Destruction of Battlefield 3 is getting Nerfed
http://www.gamersbook.com/scene/news/destruction-of-battlefield-3-is-getting-nerfed/
IS THIS TRUE?
Makes sense to me. I don't want every building on the battlefield collapsible. How much fun is a long push/pull Strike at Karkand game going to be when the entire playing field is flat after the first 10 minutes? I for one love BC2 games at the very beginning when I can shoot from houses and roofs. It always gets really stale towards the end when everyone is hiding in rubble.
Some D2.0 is great, but there needs to be iconic buildings/set pieces that don't fall (completely).
I'm not even hardcore about this series and that is a huge disappointment for me. The variable battlefield is one of the main things that separated the game from others for me. So what if you can blow up the outer walls, the building can still be used for camping (especially since that would mean there would be indestructible walls in the building) and elevation.
Nostalgia~4ever
Banned
MrBig said:
eh DICE has denied the report that the destruction is worse than BC2. It was IGN speculating again that made it newstories
Buildings collapsing in BC2 was every bit as scripted as they seem to be talking about for BF3. Not every building could be taken down, but those that were, were taken down because of specific areas getting specific amount of damage. It's not like the entire building was entirely modeled with physics and collapsed due to physics interactions.
Nostalgia~4ever
Banned
Anton Sugar
Member
If buildings can't get taken down completely, fuck this shit. So the article is completely fabricating the source of this?
Hold on now. Don't kick over that news stand just yet.
I said it when the game was announced and I said it when Bad Company 2 was first shown. There's no way an environment as dense and building heavy as Strike at Karkand or Mashtuur City could hold the same level of destruction as a building in Bad Company 2, for a variety of reasons.
Firstly, the maps in Bad Company 2 were very sparse, with perhaps a few houses hear and there. Even the rarer, denser sections of the maps such as the second base on Arica consisted of repeated housing structures designed to support infantry combat with the natural windows and doors.
Imagine that same level of chaotic destruction on Karkand, it could not happen. What about the building opposite the first flag capture point? If the game were to support a destruction engine similar to that of Bad Company 2, that structure would have to be open to the walls being blown up, and resultantly people running around inside. Think about it, this changes the flow of the map COMPLETELY. If every building is campable and destructive (to the point of collapse) it changes the map flow far too significantly which in turn ruins the play experience.
You're still going to get a sweet level of destruction, with rubble interacting with infantry correctly and even usable as cover, as well as your usual permeable structures like metal and wood. It's just you won't be able to blow pre-determined holes out of each piece of scenery because of the more unique structure set in BF3 and for the sake of map flow.
It's clear BF3 will have tons of destruction, although it seems to be done in a much more sophisticated way than before. To throw a hissy fit at this revelation (although you should've been able to work it out, I did once I saw Bad Company 2) is like complaining because you want 10 bags of sweets, when really that amount would make you sick. They're not doing this to ruin the experience, they're limiting the destruction to a point in order to make it much better.
I said it when the game was announced and I said it when Bad Company 2 was first shown. There's no way an environment as dense and building heavy as Strike at Karkand or Mashtuur City could hold the same level of destruction as a building in Bad Company 2, for a variety of reasons.
Firstly, the maps in Bad Company 2 were very sparse, with perhaps a few houses hear and there. Even the rarer, denser sections of the maps such as the second base on Arica consisted of repeated housing structures designed to support infantry combat with the natural windows and doors.
Imagine that same level of chaotic destruction on Karkand, it could not happen. What about the building opposite the first flag capture point? If the game were to support a destruction engine similar to that of Bad Company 2, that structure would have to be open to the walls being blown up, and resultantly people running around inside. Think about it, this changes the flow of the map COMPLETELY. If every building is campable and destructive (to the point of collapse) it changes the map flow far too significantly which in turn ruins the play experience.
You're still going to get a sweet level of destruction, with rubble interacting with infantry correctly and even usable as cover, as well as your usual permeable structures like metal and wood. It's just you won't be able to blow pre-determined holes out of each piece of scenery because of the more unique structure set in BF3 and for the sake of map flow.
It's clear BF3 will have tons of destruction, although it seems to be done in a much more sophisticated way than before. To throw a hissy fit at this revelation (although you should've been able to work it out, I did once I saw Bad Company 2) is like complaining because you want 10 bags of sweets, when really that amount would make you sick. They're not doing this to ruin the experience, they're limiting the destruction to a point in order to make it much better.
Nostalgia~4ever
Banned
Mr. Snrub said:
the problem is that IGN's so called source does not get you to any quote from DICE. wtf is this shit IGN.
Arf, no building collapsing would be kind of bad.
Buildings + destruction really did change the way the battlefied evolved. Just comparing the landscape of something like Oasis during the first five minutes and the last five just shows how much more dynamic things are.
Please keep it in!
Buildings + destruction really did change the way the battlefied evolved. Just comparing the landscape of something like Oasis during the first five minutes and the last five just shows how much more dynamic things are.
Please keep it in!
Nostalgia~4ever
Banned
some news that make some console fans happy I guess:
demize99 said:
Anton Sugar
Member
Arnie said:
This:
is enough to freak out about, considering that not even all buildings in BC2 were completely destructible.
But it's sourceless, so I'm breathing again. I doubt anyone is expecting a map like Karkand to be COMPLETELY destructible, but to take out building destruction completely? Ridiculous.
The problem you have is that of consistency. Are you implying that certain buildings on a street should be destructible and some shouldn't? On a street of 20 or so buildings? This isn't enjoyable for the player. If they have a certain level of expectation from what they've already accomplished in the game (like blowing up one of Karkand's buildings), to have that expectation then subsequently unfulfilled when a second building does not react similarly would pull them completely out of the experience and feel cheap.Mr. Snrub said:
An example of where Destruction could be used in Karkand is on the building overlooking the second flag at the square. Here the facade would be destructible and provide a sensation similar to Bad Company 2 whereby windows and walls may be destroyed to expose those within, however removing the building altogether would take out a crucial part of the map entirely.
Again, you can have destruction on buildings that impacts gameplay heavily without having to completely collapse the building itself. It might be understandable for a series of houses designed for interior infantry combat like those in Bad Company 2, but for dense Urban environments like supermarkets, apartment blocks and towers like those in BF3 it's a completely unfeasible expectation, not to mention a dense one, would you really want every building to be enterable in a map as dense and large as BF3? Especially when there's a strong likelyhood that Console players will be in games with less than 24 people.
What happens when you're looking to kill that last remaining ticket in Conquest and the final survivor is hidden in the eighth story of an apartment building with only a small exploded hole as an indicator that he was even in there?
Anton Sugar
Member
I really don't think consistency would be as big a deal as you make it out to be. Make buildings of a certain size destructible (as in, can crumble to the ground) while huge ones indestructible (capable of taking damage but can't fall to the ground).
And why all of a sudden are we assuming that all of BF3's maps are going to be dense urban environments? BF2 sure as hell wasn't--some of my favorite maps were just a few buildings separated by hundreds of meters of wide open space. Wake Island, for example--these are all one-story buildings (maybe not in BF3, of course). Why can't these be destructible?
I'm not saying that every single dense urban map needs to be fully destructible--I don't think anyone here was saying that. But removing one of the coolest/terrifying Destruction engine features would be unfortunate.
Killing other players isn't the only way to get tickets down.
And why all of a sudden are we assuming that all of BF3's maps are going to be dense urban environments? BF2 sure as hell wasn't--some of my favorite maps were just a few buildings separated by hundreds of meters of wide open space. Wake Island, for example--these are all one-story buildings (maybe not in BF3, of course). Why can't these be destructible?
I'm not saying that every single dense urban map needs to be fully destructible--I don't think anyone here was saying that. But removing one of the coolest/terrifying Destruction engine features would be unfortunate.
Killing other players isn't the only way to get tickets down.