A Nintendo community
by the fans!
           
  Forum main
 + 
Battlefield 3 news and coverage
 
Newest Trailer:

First Aftermath Trailer


Soldier Names and Favourite Servers

Brick - Brick500
Griptor - Griptor
Xbob42 - Xbob42

Here are some servers provided by our brothers in arms over at Day One Patch
Day One Patch 64 Player Conquest Server
Day One Patch Rush Server

System Requirements:

Minimum System Requirements
OS: WINDOWS VISTA (SERVICE PACK 2) 32-BIT
PROCESSOR: 2 GHZ DUAL CORE (CORE 2 DUO 2.4 GHZ OR ALTHON X2 2.7 GHZ)
MEMORY: 2 GB
HARD DRIVE: 20 GB
GRAPHICS CARD (AMD): DIRECTX 10.1 COMPATIBLE WITH 512 MB RAM (ATI RADEON 3000, 4000, 5000 OR 6000 SERIES, WITH ATI RADEON 3870 OR HIGHER PERFORMANCE)
GRAPHICS CARD (NVIDIA): DIRECTX 10.0 COMPATIBLE WITH 512 MB RAM (NVIDIA GEFORCE 8, 9, 200, 300, 400 OR 500 SERIES WITH NVIDIA GEFORCE 8800 GT OR HIGHER PERFORMANCE)
SOUND CARD: DIRECTX COMPATIBLE
KEYBOARD AND MOUSE
DVD ROM DRIVE

Recommended System Requirements
OS: WINDOWS 7 64-BIT
PROCESSOR: QUAD-CORE CPU
MEMORY: 4 GB
HARD DRIVE: 20 GB
GRAPHICS CARD: DIRECTX 11 COMPATIBLE WITH 1024 MB RAM (NVIDIA GEFORCE GTX 560 OR ATI RADEON 6950)
SOUND CARD: DIRECTX COMPATIBLE
KEYBOARD AND MOUSE
DVD ROM DRIVE

Pre-release Info

Well, after many years, DICE is finally coming out with a proper sequel to Battlefield 2, and they're coming out guns blazing with Call of Duty in their sites! Bad Company 2 was my first Battlefield game, and it was pretty impressive, but it was missing some of the key features of a true Battlefield game, like more players, jets, etc. Battlefield 3 is coming with everything fans of the series want and more. The PC is the lead platform, so it won't have to be watered down for the consoles like the Bad Company spin-off series, but DICE is actually going to make it all work on both the 360 and PS3 regardless.

With the future of Call of Duty up in the air at the moment with Treyarch having shipped Black Ops and out of the picture until 2012 at least, and Infinity Ward in shambles after the mass exodus, we just don't know what we're going to get from the 2011 Call of Duty game, so it seems to be the perfect time for Battlefield to come in and take the FPS crown. I'll admit that I may like the more arcade style of Call of Duty a bit more, but with the formula staying relatively the same all these years, I am starting to get a bit fatigued by it, so I may prefer a change of pace with Battlefield this year, esp. if the next Call of Duty is sub-par.

There hasn't been to much info on Battlefield 3 so far, but what little there is has me very excited. I can't wait to see what true, large scale, Battlefield style warfare is really like.

So far we have this teaser:



And here are some stills from that teaser so that you can get a better look at the all new engine DICE is using for this game, Frostbite 2:



















Mmm mmm mmm! Just think, the game is still in development too, so the graphics can only improve from here, now just imagine how much better everything will look upon release! The game is currently slated for a fall release of this year, so that it can go toe-to-toe with Call of Duty, but I honestly wouldn't be surprised, or upset if it got pushed back a bit since DICE has quite a bit on their table at the moment, and it's going to take a lot of work to get this all to run on the consoles.

Here's some information from an issue of Game Informer on the game:

-Aiming for CY Q4 2011 release
-Concept for BF3 has been in the works for years, waiting on proper tech to seamlessly come together
-Frostbite 2.0 is the culmination of this tech, entirely re-written
-Lighting sounds neat, one "probe" contains more lighting information than an entire BFBC2 level.
-Level destruction is going to be "believable" but basically everything is destructible.
-Character animations powered by ANT, what EA Sports uses.
-AI characters and multiplayer characters have different animation sets
-No more "gliding" animations that look off, animation realism is a focus
-Captured their own war audios (bullets, tanks, helicopters, etc) at different distances to ensure realism
-Better audio cues for certain actions, more easily able to listen for threats
-Plan on better, more immediate post release content
-More unlocks than BFBC2
-Dice trying to find a good balance between customization of your character and not having "pink rabbit hat(s)"
-4 classes
-Will talk about squads "later"
-Looking into a theater mode but can't talk about it
-Will have co-op
-There will be a kill-cam but it can be turned off
-BF3's team is almost twice as big as the team for BFBC2
-They want the pacing of the single player mode to be balanced, with highs and lows. Makes the comparison to a song vs a guitar solo.
-Part of the single player mode takes place in Sulaymaniyah - Iraqi Kurdistan.
-"Fuck" will be used often, so M rated for sure
-There will be an earthquake in a level. The destruction sounds very impressive. 7 story building collapses, looks very well done
-Significant narrative that goes with the SP mode
-More than one setting, you're not in the middle east for the whole game
-PC version is lead version
-Why 64 players for PC only? No complaints from the console crowd.
-No mod tools at release. Maybe none down the line either. Frostbite 2.0 is complex and mods tools would have to be dumbed down, so does Dice really want to put their time to that or would it be better spent elsewhere?
-Original story, not based on Bad Company at all.

Here's a link to the Game Informer scans if you want to read the whole story

It's all very interesting stuff, and DICE's claim of it being a next generation game, on current generation hardware seems quite accurate.

The game is getting a full reveal this week at GDC, so expect another trailer, and more news soon.

So, this is the official Battlefield 3 coverage thread, so if you find any news post it here. If a new trailer is released post it here. If you find a cool interview post it here. Let's keep this thread updated with all the news of the game as we prepare for deploymen to the third Battlefield!

URL to share (right click and copy)
03/01/11, 13:04    Edited: 10/19/12, 06:56
 
   
 
@Xbob42

I'm just pointing out that more players isn't necessarily an advantage. Last time I played TF2 online was I think 24v24 2 Fort and it was a complete mess. Of course, having the option for more players is better but based on Operation Metro it's not something the game is missing at this point.
10/02/11, 13:48   
Well, the idea is that larger maps with lots of vehicles and such (And not being on Rush, for example.) benefit greatly from more players. BF1942 was amazing in large part due to the insanely huge amount of players. I don't think Metro, if that's the level being tested, is really suited to this. From what I hear, it offers a lot of CoD-like qualities to appease those fans that want to try a new style of game, to sort of ease them into BF3.

Now if EA wasn't dead-set on fucking over the consumer in every way possible with this game, I might actually care.
10/02/11, 14:31   
I still don't agree with your take on "playing things the way they're supposed to be played." to me, it's incredibly unrealistic to expect to play everything on max settings, especially with hardware that's a couple tears old. However, being able to jack up a game's graphics, to me, isthe advantage of having a PC. The games these days are scaled very well. You can dial downthe graphics in BF3 and it still looks awesome. Every now and then a game comes out that pushes what PC graphics are capable. Developers aren't going to wait around for Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft to set the graphical standard.
10/02/11, 16:46   
@Xbob42
Funny how the Console beta ran way better than the PC one did then.

And the only obvious difference in the console and PC one is resolution, some motion blur, and maybe some other effects you can't even really notice Ages beyond consoles my ass. Yeah, if you buy 2 GTX 580's it'll be ages beyond consoles.

I almost do hope for the death of PC gaming. I want consoles to become more and more powerful so we can do away with this shit.

According to you, getting a great PC is all cheap and great, but I got a good PC just 2 years ago and it already can't run BF3. So now, only 2 years after spending around 1500, I have to do it again? That's around $3000 in 4 years, while for PS3 you'd pay maybe $600 for YEARS and YEARS of enjoyment. Consoles last forever. My NES is still kicking. Do you think any Voodoo 2's are still lying around? Fuck no. Buying PCs is annoying as fuck and once the tech is done, it's done. I can't do anything with my old Radeon 9800 pro. I spent like 400 on it at the time, and it lasted like a year. Great money spent there, I basically only played like 5 games on it.

PC gaming is shit. Waste of money.

Please, tell me your PC money spending history, how long the stuff lasted you, and what games you played and how they performed. I'd love to know. Let me know your current situation as well.
10/03/11, 01:32   
Edited: 10/03/11, 01:35
@carlosrox

I'm betting that my laptop isn't as good as your computer, so maybe it's something on your end, maybe you need to defrag or something, maybe you need a driver update, in fact there is a specific one that was made just for the beta, so Google AMD or Nvidia Battlefield 3 Beta driver, and you should find it which will increase performance.

As for your complaints about PC gaming, do you really expect developers to not push hardware? Especially now when so many PC games are being held back by the consoles? By pushing the PC, console devs will want new hardware as well, so that the next generation of consoles looks better. Hell, there were supposed to be new cards this year, but both AMD and Nvidia ran into trouble with the 7000 series, and 600 series respectively, so they're pushing them back until next year, so DICE is just future proofing the game for when those cards come out so people can make the most of their purchase.
10/03/11, 03:12   
Who buys a new $1500 computer every two years? Wouldn't you just swap out the graphics card? That's a huge reason people like playing on the PC to begin with. Every couple of years you can get a graphics card that instantly makes practically all of your games look better. You don't have to buy the latest and greatest. You could probably get away with having something like a Radeon HD6870 for around like, $160, which still probably crushes most PC games because they're basically console alternatives. It also depends on your resolution. That's not a bad card at all for playing at 1080p. For instance, I played the demo for Arkham Asylum, and it was pretty awesome. I played it at a high resolution with a perfect 60fps. It's because of that I won't be going with the console version of Arkham City (and I'll get it $10 cheaper).

I don't mind paying a little more at the beginning to play games that perform much better on my computer. I use my XBox for exclusive games that I can play with my friends. Other than that? I'd just as soon get a game on Steam when it hits $10, and run it at a high resolution with a perfect framerate.

(As for my current situation, I'm using a PC I built in June, which includes a Radeon HD6950 I got for around $200, which also came with a free copy of Dirt 3. I'm probably getting on average, between 30 and 40fps in the BF3 Beta, and around 50-60fps in the indoor areas). I'll likely be able to improve that once the final build hits and I can turn off graphical effects that aren't as important to me).

There are a lot of advantages to PC gaming that you're not recognizing. I know you're not a fan, but surely you can see why it's an attractive option for people. The cost just goes on top of a PC they're getting anyway, the games look better, you can easily make them look better every couple of years, it gives you access to Steam (as well as games that play better with a mouse like RTS games), and you can download all of your games onto your hardd drive and launch them instantly. Then you also take into account the massive library at your disposal...surely you can see why people love PC gaming?

Edit: Also, for a gaming computer, you can build something for around $1000 that should be pretty kickass for a few years. Timing is also an issue, but if you can get good deals, a computer shouldn't be THAT outdated in a couple years. What graphics card are you running Carlos?
10/03/11, 04:23   
Edited: 10/03/11, 04:30
Radeon HD 4870

And I think you guys misunderstand. I demand either the best or very very good out my PC games. Anything less pisses me off to the point I WON'T play. As you guys stated yourselves, the point of PC gaming is HIGH END, so why spend money on medium end shit? Annoys the fuck outta me. I refuse to play Deus Ex cuz it runs like shit. BF3 is pissing me off, and I'm sure Rage will too. I play PC games when they run/look fantastic. Anything less can go fuck itself. And getting high end costs too much money and doesn't last long enough.
10/03/11, 06:58   
Edited: 10/03/11, 07:03
@carlosrox Me too on Deus Ex. It blew my mind I couldn't get 60fps from the get go, instead I get 15-20 fps for whatever stupid driver/lack of patch/poor optimization reason (yet I can run Witcher 2 fine). Fuck these finicky beasts.
10/03/11, 07:24   
If you spent $1,500 on a PC and can't max out current games...you overpayed massively across the board. Really not sure ignorance on such a level is grounds for the death of an entire industry. You should be more mad at yourself than PC developers.
10/03/11, 07:29   
I mean, to be fair, the 4870 (I assume it's a 1GB version?) is 3 years old. There is no way on Earth it's going to max out BF3....but to expect it to do that is completely unrealistic and naive. Like it or lump it, it's the reality of the situation.

PC gaming is more than about just having the highest end graphics card. That is NOT what it's all about anymore. Maybe that's what it was about in 1998, but things have changed. PC gaming allows you more freedom than you can have on a console, it gives you the option to crank up the graphics if you pay for it, it gives you an incredibly diverse library, ridiculous sales on individual games, and the convenience of having this all on your computer, where a lot of people tend to live their lives anyway. Free online multiplayer, RTS games, MMOs for people who like them, indie games, etc. You do, very much get what you pay for IMO. (actually, I guess that is what PC games have always been about, haha)

I spent around $1100 on my PC (the price went over $1000) largely due to certain things like getting an SSD and possibly paying too much for a power supply), and it feels fairly top of the line. It does anything I would ever need it to do at ridiculous speeds. It's stupid fast on booting up, and runs Photoshop like nothing I've ever seen before. The difference between this being a gaming computer or not is basically what I spent on my graphics card. So, no, paying $1000 strictly for games isn't very accurate. Games was a part of the equation, but it's not like I paid $1000 for a graphics card. And to think that once your graphics card is outdated, you all of a sudden need a new computer, is kind of ridiculous (unless you own a Mac, but I won't say that in big letters because I still love my old Macbook Pro and use it almost every day)

And I don't expect to have to get a new computer anytime soon. If the graphics card feels like it's losing its luster on me, I'll upgrade it. If my 8GB of RAM isn't doing it for me anymore, I'll pay some ridiculously low amount of money in 2013 for another 8GB of RAM (right now, I saw it at under $60 on Newegg). I can upgrade in chunks, at least for a little while.
10/03/11, 07:45   
Edited: 10/03/11, 08:04
@missypissy
My friend who knows about computers told me the parts I should get. I believe it was 1400-1500 Canadian, including my 24inch Monitor which was about 300 or so.

Or maybe the industry just sucks and having to be an expert to get games running on it is just shit. Bottom line is: I spent all this money only 2 years ago, and it's not enough. Regardless of me, the industry, etc, it's a bullshit lame situation, and that's it. Not gonna convince me otherwise.
10/03/11, 09:36   
Edited: 10/03/11, 09:39
@PogueSquadron

While I'm not advocating that carlos should be complaining about not being able to max out games, I will say that anyone who simply swaps out their graphics card every couple of years really doesn't know much about the upkeep of gaming PC's. You cannot just put in a new graphics card and think that you won't have to upgrade anything else. With each generation of graphics cards, there's an increase in wattage/power consumption. You will literally light your PC on fire if you don't take this in consideration. Your PSU (power supply unit) can only manage so much, and it will cost you several hundreds of dollars for a good (i.e. Corsair quality) replacement. You also have to look at the motherboard, and see if it will be sufficient for squeezing out the potential of your new card.

Whenever you upgrade your PC for gaming, it is imperative that you eliminate as many bottlenecks as possible, so that you're not wasting your money. So yes, it makes more sense to overhaul your PC every couple of years than to simply replace one component. I would only replace one component at a time if the increments between upgrades were like, every 3 to 6 months.
10/03/11, 10:03   
Edited: 10/03/11, 10:05
@carlosrox

This is one game. One game that's pushing the limits, not every single one that's going to come out after it as well.

I also find it ludicrous that you won't play a PC game unless you can max it out, yet will play the console version which will look not look anywhere near as good, and in some cases, not even as good as it would if you were running it at medium on PC to get 60fps.

PC gaming isn't nearly as expensive as people make it out to be, so you, or your friend may have done something wrong. Even if PC gaming is a bit more expensive than console gaming (when taking into consideration the extra dough you'd need to spend for getting good gaming performance that is, after all everyone needs a computer these days), which it may be a little, you save it back up with the countless sales on Steam. Getting Dead Space, Mass Effect, and Bioshock all less than $30!? No way you'd be able to do that with the console versions.
10/03/11, 10:11   
I've been participating in the open beta for BF3. Runs well on my PC, my GPU is a little aged but the 5770 run's it quite smoothly. Found quite a few bugs, but that's expected being the beta. I'd be playing right now, though the service is currently down for maintenance. I should suggest to anyone playing on PC to get updated drivers for you GPU. Both Nvidia and AMD have got beta? drivers that may improve on performance issues.
10/03/11, 10:37   
@casper884 If you buy a sufficient PSU, you shouldn't need to upgrade that for a long time. A 750w (Amperage and rails are the important parts, which are covered on good PSU brands.) from 4 years ago will handle everything just fine. Some people go overkill with 1000w PSUs, but unless you're running SLi/Crossfire those are totally overkill. Upgrading your motherboard is only something you want to do when you've got to upgrade your CPU to a new socket type, upgrading it to "get the most out of your video card," would be absolutely ludicrous, as the difference would be negligible unless we're upgrading from PCI-Express.

Even with RAM, you don't need to upgrade it that often as RAM speeds are absolutely negligible in gaming terms. Your main culprits are going to be proper air flow (Overheating can dramatically cripple performance, this also includes making sure your fans aren't caked with dust.), CPU (Not many games are CPU dependent so a cheap i7/i5 is totally sufficient.) and GPU, which is always the biggest factor, unless you've got some ancient hard drive that bottlenecks your load times or something.

Also, not being virused up the ass helps, too.

Eliminating every last minor bottleneck is what you do to squeeze out a few frames. In general, as long as you're aware of what's compatible with what (Basic stuff.) then you're not going to run into any real significant bottle neck. A few people buy some really cheap PSUs which cause some problems (No power -> Lowered performance, obviously.) but like I said, a decent PSU from years ago is a decent PSU today.

Upgrading your motherboard to "maximize potential," with a new video card is an absolutely ridiculous thing to do.
10/03/11, 11:17   
@Xbob42

For the PSU, it really depends on how much you're upgrading. If it's just the GPU, then yeah, you should be okay for a while. But my point is that upgrading your gaming PC is not just about swapping out the GPU every couple of years. You need to examine the entire PC at each upgrade, see what the games are demanding at the time, and prevent bottlenecks from occurring.


Anyway, motherboards can absolutely bottleneck your PC if you're trying to keep it high-end and cutting edge. Just like PCI-Express v1.0 doesn't cut it anymore, v2.0 will eventually reach that point as well. Mobos don't have unlimited bandwidth, and if your GPU and other components exceed that bandwidth (and they most certainly will using crossfire/SLI), then the mobo will become a bottleneck. Again, I'm talking about high-end PC gaming. Casual upgrades won't require such stringent standards, but let's not pretend that people can keep their PC's cutting edge by simply swapping out their GPU's every couple of years. And there is no such thing as 'overkill' when it comes to high-end PC gaming unless you have bottlenecks.
10/03/11, 12:32   
Edited: 10/03/11, 12:34
You're not talking high-end, you're talking extreme-end, when people spend excess on top-tier video cards and buy those "extreme edition" CPUs!
10/03/11, 12:57   
@Xbob42

Okay, that's probably a little more accurate, but it's still appropriate considering the nature of the discussion, and people expecting to run every game at maximum settings; you're not going to be able to do that by just swapping out a GPU every couple of years.
10/03/11, 13:43   
Edited: 10/03/11, 13:44
Yeah I guess ishiyld clarify, as my computer is only 4 months old, so I haven't done anything like that...my plan isn't really to upgrade the gpu every few years really, but given what kind of PSU I have, I think I should be able to upgrade it once and get away with it, or possibly by the same cheaper card and Crossfire at some point. I'm just saying if you do your research, you can extend the life of your PC without having to buy a new one every 3 years. I'm hoping I can maybe replace the GPU in a few years. I wound up getting a 750w Corsair PSU because I was having trouble with cheaper ones.

Edit: Also, regarding upgrades...to me, I only judge by what I know. If I upgrade my computer every 5 years, I don't need the highest end computer in the world, because even a medium end PC is going to wow me. That's what happened with me this time. It had been 5 years since I got my old Macbook Pro, and even it couldn't run Portal at max settings at 1440x900. Jump to today, and I can get something that's sort of 'medium' end, and it will still blow me away. For me, I'm not looking for the best, I'm looking for a substantial jump over what I had before.

Maybe settings in the BF3 beta are indeed locked at medium, high...but I jacked everything to Low last night, and it still looked pretty amazing. Then again, I don't know if that actually turns everything to low. It certainly made the framefrate incredibly smooth.
10/03/11, 17:32   
Edited: 10/03/11, 18:04
Be sure to tune into GTTV this Thursday night for a whole episode on Battlefield 3, including a 6 minute segment of a jet mission from the Singleplayer

10/05/11, 03:29   
  Forum main
 +