A Nintendo community
by the fans!
Browse      3    
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

Recommended System Requirements

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   Edit:  10/19/12, 06:56
I only planned on picking up the following three games this fall: Battlefield 3, Zelda: Skyward Sword, and Elder Scrolls 5: Skyrim.
03/18/11, 17:11
Sounds like some good choices. I'm sure I'm forgetting some but that list sounds more than enough for one season.
03/19/11, 01:09
Episode 3 is now out, and it's the best yet!

As Griptor would say, oh my tits!
03/31/11, 00:10
Very nice. The game does look super scripted though, isn't that something BO got shit for?
03/31/11, 00:53
carlosrox said:
Very nice. The game does look super scripted though, isn't that something BO got shit for?

No idea how much is scripted, don't care, BF offline looks nice, but no one really gives a shit about it who is a Battlefield fan. ;P As I'm sure you know.

Everyone knows the most epic battlefield moments come spontaneously from players, that make everything else pale in comparison!
03/31/11, 04:50
Meh. I care about both. I hate MP whores like you
03/31/11, 06:15
Hummina hummina hummina...
03/31/11, 07:12
carlosrox said:
Meh. I care about both. I hate MP whores like you

Battlefield has been solely about the MP since its inception, though!
03/31/11, 07:13

Except there's too much emphasis on MP these days. Even if BF has always been about the MP, it's good to see it have an actual singleplayer, solitary experience now. Sorry, but a game can not hold up on its multiplayer alone, after all, once the next game comes out, then it becomes a ghost town, and even if there's still fans playing it, what happens when all the servers shut down? Sure they could last years, but eventually they will be taken off by their owners, whether by their choice, their financial situation, their death, whatever.

Yes the MP is what's going to have the most of my play hours, and yes it may overall be the better experience, but just by the very idea of what multiplayer, in any game, is about, there's going to be something that will always hold it back, and factors in the way of multiplayer that the game can't help, whether it's the aforementioned lack of servers, the childish wankers online, or whatever have you. A full priced game has to be able to stand up on its singleplayer alone. After all, multiplayer only lasts as long as it's popular, while a great singleplayer will last forever, and you can play it over, and over again as long as you have the game and a working machine to play it on. Multiplayer should always be the bonus that comes with the singleplayer.

Besides, if we are ever going to show that games can indeed be art, then it's up to the singleplayer to do that, because with multiplayer in games like CoD or BF, there's really nothing artistic about that part of the game, it's really the most "game-y" aspect of the game, and is just basically a high tech chess match with guns, and chess is not art, it's a board game. Sure some may argue that chess is art, ("Chess, first of all, is art." -- Mikhail Tal), but I'd argue that it is not. It may be the most elegant board game of all time, but it's still just a board game, something designed for one player to win, otherwise something like Mouse Trap is also art (you can also argue that video games are meant to be won, but not all of them are these days). Now the art of chess might be something different, i.e. a very skilled player like Mikhail Tal mentioned above might be considered "an artist", but then Kobe Bryant would also be an artist at basketball because of his skill in his game, but basketball is not art, chess is not art, Mouse Trap is not art, hopscotch is not art; they're games. Video games may still be mostly games, toys if you will, at this point, but they are evolving, becoming something more, and can offer grand experiences like no other, but it's not the multiplayer centric games that will really be showcasing that form of artistry. Don't get me wrong of course, I love multiplayer, and I'm not asking for it to disappear, and there's nothing wrong with it, and the "game-y" aspect of it, nor is there anything wrong with it not being art, but I feel that there is too much focus on multiplayer in this day and age, and I'm getting tired of it. Multiplayer is always about the next big thing, and once the next big thing is out, then the last one is obsolete basically, but great singleplayer will last for generations, and I've always been more of a singleplayer kind of guy, and I hate how most games are so short these days. Offer me a great experience that I can have alone, and I'll keep coming back to it, just like a great movie will get repeat viewings, a great picture might get me to hang it on my wall and admire it each day, and a great song will get many listens to it.
03/31/11, 09:49
I completely disagree with everything you said, Brick. ;P

Using a Single Player, inferior experience on a game designed around multiplayer to validate some... arcane idea that something needs to be art or that you need to have SOME sort of experience there forever is silly. Who's gonna buy a game all about multiplayer 20 years later to play some shoddy single player experience tacked on?

I mean, I buy my single player and multiplayer experiences separately, unless there's a rare occasion where both are amazing.
03/31/11, 12:14
Scrawnton said:
I only planned on picking up the following three games this fall: Battlefield 3, Zelda: Skyward Sword, and Elder Scrolls 5: Skyrim.

*ahem* I believe you forgot Batman: Arkham City!

Man that game is going to kick all kinds of ass.
03/31/11, 13:13

And I knew you would disagree....

Forget about my little art rant, that's not the main point, the main point is the things I pointed out that the game can't help, like servers becoming ghost towns. Games should be able to last forever, but multiplayer only games don't, and they can't, because eventually the servers go down. Compare that to other games like Super Mario Bros. 3 which people still buy, and can still have fun with it...even though it's 20 years old! As for singleplayer being tacked on, that's the very point I'm trying to get at! The developers are too focused on multiplayer, and just throw in singleplayer, when they really should be giving equal time and effort to both! It upsets me when I hear that there are people who never play the singleplayer of Call of Duty, and just go right for the multiplayer. I mean what the fuck!? Some of those CoD campaigns are really good, and people are missing out on them, and if so many people aren't even going to touch singleplayer, then what is the point of even making one, and that's something I really don't want to see.
04/01/11, 00:55
The recent Call of Duty single player campaigns are less than shit, they're an insult to intelligence and general and the very foundation of storytelling. It makes me MAD to think of them.

Anyway, people can always boot up any properly designed PC multiplayer game, too! Because you can (when the dev isn't being console-centric) make your own server for free, right from your PC!

Not every game needs to last forever, and thus the Single Player isn't always a necessity. Sometimes a game is designed around multiplayer because the entire idea for the game itself was derived from an idea involving massive battles between players. That's what I'm saying. Don't tack something on just to meet checklist demands.
04/01/11, 02:28

Yeah because you've played the recent CoD games, even though you've stated before that you hate them and don't buy them? I'm not even talking about story, because as stupid as it was, I enjoyed the MW2 campaign because it was fun, the most important part of any game.

Even with PC games and the ability to make your own server, eventually your server will get shut down whether you like it or not, whether it's because you don't like the game anymore, don't have the time anymore, you die, whatever. No multiplayer game lasts forever. Period. It can't. Think about GoldenEye for the N64, so many people loved the multiplayer, but these days it might be hard to get 3 of your friends together and play it, but luckily there's still a kickass singleplayer to play. That's the kind of game we should be getting more often. That's the kind of game that will go down as a classic. A game that has both amazing singleplayer, and multiplayer will go down in history. As much as I'm going to like Battlefield 3, sorry, but it's not going to last forever, and will only be played while it's popular, and once Battlefield 4 is out, then bye bye to number 3.
04/01/11, 03:48
So? Why does a game need to last forever?

And yes, I've played the CoD games, and no, I don't buy them. Why would I? There's 5+ steam accounts in this house, I don't NEED to buy any game I don't want to play mutliplayer as someone else already has! Big family for the win, I suppose. And I didn't find the CoD campaigns very fun at all -- respawn closets! Woo!

But that's not the point.

Goldeneye is half the game it used to be because the multiplayer, as you say, is crippled. Further, it is even less of a game because of how dated it is. Worrying about how a game will be in 10-15 years is pointless. Enjoy it while you can and if you can years later, that's great! If not, no big deal, there's thousands more to play!

I suppose we have different priorities.
04/01/11, 04:09

And here's where I bring up the art debate again; movies, paintings, books don't really age. Games do.

But let's not get into that.

Back in the days of of early FPS games like Doom, Wolfenstein, Quake, etc. it was all about the singleplayer, but then soon multiplayer centricity slipped in, and things became stagnant. The once great singleplayer games became multiplayer only, and it was a bore. Then the shining light from Heaven came; Half-Life. Things got better after that, but now we're going through the same thing, where multiplayer is taking too much priority, and singleplayer is cast to the side. It's sad, and things need to change. Luckily there are some great FPSes that are indeed setting things right. Crysis 2 for example, it has a great lenghthy (albeit maybe still a little too short) campaign, but has a great multiplayer in addition to it. I don't want games to focus too much on multiplayer, and basically start blurring together. Fuck, even Crysis 2 which is supposed to have a very fun multiplayer, is still kind of a CoD clone, only futuristic. Games need to set themselves apart with the singleplayer, like the Crysises, Bioshocks, and Half-Lifes, because right now, I feel that the multiplayer is a bit too much of the same thing between each game.
04/01/11, 04:39
Well I suppose that's where the difference in opinion comes from. I personally feel that the very design of first-person shooters (Which is what we're mostly talking about here.) is based on a competitive aspect. Single-player campaigns can be fun for me, but the way shooters are designed makes me feel that I'm wasting my time against AI (The original Crysis had some great AI, I hear that the sequel, while not TERRIBLE, is an enormous step down, contrary to what I'd initially heard.) that I'd either easily defeat or that would cheat to kill me.

Against other players, I feel like I maximize everything about the game. Get the most use out of the most guns and tactics that enemy AI would be able to cheat around. I feel much more satisfaction beating a bunch of people than shooting some poorly designed AI.

I suppose if AI became amazing, making even original Crysis on Delta looking simple, then I'd quickly change my mind. Shooters, though, are in my opinion not conducive to single-player experiences without a lot of hard work that may in the end hurt multiplayer. (Half-Life multiplayer, for example, bores me, but the Singleplayer is great.)

I'd also argue that movies and books do indeed age and greatly so, just not the uberclassics. Mario hasn't aged, either, in that regard. But Mario, like Citizen Kane, is an exception, and most definitely not the rule.
04/01/11, 04:45
EA confirms that Battlefield 3 will hit store shelves this November.


I agree that online against other people is great, and in fact I feel that in terms of competitive online multiplayer, nothing beats a great shooter.

The reason I like singleplayer more is because it offers things that multiplayer can not offer, like great set-pieces, more variety, characters I might care about or loathe, and a story that compels me. In terms of AI, that's where I prefer the more fantastical type of shooters as opposed to the modern military genre, that way I can have enemies that behave in a way that no human player can possibly control, like mutants running around and flipping off walls, enemies flying through the air, gigantic boss battles, etc. That's why even though the Metroid Prime games aren't shooters, if they were, they'd be some of the best damn shooters ever.
04/07/11, 06:53
Sweet! Cannot wait until November!

I dunno, I just can't get into shooter stories as well as I can with other genres. I certainly love my Half-Lifes and Metroid games... but most shooters seem far too arcadey for me to take seriously, I guess? That's kinda why I liked Mirror's Edge so much, even though the story was nothing amazing, the fact that I was given the option of fight or flight for most of the game (And ALWAYS given the option of not shooting, save one scene against an inanimate object.) made it seem more real and more, I dunno, exhilarating? The goal for me was always escape, never beating the crap out of people, and if I had to, I'd use my fist, never fired a single shot save for the aforementioned one.

I think, to me, shooters just seem kind of silly and over-the-top, while at the same time often taking themselves too seriously. Even Half-Life, which has a great story and setting, is one guy blowing the shit out of everything in his path with little to no trouble. (In terms of canon, you may die a lot.)

That's why I think I liked episode 2's ending so much. It was pure chaos, and you were barely able to fight back the hordes, even with super weaponry. So while it was even more insane than usual, it felt exciting and very dangerous, rather than like enemies are lining up to die.
04/07/11, 07:20
^I don't think your inability to get into shooter stories has anything to do with the genre...I think it's just that the story in 95% of shooters is terrible.

I definitely couldn't get into the campaign in BC2 at all. I did enjoy the campaigns in the last few Halo games though, but I think it's primarily because Bungie does a good job with having a good amount of variety in each game.
04/07/11, 07:27
Browse      3