Battlefield Tri-hard

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by =sw=warlord

I'm pretty sure lighting comes under the graphics category.:v:

---

I think you just didn't comprehended that part of my post properly. I said I know graphics aren't everything, but the little details like <insert graphical nitpick> make the game feel more polished. Operative conjunction is "but".


@ejburke: That's the point. In real life, the only thing you really have to attract your attention to a threat is motion, because everybody uses camouflage and cover. Battlefield is not just a game-game, it's always been about simulating a real combat situation within some constrained location. The difference between them and ArmA II is that DICE wants to keep it accessible to everybody, not just hardcore sim players.

@higuy: DICE have said that it will take place in a wide range of locations all over the world, from close-in urban combat to wide expansive battlefields in places like Europe, China, and the Middle East.

@Amit: I'm still sceptical of Crysis 2. It doesn't look THAT impressive so far. It may be technically advanced, but they could learn a thing or two on how to create atmosphere.

I have complete faith that the game will look as it did in the trailer(s), as CN#'s stated it doesn't look that much past BC2 in terms of graphics when you've got them maxed out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ejburke

Now I know how the T-Rex from Jurassic Park felt.

---

Contrary to popular belief, the T-Rex had excellent vision.

I wouldn't entirely doubt those are in fact the in-game graphics, seeing as this is now the full upgrade to Frostbite. What comes to mind is MoH's MP, which was at first what I thought I was looking at when I saw the pictures in whatever magazine they showed it in. That was just Frostbite 1.5+ (or so) though, now we're at Frostbite 2.0 and years of production with a full staff on it.

But really, I'd like to not compare graphics seeing as no one has played the retail version of either game on your computer on a full screen at a high res with all the settings to a respectable degree. How about just going back to the general discussion of what we expect out of this monster?

A forked Frostbite at that.

I believe those are legit graphics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phopojijo

I believe those are legit graphics.

---

Speaking of which, when was the last time DICE didn't use ingame footage for a trailer?

This looks beast. Better not be like Medal Of Honer. Camp gallor that game is, and it fails really bad at letting you know you are taking bullets until it's too late. Movement is also too slow.

But this looks AWESOME I'm happy if i can blow the supports from a building up and make it fall :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MXC

Speaking of which, when was the last time DICE didn't use ingame footage for a trailer?

---

This man speaks the truth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ejburke

I'm not excited about graphics in a multiplayer game. I would crank it down so that every enemy is rendered as bright flashing diamonds, if I could. It's getting to the point where the only things I can pick out of the environment are the things that are moving. Now I know how the T-Rex from Jurassic Park felt.

---

Geez, not everything is about multiplayer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Limited

Geez, not everything is about multiplayer.

---

Wait, Battlefield has campaign?

BF3 will have a full campaign

Battlefield 3 will.

We'll see a lot more at GDC. Apparently EA is going to do their big release March 1st.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by =sw=warlord

Wait, Battlefield has campaign?

---

BC1 and BC2 did, but the gameplay felt like playing multiplayer maps with sub-par AI, even on the highest difficulty. Even Modern Warfare 2 had better level design. The characters were pretty likable, though!

I wouldn't be too concerned about the quality of BF3's single player, after playing BC1 and BC2 my expectations aren't high anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Buckshot

BC1 and BC2 did, but the gameplay felt like playing multiplayer maps with sub-par AI, even on the highest difficulty. Even Modern Warfare 2 had better level design

---

Whoosh!

Buckshot, Battlefield and Bad Company are very different games in terms of development direction. Battlefield 2 never had ANY Singleplayer, which is what BF3 is going to be the sequel 2. The Battlefield games were never really about Singleplayer.

Well, BF2 did have singleplayer, but it was, um, multiplayer maps with sub-par AI... Guess they knew where they stood back then :P

His hair bothers the shit out of me.

That aside, I kind of liked the over the top audio in Bad Company 2. Granted, it was more fitting for a large battle rather than the small, isolated warzones that we had, but it was fun. Still, I trust DICE with the audio because quite frankly, they are the only ones who seem to put some love into it.

Don't like Leon Kennedy? :p

ROFL. He doesn't bother me so much, but it would help if his voice was cinematic like Leon's.

At least he doesn't have a whiney bitch behind him.

Wow check this out:



EDIT: Fresh screen caps from the vid, just to add to the OP. It's blasphemy to look at the pics without watching the video.

http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h2...203/follow.png
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h2...3/meatshop.png
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h2.../alleyrays.png
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h2...3/doorbust.png
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h2...203/street.png
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h2...etdoorbust.png
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h2...03/mandown.png
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h2...lltosafety.png
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h2...emysighted.png
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h2.../firefight.png
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h2...203/tracer.png
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h2...203/sparks.png
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h2.../particles.png
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h2...d%203/ACOG.png
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h2...203/bodies.png
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h2.../RPGstrike.png
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h2...d%203/ahhh.png
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h2...oeckedback.png

Video wouldn't load. The M4 in the screen caps looks awesome. I like how they made the charging handle more prominent than in most games. Looks good that way.

http://scrawlfx.com/gallery/albums/b...-01-11_001.jpg

Also a screenshot they released.

Also -- when he's dragging the body -- notice the overlay... "WSAD". It's a PC build.

Fucking fantastic character animations

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phopojijo

Also -- when he's dragging the body -- notice the overlay... "WSAD". It's a PC build.

---

Yeah, I noticed that too. I'm not too surprised as they said they are working with the PC as the main build platform.

With all the new animation and destruction, I wonder how CPU-bound this game is going to be. Upgrading my GPU, I can do, but I am not building a whole new PC for another year at least. Hopefully, it scales really well. I guess it has to, to be able to run on consoles.

Wow, this game looks pretty damn ni-

...omfg, are you fucking kidding me? WHAT IS THAT THUMB DOING ON THE GUN? D:
Y RELOAD HAVE NO MOTION?!
WHERE BE ENTHUSIASM IN SPRITING?
Someone shoot me, and them too, because that's just embarrassing.

its gonna be ok odx.
E: holy shit it really is gonna be ok. that is one impressive trailer.

Ugh, I hate the HUD. Hated that style in MoH too. Go back to BC2 HUD guys :/

@ODX: Dude...it's an alpha build, and the trailer jumped forwards several times. And if you've ever fired a real AR-15 rifle, that is where your thumb generally winds up if you hold it there. I prefer to hold mine by the magazine well, but you risk burning yourself on the delta ring if you do that.

That said: OMGIWANTTHISGAME. I'm going to call it now: Activision is about to be dethroned. My only outstanding criticism is that the M4 sounded too squishy (not enough pop or bang). Considering that they went to a live military exercise, I hope that this will be remedied. The audio is still two cuts above the rest, though, even at this stage.

updated the first post accordingly

I noticed that they've gotten rid of the BF2 mag system (reloading dumps the extra bullets still left) in favor of the standard ammo pool, and there were a couple of muddy textures here and there, but

well

yeah

Can't wait to see some MP footage

E: Update with some new info, according to an IGN article

-Dragging bodies will not be included in multiplayer
-Singleplayer will not stay with the same characters over the course of the entire story
-The campaign is likened to a tutorial for online play (don't know if that's good or bad)
-Different firing modes for guns (ex. M16 can switch between semi-auto, burst, and full-auto)
-"Every encounter has a finite amount of hostiles that react dynamically to the demands of battle." No CoD infinite enemy generators
-DICE isn't sure what kind of health system they're using yet, but they say "We know there are pros and cons. We want to make sure that when we talk about that, we take it seriously."

Saw some comments complaining about the HUD. Honestly, they could just remove it entirely and I wouldn't mind. If nothing else, they could do away with the crosshairs since you have to use the irons to hit anything reliably anyways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warsaw

@ODX: Dude...it's an alpha build

---

It's not like it's hard to make good animations the first time around :saddowns:

I just watched it again and saw my fears realized -- can't see shit. Enemies appear as smokey silhouettes, and that's only if you're looking right down your magnification scope at them. I realize that's "realistic", but is having a 70 degree field of view realistic? Is seeing a narrow, low-res 2D raster image of a battlefield what soldiers experience? As graphical fidelity goes up, situational awareness gets left to die. That's my chief complaint about all these modern soldier porn wank-fests. BF '42 wasn't that at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ejburke

I just watched it again and saw my fears realized -- can't see shit. Enemies appear as smokey silhouettes, and that's only if you're looking right down your magnification scope at them. I realize that's "realistic", but is having a 70 degree field of view realistic? Is seeing a narrow, low-res 2D raster image of a battlefield what soldiers experience? As graphical fidelity goes up, situational awareness gets left to die. That's my chief complaint about all these modern soldier porn wank-fests. BF '42 wasn't that at all.

---

Did you not see the guy throw the smoke grenade? Of course they are going to show up as silhouettes when they come through the smoke. Not to mention, the dust from the environment when it gets shot up.

Another thing I found funny was that they bleeped out the F word twice in the beginning and then when the squad leader asks for a sitrep, the guy yells out: "I'm fucked up, but I'm up!"

I lol'd more at his line, than the censoring.

Oh god why can't they get the arabic right? why is all the arabic backwards??!! the hotel in the pictures has the right spelling, but it's backwards! it's the same thing as bf2. all the hotels had backwards spelling, and it's kinda annoying to an arabic speaker like me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ejburke

I just watched it again and saw my fears realized -- can't see shit. Enemies appear as smokey silhouettes, and that's only if you're looking right down your magnification scope at them. I realize that's "realistic", but is having a 70 degree field of view realistic? Is seeing a narrow, low-res 2D raster image of a battlefield what soldiers experience? As graphical fidelity goes up, situational awareness gets left to die. That's my chief complaint about all these modern soldier porn wank-fests. BF '42 wasn't that at all.

---

Situational awareness does not get left to die. What you want is a bright neon sign pointing out where all the enemies are. That is not situational awareness, that is called assisted or augmented reality. If anything, the game is demanding you to be more aware because now you have to keep your head on a swivel to check all the nooks and crannies for bad guys. Even though it's obviously a scripted instance, it would still be intelligent to attack with your back to the glare in order to disrupt your profile as the enemy has to squint to make you out. Then there's the obvious advantages to throwing dust and smoke around to hide your movement. Are you frustrated because this is a game where smoke actually does what it's supposed to?

It's fine. There is nothing wrong with having to actually have some skill and thought input to play a game well. Shooters do not have to be mindless.

Oh look, something to put my canceled Crysis 2 pre-order money into.

Heh, I did that two days ago. Back to Karkand!

Why is there no Steam pre-order option! :gonk:

I'm waiting for pre-ordering through Steam so I don't have to go through painful update processes every time I download the game on a new computer. I advise you people to do the same.

You played the MP demo, too? Terrible, isn't it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ExAm

You played the MP demo, too? Terrible, isn't it?

---

Wrong thread?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Amit

Wrong thread?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Freelancer

Oh look, something to put my canceled Crysis 2 pre-order money into.

---

Nope.

I want the physical box. While there are no details, the picture on EA's website makes it look like the Limited Edition comes in a metal case with the artwork painted/printed on. Do want.

I also like having my massive library of games be tangible. Much more impressive than a 300+ GB Steam list.

I'd like the physical box as well, but I'm not gonna let EA fuck me for $60 and not get the map pack for free with it. Especially when the game will be $59.99 after launch and since it's almost guaranteed that they will price the map pack at $15. Pre-order on Steam is the way to go.

Gamestop automatically bumps you to the limited edition with a pre-order. Still get the map pack for free.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warsaw

Gamestop automatically bumps you to the limited edition with a pre-order. Still get the map pack for free.

---

You do realize that there is only one edition of the game, right? The Limited Edition. The only thing limited about this edition is that if you don't pre-order the game before it launches, the limited time offer for free Back to Karkand expires. After launch the game will drop the limited edition and EA will charge $15 for the Back to Karkand maps.

Exactly. Which is why I don't understand why you are holding out for a Steam pre-order if you also want the physical copy. Pre-order your physical copy, and get Back to Karkand for free.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warsaw

Exactly. Which is why I don't understand why you are holding out for a Steam pre-order if you also want the physical copy. Pre-order your physical copy, and get Back to Karkand for free.

---

Ahh, I see what you mean now. Yes, but I'm not gonna let them fuck me on the shipping. The game isn't available in Canadian Gamestops yet. The last time I imported a game from the US, it cost me $85 altogether. $49.99 for the game, add taxes, shipping...there you go.

Holy fuck...that's almost as bad as Australia has it.

Well yeah that's what we call "Customs Fees".

Yeah, LOTRO was the last physical boxed game that I've bought. That was April 2007. I started up a steam account in February 2007 to buy CSS. I've gone purely digital since April of that year.

So how about some more gameplay footage?

It's got earthquakes!

Is it not on youtube yet?

It has been, several times. Then it gets deleted in 10 minutes. This one probably won't go down, though:

Well I downloaded it anyways. Looks awesome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warsaw

Situational awareness does not get left to die. What you want is a bright neon sign pointing out where all the enemies are. That is not situational awareness, that is called assisted or augmented reality. If anything, the game is demanding you to be more aware because now you have to keep your head on a swivel to check all the nooks and crannies for bad guys. Even though it's obviously a scripted instance, it would still be intelligent to attack with your back to the glare in order to disrupt your profile as the enemy has to squint to make you out. Then there's the obvious advantages to throwing dust and smoke around to hide your movement. Are you frustrated because this is a game where smoke actually does what it's supposed to?

It's fine. There is nothing wrong with having to actually have some skill and thought input to play a game well. Shooters do not have to be mindless.

---

How does being able to see your enemies clearly make a game mindless.

Hell, I could make the argument that lowered visibility makes a game more mindless as it encourages random spray anywhere you think an enemy might be (see: call of duty).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warsaw

Situational awareness does not get left to die. What you want is a bright neon sign pointing out where all the enemies are. That is not situational awareness, that is called assisted or augmented reality. If anything, the game is demanding you to be more aware because now you have to keep your head on a swivel to check all the nooks and crannies for bad guys. Even though it's obviously a scripted instance, it would still be intelligent to attack with your back to the glare in order to disrupt your profile as the enemy has to squint to make you out. Then there's the obvious advantages to throwing dust and smoke around to hide your movement. Are you frustrated because this is a game where smoke actually does what it's supposed to?

It's fine. There is nothing wrong with having to actually have some skill and thought input to play a game well. Shooters do not have to be mindless.

---

How do you make intelligent decisions when the information you need to make those choices is thoroughly obscured? The dust and glare are static and pervasive. If someone strategically deployed a smoke grenade, that would be one thing, but when the smoke is something that must be overcome, always, it factors out of any tactical utility.

I don't necessarily need augmented reality. I just want to be able to become aware of a situation from a reasonable distance, in a reasonable amount of time, so I can get to the part of the game that is fun. The part of the game where I'm reacting and making informed decisions.

But I'm sure there are plenty of people that agree with you. The "Soldier role play" market is huge. But I'm not into that. I want some substance.

You're in the wrong game then. Battlefield has always been about soldier play. I'm not seeing why you are having a hard time picking out targets, though. If "reasonable distance" to you is anything more than 250m, that's being a bit over-demanding. I mean, even at greater ranges you can still see someone, you just have to be more attentive. The only maps that I feel could seriously use some toning down on the dust and glare are White Pass and Atacama Desert, but they are not unplayable. The other big issue is that the dust/snow clips through buildings as if they aren't even there. That really fucks with you. You aren't the type of player that goes sprinting around the map shooting any enemy you can find, are you?

@Pooky: now that's just a stupid statement and you know it. Nobody goes running around in Battlefield just spraying their weapon into every nook because they supposedly can't see.

Over 250 you need a sniper rifle or to be very practiced in marksmanship. That's why the Taliban are so ineffective at using small arms. They have to resort to using IEDs because they dont know how to hit shit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TVTyrant

Over 250 you need a sniper rifle or to be very practiced in marksmanship. That's why the Taliban are so ineffective at using small arms. They have to resort to using IEDs because they dont know how to hit shit.

---

I heard they excel in hit and run tactics, though.

Yeah, but they have to get close. Thats the key when you dont know how to shoot; get in close and spray as many rounds at your target as you possibly can.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TVTyrant

Over 250 you need a sniper rifle or to be very practiced in marksmanship. That's why the Taliban are so ineffective at using small arms. They have to resort to using IEDs because they dont know how to hit shit.

---

250 is child's play. 400 is where it starts getting tricky.

At any rate, I meant in-game. In Bad Company 2, it's easy to spot enemies with little effort out to 250m. Beyond that, and you have to be actively looking for them against the background. Hitting them with any weapon is actually not that hard until you start making those >800m headshots on Heavy Metal, and THEN I can understand it being hard to see the target. However, at 800m, not seeing the target too well is natural.

Yes it is for someone who practices all the time. As far as I've heard from some buds who have been on tour there, most taliban only know how to change mags and cycle the bolt. There guns are rusted and pitted pretty badly, and a lot of there AKs have had the stock removed. 250 is a pretty generous range for a rusted out gun with Sino produced ammo and no weapons training.
I was refering to BC2 in a way as well. Out to a certain range, its pretty easy to hit targets with the irons. After that you need the sniper though, because there 4x reticle sucks and the red dot is incredibly inprecise. The Recon class is the only one capable of hitting players at that distance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warsaw

@Pooky: now that's just a stupid statement and you know it. Nobody goes running around in Battlefield just spraying their weapon into every nook because they supposedly can't see.

---

Only about as asinine as saying that a clear view of your enemies makes a game mindless. I never said I actually think that.

I said that running and gunning was mindless (i.e. CoD and Halo). The view of the enemies is plenty clear in BC2. What he wants is essentially the game to especially contrast them with their background. Well, so much for camouflage or hiding in shadows. I play BC2 on a 480i TV set (since the gaming PC is busted). I can claim I have trouble seeing enemies, but only at ranges exceeding 200m. If you are playing at 1080p, or even 720p, you have no claim. If a guy is hiding in the dust or a shrub, of course you aren't going to see him-that was the point. If he's barely poking his head out of a window, you aren't going to see him from 400m, not even 250m without bringing up irons.

The glare isn't the trouble. The problem is that Battlefield is a game where you have to sit tight, look around, and pray you don't get spotted as you dart from cover to cover. It's not a classic deathmatch, it's not a full on arcade shooter like Halo, and the maps are on a whole different scale than any other popular title. If you can't see, you aren't adapting very well to the game play. If you don't play regularly, then why are you even complaining? Battlefield has never been a game where players can just jump in and kill things well...hell, it's not even a game strictly about killing, it's about team play. You can always tell who the CoD players are because they get a ton of kills and still somehow stay at the lower ranks on the score board because they weren't doing anything useful like healing, reviving, resupplying, capping, or tank-busting.

You can make the glare a hell of a lot less obtrusive by turning off bloom in settings.ini, and turning down your brightness ingame.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warsaw

I said that running and gunning was mindless (i.e. CoD and Halo). The view of the enemies is plenty clear in BC2. What he wants is essentially the game to especially contrast them with their background. Well, so much for camouflage or hiding in shadows. I play BC2 on a 480i TV set (since the gaming PC is busted). I can claim I have trouble seeing enemies, but only at ranges exceeding 200m. If you are playing at 1080p, or even 720p, you have no claim. If a guy is hiding in the dust or a shrub, of course you aren't going to see him-that was the point. If he's barely poking his head out of a window, you aren't going to see him from 400m, not even 250m without bringing up irons.

The glare isn't the trouble. The problem is that Battlefield is a game where you have to sit tight, look around, and pray you don't get spotted as you dart from cover to cover. It's not a classic deathmatch, it's not a full on arcade shooter like Halo, and the maps are on a whole different scale than any other popular title. If you can't see, you aren't adapting very well to the game play. If you don't play regularly, then why are you even complaining? Battlefield has never been a game where players can just jump in and kill things well...hell, it's not even a game strictly about killing, it's about team play. You can always tell who the CoD players are because they get a ton of kills and still somehow stay at the lower ranks on the score board because they weren't doing anything useful like healing, reviving, resupplying, capping, or tank-busting.

---

and Battlefield (even back in BF1942) has ALWAYS been that way.

^ And that is exactly my point. They have their formula down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warsaw

I said that running and gunning was mindless (i.e. CoD and Halo). The view of the enemies is plenty clear in BC2. What he wants is essentially the game to especially contrast them with their background. Well, so much for camouflage or hiding in shadows. I play BC2 on a 480i TV set (since the gaming PC is busted). I can claim I have trouble seeing enemies, but only at ranges exceeding 200m. If you are playing at 1080p, or even 720p, you have no claim. If a guy is hiding in the dust or a shrub, of course you aren't going to see him-that was the point. If he's barely poking his head out of a window, you aren't going to see him from 400m, not even 250m without bringing up irons.

---

In that case, I apologize for misunderstanding. Carry on.

Let's back up a bit. I was complaining about the demo shown, which was single-player. It is entirely possible that those elements are toned down in multiplayer and I won't have issue. I played the BC2 campaign and hated that for how I was shooting at silhouettes so fricking often. I never got around to the multiplayer. It's entirely possible they reserve the over-emphasis on atmospherics in SP to compensate for some performance issues. Who knows? It was just a little too convenient in BC2's campaign that every time I was about to get in a firefight, I knew because a fog descended on the area and my visibility went to crap.

The last BF game I put any time into multiplayer was 1943 and I didn't have a problem, so I'm hopeful that it's just the BF3 campaign that I will have to avoid like the plague. I mean, you can talk about 250m, but in that demo, those shits were 15 meters away at most.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ejburke

I played the BC2 campaign... I never got around to the multiplayer.

---

Yeah there's your problem, never ever ever judge a BF game based on its single-player

I personally never have a problem with visibility in BC2 MP, even on the rare occasions I (gasp) go sniper; any time I do, it's because somebody just blew a hole in a building or laid down a smoke grenade, in which case it's perfectly reasonable and justified

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ejburke

Let's back up a bit. I was complaining about the demo shown, which was single-player. It is entirely possible that those elements are toned down in multiplayer and I won't have issue. I played the BC2 campaign and hated that for how I was shooting at silhouettes so fricking often. I never got around to the multiplayer. It's entirely possible they reserve the over-emphasis on atmospherics in SP to compensate for some performance issues. Who knows? It was just a little too convenient in BC2's campaign that every time I was about to get in a firefight, I knew because a fog descended on the area and my visibility went to crap.

The last BF game I put any time into multiplayer was 1943 and I didn't have a problem, so I'm hopeful that it's just the BF3 campaign that I will have to avoid like the plague. I mean, you can talk about 250m, but in that demo, those shits were 15 meters away at most.

---

BC2's campaign was poorly constructed. I don't think it was the glare killing you so much as the level layout, because every single level forced you through god damn bottleneck with no cover. The first game's campaign was MUCH more fun because it was open combat and you could achieve your objective however the hell you wanted. THAT was Battlefield. The shit we got in BC2 was them trying to appeal to the Call of Duty crowd. The graphics in campaign and multiplayer are the same, but the way the levels are constructed in single player makes it irritating to deal with.

I can't tell how BF3 will be, that was just a single encounter. I need to see more before I write it off as an extension of BC2's campaign style.

It was the bottlenecking, the scripting, the crappy AI that doesn't know how to interact with destructible environments, and the magic haze that would descend on any set-piece battle, but be nowhere to be found any other time. It wasn't even a matter of being killed. I didn't have any trouble with the campaign on the default difficulty, I just couldn't stand playing it for more than 20 minutes at a time and it took me forever to finish.

The BF3 demo gave me a rage flashback. Maybe I was being too harsh, maybe I wasn't. I don't expect the campaign is going to be any good, but I know the MP is going to be great, even if I would do things slightly differently.

I do lament the loss of crisp, clear graphics in favor of blurred, smeared, bloomed-out, desaturated "current gen" graphics, but the issue is, for the most part, tolerable. And it is not unique to battlefield.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ejburke

I do lament the loss of crisp, clear graphics in favor of blurred, smeared, bloomed-out, desaturated "current gen" graphics, but the issue is, for the most part, tolerable. And it is not unique to battlefield.

---

Well, BC2 was none of those things except it wasn't very clear and had too much environment effects on the two previously mentioned maps. Otherwise I don't know what you're talking about. It's not so hard to see enemies in the game, and they definitely weren't hard to see in BF3 Demo vid.

Wasn't hard for you. My brother can't even play Halo 2 XBox because the colors all blur too badly and he can't see anything. Perhaps burke is having the same reaction? Not everyone's eyes are the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TVTyrant

Wasn't hard for you. My brother can't even play Halo 2 XBox because the colors all blur too badly and he can't see anything. Perhaps burke is having the same reaction? Not everyone's eyes are the same.

---

Hmm, that's unfortunate, but not the fault of the developers. Halo 2 was a pretty crisp looking game for its time. I doubt ejburke is having this problem he seems to be able to play other games fine. Or that's what it sounds like. Also, what were the specs of the TV when your bro was playing Halo 2? Might not have been his vision but a crappy TV.

Yeah its not that great, but we have been to friends who had high res flat screens (mid 07 before H3 came out) and he still had a really hard time seeing without getting a migraine. It wasnt the devs fault, he just has really bad eyes. One is perfectly okay and the other is really bad. Puting on his glasses is like being drunk in one eye.
My point is that it may be just a problem only Burke is experiencing.

I have a similar problem: 20/200 vision in my right eye and 20/20 in the left. It's not his eyes, it's the way his visual cortex is wired; gives him headaches when he has to strain.

Yeah exactly. And for whatever reason the coloration used in H2 really bothers him.

Note, I don't get headaches at all. I guess my brain adapted to use the left eye almost exclusvely so it largely ignores signals from the right. Therefore, I get no headaches.

I wouldn't mind a toning down of motion blur in ALL video games, though. I'm sorry, but when something whizzes past my head it doesn't get all stretchy and distorted like that.

HL2 episode 2's subtle approach to motion blur is good.

I for one, loved all the effects (with the exception of over-used bloom/glare and sand/snowstorms obstructing your entire screen) in BC2. When every single thing interacts with an effect like I though I think that makes the game much better, so long as your PC can handle running the game at maxed settings at your max resolution for the ideal picture. It was more prominent in the Singleplayer, because when I play Multiplayer I almost never have viability problems in BC2, with the exception of the sandstorm on Atacama Desert.

Most games (BC2 included) let you disabled motion blur, and it's a huge improvement.

I ran BC2 maxed out, didn't really have a problem even with motion blur except on Atacama, and we all already know that Atacama is fucked (yet somehow remains one of the most popular maps).

I just finished installing BC2 on my old machine, and it runs and still looks good even on lowest setting, but multiplayer is unplayable. Single player I can get away with.

Speaking of installing BC2, anyone have an explanation for why the BC2 updater takes EIGHT hours to update the game? Even if it were a 8GB patch, it should still only take me four hours maximum to do that with my connection.

Shaky cam footage of single player.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lateksi

Shaky cam footage of single player.

---

Old. Link to that was posted days ago.

ORGAZM!!!!!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warsaw

I ran BC2 maxed out, didn't really have a problem even with motion blur except on Atacama, and we all already know that Atacama is fucked (yet somehow remains one of the most popular maps).

I just finished installing BC2 on my old machine, and it runs and still looks good even on lowest setting, but multiplayer is unplayable. Single player I can get away with.

Speaking of installing BC2, anyone have an explanation for why the BC2 updater takes EIGHT hours to update the game? Even if it were a 8GB patch, it should still only take me four hours maximum to do that with my connection.

---

It's because EA's servers give data to you at the speed at which they decide to give it to you.

And, um, BC2 doesn't even have motion blur. I've run it maxed out, it just ain't there.

i hope they dont bloom the shit out of everything when you look through sniper scopes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ExAm

It's because EA's servers give data to you at the speed at which they decide to give it to you.

And, um, BC2 doesn't even have motion blur. I've run it maxed out, it just ain't there.

---

This. And it's best to buy BF games on steam. The inevitable patches are a pain in the ass to update through EA's system.

DICE general manager, Karl Magnus Troedsson has been talking about DICE’s focus on the PC version of Battlefield 3, saying that he feels DICE neglected the PC while they were building the first Frostbite Engine and making Battlefield: Bad Company. He also confirms that the PC will get “the same post-launch campaign” as the consoles in terms of downloadable content, unlike Battlefield: Bad Company 2.


Golly Gee, thank's for allowing us to be fleeced by DLC I guess?

Now that I'm skeptical about.

But I liked getting all of that shit for free. Unless of course he is referring to Onslaught Mode, which PC didn't get at all...not that I much care.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by =sw=warlord

DICE general manager, Karl Magnus Troedsson has been talking about DICE’s focus on the PC version of Battlefield 3, saying that he feels DICE neglected the PC while they were building the first Frostbite Engine and making Battlefield: Bad Company. He also confirms that the PC will get “the same post-launch campaign” as the consoles in terms of downloadable content, unlike Battlefield: Bad Company 2.


Golly Gee, thank's for allowing us to be fleeced by DLC I guess?

---

What, you mean you actually thought PC gamers were going to keep getting free DLC forever?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dutch

Bam! Right in his sense of smug satisfaction!

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pooky

What, you mean you actually thought PC gamers were going to keep getting free DLC forever?

---

Well I always hoped...

I don't see how they are going to be able to enforce the DLC on non-Steam BF3 users. One person gets it and redistributes it on the web, bam, everyone has free DLC again.

You do realize that booster packs were on the PC for a dog's age, right?

Sure piracy might happen -- but you know what? Piracy might happen on their whole game. They can still try, and I might actually buy it if I believe the value is right (value in terms of a: original game value b: booster pack value c: value of free updates to game intermediate the game and the boosters)

I know the concept is old, but piracy is easier and more common now than it was then. I'll likely buy any expansion they throw us so long as it is priced like an expansion and not an entire game unto itself. I have no problem with devs making money. If people want their product, they deserve to profit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warsaw

I don't see how they are going to be able to enforce the DLC on non-Steam BF3 users. One person gets it and redistributes it on the web, bam, everyone has free DLC again.

---

They could easily take the route some games are already taking and require steam to be installed and tie the product key to that account.