Printable View
The problem is that Warsaw is looking at this from a console point of view instead of a PC point of view like most of the rest of us. BC2 DLC was tied to your EA account so you couldn't just download it for PC. I don't think you need an account for consoles so you can just download and play.Quote:
Originally Posted by =sw=warlord
Console will download it automatically through an XBL Update and then require you to redeem a code to play, most likely.
As for PC, they won't tie it to Steam. EA hasn't put its faith in the system 100% yet. I can't wait until they do, because then some of this retarded DRM will go away. What this means is that all someone has to do is find out where the EA Updater downloads to, hack the updater and the new files (creating false verification codes), and presto: free DLC. Redistribute as a .exe to the internet, show trollface.
Don't know if this was posted
http://www.gamersbook.com/scene/news...o-256-players/
I read that article earlier. Saw it on reddit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrickssj6
256 total would be to much for any kind of organized game play most likely. It might be interesting to allow modders/mappers the ability to make 128 player maps.
unfortunately, they've said that the Frostbite 2 engine is too damn complicated for any official modding kit to be released. Someone might get it working eventually, but for now the file structure is just too tightly packed, and making it easier to mod would result in performance loss.
In a regular game server anything more than 64 would be complete chaos, even on the large maps they have. The thing is that pre-organized gaming sessions like LAN parties may be able to create a scenario where that many people can play together successfully.Quote:
Originally Posted by Freelancer
I've seen mods that support more than 64 players (usually up to 128). However I don't know anybody who has gotten enough players onto the test server to see if it really works or not. I'd imagine that it would cause stability issues with the server.
If Squads could have 8 players, I could see 128 players happening. Just worry about what your squad is doing and communicate with them. If at least one person has their eye on the map and is paying attention to what needs done, it will be successful.
But then again, some players are just interested in killing the enemy and not winning. We call them snipers.
The funny part was when you were a sniper with a shotgun in -- I believe it was the Beta but it could have been early launch when the Saiga was OP.
People would come up to you to "kill the wookie" -- and then CLACK CLACK CLACK CLACK.
Using a shotgun as a sniper was actually how I ranked up my sniper class anyways. :lol:
Shotguns are still way to OP in BC2. If I play with a shotgun+slugs+mag ammo I completely dominate the server. Top 5 players guaranteed.
Not really. I can get top 5 without killing a single player; score is all about how useful you are to the team. Shotgun + slugs is only really good in those close maps because it drops like a bitch on bigger maps. I shoot slug users down with the M1 with ease because in the time it takes them to fire and cycle, I can get off four to five rounds. Using a Saiga or USAS12 has no benefit over the M1 or M14, so using that combo is asinine.
Anybody who is a good shot can shit all over slug users, irregardless of weapon choice (except maybe with the SCAR and AKS74U...those guns suck). Slugs are great only if you get the drop, and most people who use slugs just camp.
No, shotguns are best used as scatterguns with magnum ammo. In Arica Harbour, you can counter 90% of all situations with that combination. Use a Rex or an M1911 to counter the rest. As a medic, I usually use a shotgun because it allows me to drop a target in one hit so I can get to healing faster. If I know I need range, I'll use the M1.
Slugs? Bah, you get more reliability with the M14. And you free up a perk.
Slugs + Mag ammo on the 870 Combat get you 1 hit kills at about 50 yards, anything else will be 2 hit kills, and your accuracy with that combo is like a laser so it's insanely easy. You can still be out ranged, that's for sure. Even though you can get 2 hit kills, once they're past the range where your crosshairs obscure them completely with the shotgun you're pretty much relying on luck to hit 'em. On maps where I'm engaging at those ranges I'll almost always just go to M14 or whatever I feel like using at the time that isn't a shotgun.
Can't tell you how many M14 scrubs I've completely raped on Harvest Day Rush while rocking an 870 Combat. It's all about moving around constantly and getting in close to them. It's surprisingly easy to do on that map.
Slugs used to be amazing because they were as accurate as tracer darts, just faster. Not sure if they still are though.
Well, M14 scrubs, yeah. But I assure you that any M14 scrub isn't going to be able to use slugs at a decent level either, so the comparison is useless due to the already wide skill gap.
Besides, real men use the M1 anyways; magnified scopes are for wimps. :v:
I use slugs for the lulz every now and then, but they aren't worth the slow rate of fire. You might as well try to use a sniper rifle at point blank. If you want one-hit kills, better to use an M95 with a red dot. At least it will always be a one-hit kill regardless of range.
Use the M14 without optics then. I was happy when they brought that in with the last patch, but then I started using the ACOG on it and hated it. The Red Chevron doesn't feel as accurate at the iron sights, but the iron sights are chunky as fuck on this gun. The M1 is nice, but with the M14 having 2 more rounds for just a small amount more of recoil, I wouldn't take the M1 into close combat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warsaw
I love the M1 for close combat. I don't even have to scope in with the irons for half of the kills. The M14 just feels wrong even on irons. With a scope on, it feels like extra tunnel vision beyond what it should be.
I don't know, I guess I just have too much practise invested in the M1 to jump over to the M14. I just find the handling on the former to be far superior.
I use the M14 because it has more rounds and a faster reload time. I almost never use the acog or the red dot with it, since it's basically my engineer kit weapon, and I play with exp+ all the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warsaw
I'm just jesting. I'll pull out an M14 if I feel like switching it up a little bit. I just can't use it with anything but irons very well. Though when I really want to change my loadout, I'll use something like the M16, PP2000, or MG3. Yes, I know, all of those are the best of their respective categories, but since I usually use the M1 or shotguns it's different.
As for perks, I always have Explosive Mk. 2 on as an engineer, and as a medic or sniper I usually have armour. When I'm using shotguns or the M95, I'll put magnum ammo on. As an assault, I either have Armour or Explosives on, depending on whether or not I have C4. The other perk is usually a red dot sight or extra explosive ammo. As a medic, it's the Medkit upgrade.
Dude, the M249 is obviously the best medic LMG. 200 rounds and a high rate of fire, as opposed to a high rate of fire, 100 rounds, and lower accuracy.
I find the iron sights on the M249 pretty bad. I can't aim comfortably with it like I can with the PKM for some reason. I guess it's because the iron sights bobs up and down more freely even though it doesn't feel like there's any more recoil than the PKM. For good measure I just use the Type88. I haven't unlocked the rest of the Medic weapons yet. That's the class I play the least.Quote:
Originally Posted by ExAm
G36 (XM8 for Hardcore mode if you want optics) or MG3 are the best Medic guns.
The MG3 is fucking terrifying if you can use it.
Don't get me wrong, I'm still excited about this game... but am I the only one who thinks the animation looks like shit?
Edit: apparently, I'm not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ODX
ODX is absolutely right. I could out animate that shit after a frontal lobotomy. The thumb is just absolutely terrible. The arm positioning is awful. Please god allow there to be a bf2 style editing kit so I can make skins that don't cause me to cringe.
Don't worry, you'll be moving around restlessly in your bed at night because nobody is getting their hands on the Dev kit except DICE, unless...it gets leakedQuote:
Originally Posted by ICEE
...unless one of us barges into the fucking studio to do it ourselves.
You guys are clearly insane. A: You're looking at pre-alpha footage, B: It's not even bad, and you guys are being horribly nitpicky.
Exam, why don't you post pictures of yourself with your arm in that position?
Oh wait, you can't. Because your arm would break. And by then it wouldn't be worth it. Also, the era of the build is irrelevant. If it was good enough to be made public, 90% of the time that's the way it will be in the actual game (strictly speaking about animation).
^^Quote:
Originally Posted by ODX
I'm doing it right now. I have no fucking idea what you're talking about.
I was doing the same hand configuration as this guy. minus the right to hold the camera.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2523/...4983ecb852.jpg
Seriously, you guys are fucking whiners and perfectionists. The animation quality is fine. Great, even. I see nothing about it that looks unnatural, and I see a bunch of additional touches that make them even better than the BC2 animations for the AR15 variants. The movement of the sights in LDS mode, the indication of the stock being braced against the shoulder while reloading, it just fits.
Exam, you're full of shit. Your arm position isn't even close to as broken as the one in the video. You have zero idea what you're talking about.
Jesus fucking christ, you don't even describe what the problem is and then you expect everyone to understand you. Fuck. I think the following image shows what you mean, though, and why it proves that the arm is positioned unrealistically for a human.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICEE
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h2...821/fparms.png
The green line shows the relative position the middle of the arm should be in to hold the gun comfortably in RL. The red line shows the position that DICE uses and it feels unnatural to hold it that way. Still, I don't give a fuck since it doesn't ruin the gameplay. If it ruins it for you, go send DICE an e-mail and tell them how to do it instead of bitching on this forum.
I'm surprised nobody has bitched yet about how none of the AI have optics or iron sights mounted on their weapons.
I think it may be the hand model is too big compared to the M4. The M4 IS a carbine but it's not that tiny.
It's just the FOV, teek. It's just the FOV.
It's not unrealistic, it's just slightly uncomfortable. But you know what? I tried it, and it's easier to hold the gun up that way. Less stress on fewer muscles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Amit
I'm not seeing anything wrong there... You guys complaining about that are crazy lol.
It isn't. I agree with teek, I think the gun is too small. Amit is also right about the positioning of the arm, but I figured that was obvious.Quote:
Originally Posted by ExAm
@ amit: I'm not saying it's going to be a bad game just because the animations are bad. I'm just tired of animation being the third wheel behind model and texture. Everything graphical about that trailer is excellent except the animation. It's stiff, unnatural, and plainly bad.
You want to see good animation? look no further. Ignoring the fact that a lot of weapons are mirrored. That was intended to be conducive the jamming feature.
Ye gods, now I know you're trolling. FC2's animations didn't move very realistically at all. They were somewhere in the uncanny valley or something. BC2's animations were fucking fantastic, and I expect nothing less from BF3. I have seen nothing less, aside from the sprinting animation.
Crytek needs to learn how guns work. Some of those animations were unbelievably ridiculous. Loading an 03 from the bottom? WTF?
Crytek doesn't actually put any real guns in the crysis games. They make their own versions of recognizable weapons and make them work how they want.
Aside from some of the guns being mirrored, and/or functionally incorrect (mgl 140, lol) FC2's animations are awesome. Anyone who knows shit about animation can tell you that. BC2's animations were fantastic, I agree, and I am severely disappointed at bf3's. Even the chopped up BC2 animations they used in MOH were better than this.Quote:
Originally Posted by ExAm
Edit: and FC2 was made by ubisoft.
tbqh, i agree with icee on this. what amit pointed out is exactly the issue with the arm placement. not to mention some of the movement was a little stiff in the reload. the ADS firing was pretty cool though.
the issue here is not just the m4 in the bf3 trailer. the issue is how many FIRST PERSON shooter games focus just on models and textures, while leaving animations behind. theyre just as important. im not saying every gun has to be EXACTLY perfect to real life, but the animations should always receive as much care as the models do. clearly, the models and textures in bc3 are going to be fantastic, so why not the animations?
as for farcry 2, that game has the best first person animations iv ever seen. they even chose to use left handed guns to show off the internals of some of the weapons. that is the kind of attention to detail that i love to see in a game, and for me, significantly improves the experience to know the developers cared enough to polish the animations as well as the other visuals. it doesnt matter as much that some of the stuff is functionally incorrect, because sometimes you have to change things to account for time of reloading, puling weapon out, etc... for gameplay purposes.
exam, just because you dont agree with icee and you think hes nitpicking does NOT mean he is trolling. thats a fucking insult.
Crytek didn't make Far Cry 2, Ubisoft Montreal did.Quote:
Originally Posted by TVTyrant
YOU GUYS
ARE COMPLAINING
ABOUT A FUCKING ARM.
SHUT UP.
No, we're complaining about all the animations which are horribly low-quality for such a highly-respected development team known for quality games. It's disappointing, and there's no excuse for it.
No excuse.
Either way, still sad.Quote:
Originally Posted by CN3089
There's literally nothing wrong with the majority of the animations shown so far for BF3. I seriously don't see what the problem is with the arm or the thumb, that's a proper grip for an AR style rifle, the arm may be angled a little to far down (as in, your elbow pointing to the ground/close to the magazine) but I've seen people shoot like that.
oh dear god, stfu about the animations already
I'll let you guys have some time to cool down, the next official part of the gameplay demo is supposed to release wednesday
Aaand we're back. Part 2 of the gameplay series back in the first post; you've already seen this on shakycam but here it is in HD goodness.
anybody mentions animations again (pro or against) and I'll violate each and every one of your soft, supple anuses with every instrument available to me
It felt like it was lacking after all that combat in the first video, especially when the first one was one minute longer.
I like thetealanimations
oh and as an addendum, this is exactly what 'effing PMs are for, if you absolutely must bitch about them do so where nobody else can seeQuote:
Originally Posted by Ifafudafi
As for the video, it may not be action-packed but I still found it to be infinitely more interesting than the stupid firefight in the last one. We've had oh-shit-it's-a-sniper sequences since forever, but this was presented in a pretty awesome light that made it seem new and exciting, which, considering it's a military shooter set in modern times, is quite an accomplishment imho.
Plus you blow out a wall with a rocket (if that's actually dynamic and not a scripted collapse then yeah)
I have to agree with infafuhadubh, the second vid was more entertaining. The whole sniper thing, the fear of the 50, the AT4, just a well put together scene.
Seems like they were counting on the enemy sniper being a lousy shot. I tried to imagine myself playing that section and I think I would feel more fortunate than triumphant. Plus, scripting.
Interesting. I feel like it should have been a beefier sound and strike effect if it was a .50, but again: this is pre-alpha.
Scripting isn't bad, it's just overdone by such games as COD.
My question is whether if you stand up, he will actually kill you. Whether sometimes (randomly) he will actually kill a squad mate whilst your making your way across the roof. Personally I'd like to see more dynamic content in these somewhat scripted events, if I played the game back on a different difficulty, or just reloaded the chapter I'd want to feel as though the game is slightly different.
Worst cases of scripting I've ever seen in games is the Rainbow Six series. All of them. Enemies are ALWAYS in the same positions, events ALWAYS happen exactly the same, and weapon drops are consistent. I can fire up a game and play it blindfolded because I know exactly what to expect. Even Halo 1 has more variance.
Halo 1 encounters have a lot of variance, what are you on about <.<Quote:
Originally Posted by Warsaw
I mean it's still generally the same enemies in the same positions but I rarely fight the same battle the same way twice.
Well yeah just about any game you can fight the same enemies in the same locations in different ways. That's YOU, not the game.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pooky
I'm complimenting Halo for its varied encounters despite its age. You get more variance on who you encounter where on higher difficulties.
Encounters in Halo 1 aren't necessarily "varied" due to their placement, but more so due to the fact they have something that I STILL have yet to see done well in other games: different enemy types.
What I mean is, there could be 3 jackals, 5 grunts, and an elite or 2 same as always, but the way you have to fight that is much different due to each needing a different tactic to kill and just the incredible AI itself acting differently. Overall it's just more fun than shooting each enemy 3 times and he's dead as is in all modern shooters now...
This. I don't remember the last shooter game that I played where the enemies were varied enough to keep my interested in the combat instead just flying through to find out what happens in the story.Quote:
Originally Posted by ODX
There is that, but I've also run through a level and where there were two Elites, four Grunts, and three Jackals before there are now three Elites, six Grunts, and no Jackals. The only 100% consistent enemies are the Hunters and three gold Elites (T&R bridge, room on AotCR after second elevator, and the Control Room proper).Quote:
Originally Posted by ODX
Also, it's hard to do enemy variance in a game where you are fighting humans. The most you can reasonably do is give them more threatening weapons or riot shields; if you shoot a man in the face, he is most likely going to die. As for other sci-fi shooters: no excuse for them.
Call of Duty.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phopojijo
Rainbow Six.
Monster Jam.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-WBbY8Chi8
Here you go.
Ignore guardian's post. That person has shitty quality video. WATCH IN 1080P!
This just destroyed any doubt I have about pre-ordering the game.
*deploys bipod on SAW when going prone*
/me double checks pre-order.
I just saw that when I watched it the second time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Freelancer
OP updated
nothing more to say, cannot summon proper words to describe enthusiasm
E: Did, however, notice that the flashlight did not appear to create dynamic shadows. Come on DICE, even Source can do that now
Alpha build. I highly doubt every lighting adjustment was made at the time of recording.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ifafudafi
Source is leagues ahead of everyone else. :downs:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ifafudafi
Wait what. I don't understand this video or why it's cool?
Edit: Guess I'm not made to play these hip new games.
BF3 has less Adrenalaction than other modern FPS games. It has just the right amount of explosions and mass troop charges, though. You don't ever see cinematic gameplay like that in the last two CoD games.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dwood
i hate to bring up the animation thing again, but wasnt he crawling though the vent? how did he bring his feet out in front of him when he dropped down? also the saw's bullet belt isnt animated for the firing animation. i love the way the belt sways when you move back and forth though. also, 200 rounds. i havent seen another game with a saw with 200 rounds. its always 100.
You've obviously never been in industrial duct work like that, I'm 6' 4" and would have no problem tucking my knees to my chest to get my legs out in front in order to drop down. Would be even easier in a T-intersection like that since there's that much more room. One thing that annoys me about the animation in the duct is when he's using his left hand to grab ahead of himself, it doesn't look like his hand is actually contacting the surface of the duct. And that whole animation looks a little to mechanical.
As for the SAW you're half-right, the plastic box magazine that the M249's originally were issued with were 100 rounders but there are reinforced cloth versions in 100 and 200 round versions now. That said, the gun in the video is an M240, so you wrong.
That's because it's not the M249. It's the M240.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donut
I hate Holographic sights.
Why? They're freaking awesome IRL.
I plan to get and Eotech and flip-to-side (FTS) magnifier for whatever modern "black rifle" I get for hunting. Just need to find something awesome in 7.62x51 NATO (aka .308). The magnifier will sit on most of the time since most shots we take when hunting could use some magnification, but the FTS would allow a one push transition to no zoom for taking shots at animals moving through trees at close-ish range.
Holo sights are the next big thing in real military guns. It allows for quicker firing than irons, they are more precise than a red dot, and can come in variations that include magnification to make them just as useful as an ACOG or other illuminated magnified sight. They are really very useful.
As far as the anims go, after just watching the three videos in a row, they really do need work. The way he works the action on his M4 is unusual at best, his arm is in kind of a strange position, and I'm not too much of a fan of the reloads we've seen so far either. However, there is a lot more shit they need too, like making the debris from buildings become real objects (in the second vid watch the debris from the "50". It disapears when it hits the ground!) or having other soldiers optics mounted on their weapons (take a look at the world models in the second two vids, they have no rear sights or scopes!). This is what we call an Alpha build fellas.
I'm just giving up on the animations and hoping they really are just Alpha. A lot of things animation-wise seem unfinished anyway like him crawling through the vent where there's no real shadows from his hands and all that funky jazz.
One thing I really like though so far is how the aim-down-sight looks and feels: incredible and real.
Except the reticle on EOTechs is terrible. Used one, didn't like it. Prefer the simple red dot or irons...or a real scope. I concede the rest though.Quote:
Originally Posted by TVTyrant
The sounds are still bothering me. Needs more pop. Pop, Dice, pop! Guns go "boom," not "tap."
Warsaw, you realize that DICE is full-on recording the guns they're putting in, right?
Yeah...lol. Although, we don't know if those sounds in the videos are placeholder or something.
Haha Warsaw all the weapon sounds DICE is using for BF3 are legitimate recordings of that actual gun, DICE stated this at one point.
Also, it's a good thing this is pre-alpha according to all these videos. It's also good that animations have absolutely nothing to do with game play experience, I'd enjoy this if there were no animations most likely.
That's a bold thing to say. I enjoyed BC2 much more due to the excellent and visually pleasing animations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Freelancer
Quote:
Originally Posted by ExAm
According to the GI feature, they are recording guns and then using what they recorded as a baseline to make their own sounds. And even if they did straight up record and insert, it wouldn't work because the microphone operates differently than your ear, so it doesn't pick up the pop.
I like good animations too, but I always wondered why all the pistols in BC2 had the player waste a second to chamber a new round during a mid-mag reload >.> I swear there were times when I'm reloading my pistol mid-mag, I come around a corner, and blam, I die during the round-chambering sequence! If I didn't have to chamber a new round I could have at least inflicted some damage or even emerged victorious from the gunfight.
Do a quick-reload. The second the ammo count goes up, quickly press 2, then 1 again. Your weapon will be ready immediately.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Buckshot
I don't know if this has been said already, but I really hope this one has a true AK. It really bothered me in BC2 that all we had was the Krinkov and whatever the AEK was supposed to be. All I want is a real AK, with a wood stock and a polished steel bolt.
The AEK-971 is, uh, the AEK-971
It's far more advanced than the AK-47, and both it and the AN-94 are AK derivatives.
I love the design of the AN-94 Abakan, just looks dead sexy.
Nope.Quote:
Originally Posted by ExAm
AN-94 is an entirely new design. AEK-917 is also a new design. The only relation it has to the AK family is the BARS that the AK-107 and AK-108 employ. Those AKs are also not pure AKs, they are Alexandrov Kalashnikovs, meaning two designers contributed to their design.
It was logical for Bad Company to pick the AEK because the game takes place in the near future, is completely fictional, and the Russians have been looking to replace the AK-74 for a long time now. The AN-94 is too expensive, so the AEK is a good middle alternative. It's also worth noting that the Russian troops you encounter in BC2 may be considered Special Forces at any rate.
Battlefield 3 will likely have an AKM or AK-74 because it is more grounded in current events than Bad Company is. The very presence of the M4 over the M416 or XM8 an the M240 over the classic M249 tells us that much.
Exam I knew what it was, I more meant that its kind of a crap weapon in the game, and I was disapointed in the lack of a weapon that would have classic AK stat features. And what do you mean by more advanced? I know the AN-94 uses a gas bleed-off principle for burst fire, which allows it to fire a three shot burst (2 in the game I think) at like 3000 RPM. But I thought the AEK was a 70's design that was rejected as a replacement for the classic piston operation of a true Kalashnikov? I have seen the design before but I had thought it was a failure kind of like the AR-18?
I'll be pretty happy if they bring the AKM in. Precision is for suckers. Spray and pray, baby!
AN shoots two-round burst in real life, too.
The AEK (along with the Abakan) was actually designed in the 80's to replace the the aging AK. The Abakan won however, uses is limited though in the Russian Army and various law enforcement branches.
We really shouldn't see the M416 at all seeing as how only Delta Force has adopted it last time I checked, it's not even barely integrated into the U.S. military branches. We just started integrating the SCAR back in 2009. If I also recall correctly isn't the Marine Corps designating the 416 as the M27 when it gets into service?
The 5.56 SCAR won't be used at all in the US military from what I've heard. SOCOM units will be adopting the 7.62 NATO version of the SCAR but that's it.
The US probably won't change from the AR-15 style of firearm until a conflict proves they are ineffective.
