BattleField 3 Caspien Border gameplay

[Valok]

Sweet mother of God...

I do hope that my 580GTX will be able to run that.

 

[CD-R]

Wow finally I've been wondering what the Jet combat was going to look like.

I'm still wondering how they plan on co-ordinating teams. Since there's no Battlefield commander for whatever stupid reason, most matches will probably devolve into a bunch of players running about randomly without any direction. A commander stops that from happening, and essentially provides order.

I wonder how they'll do that now with no BF commander.

In Rush it might not matter much, since both teams have a set of objectives and it keeps things tight and focuses. But for conquest? Yeah, BC2 showed it's just people running around sporadically. With no direction it's just crap.

Did anyone actually listen to the commander outside of clan matches? Granted I never got to play Battlefield 2 back in it's hey day (Which is why I really want that back to Karkland expansion) but I get the impression the commander was mostly ignored.

 

[Irridium]

Did anyone actually listen to the commander outside of clan matches? Granted I never got to play Battlefield 2 back in it's hey day (Which is why I really want that back to Karkland expansion) but I get the impression the commander was mostly ignored.

I haven't seen commanders ignored much. If you followed a commander's orders, you got a pretty nice experience boost. And win the match, if the commander is competent.

And besides, Commanders order squads. Squads are more often then not comprised of people who want to work as a team. People who don't do that just don't join squads, and do what they want.

And squads can simply ignore orders. But most don't, since again, if they do follow orders they get a nice experience boost. There's also the fact that commanders can call down airstrikes, radars, supplies(ammo/vehicles), and spot enemies, so most try to follow orders for those nice little items.

And if it's a shitty person(be it a jackass on a power-trip or just someone who doesn't know what he/she's doing), you can call a vote to vote his/her ass out. And since commanders can call on all those nice little radar scans/airstrikes/ect, most want a competent commander in charge.

 

[Vrach]

Jesus Christ on a pogo stick... Much impressed. Don't get me wrong, I love Battlefield, but after seeing that trailer after missing some core features of BF in the BFBC series (like ehm, planes?!)... holy fucking shit. Colour me as hyped to the max. Can't wait, I really hope the retailer I pre-ordered it from doesn't take too long getting it to me (have to pre-order from abroad as there's no pre-order here and I want the back to Karkand pack)

 

[Gorilla Gunk]

I wish I had a PC that could play this.

I mean, I could get the console version, but why would I want to play a game the developers intentionally gimped?

 

[AJax_21]

I'm still wondering how they plan on co-ordinating teams. Since there's no Battlefield commander for whatever stupid reason, most matches will probably devolve into a bunch of players running about randomly without any direction. A commander stops that from happening, and essentially provides order.

I wonder how they'll do that now with no BF commander.

In Rush it might not matter much, since both teams have a set of objectives and it keeps things tight and focuses. But for conquest? Yeah, BC2 showed it's just people running around sporadically. With no direction it's just crap.

Well, DICE did confirm comma rose so that's probably a good improvement from BC2. BC2 didn't need commanders because the maps where focused and tightly designed, unlike the huge open fields of previous BF games, and lower player count.

I wonder how DICE will handle the huge PC 64-player maps.

 

[Tesral]

My god, that is the sexiest trailer i've seen all year. I don't think i can add anything to this, i'm off to watch it a fifth time.

 

[Tsaba]

I wish I had a PC that could play this.

I mean, I could get the console version, but why would I want to play a game the developers intentionally gimped?

I wouldn't call that being gimped, they just broke it down to where you could play it on a console to the best of it's features. If they had gone the other route that most companies do, then the pc gets the short end of the stick, it would of gotten bent over, screwed, and then pushed out the door without so much as a reach around.

I'll just break it down this way, your getting the same game you would have, had it been made for consoles. It's just that they went the extra mile for PC this time around.

 

[TheTim]

Daaaaaaam, i just hope they balance out helicopters more and make them less ultra rap capability

 

[Gorilla Gunk]

I wish I had a PC that could play this.

I mean, I could get the console version, but why would I want to play a game the developers intentionally gimped?

I wouldn't call that being gimped, they just broke it down to where you could play it on a console to the best of it's features. If they had gone the other route that most companies do, then the pc gets the short end of the stick, it would of gotten bent over, screwed, and then pushed out the door without so much as a reach around.

I'll just break it down this way, your getting the same game you would have, had it been made for consoles. It's just that they went the extra mile for PC this time around.

They didn't go the extra mile. They went exactly where they wanted to go and scaled the console version back so far it's basically CoD with vehicles. I mean, I can understand the graphics not being as great and even the 64 player count, but dialing that back to 24? And scaling the maps down? Are you fucking kidding me DICE? Console tech might not be the best but I think it could handle a little more than 24 players. I mean would a single digit over that just make the game absolutely unplayable? I'm starting to think this is another effect of the BF/CoD feud. CoD's rep with PC gamers isn't so hot so DICE, ever the classy one, swoops in and says "Hey we LOVE PC gamers unlike those twats over at Activision! To prove it, here's a bunch of shit almost an entire half of our other customers base won't ever get to see! Enjoy it!" Gimped.

Ugh, and I was really looking forward to this game too...

 

[Tsaba]

snip

your right, because every other game on 360 has everything battlefield 3 for pc is going to have on it why shouldn't they also put it on 360.

 

[jSalamanca32]

I wish I had a PC that could play this.

I mean, I could get the console version, but why would I want to play a game the developers intentionally gimped?

I wouldn't call that being gimped, they just broke it down to where you could play it on a console to the best of it's features. If they had gone the other route that most companies do, then the pc gets the short end of the stick, it would of gotten bent over, screwed, and then pushed out the door without so much as a reach around.

I'll just break it down this way, your getting the same game you would have, had it been made for consoles. It's just that they went the extra mile for PC this time around.

They didn't go the extra mile. They went exactly where they wanted to go and scaled the console version back so far it's basically CoD with vehicles. I mean, I can understand the graphics not being as great and even the 64 player count, but dialing that back to 24? And scaling the maps down? Are you fucking kidding me DICE? Console tech might not be the best but I think it could handle a little more than 24 players. I mean would a single digit over that just make the game absolutely unplayable? I'm starting to think this is another effect of the BF/CoD feud. CoD's rep with PC gamers isn't so hot so DICE, ever the classy one, swoops in and says "Hey we LOVE PC gamers unlike those twats over at Activision! To prove it, here's a bunch of shit almost an entire half of our other customers base won't ever get to see! Enjoy it!" Gimped.

Ugh, and I was really looking forward to this game too...

DICE have said many times that they can't do any better than 24 without having to cut jets or destruction. us console gamers should consider ourselves lucky that this didn't end up being a PC exclusive. 24 is the compromise so that we can have full gameplay features but still have decently large battles. 24 is a lot bigger than most games, most games do 16-18.

 

[theonecookie]

Well This does look nice and I hate to be the only one complaining but will somebody tell dice just this one little thing

Jets don't work like that they really don't I would not normally bring this up but it just looks silly as the rest of the game looks really good

 

[Gorilla Gunk]

I wish I had a PC that could play this.

I mean, I could get the console version, but why would I want to play a game the developers intentionally gimped?

I wouldn't call that being gimped, they just broke it down to where you could play it on a console to the best of it's features. If they had gone the other route that most companies do, then the pc gets the short end of the stick, it would of gotten bent over, screwed, and then pushed out the door without so much as a reach around.

I'll just break it down this way, your getting the same game you would have, had it been made for consoles. It's just that they went the extra mile for PC this time around.

They didn't go the extra mile. They went exactly where they wanted to go and scaled the console version back so far it's basically CoD with vehicles. I mean, I can understand the graphics not being as great and even the 64 player count, but dialing that back to 24? And scaling the maps down? Are you fucking kidding me DICE? Console tech might not be the best but I think it could handle a little more than 24 players. I mean would a single digit over that just make the game absolutely unplayable? I'm starting to think this is another effect of the BF/CoD feud. CoD's rep with PC gamers isn't so hot so DICE, ever the classy one, swoops in and says "Hey we LOVE PC gamers unlike those twats over at Activision! To prove it, here's a bunch of shit almost an entire half of our other customers base won't ever get to see! Enjoy it!" Gimped.

Ugh, and I was really looking forward to this game too...

DICE have said many times that they can't do any better than 24 without having to cut jets or destruction. us console gamers should consider ourselves lucky that this didn't end up being a PC exclusive. 24 is the compromise so that we can have full gameplay features but still have decently large battles. 24 is a lot bigger than most games, most games do 16-18.

I'd almost rather they cut out jets to up the player count. The maps are already scaled down to BC2 size so they're pointless. Flying a helicopter in BC2 was restricting enough. With a jet all you'll be doing is flying in small circles over and over again, which is basically what you also did with helicopters in BC2 because if you didn't you risked flying into no mans land.

 

[jSalamanca32]

snippity, snippity, snip.

The jets aren't limited to the console size maps. The jets can move around in the PC sized map.

 

[jSalamanca32]

I'm still wondering how they plan on co-ordinating teams. Since there's no Battlefield commander for whatever stupid reason, most matches will probably devolve into a bunch of players running about randomly without any direction. A commander stops that from happening, and essentially provides order.

I wonder how they'll do that now with no BF commander.

In Rush it might not matter much, since both teams have a set of objectives and it keeps things tight and focuses. But for conquest? Yeah, BC2 showed it's just people running around sporadically. With no direction it's just crap.

Well, like any reasonably popular game, it will mostly be filled by people who want to inflate their K/D. Therefore, most games, even ones with objectives will be more Team Deathmatch than anything else. An excellent example is any objective based game in Call of Duty or Halo. Try and actually do the objective, and get chewed out by a bunch of 12-year olds because you're breaking their spawn trap.

BF3 will NOT outsell MW3, if simply because the console versions play like MW3, without perks. The PC version will be amazing. But PC is only 1/3 the battle.

But its not going to play like MW3 without perks. BF has never kept track of K/D or when it did, it wasn't very prominent. Have you played BC2?

 

[aprildog18]

the 5770 will be alright wont it? i dont have any problems with black ops at full spec so we should get a moderate level without putting it down too low.
my only concern is my amd fan noice and the heat it produces

i should be able to play crysis before bf3 and maybe benchmark it

Based on some people who played alpha, if your PC is good enough for BF:BC2, then it is good enough for BF3

IT SAYS any card that can run Direct 10 or 11 will work so...hopefully it does >:[

Minimum System Requirements
OS: Windows Vista or Windows 7
Processor: Core 2 Duo @ 2.0GHz
RAM: 2GB
Graphic card: DirectX 10 or 11 compatible Nvidia or AMD ATI card.
Graphics card memory: 512 MB
Hard drive: 15 GB for disc version or 10 GB for digital version


Recommended System Requirements
OS: Windows 7 64-bit
Processor: Quad-core Intel or AMD CPU
RAM: 4GB
Graphics card: DirectX 11 Nvidia or AMD ATI card, GeForce GTX 460, Radeon Radeon HD 6850
Graphics card memory: 1 GB
Hard drive: 15 GB for disc version or 10 GB for digital version


Edit:Bah, I hope my ATI Radeon HD 4650 makes the cut...