Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 3/31/11 03:43 PM, IncendiaryProduction wrote: DICE confirmed that the campaign should take about 12 hours to complete.

The graphics and realism make me wanna cum.

Indeed my good sir, the game looks beautiful. Up to par with the first Crysis maxed out on DX10, even a bit better.

At 3/31/11 03:43 PM, IncendiaryProduction wrote: DICE confirmed that the campaign should take about 12 hours to complete.

If this part is true, I will support this game fully, just like I do Crysis 2. Sure I'm not the biggest fan of Crysis 2, but it had a decent length single player, which is just awesome. Support these games more, and we can see more like it.

I'm actually interested in renting a server for BF3.

Leaked image shows release date. November 2nd.

At 4/1/11 05:01 PM, IncendiaryProduction wrote: Leaked image shows release date. November 2nd.

Fuck. If that's true, then I may have to choose between this an Skyrim.

I BETTER GET A FUCKING JOB SOON.

By the way, I was joking about the whole leaves thing, taking the piss out of Cole.

But yeah, watching the third trailer now, should be good.

At 4/1/11 06:48 PM, Snuff wrote: By the way, I was joking about the whole leaves thing, taking the piss out of Cole.

I was not joking about the leaves. Fuck DICE and their "amazing new engine."

At 4/1/11 07:03 PM, Makeshift wrote:

At 4/1/11 06:48 PM, Snuff wrote: By the way, I was joking about the whole leaves thing, taking the piss out of Cole.

I was not joking about the leaves. Fuck DICE and their "amazing new engine."

So some leaves went through the floor, sure it looks a little unprofessional, but you only properly take any notice of it if you aren't enjoying the game. So therefore the game wont be for those who do notice it, because if you're really into the game, you aren't going to notice a leaf going through the floor.

At 4/1/11 05:01 PM, IncendiaryProduction wrote: Leaked image shows release date. November 2nd.

wtb that screenshot in english

I hope this game has some decent anti-air weapons in it. Bad Company 2, despite having smaller maps and playercounts, ranks as my favourite Battlefield game because you can take down choppers without a ball-busting amount of effort.

1942 and BF2 on the other hand, if the enemy team has better pilots than you, your fucked. The flak guns aren't good enough and missiles in BF2 are worthless due to flares.

The full, 12 minute fault line trailer available for download in HD on PSN.

It was great watching it on my piece of shit computer, but it's a whole different experience watching it on my TV with the sound turned up.

At 3/17/11 01:34 AM, Cootie wrote: I wonder if the online is going to look like that trailer, or are they going to scale the detail down a tad for online. I don't see why they would, but almost everyone has played a game where the online didn't look as "crisp" as the single player.

Get a PC. Then you won't have this problem. Games are always graphically scaled back for inferior technology that is present in consoles.

At 5/10/11 01:11 PM, MercatorMapV2 wrote:

At 3/17/11 01:34 AM, Cootie wrote: I wonder if the online is going to look like that trailer, or are they going to scale the detail down a tad for online. I don't see why they would, but almost everyone has played a game where the online didn't look as "crisp" as the single player.

Get a PC. Then you won't have this problem. Games are always graphically scaled back for inferior technology that is present in consoles.

I don't see why you had to bring system into this particular portion of the discussion, when the point was online vs. singleplayer. Even PC games occasionally scale back graphics and such for multiplayer to make the game run smoother between all the different users.

We all know the PC version is going to be the better version graphically (oh dearry me, not the graphics) and that multiplayer is going to have larger maps and more players. No need to keep hammering that point over and over.

At 5/10/11 02:25 PM, sinfulwolf wrote:
I don't see why you had to bring system into this particular portion of the discussion, when the point was online vs. singleplayer. Even PC games occasionally scale back graphics and such for multiplayer to make the game run smoother between all the different users.

We all know the PC version is going to be the better version graphically (oh dearry me, not the graphics) and that multiplayer is going to have larger maps and more players. No need to keep hammering that point over and over.

System is relevant because the person who I quoted was talking about a trailer, which would be shown from a PC, and would likely not be using a PC, but a console instead.

This is not about LOLOLOLOLCONSOLEFANBOYISMLOLOLOLOL but simple logic. A port from PC to console is not going to look as good, and of course the developer will want their product to look as graphically pleasing as possible by choosing the graphically superior platform.

Simple numbers watson.

Saw the trailers and the gameplay video, bottom line, the graphics are orgasmic.

Hoping my computer can handle it on max graphics settings. Right now I'm running an Intel i7-990X 3.46GHZ, Two NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 1GB cards, and 12GB DDR3 RAM.

At 5/10/11 02:34 PM, RazorHawk wrote: Saw the trailers and the gameplay video, bottom line, the graphics are orgasmic.

Hoping my computer can handle it on max graphics settings. Right now I'm running an Intel i7-990X 3.46GHZ, Two NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 1GB cards, and 12GB DDR3 RAM.

You know you will, stop pretending to be concerned...

I just hope the console version will be really good still. Its a shame the PC version just has to be the superior version since I do enjoy my console gaming.

Plus my computer would have no chance of running this game since this thing is ancient.

At 5/11/11 08:40 AM, Emlfuryoflion wrote: I just hope the console version will be really good still. Its a shame the PC version just has to be the superior version since I do enjoy my console gaming.

Plus my computer would have no chance of running this game since this thing is ancient.

The PC version is the superior version because the processors of the inferior console are incapable of running the superior version.

You get what you pay for. Don't expect a 3-400 dollar console to be able to keep up with a 600 dollar PC.

In other words, it's not a shame. It's a personal problem derived from the choice of a technologically inferior piece of equipment.

At 5/10/11 02:29 PM, MercatorMapV2 wrote:

At 5/10/11 02:25 PM, sinfulwolf wrote:
I don't see why you had to bring system into this particular portion of the discussion, when the point was online vs. singleplayer. Even PC games occasionally scale back graphics and such for multiplayer to make the game run smoother between all the different users.

We all know the PC version is going to be the better version graphically (oh dearry me, not the graphics) and that multiplayer is going to have larger maps and more players. No need to keep hammering that point over and over.

System is relevant because the person who I quoted was talking about a trailer, which would be shown from a PC, and would likely not be using a PC, but a console instead.

This is not about LOLOLOLOLCONSOLEFANBOYISMLOLOLOLOL but simple logic. A port from PC to console is not going to look as good, and of course the developer will want their product to look as graphically pleasing as possible by choosing the graphically superior platform.

Simple numbers watson.

Yer not listening to me... the question was on the difference between single player and multiplayer, not difference between systems. I've already said I'm well aware that the PC is the superior version. The question was on the single player portion, you know the part where you play by yourself regardless of system, and the multiplayer, you know where you go and play with other people online.

Everyone knows the PC is superior, its been said, that issue should be done with now. The question was single player vs. multiplayer, not 360 vs PC. The system is still irelevant because the person was asking about single player... vs. multiplayer... on a trailer that showed single player. Yes it was on the superior PC version that I've been fully aware is the better version, but the question is not revolving around the different systems, but the play modes.

If you read my post I did not once even attempt to deny the PC being the better version, nor did I need further proof than the developers going "Yeah we're making the PC version the focus" so you don't need to prove it. I was talking about solo mode and online mode.

You clearly missed my point. I stated that the developers were going to be using a PC as their platform for trailers, why the person who was quoted is going to be using a console. So of course what he is playing is going to be graphically different from what is in the trailers.

Let's not make this more difficult than it has to be.

At 5/11/11 12:05 PM, MercatorMapV2 wrote: You clearly missed my point. I stated that the developers were going to be using a PC as their platform for trailers, why the person who was quoted is going to be using a console. So of course what he is playing is going to be graphically different from what is in the trailers.

Let's not make this more difficult than it has to be.

He asked if the online was going to be different. The online component. Not if a console would look different, which is obvious. So I've not missed your point at all, as I've alreadyentirely agreed with what your saying. I'm just saying it's irrelevant to the question which pertains to online.

You're the one making this difficult.

At 5/11/11 03:43 PM, sinfulwolf wrote:

At 5/11/11 12:05 PM, MercatorMapV2 wrote: You clearly missed my point. I stated that the developers were going to be using a PC as their platform for trailers, why the person who was quoted is going to be using a console. So of course what he is playing is going to be graphically different from what is in the trailers.

Let's not make this more difficult than it has to be.

He asked if the online was going to be different. The online component. Not if a console would look different, which is obvious. So I've not missed your point at all, as I've alreadyentirely agreed with what your saying. I'm just saying it's irrelevant to the question which pertains to online.

You're the one making this difficult.

How so? You're the one who initiated this bit of what is relevant, what is irrelevant harping. Which makes no difference. As it's all to do with battlefield 3, and is all relevant.

Stop being so difficult.

At 5/11/11 11:41 AM, MercatorMapV2 wrote: The PC version is the superior version because the processors of the inferior console are incapable of running the superior version.

*Sigh* Look, PCs and consoles offer very different ways to handle what they do, you can't make such statements, technology doesn't work like that.

At 4/1/11 05:36 PM, Makeshift wrote:

At 4/1/11 05:01 PM, IncendiaryProduction wrote: Leaked image shows release date. November 2nd.

Fuck. If that's true, then I may have to choose between this an Skyrim.

I BETTER GET A FUCKING JOB SOON.

Not like it should be hard to find some demeaning summer work. Whore yourself out lad!

Saw the 12 minute gameplay footage, and I was pretty blown away. I'm also glad it's continuing from 2005's BF2 - I always loved that game.

Cannot wait.

Jesus Christ. Thanks to gamestop showing parts of the BF3 trailer in the store, I've had this conversation about five times today:

Guy: ''Woah, did you see the new MW3 trailer?''
Me: ''Yeah, it w-''
Guy: ''WASN'T IT TOTALLY AWESOME!?''
Me: ''Uh.. no, not really''
Guy: ''Are you fucking serious!? The bit on the rooftop with the sniper looked amazing!''
Me: ''...thats the Battlefield 3 trailer''
Guy: ''Haha, no its not. There was a big '3' at the end''
Me: ''Thats definitely the BF3 trailer, there is no gameplay for MW3 yet''
Guy: ''No its not. It looked really cool, but BF3 is going to suck''

ALL. OF. MY. RAGE.

At 5/18/11 03:09 PM, Jackho wrote: Jesus Christ. Thanks to gamestop showing parts of the BF3 trailer in the store, I've had this conversation about five times today:

Guy: ''Woah, did you see the new MW3 trailer?''
Me: ''Yeah, it w-''
Guy: ''WASN'T IT TOTALLY AWESOME!?''
Me: ''Uh.. no, not really''
Guy: ''Are you fucking serious!? The bit on the rooftop with the sniper looked amazing!''
Me: ''...thats the Battlefield 3 trailer''
Guy: ''Haha, no its not. There was a big '3' at the end''
Me: ''Thats definitely the BF3 trailer, there is no gameplay for MW3 yet''
Guy: ''No its not. It looked really cool, but BF3 is going to suck''

ALL. OF. MY. RAGE.

Wow. I hope there aren't that many idiots out there. The guy is going to be very disappointed when he realizes its not the same game.

At 5/18/11 03:38 PM, Emlfuryoflion wrote:
Wow. I hope there aren't that many idiots out there. The guy is going to be very disappointed when he realizes its not the same game.

Actually... he probably won't be. If he's blind enough to not realize what he's even looking at then he could probably be sold shit on a fancy platter with the words CALL OF DUTY emblazoned around the edge and still love the flavor.

At 5/18/11 03:09 PM, Jackho wrote: Jesus Christ. Thanks to gamestop showing parts of the BF3 trailer in the store, I've had this conversation about five times today:

Haha I know what you mean. Someone did say "OMG IS THAT HERP DERP WARFARE 3?" Me and my friend (works at gamestop) said "no. that's battlefield 3."

The guy changed his pre-order pretty quick. True mw3 will be better in terms of sales. In terms of quality....battlefield 3 has that rubbish beat atm