http://blogs.battlefield.ea.com/battlefi eld_bad_company/archive/2011/05/11/Back-
to-Karkand.aspx

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!

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

At 5/18/11 11:48 PM, mrpwnzer wrote: 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

There's such a huge number of people rejecting the Call of Duty series lately and there's a lot of hype surrounding Battlefield 3. I think it will be extremely successful in sales. Probably close to Modern Warfare 2's sales. Go to any forum, any YouTube video, and you will see tons of people praising Battlefield. The focus seems to have changed to Battlefield. Of course Modern Warfare 3 will outsell Battlefield, but it's going to be a close rise, especially considering the release dates of the two. I would be ecstatic if DICE decided to release on November 8. It would show they have balls.

Meh is all i can say.

Um, it's just CoD with some things added that fan boy's constantly defend.

The pack doesn't look exciting at all, hell you can rebrand it for any other FPS at this point, hell it could even be for Team Fortress 2.

At 5/25/11 11:35 PM, Warforger wrote: Um, it's just CoD with some things added that fan boy's constantly defend.

The pack doesn't look exciting at all, hell you can rebrand it for any other FPS at this point, hell it could even be for Team Fortress 2.

It's just COD? Are you fucking serious? COD has been trying to emulate battlefield since battlefield 2.

Sheesh. Kids these days.

At 5/25/11 09:08 PM, IncendiaryProduction wrote: First look at some weapons via promo for the physical warfare pack.

I really hate pre-order exclusive content.

I really do.

Battlefield 3 special:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXaFw7aC9 GE

At 5/26/11 05:11 PM, IncendiaryProduction wrote:
Me too. I also hate that in Bad Company 2, they allowed people to buy all the weapons and upgrades without unlocking them.

There are people running around that are still privates or PFCs that are using the best weapons in the game, and have no clue how to play right.

Just another reason why PC > Console.

At 5/27/11 07:06 AM, Rucklo wrote: Battlefield 3 special:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXaFw7aC9 GE

People don't have names anymore, they have twitter accounts.

At 5/27/11 09:55 AM, MercatorMapV2 wrote:

At 5/26/11 05:11 PM, IncendiaryProduction wrote:
Me too. I also hate that in Bad Company 2, they allowed people to buy all the weapons and upgrades without unlocking them.

There are people running around that are still privates or PFCs that are using the best weapons in the game, and have no clue how to play right.

Just another reason why PC > Console.

I don't understand why people buying things makes the PC better, as I'm sure people can just as easily buy or hack those items on PC....

Playing on the PC is better for the fact that aiming with a mouse is much easier than aiming with a control stick no matter what anyone says. Not to mention with the right hardware, a computer can handle much more vividly detailed graphics than modern day consoles can. And lastly, with computers, you have the access to the modding communities so that you can modify and customize many aspects of your gaming experience. Just look at what Project Realism did for Battlefield 2.

I like the destructible cover aspect of the more recent Battlefield games, which absolutely murders the encouragement to camp, changes the battlefield in various ways, adds incredible amounts of realism, and allows for new strategies to be used. I can't tell you how many times I've used the Bradley Linebacker in BF:BC2 to destroy plants and foliage to weed out snipers or used explosives to break holes into the wall to get to the objectives faster. It changes a lot of things that other FPS games overlook. I was quickly reminded of this when I was playing Homefront the other day and found myself not able to kill an enemy soldier with a tank simply because they were hiding behind nothing more than a fence.

I do hope, however, they keep the way knifing an enemy player worked in Battlefield Bad Company 2 when it comes to Battlefield 3, and they don't turn it into an unrealistic fiesta the way it was in both MW2 and Homefront.

Heres an special episode of 'EA Pwned' which shows interviews with DICE and some more technical info about Frostbite 2 and the game itself. It also has more info on the Back to Karkand pack and the Physical Warfare Package.

Here.

Also, here's a comparison of Battlefield 2 and Battlefield 3 with the new maps.

At 5/30/11 07:06 AM, LulzCal wrote: Also, here's a comparison of Battlefield 2 and Battlefield 3 with the new maps.

To be honest, they barely even look like the same map. Seems like they kept the same overall layout in terms of street and building placements (which is good), but everything else has been changed completely.

Either way, I'm still pretty hyped for this game.