Battlefield 3 Clubhouse

[boise49ers]

Originally Posted by TRIPTEX_CAN

I pre-ordered MOH Limited edition and I don't qualify for shit. I havent even received a single email.

I just did yesterday and that is when they told me I'll get my code in September. LAME !

Originally Posted by mastrdrver

Looks like no AA and minimal AF enabled. Textures are in the craper. (Really shows the alpha stage of the game.)

I'm getting all excited again just from watching the video.

I'm trying to download the video but am not having much success right now.

Yep just a little to choppy for me.

[brandonwh64]

Originally Posted by boise49ers

I just did yesterday and that is when they told me I'll get my code in September. LAME !



Yep just a little to choppy for me.

september? Might as well wait til NOV and buy the full game!

[TheMailMan78]

Its only going to be the metro level anyway I am willing to bet

[mab1376]

They should bring back El Alamein, and Bocage.

[brandonwh64]

Strike at strike at karkand

[GullyFoyle]

Originally Posted by TheMailMan78

Its only going to be the metro level anyway I am willing to bet

Well, on BC2 the first beta was Arica harbor on the PS3, then they switched to Port Valdez for the PC beta.
After testing the backend in the alpha on Operation Metro, it might behoove them to do the PC beta on a 64 player conquest map...

[Wrigleyvillain]

Originally Posted by boise49ers

I just did yesterday and that is when they told me I'll get my code in September. LAME !

You got an email response or an unsolicited one? Im a bit surprised if the latter as you didn't pre-order MOH Limited. Then again, nobody actually seems to know wtf is really going on.

[TheMailMan78]

Originally Posted by GullyFoyle

Well, on BC2 the first beta was Arica harbor on the PS3, then they switched to Port Valdez for the PC beta.
After testing the backend in the alpha on Operation Metro, it might behoove them to do the PC beta on a 64 player conquest map...

From your lips to DICE's ear I hope you are right.

Originally Posted by Wrigleyvillain

You got an email response or an unsolicited one? Im a bit surprised if the latter as you didn't pre-order MOH Limited. Then again, nobody actually seems to know wtf is really going on.

Hence the "Science vs Religion" debate lol

[1Kurgan1]

Originally Posted by mab1376

They should bring back El Alamein, and Bocage.

Finally someone else mentions El Alamein! You remember the greatness.

Originally Posted by GullyFoyle

Well, on BC2 the first beta was Arica harbor on the PS3, then they switched to Port Valdez for the PC beta.
After testing the backend in the alpha on Operation Metro, it might behoove them to do the PC beta on a 64 player conquest map...

It would make sense. But to be honest, the switch from Arica to Port Valdez for PC wouldn't have been any more stressful. I think what really matters is the amount of players they are allowing to play right now, sure doesn't look like 64, on a map like that I doubt there would be so much open running spots with no one else in sight.

[TheMailMan78]

I REALLY want some of the SF maps and "Road to Jalalabad". I also loved the map in SF with the big missle in the center of the map. The name escapes me.

Edit: The map was called "Surge". Also "Ghost Town" was awesome!

[GullyFoyle]

We got a batch of articles released today coming out of a "presser" EA held at their HQ showing off the PS3 version of BF3.

Hands-on with multiplayer Battlefield 3 on the PS 3

Spoiler

July 20, 2011 | Dean TakahashiView CommentsinShare
Battlefield 3 is one of the most-anticipated games of the year. The combat shooting video game isn’t coming out until Oct. 25, but Electronic Arts showed it off recently to the press at its headquarters in Redwood City, Calif.

This is an important game for EA. If it looks and plays beautiful, it could very well generate a billion dollars in revenue, just as new installments of Call of Duty have done each year for Activision Blizzard. If it falls short, there will be a lot of disappointed gamers and investors out there. And Activision Blizzard will keep its bragging rights for the king of shooters for another year.

With that in mind, I played a round of Battlefield 3 multiplayer on the PlayStation 3. It was the same map in the Paris Metro underground that I played at E3, when EA showed off the PC multiplayer version of the game. It was a fun experience, but it did the highest expectations for this game. As others have reported, the PS 3 version of the game runs slower. The PC game runs at 60 frames per second on a high-end machine, while the PS 3 version runs at 30 frames per second. That’s noticeably different, and it’s slower than Call of Duty Modern Warfare 3, as far as I can tell. At E3, I played the Spec Ops version of multiplayer for Modern Warfare 3 and it was fast.

EA pointed out that the Battlefield 3 game was running on Alpha code. It’s not done and will be improved by the time it launches. I suspect that the Xbox 360 version will be similar to the PS 3, running slower than the maximum speed on the PC. In some ways, that’s OK. The Battlefield series has always made this trade-off of realism over speed. In Battlefield games, the environment is alive. Buildings are destructible. Vehicles can be driven. And soldiers can’t run at 40 miles per hour forever. By making everything seem a lot more real, the effect is immersive. While you often chuckle when you’re playing Modern Warfare games because the soldiers are so superhuman, Battlefield games make you grit your teeth because you feel more like you’re in combat.

With Battlefield 3, the multiplayer combat is similar to Battlefield Bad Company 2, which debuted in March 2010. You are given a goal of defending or taking an objective. If you take the first objective, you can move into a new part of the map with a second objective. If you seize four objectives, your team wins the match. Defenders have to fight off the attackers. This kind of directed play is good because it gives everyone a sense of the mission at hand. By contrast, Call of Duty firefights often require little or no cooperation, depending on the scenario.

The battle in the Metro map started in a park, with one group trying to reach a laptop and blow it up. The foliage was deep enough in places so that you could hide completely. The enemy came up with an armored car and they kept taking our team out. I switched from an assault rifle role to an engineer. Then I used rocket-propelled grenades to take out the armored car from behind. I shot it four times before it finally blew up. But we still lost that part of the fight.

My group lost control of the first objective, and that forced us underground into the Metro to defend our next spot. Amid crashed subway trains, we had to defend another laptop hidden in a maintenance room. We managed to do so quite well, mainly by gathering around the objective spot and shooting down long corridors. The battles are quite chaotic and it’s easy to get disoriented. Many times, when I respawned, I couldn’t tell which way I was facing and where the enemy was. But there were indicators that helped me figure that out.

We blocked the enemies from getting through to the objective room. In the match, I managed to come in first place during the round, taking down 13 enemies and dying 16 times. That wasn’t a great performance, and it was aided by the fact that I was always on the defense, which is easier. Most of my kills were against targets that were 25 yards to 75 yards away.

The good thing was that I didn’t notice that much lag, or jerky slowness. Multiplayer has to be faster than the single-player version of the game. When you shoot at someone, you expect to hit your target. If you don’t, the illusion of realism falls apart. With Battlefield 3, the game is fast enough. But it is not noticeably better and the multiplayer graphics are not ten times better than the games that are already out, such as Call of Duty Black Ops, Medal of Honor, and Battlefield Bad Company 2.

Yes, the graphics are better as the Frostbite 2 engine — which determines the quality of the graphics and physics — has been improved for Battlefield 3. But those improvements show up more in the PC version of the game that EA has been showing for most of its big-event demos. With the PS 3, there are trade-offs. To me, the graphics were little more fuzzy and weren’t as crisp on the PS 3. It looked almost as if someone had sprinkled black dots throughout the image on the screen in a way that turned down the sharpness.

That’s disappointing. I also had a hard time playing with the PS 3 controller. I shoot better with either an Xbox 360 controller or a PC mouse. With the PS 3, I fumble around more. And with the fuzzy graphics, I couldn’t see that far away during the action scenes. Consequently, I found it very difficult to snipe at a soldier off in the distance, even with a red-dot scope on my gun. I imagine that I could adapt to that over time, but it reinforced the notion that I would likely want to play this game on the Xbox 360, which has the weakest graphics of any of the systems that will run the game.

I hope that the game developers can make strides in speeding up the game play and improving the graphics. But after playing a round on the PS 3, I’ve adjusted my expectations downward for this game. But before I write the game off as a disappointment, I still want to see a lot more and I want to hear some more analysis from some real graphics experts on this topic. (Yes, this does NOT mean that I am saying that EA will lose the war to Activision Blizzard). EA notes that this game is not just a multiplayer title; it has a deep single-player campaign and cool features such as destructible environments, vehicles, and a feeling that you’re in an all-out war.

After I played multiplayer for Modern Warfare 3 at E3, I was mildly impressed with the Hollywood-style combat, even in the multiplayer sessions. With the Spec Ops mode, you play cooperatively with another player, fighting growing numbers of enemies until you are just overwhelmed with bad guys. I didn’t see any lag problems and the graphics seemed reasonably good. At this point, I’ve seen more Battlefield 3 up close than I have Modern Warfare 3.

With Battlefield 3, EA showed scenes with outstanding graphics at the outset back in March, setting very high expectations. After I saw the scene that EA showed in March, I felt like I was looking at a combat video, not a video game. Hopefully, the game will live up to that imagery. But it will come back to haunt EA if it doesn’t.

EA still has to show more of the single-player version of the game. So it has plenty of chances to win over fans by the time the game launches in October. I think that players are used to very different styles of multiplayer play with these two games. The only real questions are whether one game will look significantly better than the other, and if one side or the other has an outstanding single-player campaign. I think the battle is going to come down to the quality of the single-player campaign and its story.

Here’s how it stands now: EA impressed everyone in March with a great demo and again at E3 in June, when it showed off tank combat. But now reality is setting in at this stage. In the coming months, EA will have to impress us all over again.

kotaktu - I've Seen Battlefield 3 on PS3. It's Spectacular.

Spoiler

Brian Crecente — The last time I saw Kevin O'Leary he had a beard. A tier-one beard. These day's he's wrangling press for Battlefield 3. Right now he's walking me behind a curtain on the second floor of a New York City ballroom to a Playstation 3 set-up on a back room television.

They won't allow me to play the game myself, but this will be the first time I've had a chance to see the eagerly-anticipated Battlefield 3 playing on a console in person. I, and probably lots of you, had a chance to see the game played on a PS3 during an appearance on Jimmy Fallon's late night show. But I asked for a chance to check the game out to see how the console version compared to the computer one in person.
Later I went back and played through a multiplayer level of the game on a computer, just to refresh my memory. (Check out a quick video tour of that map here.)

Initially there isn't a lot of difference to notice. O'Leary is guiding his soldier through the familiar Fault-Line series of gameplay shown off on Fallon and elsewhere. Another soldier shoulders his way into a garage, works his way through the building and then out into a parking lot where the group is ambushed.

Things look very similar, but then I start to notice some subtle differences. The lighting is the biggest difference. In the Playstation 3 version the shadows cast across the opening sequence are sharper, there's less subtlety in the way the light is diffused. During the gunfight that takes place outside in the parking lot there seems to be a lot less smoke and dust on the PS3 version. When my teammates fire, their barrels don't spew out smoke that quickly dissipates. In the PC version the entire parking lot seems to be clouded with debris, smoke and dust, in the PS3 version the same scene seems clearer, cleaner.

But these are the sort of differences you'd only notice if you were looking for them. At first blush, the Playstation 3 version of Battlefield 3 is every bit as impressive as the computer version. The fidelity of the urban battlefield is overwhelming, the nuance of details found in the buildings, cars and make up of the city serve as a sort of camouflage for the action that unravels during the gunfight. It's hard to spot enemies until they open fire.

Most importantly, the PS3 version won't disappoint fans who found the PC version of the game thrilling. While I wasn't able to play through the level, O'Leary pointed out some minor, obvious differences, between the controls of the PC and PS3 version. The game will use the directional pad, for instance, to allow you to turn on a weapon-mounted flashlight. It also changes your weapon's firing mode and brings up your character's special kit in multiplayer.

As my short time in front of the PS3 version of the game wrapped up, I ask O'Leary if we can expect to see Move support on the game.

"Right now we're focused on shipping the best game in October," he responds, completely side-stepping the question.

It sounds like the game's next big showing will be at Gamescom in Germany next month. Hopefully we'll get a chance to play the game on a console there.

G4TV - Battlefield 3 Console Hands-On Multiplayer Preview

Spoiler

Considering the bombastic presentations of Battlefield 3 these past several months, you'd think our ears would still be ringing from all the rifle, cannon and mortar fire. We've gone over the game's relatively deep single player, as well as the squad-based gameplay in both single player and multiplayer. Our latest dose of hands-on time came from EA's Summer Showcase, where the publisher was finally ready to show off the previously unveiled Operation Metro map, but now on the PlayStation 3.

Unsurprisingly, Battlefield 3 performs well through to PlayStation 3 controls, which also conforms to a traditional console FPS button layout. While we do realize that Battlefield 3 has been redesigned with the PC as the lead platform, it was a mild downer to see a noticeable down-res in graphical quality with this PlayStation 3 version. It’s still in prealpha so we're hopeful for visual improvements come October.

One well known change in the series I was more curious about was the melding of the assault class and the medic into the so-called "combat medic", a well-equipped frontline soldier with defibrillators and health packs. I spent quite a bit of time trying to observe how this affected the whole team dynamic. Sure enough, there were moments where I felt very self-reliant, let alone more aggressive than I normally play. Our group session wasn't maxed out to a 24-player game, so I'm still intrigued how this change will work with a packed deathmatch with more recon, engineer, and support classes in the mix.

Like our past hands-on sessions, the game ventures beyond the familiar open environments of past Battlefields by including tighter urban areas. The Operation Metro map, for example, features a solid mix of outdoor and underground areas. It feels like a positive evolution of the best parts of the multiplayer from last year's Medal of Honor, where much of the quality comes courtesy of the latest Frostbite Engine.

Having had considerable time with the previous iterations of Frostbite through Battlefield: Bad Company and Bad Company 2, and Battlefield 1943, this demo was an opportune time to really test out its latest version as Battlefield 3 marks the debut of Frostbite 2.0. Among the engine’s touted five pillars of animation, scale, rendering, destruction, and audio, the one area I methodically tested was destruction. With the help of a media colleague, I got to see how my combat medic would survive standing a room as the room collapsed on him. Understandably enough, I died two out of three times. It also sounds natural for EA's various studios to share notes, so it was a good fit for DICE to use the same ANT animation technology used in Madden.

In all, it's good finally see the console version's multiplayer in action, although it would be great to revisit this in a couple months and see how (and if) the graphics have improved. Given the October 25th release date (on PC, Xbox 360, and PS3), we're pretty sure we'll have a couple preview opportunities to delve deeper into the game.

blog.us.playstation.com - Battlefield 3 Hands-On Report: Opposing Forces

Spoiler

Posted by Sid Shuman // Senior Social Media Specialist

War has changed. And fortunately, it’s changed for the better. Not long ago, Jeff and I went hands-on with an early, pre-alpha PS3 build of Battlefield 3’s multiplayer mode. Building on the positive buzz behind the smash hit Battlefield Bad Company 2, developer DICE is crafting a muscular follow-up that leverages new animation and rendering tech, revamped online features, and a rough-and-tumble feel to create a new breed of military shooter.
During the multiplayer battle, Jeff and I found ourselves on opposing sides (my side won, naturally). Following our all-too-brief hands-on session, Jeff and I compared notes on the finer points of Battlefield 3’s multiplayer mode.

Sid Shuman: With Call of Duty’s twitchier play style becoming the industry norm for many multiplayer military shooters, I was most curious to see how Battlefield 3′s multiplayer would stake out its own territory. I was pleased to find a highly accessible game that remains faithful to Battlefield’s realistic roots while evolving the look, feel, and tactics. This is a shooter that has learned several important lessons from Call of Duty — primarily in the realm of accessibility — but stands firmly on its own boot-clad feet.

Jeff Rubenstein: I know you’re more of a fan of team-based multiplayer modes, so you must’ve enjoyed the Rush mode we sampled. A Battlefield staple, teams are divided into offense and defense, with the attackers attempting to take objectives (or blow them up, as it were), pushing the defenders back. I enjoy these matches because it’s not about who gets the most kills, it’s about who achieves the most objectives. The selfish generally lose.
Naturally, we were on opposite teams.

Sid: Indeed. The multiplayer map we played on, Operation Metro, was focused on straightforward infantry play and made an ideal testbed for Rush’s symmetrical combat. Diving into the first match, I was immediately drawn to Battlefield 3’s map design. On the Operation Metro map, rolling hills gave way to clumps of thick vegetation interspersed with armored barricades and rock formations, giving a more organic, liberating feel to movement and fighting. This isn’t a shooter where you’ll sprint down the same dusty hallways and snipe out of the same dusty windows again and again ad nauseum. Battlefield 3’s porous but open map design forces you to constantly scan your surroundings for stealthy approaches. Combined with a devastatingly realistic damage model and a short-but-nerve-wracking respawn timer, I found myself playing far more carefully than I’m accustomed to in multiplayer shooters — I’d pop off a few shots, scramble for safety, lay low, then work to flank any nearby opponents. The experience was more harrowing than some survival-horror games I’ve played, and forced me to lay down suppressive fire and breathlessly belly-crawl to avoid being gunned down. And it worked, for more than 10 straight kills, until somebody tapped me with a high-powered sniper rifle and the lights went out for good.

Jeff: You know, due to my squad’s inability to dislodge you defenders from your perch in a gazebo, we weren’t able to push you back, and hence we weren’t able to see the full range of the map, which includes an underground subway depot. Interestingly, the Operation Metro map is based on an actual Parisian park – DICE’s Owen Johnson told me that some French fellas that tried out the demo earlier said it was quite accurate, although the actual Metro station is a bit more, shall we say, worn-in in real life.

Sid: You know, they say the Swedes are a very meticulous people. Beyond the map’s sprawling size and alleged geographic accuracy, I was also struck by the new ways you can interact with the environment. Battlefield 3 has an immersive physicality I don’t often see in shooters — it intermittently reminded me of Mirror’s Edge, incidentally also developed by DICE. I liked how, when I mantled over a low barricade, my character scissor-kicked his legs over the obstruction rather than weightlessly hop over it as in many other shooters. It feels jarring and rough-and-tumble, but convincing in a way that connected me with the environment. As an example, I frequently found myself sprinting away from danger and then diving to avoid incoming fire, making my character slide heavily through the grass in a way that made me wince. In fact, I did quite a bit of the latter due to some sharpshooters on your team. Hey, you were playing as a sniper, weren’t you?

Jeff: Ugh, that was *not* on purpose. In my rush to jump into the game as quickly as possible, I started hammering on the X button, and I was dropped into the match in the Recon class, which you might know as a “sniper.” I figured I might not last too long (I didn’t!), so I decided to explore the ways the Recon class has evolved since BF:BC2. In a notable change, every character class can now dip into a full prone stance. To help balance a sniper’s new, lower profile, DICE is adding a bit of weapon glint to help betray a sniper’s position when he zeros in on a target for too long. I picked a safe-looking spot, laid down, and drew a bead on an enemy. What I noticed immediately wasn’t that I missed – I expected that. It was the incredible crack of the rifle’s discharge. The report sounded LOUD and DANGEROUS. In fact, throughout the rest of the session, I noticed that the guns sounded more fearsome and deadly than the arms I’ve used in other games recently. If nothing else, Battlefield 3 brings definite improvements to its treatment of audio. Which class were you using?

Sid: I mostly stuck with the Assault class, a versatile, combat-ready role that shares abilities of a field medic, including a portable defibrillator that resurrects fallen allies and medkits that you can use to heal wounded teammates. I also tinkered with the Support class that boasts a bodacious light machinegun and a pocketfull of ammo. Interestingly, the Support class can deploy a portable bipod on any solid surface (a barricade or the ground) in order to boost range and accuracy, effectively creating a high-powered turret at will.
On that note, I was impressed to see that, unlike most shooters, Battlefield 3 emphasizes laying down suppressive fire — a key tactic in controlling and winning a real-life firefight. You’ll actually gain XP when you pin enemies behind cover. Better yet, you’ll also blur the vision of any enemies you suppress, putting them at a disadvantage. This is a perfect match for the Support class, with its high-capacity ammo clips.

Jeff: I do like the idea of folding in the typical medic class with the Assault troops – both those types are usually at the front line anyways. I typically lean on the Engineer class, as I enjoy both the destruction and repairing of tanks. Johnson noted that “Engineer has changed the least.” I’m fine with that. Did you happen to land a melee kill? They’ve added an interesting collection aspect via customizable dog tags, allowing you to form a collection of your most intimate finishers. I’m sure we’ll hear and see more of that feature down the line.
***
Well, that’s all the commentary we could squeeze out of a 10-minute multiplayer match, but the taste was enough to have us salivating for a larger bite of Battlefield 3. You can be sure we’ll keep you updated here on the PlayStation Blog as we get further samplings between now and the game’s October 25th release date. Don’t forget, Battlefield 1943 is included on the Blu-ray disc as a free bonus, only for PS3.

Wildcard article: gamingirresponsibly.com - David Jaffe Upset Over Battlefield 3 Hype

Spoiler

Written by Kyle Franco on July 20, 2011

Sometimes people can get carried away over new and exciting ideas that can be seen on the far horizon. This is very true in the case of Battlefield 3 many gamers are eagerly awaiting this new addition to the award winning online series and I’m sure that some are even spreading the barbed wire around their room to give it more of a Battlefield feel.

It’s an upcoming release that is enjoying a seemingly endless amount of hype at the moment, and if we consider the past Battlefield series entries then it’s hype is rightly deserved. There is always a minimum of one person out that in the gamer-sphere that will see a game as being pointlessly hyped up and that people are just jumping the gun in terms of excitement. Today David Jaffe (Game Designer of the Twisted Metal series, and the first God of War) is one of those people.

About an hour ago David Jaffe tweeted about his vexation at gamers and the journalists out there who have been hyping up Battlefield 3, before any of us have actually had a chance to play it.

davidscottjaffe
“.@DougButabiJTV 100% correct. But see, this is what I meant the other day: the issue for you and others like you may very well be a) you are doing too many things at the same time to actually read what I write beyond the headlines or b) your reading comprehension skills are not where they should be. Did I say the press and gamers should applaud and celebrate the amazing visuals (and the folks responsible for them) of the E3 build of BF3? Yes I did. But did I ALSO SAY that we as gamers- and the gaming press- need to be able to tell/appreciate (and report on) that amazing visuals do not equate to amazing gameplay? I did! And I also said that until BF3 shows more of its gameplay, that everyone saying BF3 was AMAZING and was GAME OF THE SHOW was both damaging and juvenile and- on the part of journalists who said such things- damaging. My point was not negative- as you accuse me of being- but more passionate about the idea that IF the game medium really is capable of expressing amazing thoughts and ideas (or even just amazingly fresh entertainment) then we need to push those who make the games (including myself) to deliver on the gameplay front as well as the graphic front. To me, BF3 MAY be GAME OF THE YEAR (and I want to play the beta cause I’ve liked the other BF games and am eager to see what they’ve done to evolve the series) but UNTIL they show that they are an amazing game and MORE than just amazing graphics, that tank scene WAS BATTLEZONE HD. And to NOT agree with that- if you are a gamer or journalist who said BF3 was an amazing GAME and should get GAME OF THE SHOW while at the same time you like to play the ‘games can be art/games are important’ card- well that just means you are either full of shit or not very bright. NOTE: SOME games can be art while other games can be pure fun entertainment, by the way. There CAN and they SHOULD be a mix (and some games- most games?-should strive to be both!!!)…but if people were hyping the gameplay of BF3 then they sure as hell didn’t explain why…and all I saw (from that tank sequence) was- at a mechanics level- BattleZone (aim and fire)…in fact, could you even move the tank’s position in the E3 tank demo from BF3 or were you just controlling a turret? If THAT’S the case, unless the turret mechanics have gotten super amazing, then it’s LESS of a play experience than BF3.”

David Jaffe brings up quite a few good points here no doubt, but as someone who has played Battlefield since its debut I have to say that Battlefield 3′s hype is very well deserved, and the fact is that we’re all just anxious to get our hands on it.

[GullyFoyle]

Originally Posted by 1Kurgan1

It would make sense. But to be honest, the switch from Arica to Port Valdez for PC wouldn't have been any more stressful. I think what really matters is the amount of players they are allowing to play right now, sure doesn't look like 64, on a map like that I doubt there would be so much open running spots with no one else in sight.

You know what a meat grinder Rush maps are. DICE has stated that Rush maps will be limited to 32 players. More that that is just ridicluous. 64 players will be seen in Conquest, and perhaps other game modes like Team Deathmatch.

[TheMailMan78]

Ya know.....I just don't F#$King care anymore. I know what the tight lil corridor shooting will be like. WHERE ARE THE FUCKING JETS!

[_JP_]

Originally Posted by TheMailMan78

WHERE ARE THE FUCKING JETS!

My thoughts exactly.
While that multiplayer teaser did get my attention, I am not going to pre-order until I see gameplay featuring more vehicles, but especially jets.
I seriously want to know if I'll be able to raise hell from the sky (blow sh!t up) with a B-1, or not.

[Pestilence]

Have they even said what jets will be in the game? F22 Raptor?

[_JP_]

Originally Posted by Pestilence

Have they even said what jets will be in the game?

No.
The only jets I've seen from trailers and gameplay are the F/A-18E/F, the A-10 and the B1.
And the F-22 is just like...too damn easy. I would take the F-15, over the F-22, all day. It turns dogfights with the fulcrums more exciting.

[Pestilence]

Posted on another forum.. Sandy Bridge Rig

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nl6F...embedded#at=40

Very Very smooth

[_JP_]

I hope it is smooth, I was thinking of doing a low-budget upgrade to SB. That thing better run smooth!

EDIT: One thing I noticed from that video is that there is total absence of gun magazines. The guy had 9/71 of ammo, he shoots the rock once, reloads, 9/70. That isn't realistic. In BF1942, BF:V and BF2, if you reloaded with bullets still in the mag, you could forget about them. That is realistic. Maybe I'm being a bit bitchy about this, but I want realistic gameplay. How come I will be able to blow buildings up and warp bullets from mag to mag. That doesn't add up.

[erixx]

meanwhile they announce 'battlelog' a social whatever so you can live inside without playing and without 'a life'.

what a waste of time and effort (both for the devs of it and for us)... It's like 'stats' but 1000 times worse...

[brandonwh64]

Originally Posted by Pestilence

Posted on another forum.. Sandy Bridge Rig

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nl6F...embedded#at=40

Very Very smooth

When the guy dies "FAK U!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

[_JP_]

Originally Posted by brandonwh64

When the guy dies "FAK U!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

That was definitely the most relevant part of the video.

[brandonwh64]

Originally Posted by _JP_

That was definitely the most relevant part of the video.

thats all I got out of it involving humor.

[_JP_]

I might use that like as my in-game battle cry. I haven't decided yet.

[brandonwh64]

Im thinking of editing out that segment of sound and putting it in my HLSS player so when Im playing counter strike I can play it over and over when I die.

[_JP_]

Sounds like a good idea to me.