AGS Steam Games

Forums → Games → The ChillzMaster and Battlefield 3

50 7259
ChillzMaster
offline
ChillzMaster
1,434 posts
Nomad

Half day today.
Got out of High School at 12:15.
Went to the middle school to say "hey" to some 8th graders,
walked with my friend back home,
walked to my local SUBWAY to make some lunch and collect my paycheck, hung out at my friend's house,
complained about the taxes on my paycheck.
Had Mom drive me to cash paycheck.
Went to local Independent Game Retailer to complain some more about taxes on my paycheck.
Acquired Battlefield 3, and prepared to play the game me and Highfire have been screaming about for the past half-year+.

Thirty-odd minutes in, I'm in the jet mission. I look around at the scenery, the various aircraft carriers scattered around the ocean as the Jet Fighters scramble. After a quick weapons and utilities check, my jet screams as it takes off. I am instantly greeted with this song (at the 1:00 minute mark) and burst into tears as the beauty around me breaks Your Friendly Neighborhood Satanist into a bawling baby.

The gunplay is solid, the graphics are astounding (I know graphics are unimportant in determining the quality of a game, but its worth noticing that I yelled "WHOA!" more than once playing the first four levels of this game), the multiplayer is back and the best I've played (yes Reach, you take that 2nd place spot), the Frostbite 2 engine makes the CryEngine look like the old "Wolfenstein 3D Engine", and as mentioned above, the "Dun dun dun, DAH-DUN DUN!" score brings the entire project together in a blaze of glory for DICE and EA.

Now, let me get this out of the way, since MW3 doesn't come out for 2 weeks and I don't plan on playing it 'till X-mas....

Best Engine? Yes. Best Multiplayer? Yes. Best set-pieces? Yes. Best Achievements/Trophies? Yes. Best Score? Yes.

....

CoD Killer? I think so.

-Chillz gives DICE's masterpiece a 10/10, a rating only shared in his books by two other games, Mass Effect 2 and Halo Reach.

  • 50 Replies
Highfire
offline
Highfire
3,025 posts
Nomad

For a hot topic of debate I'd like to link you this:
TotalBiscuits first impressions on the BF3 Campaign.

I don't necessarily disagree - I mean can you honestly dispute against what he said good sir? ^^

For those not bothered clicking the YouTube link and watching the 23:00 video, he basically talks about how the game is a linear shooter on Singleplayer and is genuinely dull as a result.
Being as he prefers games with at least from freedom he found this very annoying, coupled with the fact that the last open shooter in the slightest was Crysis 2 and we all know that died relatively fast.

The ability for the Singleplayer to be a prelude to features in Multiplayer would also be worth mentioning, but being as in the Jet Mission I believe you mentioned, Master, you are barely capable of controlling the thing nor in the fashion you want it to.

It could easily be argued and I would agree to BF3 being a Multiplayer game where it's focused on.
So why focus on Singleplayer at all? As previously mentioned it barely served as a proper prelude, it barely represents itself as an open and strategic shooter as Totalbiscuit had said and the development time spent on Singleplayer could be very harmful, especially when you consider they already had the Physical Warfare Pack, SPECACT Kit and various other items dredged up exclusive to specific conditions. It's not as bad now with the Phys. War. Pack but it is still bad.

I should point out that the pre-order bonuses I've essentially forgiven long ago and I'm alright with buying and trying the game once I get it in the EU, however from first impressions from a much trusted cynical ******* I hesitate in my decision giving this pre-emptive limelight.

I will try the campaign, and hopefully play it for what it may well be - an interactive movie, but make no mistake that the gameplay being an essential piece of the game with reduced scripting and general complexity of the core metagame is a dwindling aspect of FPS' and that Battlefield (without Bad Company) has previously retained a hardcore or old school momento.

This is focused at the Singleplayer. I cannot wait to try out both aspects of the game but my hopes have quite diminished thus far for the Singleplayer. As mentioned in the video Totalbiscuit (and I) don't actually question the Multiplayer - being a player of Operation Metro in the Beta alone I feel comfort in what we will be facing on the brink of war against the PLR / Spetznaz / Marine Corps.

My final opinion will be held until I receive this game at or slightly after October 27th, until then, enjoy ^^

Sorry for the buzzkill but I figured this is worth mentioning. :<

CoD killer? Definitely. Whilst its story may be nothing special (I really don't know) it's certainly worth mentioning that as I've already said Multiplayer is the focus - Battlefield will definitely overrule it but the problem lies in the fanbases' playstyle. Fast paced shooter does not equal a progressive, tactical shooter based on combined arms warfare.
CoD will not be dealt a definitive blow by Battlefield 3, although it has possibly been crippled.

- H

master565
offline
master565
4,103 posts
Nomad

Best Engine?


I never really understood what's so great about the Frostbite engine, I've never been given a reason why it's so good. The only reasons i hear it's good is because of it's lighting and graphics capabilities (which shouldn't be a main factor of an engine but i must admit, are extremely impressive), and because of destructible environments (in exchange for larger matches of course), and it's not even the only engine that has that. It seems like people just think it's good because DICE gloating it is.
ChillzMaster
offline
ChillzMaster
1,434 posts
Nomad

*This series of twelve words represents a quote of everything HighFire said*

Oh... TotalBiscuit didn't like it? I adore him (thanks to you my British counterpart) and his WTF Is... videos got me playing a lot of cool and fun indie games... but he is right in all respects of what he says about the game. However, he is being a bit TOO cynical. Yes there are corridor sections, but there are also a large amount of open areas that allow movement about for flanking maneuvers and whatnot.

-Chillz

Gstroy
offline
Gstroy
482 posts
Nomad

I just find it funny how much it's trying to be COD.

xNightwish
offline
xNightwish
1,608 posts
Nomad

I just find it funny how much it's trying to be COD.


And that was the 1st thing i saw in the beta. With Metro combined to Rush you got a fancy CoD. Because it isn't the big open warfare, CTF with lots o vehicles like the best BTF there is 1942. And I saw this in the Multi Player to, so far I played it. The Single player has been criticized so i will play further and see if the game gets better but definitely no 10/10 but it can be a CoD killer.
master565
offline
master565
4,103 posts
Nomad

I just find it funny how much it's trying to be COD.


I'm pretty sure Battlefield was the first FPS (or did it the best) to include an unlock system based off experience and level (though i may be confusing this with another game), and COD just did it better, so they copied Battlefield in that major respect.
xNightwish
offline
xNightwish
1,608 posts
Nomad

I'm pretty sure Battlefield was the first FPS (or did it the best) to include an unlock system based off experience and level (though i may be confusing this with another game), and COD just did it better, so they copied Battlefield in that major respect.


I think you misunderstood it sir. What I think Gstroy is saying is that BTF looks more like CoD every new game.
I can have it wrong.
master565
offline
master565
4,103 posts
Nomad

I think you misunderstood it sir. What I think Gstroy is saying is that BTF looks more like CoD every new game.
I can have it wrong.


EVERY modern FPS today looks the same, just coat everything in cocoa powder and call it good graphics.
Highfire
offline
Highfire
3,025 posts
Nomad

I never really understood what's so great about the Frostbite engine, I've never been given a reason why it's so good.

The scale and quality of what it does usually.

The only reasons i hear it's good is because of it's lighting and graphics capabilities (which shouldn't be a main factor of an engine but i must admit, are extremely impressive), and because of destructible environments (in exchange for larger matches of course), and it's not even the only engine that has that. It seems like people just think it's good because DICE gloating it is.

It is probably the most powerful engine, I mean, it's probably not as flexible as an RTS one for example but for an FPS it is definitely powerful. The lighting is something they implemented that has part in the game which means that lighting effects are a very nice a big aspect of the game in itself.

Oh... TotalBiscuit didn't like it? I adore him (thanks to you my British counterpart) and his WTF Is... videos got me playing a lot of cool and fun indie games... but he is right in all respects of what he says about the game. However, he is being a bit TOO cynical. Yes there are corridor sections, but there are also a large amount of open areas that allow movement about for flanking maneuvers and whatnot.

No idea honestly dude. He was going too far although no one I have seen on that YouTube vid have poitned that out - they've only been insulting, denying and apparent idiocy.

Yes there are corridor sections, but there are also a large amount of open areas that allow movement about for flanking maneuvers and whatnot.

Which I think shows a lot of uniform and actual fluidity in the game if what you say is true. Though I will be actively testing wide strategies in the game so if the first scene he shown is inherent in other missions it will show a large flaw in the game and quite frankly I would be disappoint.

I just find it funny how much it's trying to be COD.

Oh hai, worthless comment.

With Metro combined to Rush you got a fancy CoD.

You have fluent, excellently cohesive gunplay and transitioning of strategy in the map Operation Metro alone. The scope of how things work with the things they implemented for Infantry play in Battlefield 3's Operation Metro alone shows a vast and excellent Multiplayer that doesn't necessarily need combined arms warfare to be that good.

However combined arms is the trademark of Battlefield and it's excellent they've retained that style however with the essential lack of freedom in the Singleplayer I did highlight that if what Chillz says is true then the variety is hopefully kind of good - and that definitely stands for a much more lasting aspect of the game in Battlefield - Multiplayer.

Because it isn't the big open warfare, CTF with lots o vehicles like the best BTF there is 1942.

Omaha Beach says otherwise. There are and were a lot of maps that didn't fit the criteria of big open warfare with long running teamwork etc. The variety is a GOOD thing and Caspian Border alone will provide plenty of hours of gameplay for so many people.

And I saw this in the Multi Player to, so far I played it. The Single player has been criticized so i will play further and see if the game gets better but definitely no 10/10 but it can be a CoD killer.

I think I pointed out why it would not be a CoD killer, and it's not going to be a 10/10 with the unnecessary restrictions and the following of FPS style campaigns though nonetheless the Multiplayer will hopefully be beyond what I hope for (which being as I have no proper expectations it will far exceed that).

I'm pretty sure Battlefield was the first FPS (or did it the best) to include an unlock system based off experience and level (though i may be confusing this with another game), and COD just did it better, so they copied Battlefield in that major respect.

And really speaking CoD is the better for it. Make no mistake - the replicating of good traits in games and tacking them on in a way that works and is hopefully refined on the other - it's what happens with so many MMORPG's. Battlefield is taking a grasp of more varied play in shorter style games focused on Infantry and such are taking a grasp on a small market in the CoD playerbase.

EVERY modern FPS today looks the same, just coat everything in cocoa powder and call it good graphics.

Crysis 2
Battlefield 3
CoD... any one of them past CoD4, they're all the same

None of those are the same. Sure, you have RAGE, Homefront and the other one I can't remember but those three are the ones that shine out - CoD the least and BF3 the most honestly. Crysis 2 was too static in its Multiplayer for what it could've been honestly. CoD is S.S.D.D and has regressed since the days of CoD4 and Battlefield seems to be the only thing moving forward fantastically!

If you disagree with that, feel free to dispute it, but I think the new things, old things and different maps has an entirely new game in store for us in EU waiting for it still.

- H
xNightwish
offline
xNightwish
1,608 posts
Nomad

With Metro combined to Rush you got a fancy CoD.

You have fluent, excellently cohesive gunplay and transitioning of strategy in the map Operation Metro alone. The scope of how things work with the things they implemented for Infantry play in Battlefield 3's Operation Metro alone shows a vast and excellent Multiplayer that doesn't necessarily need combined arms warfare to be that good.

However combined arms is the trademark of Battlefield and it's excellent they've retained that style however with the essential lack of freedom in the Singleplayer I did highlight that if what Chillz says is true then the variety is hopefully kind of good - and that definitely stands for a much more lasting aspect of the game in Battlefield - Multiplayer.


I still think that the Rush game type combined to non-vehicle maps does give me a feeling that I'm playing CoD but without the random spawnpoints and non-destructible thingies.
Yodadude53
offline
Yodadude53
1,495 posts
Nomad

Not getting BF3 or any other new games until Christmas, might as well not go on the internet for the next few months >.< New games rubbed in my face everywhere. Looks a little disappointing from gameplay I've watched, but can't tell until I've played.

Peanutbutterbubbles
offline
Peanutbutterbubbles
3 posts
Nomad

does anyone here want to get halo 4 as much as i do?

Peanutbutterbubbles
offline
Peanutbutterbubbles
3 posts
Nomad

well yodadude, i think its up to you to work and get money.well i hope you get all the games you want!


Best wishes,Peanutbutterbubbles

master565
offline
master565
4,103 posts
Nomad

It is probably the most powerful engine


That makes a lot more sense. Most powerful =/= best, and it does seem to be extremely powerful.

CoD


CoD 4

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-GHK-926KxDo/TasUePsoy7I/AAAAAAAAAAg/-LLXOWEX8S8/s1600/Call-of-Duty-4-Demo1.jpg

Everything covered in rust and dirt.

Crysis 2


That's a futuristic FPS, not a modern one.

Battlefield 3


http://pcmedia.ign.com/pc/image/article/116/1160630/battlefield-3-20110408004359256.jpg

The bridge and car are covered in rust. The building on the left is covered in dirt. You're gun is scratched up and slightly rusted and there is a lot of dirt flying past the screen.
Highfire
offline
Highfire
3,025 posts
Nomad

I still think that the Rush game type combined to non-vehicle maps does give me a feeling that I'm playing CoD but without the random spawnpoints and non-destructible thingies.

Meh, I look at games in a lot of depth, specifically the metagame and I don't see the same thing. ^^

Not getting BF3 or any other new games until Christmas, might as well not go on the internet for the next few months >.< New games rubbed in my face everywhere. Looks a little disappointing from gameplay I've watched, but can't tell until I've played.

Be sure to come back to us when you can, otherwise telling us this would be fairly useless

does anyone here want to get halo 4 as much as i do?

Not me, but I also don't see your point talking about Halo 4 in a Battlefield 3 thread ^^

That makes a lot more sense. Most powerful =/= best, and it does seem to be extremely powerful.

Oration is something I worked on a lot :>

I think it is the most powerful engine. It's ability to render water and invisibility might not be as good as CryEngine 3, but being as DICE is withholding the engine from us I don't think we'll ever know. However, the lighting and dynamic detail they add is exceptional and whilst props should be given to the engine it should also be given to the guys who implement all the small things like dust, shrapnel and carnage inflicted on our screens so often in this game

That's a futuristic FPS, not a modern one.

True, but I don't think the fact that it's from the later period of time makes it irrelevant. Sure, with invisibility and the special lighting on their suits involved maybe. But the rest of the lighting, the motion blurs and the bullet / weapon effects can be paid attention to.

For the record it should also be noted that Battlefield games have always had exceptional sound, and Battlefield 3 does not appear to be an exception as far as I've heard.

- H
Showing 1-15 of 50