Battlefield 3 Unveiling at GDC 2011 (March 1st)

[GullyFoyle]

Battlefield 3 Unveiling at GDC 2011

Electronic Arts promises new game announcements.
January 10, 2011, by Jim Reilly

Electronic Arts will unveil Battlefield 3 this March.

The publisher confirmed to the media it will host an unveil event for the game on Mar. 1, 2011, taking place during the week of the Game Developers Conference in San Francisco. Additionally, EA says it will also have new game announcements as well as hands-on time with many upcoming titles, including: Shadows of the Damned, Alice Madness Returns, Kingdom of Amalur: Reckoning, and Crysis 2.

Those who purchased the Limited Edition of Medal of Honor this past fall received an invitation to the Battlefield 3 beta. Details about the beta's release date have not been announced.

Battlefield 3 is expected to ship in 2011.

Be sure to check back with IGN for all the latest from GDC.

More detail from Ars Technica:

EA to kick off GDC with Battlefield 3, Alice, Crysis 2, and more
By Ben Kuchera | Last updated about 8 hours ago

The Game Developers Conference has always been a show worth covering, but the hard game news and reveals tend to take place during E3. EA is bucking the trend with a press-only event taking place the day before this year's GDC, with some big games on display. What is going to be shown?

* Alice Madness Returns
* Crysis 2
* Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning
* Shadows of the Damned
* Battlefield Play4Free
* Battlefield 3

Battlefield 3 will in fact have its own reveal event, and interviews and hands-on time are promised for the above-mentioned titles. This is a smart move: the majority of the gaming press will be in San Francisco anyway, and this is a good time to make sure everyone is writing about your titles. Plus, that's a pretty impressive list of games to put on display.

Ars will be there to cover GDC, which begins March 2, as well as the EA event taking place a day before.

 

[zerocool84]

I will definitely be pre-ordering Battlefield 3. One of my favorite FPS series ever. I wish I could have gotten in the beta but Medal of Honor sucked so didn't buy it.

 

[TehMac]

sounds like 2011 might be a cool year

 

[Zargon]

I will definitely be pre-ordering Battlefield 3. One of my favorite FPS series ever. I wish I could have gotten in the beta but Medal of Honor sucked so didn't buy it.

this.

wish I had paid like 20 for it last xmas on the sale.....the bf3 beta is worth more than MOH(and I acutally sorta liked the campaign)

 

[minmaster]

gully, please do a mega thread on BF3!

i hope BF3 is more like 1942/vietnam/BF2/2142 than the COD inspired BC2.

 

[Maximilian]

Awesome, im looking forward to some 32 vs 32 action Its been too long since BF2...

 

[Childs]

I want 128 vs 128. If MAG can do it BF3 should be able to!

 

[maniacalpha1-1]

Hopefully Battlefield 3 isn't going to become coloquially known as Bad Company 2.5. A lot of rumors are flying that they are going to incorporate way too many BC2 things into BF3 and some insane twitter posts that may or may not have been serious by a DICE dev about "rambo jesus medics" aren't reassuring.

 

[TechBoyJK]

2011 is going to rock.

 

[Castiel]

Can't wait to see what aircraft they put in it. F22 Raptor? Drool

 

[ivan2]

i dont get all the BC2 hate. It looks like COD but the important part is that it PLAYS like BF.

 

[maniacalpha1-1]

There are varied and sundry differences:
1. No commander
2. 4 man max squads with the cheese ability to spawn on anyone in the squad
3. 32 player maximum
4. Tiny maps that herd everyone into each other at choke points
5. Autoknife with a measure of autoaim built in
6. Medics with light machine gun

I quit playing the game in disgust not long after buying it and even I know the above things...I'm sure others can come point out more.

 

[Zargon]

i dont get all the BC2 hate. It looks like COD but the important part is that it PLAYS like BF.

its BF Lite.

like guy above you said, but I didnt quit in disgust. I still enjoy it, through MOD, MW2, BLOPS, I keep going back to it as I find it more fun.

but I hope we get atleast 32v32 and commander, and 6 man squads back

Im ambivalent about jets though

the LMG thing is sorta silly. the medics in BH had M4's or shotties or another rifle and you had a real support class.

you also had a spec ops class with the M4/MP5 and C4 on top of recon

 

[imaheadcase]

I want 128 vs 128. If MAG can do it BF3 should be able to!

Truth! Its been long overdue.

Can you picture the mayhem that would be like. Make a all jungle map like that, and people would literally be jumping out of chair scared to death seeing people coming at them from the bushes. lol

 

[Maximilian]

There are varied and sundry differences:
1. No commander
good, his arty was a PITA anyway
2. 4 man max squads with the cheese ability to spawn on anyone in the squad
excellent, promotes teamwork by making teamwork easier, 4 player max keeps spawning off anyone ability from being overpowered
3. 32 player maximum
agreed that sucks, hopefully BF3 gives us 64+ players
4. Tiny maps that herd everyone into each other at choke points
Ehh not always some maps more than others
5. Autoknife with a measure of autoaim built in
6. Medics with light machine gun
makes medic a lot more fun to play

I quit playing the game in disgust not long after buying it and even I know the above things...I'm sure others can come point out more.

BC2 is great :thumbsup:

 

[maniacalpha1-1]

Some people like those things and some don't, it's true. But the thing is, DICE/EA have always claimed that Bad Company is a separate series from Battlefield. Don't get me wrong, SOME innovation from BC2 coming over is OK, but there is a line that shouldn't be crossed, otherwise they are no longer a separate series that appeals slightly differently to different types of players.

 

[VulgarDisplay]

I want 128 vs 128. If MAG can do it BF3 should be able to!

MAG can't do it though...

I have yet to play a 128vs128 that wasn't a slide show in that game.

 

[maniacalpha1-1]

They seriously, as I say every chance I get, need to mix World War 2 Online's big Europe sized map with Battlefield gameplay.

 

[wheels]

They seriously, as I say every chance I get, need to mix World War 2 Online's big Europe sized map with Battlefield gameplay.

That is pretty much my dream game.

 

[maniacalpha1-1]

A lot of people moan when I talk about merging BF with WW2OL campaign maps saying "but maps like that last for weeks, and I would have to log off before someone wins". Well, the thing is, you need to stop looking at it like you do a finite, contained, self enclosed 30 minute conquest round from BF or whatever COD games have. Instead, look at it this way - you have an hour, 2 hours, whatever at night to play? Well, instead of judging your win or loss based on who won that round, find an allied city/base that's under attack and help it stay under your team's control for your 2 hours. Did your team hold it while you were online? Well, guess what? You won, as far as you are concerned. Or join a strike force that's attacking an enemy city. Did you take it? Yes? Well, you won then....

Besides, UNLIKE ww2OL,in my dream version of a combined game, BF would always retain the option of short 30 minute conquest rounds on private servers so that you can have the best of both worlds.

 

[Nizology]

A lot of people moan when I talk about merging BF with WW2OL campaign maps saying "but maps like that last for weeks, and I would have to log off before someone wins". Well, the thing is, you need to stop looking at it like you do a finite, contained, self enclosed 30 minute conquest round from BF or whatever COD games have. Instead, look at it this way - you have an hour, 2 hours, whatever at night to play? Well, instead of judging your win or loss based on who won that round, find an allied city/base that's under attack and help it stay under your team's control for your 2 hours. Did your team hold it while you were online? Well, guess what? You won, as far as you are concerned. Or join a strike force that's attacking an enemy city. Did you take it? Yes? Well, you won then....

Besides, UNLIKE ww2OL,in my dream version of a combined game, BF would always retain the option of short 30 minute conquest rounds on private servers so that you can have the best of both worlds.

Seems intriguing...kind of an mmo hybrid. I would still be perfectly happy with 32v32, 6 man squads, working voip and a plethora of vehicles.

I am eagerly awaiting BF3 as well as SW:TOR...both hopefully coming out around the same time in the Spring. Although maybe that's a bad thing considering I won't be able to decide which one to play. Until then, my cache of games acquired from the Steam extravaganza should hold me over until then.

 

[Childs]

MAG can't do it though...

I have yet to play a 128vs128 that wasn't a slide show in that game.

I had no problems finding those games when the game came out. I dont know what it was like 3+ months after that. Its not like all 256 players are in the same spot at the same time all the time, it was more like 32 vs 32 with 8 bases around the perimeter, and then you bum rush the other bases once you locked down yours. Badass!

What I dont understand is that in BFBC2, getting a 32 person server with moderate ping (70 ms or less) and no lag feels like christmas. I dont remember BF2 having these issues, and that was 64 player with an inferior broadband connection.

 

[Zargon]

I have no issue finding sub 40 ping 32 man servers for it


but this not about BC2, and I love all the posts already bagging BF3 before we have real details too

 

[Childs]

I have no issue finding sub 40 ping 32 man servers for it

I see a bunch in the browser, but when I hop in everyone has 150-250 pings and there is game altering lag. Usually around the 3rd or 4th server I try I find one thats decent and I can settle in for the night.

 

[pontifex]

You won't fool me again EA/DICE!