• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

BF3 news

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Sureshot324 said:
I don't understand why people want 64 player games so much. When there's that many players I feel like an insignificant ant unable to really influence the outcome of the game. With small teams I feel like I can actually make my team win.
Click to expand...

You've never been part of an amazing squad have you?

With an amazing squad, the enemy can throw 100 players at you and it wouldn't make a difference. I've had a game where me and a squad had all VOIP and we kicked ass. We sneaked into enemy bases, took out their tanks and planes as they spawned, we killed tons of people from hidden locations, and we never died a single time because our medic was so damn good.

The enemy commander kept trying to artillery us and failed.

You can't have good squad based combat without at least 64 players
 
The thing I am most excited about with Frostbite 2 engine is this:

In addition to the new DirectX 11 features, DICE has also demonstrated the improved destruction capabilities of the engine
Click to expand...
 
tenshodo13 said:
Do we have any idea how frostbite would deal with a massive city scape that I come to expect in Battlefield? Can you imagine Strike at Karkand with building destruction?
Click to expand...

They were able to deal with a fair amount of city buildings in BC2. I would imagine they would continue the trend of having some buildings that are partially indestructable. IIRC the desert map in BC2 has about the same number of total destructable buildings that Karkand had in the entire map so I think its do-able
 
i hope this doesn't mean they'll keep copying elements from COD...
i hate the small run and gun maps, killcams, and having 2 modes (normal/HC), etc. BF needs to go back to its former PC BF roots.
 
Sureshot324 said:
I don't understand why people want 64 player games so much. When there's that many players I feel like an insignificant ant unable to really influence the outcome of the game. With small teams I feel like I can actually make my team win.
Click to expand...

When you do the objectives a single squad can determine the outcome in BF2. Especially a SF squad taking down artillery, UAV, sabo vehicles etc. I've done it by myself as a lone wolf for stretches.

I actually want BF3 to do 256 players like MAG. If it can be done on PS3, then there is no excuse for PC BF3.
 
tenshodo13 said:
You've never been part of an amazing squad have you?

With an amazing squad, the enemy can throw 100 players at you and it wouldn't make a difference. I've had a game where me and a squad had all VOIP and we kicked ass. We sneaked into enemy bases, took out their tanks and planes as they spawned, we killed tons of people from hidden locations, and we never died a single time because our medic was so damn good.

The enemy commander kept trying to artillery us and failed.

You can't have good squad based combat without at least 64 players
Click to expand...

I agree best match ever was Kirkand I was in an awesome squad we were on top of a hotel with a great view it was a well balanced team, medic, couple of snipers and thank god a support guy with ammo. We had the other team pinned down the whole match. I had a lowly infantry guy and was so happy I scored a ton of long rang kills and took out a couple of trucks with the grenade launcher. Good times.
 
As a huge BF2 fan and even bigger BF2142 fan, I'm pretty much resigned to the fact that BF3 will be an abomination a la BC2. A console game thru and through.

I'd love to see a return of jets and choppers that are actually fun to fly like the BF2 attack heli's. I really don't get why the BF2 styled game has all but disappeared, it was surely a smash hit since the game still had TONS of people playing it years after it launched.
 
Great, another inefficient game with bloated system requirements.

I for one am still waiting to see a benefit of DX10, much less DX11!! And blinding "HDR" "bloom" isn't it.
 
DX10 was a waste of time, DX11 is fine though, it just adds new features but can still do all the stuff DX9 did.

We have no idea if BF3 is going to be inefficient or bloated, I think that depends on how you look at it. If you need a highly clocked Quad and at least a 5850/GTX460-class card to run it decently, would that be 'bloated' assuming it looks/runs fantastic? If it looks/runs like crap anyway, I'd jump on the doubter bandwagon, but I will make a point of withholding judgment until we see a finished product.
 
tenshodo13 said:
You've never been part of an amazing squad have you?

With an amazing squad, the enemy can throw 100 players at you and it wouldn't make a difference. I've had a game where me and a squad had all VOIP and we kicked ass. We sneaked into enemy bases, took out their tanks and planes as they spawned, we killed tons of people from hidden locations, and we never died a single time because our medic was so damn good.

The enemy commander kept trying to artillery us and failed.

You can't have good squad based combat without at least 64 players
Click to expand...

So you are a spawn killer and proud eh 😛
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top