Battlefield 3 adds co-op campaign, platoons, going prone, mountable weapons and more

@SAVL

I hate reading about DICE attending DICE. Talk about confusing.

@SAVL

Agreed.

@(Unverified)

Indeed, your retro Atari single button joystick is way more "hip."

@(Unverified)

Oh cool, it isn't a Battlefield 3 post without hearing about how inferior the console versions will be.

@(Unverified) You're gonna spend $500+ just to play 1 game..

@Weiji Don't know where your buying the parts but I can build a computer for $450 that will play this game with no problems.

@Negatron Ouch

@Weiji
I love that the "retort" to this is a $50.00 difference in cost estimates...

@Weiji Correction: he's spending $500 to play BATTLEFIELD.

@(Unverified) That's stupid. No one buys a console/PC for just a single game.

@Xcrucio There's a reason for that. It is superior. Mouse + Keyboard has been PROVEN to be a better interface, and the graphical capabilities of the PC are obviously superior. Better visuals, better controls, more flexibility with input and display devices... yeah... it's much better. I have consoles. I never buy games that come out on PC on consoles.

@(Unverified)

No one gives a rat's ass about your PC elitist comments. Enjoy playing BF3 at your desk on 22" screen with your face 18" away. I'll be enjoying BF3 on my Xbox 360, on my 55" LED TV, while sitting back on my super comfy couch, listening to the booms over my 7.1 surround setup, with my buddies on Xbox Live.

Who's the noob now?

@(Unverified)

It's funny how you PC fanboys underestimate consoles. Games that have been ran at their top resolution on PC have been compared with the way the 360 keeps up and there isn't that much of a difference. So you are spending a good 500+ more than what I did for just a tiny tiny bit better look that is hardly noticeable. It's fine that you prefer PC over consoles but why don't you do your research and see just how comparable consoles are to PC before you call them "inferior".

@Shameful Sinner

For this game, it's true. DICE has said from the beginning that BF3 is far and away better on PC. 64 players to 24, custom effects and textures that just can't work on either console, bigger maps, etc. I play on both PC and PS3, and enjoy both for what they offer. But let's not be ignorant here. BF3 on PC is the superior version, hands down.

@Captain Planet Planeteer Power

playing it on my 26" Screen 50 cm away in my chief-operation chair with my 2.1 sennheiser headset and talking to my squad over MY teamspeakserver in a 32 vs 32 rush apocalypse.

i call for supreme elite rulership.

@Captain Planet Planeteer Power "I'll be enjoying BF3 on my Xbox 360, on my 55" LED TV, while sitting back on my super comfy couch, listening to the booms over my 7.1 surround setup"


How about playing it on 8 processor Alienware with 3 24 inch monitors in Eyefinity mode with 7.1 wireless headphones and mic, trackir so it tracks my head movements automatically and a lit keyboard and the unmatched precision of a mouse and all settings maxed out? Whos eating Sh*t now? :D

Not to turn this into a pc/console battle but Im super pissed at how Crysis 2 and now Deus Ex has been dumbed down for console users in every department. Dont knock the PC visuals till you see them. Youll be lucky if this game looks 1/2 as good on consoles as it does on a PC.

@Shameful Sinner As the console versions of the game will be limited to 24 players and smaller map scales, the PC version will be superior. If you have ever played any of the original Battlefield-series games, then you would know that 64 players and huge maps makes for some great fun. Ofcourse, the 32 player matches was also fun, but public matches with 64 players just felt so much more intense.

If one has the choice between the console and pc-vesions of Battlefield 3, there is no question which one is better. You can go on about how the graphics are fairly comparable. But the truth is that the scale of the matches on the pc version will be far greater. And good luck getting the most out of the fighter jets in battles with 12 persons on each side....

@(Unverified)

Its not that people are denying PC is better for alot of reasons, Its that you are being a dick about it.

@MEAHT & @pedsan

I remain indifferent by the setups mentioned and i'm inclined to believe neither of you own that hardware as well.

Personal opinions gets marred by the spouting of specs and that's why PC Elitists get ragged on.

@Negatron

Exactly...pics or it didn't happen children.

@MEAHT Even with all that you'll still look like a nerd.

@Captain Planet Planeteer Power - As packy17 noted, the PC version of Battlefield is going to have support for far more players. It is, unquestionably, the superior version for that reason alone.

Personally, I'll be playing on a 46" 1080p LCD, that I use as a PC monitor, and that I have hooked up to either a 5.1 system, or headphones. Playing with a 360 controller, I can replicate the console playing experience, on my couch, with the advantage of the higher player counts (among other things).

@Shameful Sinner - Consoles are rapidly aging tech. They are often incapable of keeping a consistent framerate, even at 720p (some games even lower than that). From the distance of a couch to a TV, it is absolutely true that you can't really tell the difference between things like AA passes (depending on how far you are sitting), advanced lighting, and that sort of thing. You can sure as hell tell when the framerate goes into the toilet though, which is where a PC (and triple buffering/vsync) comes into play.

People that claim the console experience is "bad" are wrong, but no more so than anyone that fails to see how the PC experience can improve upon the console experience. Does it cost more money? Sure, but some people are willing to pay a bit more for a better experience.

(I'm not even going to get into the things you can do on PC that you'll never do on console, like triple monitors.)

@(Unverified)
*sigh* Gameplay is much more important than graphics.
Really the only thing that would tempt me to get a new PC for BF3 is the 64 player games, but we have that on PS3 too so hopefully that will be used.

@Captain Planet Planeteer Power

You guys asked for it so for that I must deliver:
http://insert-credits.com/images/pc.jpg
http://insert-credits.com/images/pc_02.jpg
http://insert-credits.com/images/pc_03.jpg

:D

my consoles penis is bigger than your computers

@(Unverified) The people who think he's crazy or an idiot, do any of you consider taking a statement at face value is a bad idea? Maybe he hasn't upgraded his computer for many years. Maybe this is his first computer. Maybe the guy isn't going to just play BF3 on it then chuck it into a garbage can.

This one game has him building a pc that could last him for about five years. I'd like to assume he isn't buying a new PC for every major game release. I'm starting to believe everybody on the internet is trolling...

@MEAHT

EPEENS, EPEENS EVERYWHERE

@Imikulate Eh, both consoles are fully capable of 64 player games. it isn't so much the player count that's the problem. it's that as player cap increases, so does the size of the map. And on current hardware, neither the 360 nor PS3 could keep the framerate at an acceptable level.

That said, I'll just end up getting this game on 360. I usually stuck to 32 player games on BF2 anyway. 64 players made it feel as though the individual player didn't matter. This also happened to be my same problem with MAG's 128 player games.

I feel 24-32 is the "sweetspot"

@Shameful Sinner

"It's fine that you prefer PC over consoles but why don't you do your research and see just how comparable consoles are to PC before you call them "inferior"."

For someone that piously demands others do a small amount of research prior to passing judgment, you don't seem to be all that good at taking your own advice. Console hardware is inferior to desktop hardware released within the same time (2006) in nearly every conceivable way outside of multi-core parallelism (a necessity given the absolutely abysmal single threaded IPC of both console CPUs when compared to desktop CPUs released even farther back in 2003) and direct to metal programming (something that isn't implemented on the PC due to the wide range of hardware in circulation); to even insinuate "HD" console hardware is even in the same league as contemporary hardware solutions, much less than $500 enthusiast class products you mention, is laughably absurd at best and outright trolling at the worst.

A 5 year old Geforce 8800 GTX can play COD: BLOPs at 3.64x the native resolution found in the Xbox 360 version (1920x1200 vs 1040x608) with higher resolution textures, higher precision lighting, more refined post processing effects, higher levels of AA, 16x anisotropic texture filtering (something both console versions seem to lack), and it does it all while maintaining an average of 50 FPS; using a GTX 460 allows a similar experience at double the resolution (2500x1600) or allows for true high resolution 3D gaming (native 1920x1080 with average of 50 FPS). To further drive home just how inferior console hardware is compared to contemporary technology, The Samaritan tech demo was running at a v-synced 60 FPS in real time on a contemporary high end PC; lock the game to 30 FPS, and you've got something that's playable now on current hardware.

While consoles offer acceptable performance at their current price points, it's more than disingenuous to pass them off as something far more capable than what they are actually capable of.

@Stilkdog

No problems? I'm calling BS there. By no problems would you mean managed to load the menus? What are you gonna do, use older computer parts and buy a decent cpu and vid card? That shouldn't count as building a new computer, but upgrading one. But wait, even if you did that, W7 costs $100 (or $90 if you get it on sale), so even if you're just using older computer parts with a new cpu and vid card, you're only gonna get crap products.

I mean, really, generally no problem means you can run the game on at least medium high settings without seeing noticeable slowdown or graphical issues. I haven't even looked at the specs for BF3 yet, but if it's going to be as demanding as it sounds, a $450 computer isn't going to cut it to play it in its awesomeness. You sound like one of those people that claims they can run crysis no problem with a $500 computer. If by no problem you mean it'll run, then yeah, but what about the actual quality of it? And if you're not getting better quality than a console than what's the point of getting it on pc (provided you have consoles)?

I'm sure the game won't be too highscale for most people to run, but I seriously doubt you're going to run the game with great results on a $450 machine. Sure, you could get some deals online, but what's the point? Why bother with a 'gaming' computer if its just going to look on par or ever worse than the console versions? Not to mention if it can't handle the larger maps required for more players than it's pointless to have the pc version.

@Shameful Sinner You clearly don't know what you are on about. PC LOOKS way beter then the consoles on the market (i have a 360 and all games on there look crap compaired to my PC (gaming rig yes)), on pc you can run games at 1080p and even higher, all the console games are upscaled so there is no full 1080p gameplay there either. PC also has dedicated servers unlike console and we even have cheaper games (haha yes we do, atleast here in the netherlands.) We can use controllers aswell we can even run our games across multiplescreens in 3D (3d surround/eyefininity) with still amazing gfx. I mean the pc (gaming rigs of today) clearly is way beter then every single console out there. Not to forget we have mods on pc which arn't allowed on consoles. (mods in a good way not as in hacks etc.)

I hope you do some beter research aswell before you say you run games at the same level as pc games -_-.

Now i might look like a hardcore pc fanboy but i actualy play a fair amount on my xbox360 and i love it don't get me wrong, but this is my opinion supported by facts.

@Shameful Sinner

Ok I have a 360, ps3, and 2 pc's that I use for work and of course gaming. The thing is that no-one here has even mentioned DX11 yet, which no console can utilize. Also, When I do play games the resolution is 5760x1080. This is spanned across 3 120hz monitors, and because of my nvidia cards, I can also render these games in 3d. And I admit that there are driver errors and sometimes it is a nightmare to get it goin, plus 3d mode usually cuts my frames in half. this is a problem that you would never have on a plug and play console, but im fine with it. And Also, although my 5760x1080 3d performance isnt always at >60fps now, I have the screens ready for my next round of cards. The thing is, when I want to relax on the couch, I simply switch my input to my 1920x1080 television and play with a controller, but with DX11 and when BF3 comes out, 64 players.

@eNriqeu

Co-op campaigns make any game better. It can make average games good and I'm pretty sure this will be a little bit above average. Should be a total blast to play with a friend.

@Uncle Jesse

Spot on. Always looking for some co-op games to play, and I don't think this will disappoint.

@Uncle Jesse I'm in full agreement. I would have had a better blast playing through Bad Company 1 and 2's campaign if I could do it with a buddy through co-op. Hell, CoD's campaigns (with the excpetion of World at War of course) could have done wonders with some co-op just because those campaigns are fun by themselves. You can watch A.I. teammates sit there and not do anything for so long when you know a friend of yours could help.

@Uncle Jesse

Your words ring true, I mean, can anyone imagine Army of Two(s) by there lonesome with A.I.? A fantastical bromance ruined by shallow fist bumps from a computer programmed to do so. Not because it "wanted" to.

@The Cole Train

quit spreading rumors...you only pay for premium content.

@The Cole Train I saw you post comments on several elite posts. I know you are capable of reading and understanding english text. Stop being a stupid troll.

@The Cole Train

You're so right Cole. Black Ops being the best selling game of ALL TIME is such a downer for CoD.

@The Cole Train "Sinking ship" and "sells more with every iteration" don't really seem to go together. At least not in the real world.

@imtheman

Call Of Duty has never had a real contender release in the same timeframe, let alone the same week. I would bet my unborn children that MW3 at least sells less than BLOPS in week 1, if not getting beat out by BF3 altogether. Battlelog offers everything Elite does, for free. I know this makes you COD guys a little butthurt, but it's true. I'm not happy that the most generic series on the market crushes everything else year after year either, but at least I can admit that. Why does everyone care about sales anyway? Everyone knows Bad Company 2 is a better game than either MW2 or BLOPS. BF3 will be better than MW3 by an unbelievable margin, regardless of sales. So you keep sitting on that horse, I'll be playing the better game.

@TheDarkWayne Sorry, I'm just sick of the crap that COD players got on PS3. I used to like CoD 4 and such, but this crap with the inferior ports that I get on PS3 are extremely annoying and I'm done with the series after playing Bad Comapny 2 and BF3.