digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

Breaking: Battlefield 3 Leaked Info

digitalbattle.com — Leaked doc shows BF3 info! Supports 80 players online, 48 different vehicles, two factions (NATO and MEC), and much more. Plus a teaser trailer in January and public beta in "Summer 2008"

show profanity settings
expand all
  • aduckie, on 10/13/2007, -11/+46No XP support? Pfft.
    • Daedalus81, on 10/12/2007, -20/+8You shouldn't buy this inveitable pile of crap anyway!
    • shifty2, on 10/11/2007, -4/+7Just because it is not mentioned does not mean that it is not supported. Vista and OSX seem to be added to show it will be developed towards it.
      also, consider this... the percentage of XP users vs vista/osx. There are far more users of XP than both... combined. why would EA limit it to a small percentage?
    • kar0l1n, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3it is microsofts goal i was reading in PC magazine that by 08/09 they want all systems to be running on vista. Which means all games that are going to be released will be for vista no longer xp compatible
      • NonpareilNagle, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2MS is lame... atleast fix it before it's forced.
      • nonymous666, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2"Which means all games that are going to be released with Games for Windows 'certification' will be for vista no longer xp compatible"

        ^^^ Fixed your post.
      • KHCloud, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Is that why they're offering all Vista owners a free downgrade to XP? Odd strategies that those people at Microsoft like to employ...
    • Alegis, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9XP Support and bug fixes will be available in a booster pack.
      • qwertydvorak, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1just xp support, 2 maps, 3 new weapons (ones that will be usable in old style maps making it unfair towards those that didn't feel like paying for it). bug fixes will never be available, just as in bf2.
    • vertinox, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3I'm more concerned about the StarForce
    • TsuruchiBrian, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Battlefield 2 + all expansion packs claimed not to work on windows 2000, but they did anyways.
      I play battlefield 2 Project Reality nearly every day, and from the looks of it, BF3 is probably going to suck. I don't want Starforce on my computer. I don't want automatic updates. 80 players isn't that much more than 64. The gameplay seems the same as BF2.

      What I would have liked to have seen was opengl / Linux support. Maybe this will be included also because of MacOS (I don;t think MAcOS does DirectX). I am just not so sure how well Starforce will work in Linux.

      I am just waiting for Forgotten Hope 2 to come out for BF2, it's gonna be awesome http://wwwfhmod.org
      Also give Project Reality a try it's really great http://www.realitymod.com
      • choy, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1sorry dude, won't support linux. They are using a dodgy porting engine that "converts" direct x for mac, rather than open GL. Similar to what they have done for BF2142. performance hit, but they don't care.
  • lacronicus, on 10/11/2007, -3/+16Whats the sixth class?
    "Six playable classes; Sniper, Assault, Engineer, Medic and Support."
    anti vehicle maybe?
    Looks very interesting though, definite buy if it ever comes out (gah, late 2008)
    • Shizlanski, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2I'm guessing they missed anti-tank? If there is vechiles there would be anti tank.
    • brundlefly76, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2Maybe engineer would get spilt into anit-IED and anti-vehicle.
    • jaschac, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1Looks like they're following the BF2142 model. Engineer in 2142 was a BF2 Engineer+Anti-tank. You got the wrench, the rocket launcher and the craptastic SMG.
    • qwertydvorak, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2would be nice to have an anti-aircraft guy. yes, i know there are aa turrets here and there, but once those are blown up and there is a chopper and plane base raping one spot, it would be nice to be able to have a chance to shoot them down.
  • Darren07, on 10/13/2007, -3/+2680 players! damn, those are huge teams

    and a map called "Baghdad Burning" sure does sound exciting, can someone say "IED"? :)
    • Turambar, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11Joint Ops: Escalation could handle 150 people on a server, this is hardly groundbreaking material.
      • brundlefly76, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5Yeah at the expense of gameplay.

      • BitBurner, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Joint OPS SUCKED BALLS....it was sooo laggy when there was over 100 people i couldnt play. The helicopters were not flown they were guided. You had up...to a certain height...then forward and left right.....then down. you could not "fly" it like in battlefield. No jets.....not to mention the graphics looked like the first delta force. BARF. Worst ever....yeah what happened to that game....came out about the same time as BF2 i believe....ITS GONE CUZ IT SUCKED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    • dsmx, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I would also point out that dice originally said there'd be 100 player games in bf2. I'd take this with a pince of salt if I were you.
  • Lkr721993, on 10/13/2007, -5/+71shouldn't they fix 2142, let alone bf2 still?
    • Turambar, on 11/14/2007, -2/+28EA sees no point in patches unless it can charge for them. bastards.
      • Slade605, on 10/11/2007, -0/+16I believe the proper term is "booster pack"
      • BitBurner, on 10/11/2007, -5/+2You guys are all dumb asses.....I have never been charged for an update and if you have been then your an idiot....a booster pack is not an update. It's more content!!!! its not a stability fix its new maps and weapons vehicles and armies. You think you should get that for free....you really are cheap. The more I read your comments Turambar the more I think your just retarded kid.
    • doctorfungi, on 11/14/2007, -4/+17The game's 3 years old nearly (BF2). People played it regardless of the bugs and had a good time. I'd rather they made a new game on a new engine rather than mess around with the old one.
      • brundlefly76, on 11/14/2007, -3/+6Yeah I play BF2/2142 series pretty much exclusively since it came out - all games have bugs and BF2/2142's current buglist is more then livable afaic.

        • pr0phet491, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Well if they fixed their games it would show that they actually care about the customers and people more people would actually want to buy their games.
          • brundlefly76, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Well, there is a lot of ways to show you care - my top concern is gameplay.

            And as a developer, I realize there is a cost-benefit analysis for bugfixing - you analyze every bug, but some of them are like 'whoa the solution to this is far too extensive for the problem', and you leave em be. Every developer has regrets about every piece of software.

            There are a *ton* of bugs they have fixed in the series since it came out, and yes, there are many left, but I am certain the reason for that is that they have estimated the time of fixing those bugs as not being worth the time, when they could spend those hours evolving a new game.

            I can guarantee you that the bugs do not remain because 'they dont care' - because the history of the series speaks for itself in that these developers do care about their games and customers - alot.

            This is especially true of game development on this scale - the costs are so incredibly high, you really need to pick your battles.
        • qwertydvorak, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2"all games have bugs and BF2/2142's current buglist is more then livable afaic."
          having thousands of jeeps raining down until the server lags horribly and everyone leaves or it crashes is more than livable. i quit playing bf2 in favor of america's army for about a year and a half, come back and the bug is still there. seems like it is being used alot now.
          • BitBurner, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2You must not play on ranked servers??? I have not seen that happen in a long time. Most likely because EA still enforces the ROE/ROC for ranked servers. Those player area chased to non ranked servers...if your not playing on a ranked server then sure you get the back alley servers that can be run from some tweakers garage....Yeah your going to get hackers there....Um so are you saying AA has no bugs or cheaters????
          • qwertydvorak, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2i only play on ranked servers. aa does, but at least the game is still being actively worked on. the cartillery exploit is able to lag out a server until everyone leaves or it crashes.
    • SleepingOrange, on 10/11/2007, -11/+42142 works fine with me.... Same with BF2... and I've played both of them on 3 very different machines since day 1. I think you complainers just need to learn how to use a frigging computer.
      • flangepiece, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4I haven't been able to play it since 2 patches ago. After several hours of re-installs etc. Balls to EA. They ain't getting my hard-earned cash or time again.
    • TsuruchiBrian, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6I am getting pretty sick of the cartillery bug/exploit.
  • Sculay, on 10/11/2007, -4/+4yay for this cannot wait :)
  • bdub92, on 10/12/2007, -17/+3BF3=God!
    • Asianwaste, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Frost Bite DX engine = Destructible Environments!!!!
  • Sk8SkaNJ, on 10/12/2007, -20/+21Buried for "breaking"
  • Darren07, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9Citing the article: "[Update 3] For clarification, the document doesn’t say that XP is not supported, it only lists Vista and OS X."
  • tomsentest, on 10/11/2007, -4/+13Battlefield.com is owned by EA and DICE

    WHOIS:
    Domain Name.......... battlefield3.com
    Creation Date........ 2003-08-07
    Registration Date.... 2004-09-23
    Expiry Date.......... 2010-08-07
    Organisation Name.... EA Digital Illusions CE AB (publ)
    Organisation Address. Box 20068
    Organisation Address.
    Organisation Address. Stockholm
    Organisation Address. 104 60
    Organisation Address. SE
    Organisation Address. SWEDEN
    • Tu13erhead, on 10/11/2007, -0/+28Um, so are battlefield4.com through battlefield9.com
      • gadgetuk, on 10/11/2007, -0/+11Bah! You two only bothered checking to see if there was some good cybersquatting to be had ;)
      • masterthiefster, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1The way EA has been going with the Need for Speed franchise, that's hardly surprising.
    • Dylan47, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2SURPRISE!
  • chirps123, on 10/11/2007, -14/+1mr t
  • coolclara, on 10/11/2007, -6/+680 players..great battle ahead
    • EssPii, on 10/11/2007, -2/+15More players does not equal better battles...
    • Dgen_X, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8if the lag can be controlled....it equals more intense battles

      but I'll believe it when I log into a server...I remember reading that BF2 would have larger than 64 man maps.....
  • rejectpenguin, on 10/11/2007, -11/+19Awesome, so pretty much its BF2 but re skinned. I didn't hear anything new that wasn't already in bf2. Milk a franchise till it's dead, ea. BF1942 was the best of all the battlefield games.
    • diggrim, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2it's BF: Bad Company...re-skinned.
    • CyrusG, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1A little too early to tell... the MMO-like Soldier thing sounds cool. Perhaps they're fleshing out character progression.
  • fatadamblog, on 10/15/2007, -1/+32EA is milking milking milking the Battlefield series so expect MANY expansion packs for this one.
  • BJGallagher, on 10/10/2007, -0/+19Yes In-Game Friends list, something BF2 severely lacked.
  • Talus, on 10/12/2007, -4/+26So long as the Battlefield games continue to kick ass, why WOULDN'T they create BF3? I'll keep playing BF to BF10 and beyond so long as they continue to improve and innovate and provide the amazing sand-box battlefield experience.
    • Turambar, on 10/11/2007, -4/+7So long as the Battlefield games continue to -MAKE MONEY- why WOULDN'T they create BF3? I'll keep playing BF to BF10 and beyond so long as they continue to improve and innovate and provide the amazing sand-box battlefield experience.

      there you go, i fixed it for you. and i don't think you quite know the meaning of sandbox unless you make all your maps yourself.
      • Mononuclear, on 10/12/2007, -5/+18You forgot to edit out the "improve and innovate" part and switch it with "reskin the same buggy crap"
        • extr3mer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It'll have a new engine which will make up to 90% of the environment destructible. That means it's not just a reskin.
        • diggrim, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1This is not EA Sports!!!
      • BitBurner, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Hello EA is in it to make money...isn't that a given??? Or do you ***** retards really think that EA makes games for fun not profit??? And he is obviously referring to it as a sandbox experience because you can go anywhere and get in any vehicle. That meets my definition of a sandbox game unless you want to be petty and say a sandbox experience is only something like the sandbox mod or making your own map. We get it ....your an ass and the guy you commented on wasn't. FIX THIS!!!!
  • MackPrime, on 10/11/2007, -0/+11so this is BF2-2. I think EA has gone into two parallel naming conventions, Dates (past or present) or numbers (modern).
    • NoodleGuy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4No - they just have plans for a TON of sequels and they're releasing the games out of order.

      First they released the 1942nd game in the series, then the 2nd, then the 2142nd, and now the 3rd. Soon we will get Battlefield 1, then something in 3 through 1941, and then something between 1943 and 2141.

      It all has to do with their development schedules.... Some of the teams were much quicker in their dev time than others.
  • NonpareilNagle, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1i'm happy about the announcement
  • TroyBenedict, on 10/13/2007, -13/+9Do we REALLY need 80-players online at the same time?
    • doctorfungi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+21Yes. If the maps are big enough.
    • Slade605, on 10/11/2007, -1/+15Well you can't have only one immature person screaming racial slurs. That would be uncalled for.
      • JAVandiver, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"I stand by my ethnic slur!" ~ "Diamond" Joe Quimby
    • NikkiA, on 10/13/2007, -0/+30Yeah, 2 to actually fight, and 78 to camp the vehicle spawns.
      • vertinox, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6And the two fighting are spawn killing.
      • BJGallagher, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Haha it's funny but it's true
    • mikemx, on 10/11/2007, -2/+380 players is yetserdays news, joint ops has 150 and far bigger maps
      • HardwareLust, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Not to mention the unbearable crippling lag anytime there was more than 4 people on a server, crappy textures, mediocre maps and empty servers. Joint Ops sucked, dude!
  • BrandonMills, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Thank God. I love Battlefield 2, but the insta-heals and insta-shock-paddle revives get old fast. I love that they fixed that in 2142, but I'm much more of a modern era player than a futuristic era player. Would be nice if they fixed some of the cheating problems that are still in Battlefield 2, though. Like the multiple Commander ability exploit. ( In fact, aren't they just fixed that in 2142 in the upcoming beta patch? )

    Well, I love my Battlefield games. Especially given how other games like Quake Wars utterly fail to copy them. I'm hoping the Commander interface gets an overhaul. :)
  • CommissarVlad, on 10/10/2007, -1/+29Holy hell, OSX? EA actually followed through on one of their promises!
    • AlmostEvil, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Don't be so quick there tiger, while I own a Mac if you read up on EA and their game "ports" to OS X they're essentially just windows versions with a few minor modifications and the Cegeda engine. (in otherwords, they're running on top of wine)

      They're not true OS X ports.
      • diggrim, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1WINE = WINE Is Not an Emulator...hence, using wine is a port (after a fashion). I have respect for a game developer that limits their development to a subset of the DX API that runs on WINE. IMHO that is as good as a port and it raises awareness of WINE and other platforms
    • skim1420, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1If BF2142 on Mac is any indicator for future support, BF3 support on OS X is just a diplomatic gesture.
  • Falldog, on 10/10/2007, -3/+17While I was a big fan of 1942, Vietnam, and 2, 2142 and being owned by EA broke my heart. As long as it's owned by a company who doesn't understanding supporting it's products after release and pushes expansions packs instead of original feature I'm not going to hold my breath for 3.
    • Cerebral, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Actually you should go into politics because your past record and your words are saying two different things. So just hold your breath and purchase BF3 when it hits.
    • SleepingOrange, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3dugg down for saying a game broke your heart.
    • Falldog, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3If I could digg down myself for posting right after waking up, I would.
  • doctorfungi, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6I think it's safe to say that this sounds pretty ***** awesome if it's real!
  • Serak, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Here's hoping this is more than an expansion pack for BF2 like 2142 was.
    • doctorfungi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6BF1942 -> BF:V (Same engine)
      BF2 -> BF2142 (Same engine)
      BF3 = The next logical step is a new engine and therefore new experience.
      • pcp777, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I'm hoping it will be DX10...wonder what the system requirements will be considering BF2's were so steep....
    • brundlefly76, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3IMHO BF2:Special Forces and BF2142 are the best battlefield games ever.

      With SF they finally got squadplay right, and in BF2142 they took squadplay up a notch and added massive diversity and value to the game with Titan mode.

      In the other Battlefields, a cap is a cap, and you just keep capping, and a lot of times it can get silly and redundant.

      However, when the shields go down on a Titan (or even better, when both Titans shields go down), suddenly the game can fork off in a lot of different directions, and you really need to be playing close attention to strategy.
    • extr3mer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1BF2142's squad system is the best so far, but I hated the setting. I hate futuristic war games.
  • crerwin, on 10/11/2007, -1/+35How about widescreen support this time around? I don't need to look at 79 other people in 4:3.
    • DteK, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6I agree, I think this is limitation I figured they would have added support for by now.
    • brundlefly76, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3I have been playing BF2/2142 in 1920x1200 widescreen for years.

      +fullscreen 1 +widescreen 1 +szx 1920 +szy 1200
      • crerwin, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Widescreen support means putting it the options menu. Also, that crops the FOV vertically and squishes the HUD, which defeats the whole purpose.
        • TsuruchiBrian, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2NO IT DOESN'T. Thats the whole point of setting the resolution is so that it is NOT running in a 4:3 aspect ratio on a wide screen and therefore has a NORMAL FOV.

          You should try it before saying it doesn't work. I have been playing on my new 22" widescreen at 1680x1050 for a few months now. The only oddity is that the black border around binocular and scope view does not go all the way out to the left and right edges, but it actually helps you see more stuff.
        • crerwin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0@TsuruchiBrian
          I don't think you understand what I mean, or maybe BF2142 is different. If you use that command line argument for BF2, it chops off the top and bottom of the FOV to make it 16:10 instead of widening the FOV horizontally like proper widescreen games. It also squishes the HUD so that everything is fat and short. Here, have some screenshots (see, I did try):

          1600x1200: http://www.crerwin.com/images/screen002.jpg
          1920x1200: http://www.crerwin.com/images/screen000.jpg

        • brundlefly76, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1yeah i know there are a lot of nitpicks out there about how BF2 technically achieves this but in 3 years of playing I can tell you that it does nothing but improve my game, looks absolutely fantastic, improves my score if it affects it at all, and I never think about it being 'weird' at all.

          My advice is to just play in widescreen and enjoy it and you will forget about the nitpicks over time.
      • molochi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I never had a problem with this, though it would have shown some professional awareness if they had included some extremely common HDTV resolutions (720p and 1080i at least, and maybe 1360x768 'cause a lot of big LCDs were using that rez) without chopping the top and bottom of the screen off.

        Conversely, if I was playing the game on a
        • molochi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1... small monitor I'd rather have ZOOM than FOV.

          The way I looked at was; You're (EA) telling me I need a fairly expensive machine to run the game but you aren't allowing for what is going to be mainstream technology.
      • Dustmuffins, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2They need hor+ widescreen, not vert -
    • TsuruchiBrian, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2I have been playing Project Reality Mod http://www.realitymod.com
      in 1680x1050 for 6 months now. AWESOME!!!
      +fullscreen 1 +widescreen 1 +szx 1680 +szy 1050

  • DteK, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9I seriously hope XP is supported. I have no plans to move to vista, even for this.
    I would just as soon play BF2 till im the last person online before going to vista.
  • piwy, on 11/07/2007, -1/+7lol "leaked". This is what we refer to as free advertisement and hype building in college.
  • kessel, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1this makes me very happy.

    and it will run on osx? deeyum

    hopefully osx players will be able to play in the same servers as vista players.
    • Cerebral, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Why would they not be able to. ET has been doing this with linux for a long time now... no different.
      • BitBurner, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Written in OPENGL totally different...
    • piwy, on 10/15/2007, -0/+1You can now with bf2142, so i see no reason it wouldn't work with bf3. AFAIK it just looks like the win client to the server. It only looks like something else to your system. That's mainly because it _is_ the win version. Just packed into a Cider body.
  • psevium, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Is this even a reliable source for this information?
  • tryte, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11Good thing it has "Breaking" in the title, I never would have clicked otherwise.
  • anTii, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4when are they gonna do another 1942 with a modern engine
  • Bkaufman, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11Battlefield: I released the same game for the fifth time in a row with better graphics?
    • diggrim, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Graphics takes money to develop...I'd buy it since I liked the original
  • SteelChicken, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Its BF1942 version 5!

  • Sirlolalot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1hmm article mentions, the usual ticket system. but hopefully there will be other game modes apart from ctf, a bit like 2142 has titan mode, be nice to have something like.. knock-out base defences then destroy base equipment :)
  • DteK, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5All this talk has got me needing to play some "Ghost Town" right now.
  • bossm4n, on 10/10/2007, -1/+20FTA - "Built-in auto software updater (no more patches!, ed.)" This has disaster written all over it.
  • GoEKniGhtofNi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4wow just an other battlefield. It used to be a great game. I mean 1942 was very well done. As GameAdmin at a 400 ppl LAN I had to use the console for 1942, BF2 and BF2142. Out of those 3 BF 1942 was the best by fare.
    In BF 2 / 2142 it isn't possible to see messages from the players, which makes it a pain in the ass to be a GameAdmin für BF.
  • Nightfall, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8I was hoping for a fully destructible environment to be honest. I hope that is part of the plan as well.
    • catalysis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6The frostbite engine that they are using is made for destructable environments. If this is true, they will be in BF3.
  • arma, on 10/10/2007, -1/+180 people , oh wow, couldnt play with 8 people because 1 in 8 always gets pissed off and starts doing some stupid crap.
    But I like the idea tho
  • Sifter, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7There's not really anything exciting in that list - as others have said, it basically sounds like Battlefield 2 again, but with bigger teams. And the increased numbers of vehicles doesn't exactly bode well, unless you're the kind of person who likes getting killed by your own guys just so somone else can have the tank.... not that playing BF2 has made me bitter or anything.
    • BJGallagher, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Even if it has made you bitter it really doesn't show.
    • BitBurner, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Actually the move to frostbite engine will mean destructible environments. There is a new unlock system to unlock things like body armor and differnt ammo. Battalions that consist of multiple squads....prob with communication between squad leaders. A in game buddy system (good by xfire) Bigger maps. More Players. New vehicles........To me an avid BF2 player these features are very exciting. You must play on some ***** servers that have no admins if your getting TKed for vehicles....Those players get kicked immediately from the servers i play on. I report cheaters and stat padders etc and guess what...EA resets their stats and or shuts down those type of servers. I dont know of any other game that does that (unless there is a monthly fee) EA has "Rules of Engagement" or now called Rules of Conduct and is part of thier EULA that all ranked servers and players must abide by...they dont report them at totalROE.com. Guess you really didn't get into BF2 all that much...too much for you?
  • ilves7, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10what they really should do is make battlefield 1917... the reason 1942 was so great was that the weapons/vehicles actually required some skill, and the airplane fights were SOOO much cooler in the old style planes than in the modern jets. Propeller gunfights were much more exciting, as well as actually having to divebomb your enemies. Plus, you can't drive boats in any of the new one. The 1942 map with 2 carriers on a water map with a bunch of airplanes fighting was awesome... they had nothing like that in the next installments.
    • benitojuarez, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2bf2 + expansions have boats. have you actually played it?
      • BitBurner, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1He is talking about being able to drive the battleship and the carriers....not to mention the submarine....the problem with that was that people would run it aground and then sit there on the shore with the big ship guns.....only way to kill him was to sink the ship...LAME im glad they took that out.
  • bishbashbosh, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5I still maintain that BF2 is one of the greatest games of all time (apart from the 'invincible' planes). I still play BF: Vietnam occasionally too - love the music...

    Hopefully BF3 should be a winner - just hope they Beta it for a good while and LISTEN to the majority of us - i.e nerf planes, stop instaheals, sort out 'sploits etc
    • pcp777, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Yeah the music in BFV was awesome, especially the personal play list feature when you used a vehicle. I used to just drive around the jungle in the jeep slamming PANTERA.
    • DteK, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1This was my favorite games specifically because of this feature.
  • maxnik, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1looks like another $50 mod to me, maybe I'll wait till it drops to $10
    • BitBurner, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1MOD WTF???? It's a whole new game on a whole new game engine based on a game franchise? where did you come up with MOD? Thats like saying Halo3 is a MOD...and its still the same engine............!!!
  • ticktock4, on 10/10/2007, -4/+0According to my friend at EA/DICE, this document is total BS -- some fanboy made up his BF wishlist and posted it as leaked info.
    • BitBurner, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Well drop names poop breath.....whos your friend at EA big shot......
  • crazybugger, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Its not a leak. Its just a marketing stunt.
  • RHagen, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Basically everything listed is just something that should be added via patching to BF2 and BF2142. Obviously they have to come up with something better than that to get my money. I'm sure they will though when the announcement is official.
    • catalysis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3How do you add a completely new game engine via patch?
      • BitBurner, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1HAHA....gawd people are dumb....and cheap.....
      • lacronicus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1same way you add dx10 to XP, waste a lot of money on something you wont get paid for.
  • Sairynn, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2OS X support = awesomeness
    And all you people worrying about not being able to use XP: at the end of 2008, XP will be close to 7 years old. Why in hell would they develop this game for XP? Besides, Vista will be working just fine by then.
    • diggrim, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I'm moving to OSX rather than VISTA
    • DteK, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1I agree with Budda. The only reason I even run Windoze is for gaming. There is no way I am buying vista for gaming purposes. Man I cant wait till the day 3D gaming in linux is on par with the Windoze
      • masterthiefster, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1First off, spelling Windows that way makes you look like a fool. If you want people to take you seriously, don't use tired jokes invented by immature fanboys.

        As for Linux overtaking Windows, that day will never come if the OS market continues as it has for more than a decade. Windows' install base is immense and many of these people are willing to do at least some gaming, as the sales figures of games like The Sims demonstrate. Mac and Linux have a near-negligible install base in comparison, so almost all developers just ignore those platforms because they don't think the extra development time would be worth it when only a portion of those OSes' user bases will even be interested in their product in the first place.

        Because DirectX is used by the vast majority of Windows games (and thus has a bigger install base), nVidia and ATI graphics cards are specifically designed with DirectX functionality in mind, with OpenGL compatibility more as a convenience than as a selling point. Additionally, their drivers sometimes support DirectX noticeably better than OpenGL, further discouraging developers from using it.

        Because graphics cards are largely targeted at DirectX, developers will invariably only include DirectX support, reasoning (quite rightly) that the number of Windows gamers wanting OpenGL support is so small compared to those content to play under DirectX that it probably wouldn't be worth the trouble of adding OpenGL support. They'll also jump at whatever fancy new features the latest DirectX version offers, which may or may not have direct OpenGL equivalents. Since they've decided it's unnecessary to provide OpenGL support, and since DirectX isn't natively available for Linux, it suddenly becomes much more effort for them to "risk" a Linux port.

        It's a "vicious cycle"; because past developers have used DirectX other developers follow suit, which means more copies of Windows get sold to run these games. More Windows gaming systems means more gamers to target, and so yet more games come out for Windows.
        • DteK, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1I dont care about linux overtaking WINDOZE. I just want gaming support to improve.
  • Crosshare, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Meh, I'm not really all that excited with this one. I don't see anything new they're bringing to the series. They better watch out because Call of Duty 4 looks like they could sweep in and snag a huge portion of the Battlefield player base.
    • BitBurner, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Um no drivable vehicles in COD4.....to quote a developer at E3..."You don't drive tanks you shoot em". Not to mention no Jets and Helicopters. COD4 is not a sandbox experience....its a single player game with multilayer added on. Don't get me wrong I cant wait till demo tomorrow but its no comparison to BF.

      you said "I don't see anything new they're bringing to the series"

      Um new game engine with destructible environments.

      In game buddy/chat system

      New Vehicles and weapons

      New unlocks like ammo and kevlar.

      Squad Battalions

      Bigger maps

      More Players.

      Clan support

      MMO style character creation

      Yeah like you said....nothing new.....geez..
      • masterthiefster, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1It could be they'll introduce vehicles in an expansion (they did that for the first Call of Duty... or was it the second?)
  • fudsak, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1That sounds great and all but if BF2 or BF2142 are any indication, this will be a big pile of glitches and graphical slowdown.
  • KingBunny, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Just NATO vs MEC, eh?
    Subtitle: "Jihad Crusade: WW3 Is Fun"

    Besides, what's wrong with version 2? Oh wait, it takes 30 minutes to start a damn game, and then there's a 50% chance that the map restarted or you get randomly kicked out because "it took too long to join". If they improve the "GAME JOINING TECHNOLOGY" I'll totally buy BF3, even if it does support the idea of WW3.
    • RacerX10, on 10/14/2007, -0/+1I typically get in-game in 14-16 seconds. Clean your server cache in the cfg files and buy a WD Raptor drive. Makes all the difference in the world.
    • RacerX10, on 10/14/2007, -0/+11234
  • FAT_PIGGY, on 10/11/2007, -6/+1***** NATO
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 65 of 65 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.