All comments

Looks class, i'm not so sure the game is for me though. Never really liked army-themed shooters much.

in screens the game looks amazing, in action tho (some new footage over at gametrailers btw) it just looks really slow paced, lacks that crazy fast viceral combat seen in cod4. and it has some of the worst screen tearing i've seen since saints row.

A few things I noticed from the Gametrailers videos :

1. The sounds you make when being shot are really odd, and kind of distracting, I swear he starts making dog sounds.
2. The FOV seems really low, which I kinda like, but I know a lot of people hate low FOV. It gives the character more apparent tallness, makes the world seem a bit more real, but even in the video the guy has a bit of problems getting past some tree roots.
3. The collecting gold thing seems really kind of cheap. I would find it acceptable if the guy actually picked up the gold bar and put it in his backpack or something, but I can't help finding the Pulp Fiction ripoff with a single note really lazy compared to what they should have done.
4. Anyone else find it funny how enemy AI is so bad there's large amounts of open firing of guns about 50 feet away and one guy didn't even turn around to face the sounds?
5. Destruction seems scaled down from what we were initially promised and shown.

Basically it's gone down a peg or two on my interest meter, but I'm still optimistic.

Too early to make a judgement call for this one. The potential is phenomenal and considering that the release is still way off, the current state looks promising nonetheless. I rather take the slow pace over CoD 4 -type arcadey pace anyday. Just hope that the sandbox is big enough. CoD4 type of tunnel with heavy scripting and endlessly spawning enemies is not the way forward for the fps-genre. We relly need more of those thinking mans shooters on a console. I doubt that this will be the messiah, but at least this one pushes the physics to the right direction and thus opensnew possibilities for gameplay mechanics.

I believe that these are due to early code. It most propably doesn't have AI in yet and the physics is still in the tweaking state. Graphics are also subject to change many times before the final product ships. We've seen that for so many times. I think that also the draw distance will be way further. Right now it's quite funny and propably not indicative of the final state.

ha ha ha, yeah, totally, its like doom all over again, only somehow worse...lol. i mean, im sure you'd make a lot of noise getting shot, but it was just too distracting. i dont like the health meter either. the game as a whole doesnt come across as very realistic as it is, so a recharging health would suit it more imo. its been a long time since i saw an actual health meter in a game.

just saw two gameplay movies at gametrailers and I gotta say this isn't looking very good. Dice makes TERRIBLE engines!! Battlefield 1942 which came out in 2002 still has some terrible issues, I think everyone remembers the LONG ASS load times of Battlefield 2, and Vietnam was just AWFUL.

So yea its clear there tech isn't translating well on consoles. And I also think the FrostBite engine is just a test for Battlefield 3. I love Dice and I have all the BF PC games buy yea I think I am gonna wait for Battlefeild 3

Also these screens LOOKG GREAT! I really hope this build is early as some poster said above but yea the PS3 build must be comedic, can't wait to see that running lol

Well I guess they did delay it, they have plenty of time to fix stuff up.

The feel of the game is so realistic, that gold bar thing bugs me oddly a lot. It's like 'well we could put a day's worth of work to make this animation unique and make it fit the graphical feel of the game, but we'll just add this light source and play a sound and that'll be enough'. Would have been OK if this was a SNES game. Anyways, I hope that's one thing they'll be working on as well.

[edit : yea, DICE does make pretty bad engines, at least in the memory optimization. I think this one is coming along great graphically and performance wise, but the gameplay in the GT videos didn't do it for me, it actually feels like a BF game SP (anyone who has done that knows what I mean). Upgraded to 1GB of RAM for Vietnam loads and 2GB of RAM for BF2 load times, anyways. After getting a 360 BF2 looked especially poor as well, so it's basically inefficient coding.]

can't say i'm particularly hopeful over the AI. It's not exactly DICE's strong point as the bf series was not made on single player. If multi player holds good tho i'm sure it will sell tons, here's hoping!
oh and the gfx still look really good

Game looks awesome. Fix the screen tearing and they're set.

its a shame people are still comparing new fps' to cod4, as if cod4 is really that good. i have it but ive played less than a days worth of multiplayer, after the fifth or sixth online session it gets really boring. as for the framerate i wanna see cod4 pull off that 60 fps while still allowing destruction on the level of bad company. have you guys seen the latest vid its a multiplayer session and the only gripe i have with the game so far is the fact that the guy playing broke through a wooden fence with his combat knife talk about cheap. overall the only thing im worried about is that when you shoot at fences how many bullets can it take before it goes into peices. i myself would like to see clean through the bullet holes to the other side while still being able to completely destroy the fence. that level of destruction would be outstanding.

strange, i've played equivilent of 4 days straight and i aint been bored once. cod4 is king. and this doesnt look like its going to de-thrown it.

if that knife can chop down a fence it must rip people into little bits. thats one helluva knife, where can i get one?

CoD 4 is nothing to set your standards to, whoever said that this game isn't like CoD 4 should thank for variety and not every other FPS being a Halo or CoD clone. What is so amazing about CoD 4's online, even? I've played it many times, and never gotten into the flow. I almost feel sick playing it, I get more fun out of the Unreal online, and that game's very unforgiving. Seriously, why do I bother to comment on this site when it's full of ignorant sheep?

Man, just the amount of destructability and noob tubing will make this the sickest game ever. No more running around corners of a building, just blow up the damn wall! Take that, wall-shooting of CoD 4 LOL.

Doesn't look impressive or any different when in fps mode.

I personally just can't look at this game and not compare it to the 60 fps über polished, super smooth controlling COD4 experience.

I see the gameplay footage of this game at Gametrailers.com and just can't help but notice how clunky the whole thing looks. The aiming just looks awkward and the tearing...wow! Even Ubisoft has better v-sync going on, and that's bad!

The destructible environments stuff is cool, but all I've seen of this game thus far is tree's, wooden fences and empty houses which all look identical. Not all that impressive imo. Show me a world as detailed and varied as COD4's and make that completely destructible and I'm impressed...but the stuff shown in this game so far? Sorry...but no.

COD4 has just raised the standard, it's as simple as that. And to me, it's mainly the controls. It's just so fluid, so precise and feels just so fucking good, it's really something else and the game really deserves all the praise it has gotten imo.

I am still a bit skeptic about this, the battlefield series has always been about multiplayer, but if they can pull it off it will be awesome.Oh piss off you self righteous douchebag, opinions may wary just because you don't like cod 4 there is no reason to be a dick about it :(

Looks really good, love teh character models and textures and stuff =)

Game looks pretty fun too, can't wait to aspload stuff =)

Looks as if every fps besides Halo3 has evolved in the graphics department. If Halo3 released today it would never reached the astronomical sales numbers that it did. Competition is good, but somehow it never had an effect on Halo. I still can't understand why Bungie released Halo3 in the condition that it was. It was definitly Halo2.5 with a few texture and resolution enhancements. Exactly what was Bungie doing for the past 3 plus years since the launch of Halo2?

you feel better now you got that completely irrelevant rant off your chest. this thread isnt some excuse to spew hate about a game you dont like (although i agree with everything you said) cod 4 i can understand, same modern combat setting. halo 3? got nothing to do with this game at all.

Play Halo 2, and then play the third. There's a very noticeable difference.
Frankly, I respect Bungie a lot more for making a bright and vibrant looking FPS, in comparasion to all of these "gritty" games that are completely gray, making it far easier to hide little flaws. The only aspect of Halo 3 that was really lacking were the character models, and considering the major characters in the game is a guy completely incased in a suit, a holographic girl, and an alien, that wasn't a big deal.

And unlike all of these other shooters, Halo actually has a story that was being worked on? Why must every thread decend into a some sort of Halo bashing? Seriously, if you don't like the game, don't play it, it's very simple. I dislike many other big popular games, but just because I don't like them, doesn't mean I have to hate them and try to convince everyone else they aren't good.

I was looking forward to this one but the new videos have put me well off, 50m viewdistance, fog hiding everything else yet there's still constant tearing and huge framerate drops, hope they aren't releasing anytime soon.......

Saw the videos at gametrailers and it looks super. Also found the being shot sounds a bit weird, although i see what they tried to do there, and the screen tearing was a bit worrying (but hey, look at mass effect and still they got away with game of the year...)

Also, can't understand how some people are saying DICE don't do good engines, heck, bf2 had super graphics for its time, and ran perfectly on average machines.

Read a multiplayer preview and although not groundbreaking as promissed they said its shaping up quite good, liked some of the new ideas (each team starts with no vehicles or air strikes, and as you progress and steal gold from the other team you start getting access these things).
Overll, i'm quite excited

I still have high hopes for this. I can see why people are comparing it to CoD4, and while on many levels it's fair do compare the two games you just have to remeber what kind of tech that drives this game. It's very different tech than CoD4, which looked great, but is technically inferior to what Dice is trying to do. Sure CoD4 ran 60fps, but it was, (and is) really lowtech compared to Bad Company.

Have you played the game yourself? How do you know the controls and the aiming? Watch the new video, that's full of both single-player and multiplayer footage. Shooting looks incredibly tight and responsive. So, before you play the game, don't give judgement on the CONTROLS.

BTW, raised the standards for what? Boring same-y environments with broken buildings? What, don't like some open air, forests, trees, and a little more variety than most urban shooters? Fine with me if you have a different opinion on what environments you prefer, but you don't even have the whole game. Have you seen all the environments?