DICE details Battlefield 3′s multiplayer modes

What happened to the 64 player PC modes?

@1 I would assume this list is for consoles specifically.

It’s not. That’s why it it says: “24 players on console, 32 on PC“

@3 Missed that.

Huh. Interesting.

Obviously it’s a mistake, or they meant 32 per team, as they’ve confirmed before that PC will have 64 players (for conquest at least).

They’re allowing 64 players on conquest. Someone on VG247 didn’t copy it quite right :p

From the official blog:
Conquest
Availability: On all 9 maps
Players: 24/32 or 64 (Console/PC)

I believe the blog entry has been misquoted to a degree:

“Conquest
Availability: On all 9 maps
Players: 24/32 or 64 (Console/PC)
Focus: Objective Based All-out Warfare
Goal: Capture and Hold Flags
Winning the game: Deplete opposing team’s tickets

Conquest is without a doubt the most classic of Battlefield game modes. Introduced in Battlefield 1942, Conquest has defined the entire Battlefield series (and influenced a lot of other games out there) and encompasses everything that makes Battlefield great. Set over a series of large-scale maps, Conquest is the game mode best suited for the experience of all-out vehicle warfare. In Conquest, two teams fight for control of a number of flags by being the dominant force in the vicinity of each base. Capture and keep control of a majority of the flags and the enemy team will bleed tickets. Killing enemies will also reduce their ticket count, and the first team to run out of tickets loses.

Conquest is a strategic and tactical game that often asks you to make important decisions on whether to attack an enemy base or defend one of your own. Your forces will rarely be enough to capture and hold every base on the map, so in-game communication and quick thinking is necessary to be victorious. Of all of the game modes we have invented here at DICE, Conquest will always have a special place in our hearts.”

nothing new

this game looks so much like bad company that it isnt even battlefield

Go play with your Barbie, Loltroll – because you have no clue.

Conquest is no doubt will have 64 players. It’s historically DICE’s own creation.

@10 ive played almost all of the battlefield games and my al time favourite battlefield game is battlefield 2 and this looks nothing like a sequel to battlefield 2, i aint saying it looks shit when it looks really good but it doesn’t look like a sequel to battlefield 2

@12 so what should a sequel to BF2 look like then? They simply moved on and took best of both worlds BF and BFBC2 plus changed the classes/specs and changed/added vehicles. Why should they fix what isnt broke? In the end its still a Battlefield and not a new IP…

The problem with that, manamana, is that BF2 is a timeless classic that still works today, whereas BC2 in my opinion, doesn’t even come close.

It was a fair generic shooter aimed at the console audience, but it was no more than that by any means.

I think it’s completely fair to be worried by the fact that so far, it looks much like an upgraded BC2. If the BF2 part of that statement means they’ve actually moved on from the gimmicks and gotten serious about gameplay again, and they’re going to improve on the formula, then that’s obviously awesome, but it’s not hard to understand the skepticism when they copy most of BC2, certainly in terms of the style, and then go out and claim that it’s gonna be a direct successor to BF2.

That’s supposed to actually mean something.

@6 It’s called the 6 being above the 3 on the keypad and then balking at “34″. Forgive me for my sins etc….

gunna be worried about the specs release for pc….oh well i havent built my pc yet and im waiting till after q1 next year for patch work and cheaper pc ish

Most of my friends (all organized in crews) moved from longyears BF/BF2 PC gaming to BC2 on consoles. Mostly moaning about the controls but they got over it. While I was late on BF2, I had my days with it. BC2 is not as balanced and has its weak points (let alone campers and lone-wolfs), but has also glorious gameplay moments. I’m shure DICE is very aware of the balancing problems and I’m glad to see, that you can disable vehicles to some point. What I dont get is in terms of style – at least to my eyes it looks more grown-up than the BC2 comedy. And from the gameplay vids it has a whole different look, when you get hit for instance.

People should stop bitching.In era where PC gets just a console port now notorious EA gives you real PC game build from (almost)ground up with supporting latest technology like DX10/11,64 players on huge maps and graphic that is probably going to set standard for years to come but nooooo game is fell like Bad Company 3 because of what ? 4 players squad ? Pathetic.

Battlefields always had superb gameplay, even crappy BC2 had that. But after Alpha, BF3 still feels like BC3. Clearly this will be ‘addressed’ when the review scores go live giving it 9-10/10s because thats the power of the EA PR bullshit machine.

Some of the bugs that plagued BC2 are still in this and yes it was only Alpha but it tells me that the game engine cant handle hitboxes!

@18 actually I play squad deathmatch more often than conquest

5 modes, 9 maps, thats pretty bare bones…

@19 and please mention the bulletproof leaves – just because its a running gag. Or when you got killed hiding behind inches of concrete walls…

@20 I only play rush
@21 That is why EA said to have 10 times more the DLC then BC2 !

@17 It certainly looks more grown up, and better in pretty much every way, but I’d say most major style aspects are still identical to those of BC2. It still has the insane glare, and as I understand it, it’s not trying to recreate a scenario like the one in Battlefield 2, and is in fact carrying the story directly from BC2.

At the end the Russians had just invaded the US and they certainly seem to be the enemy based on the equipment list.

The thing that bothers me is that BF2 was a solid shooter no matter what you did. If you wanted to shoot stuff and compete with the others, then you could do that. If you wanted to be part of a highly coordinated effort, then you could do that, all on the same map, with the same people.

In BC2 it feels to me like they just picked a bunch of ingredients and threw them in with eachother, instead of actually realizing a grand idea with it. What are the vehicles for, specifically, how do they make people play with them, what’s the role of the infantry. In a game that’s otherwise terrible, like ArmA 2 (and to an even greater extent in Planetside) all of those roles are actually brilliantly defined.

A great example to me is the carrier map in BF2 that actually forces people to stage an amphibious landing or air assault on the beach. It’s an outstanding way to make a real world idea into gameplay. I didn’t really find any of that in BC2.

Talking about EA – anyone else got problems with EA servers in this very moment? Constantly get kicked out or no connection at all …

@DSB ok, know I get what you mean – because of your example of the carrier map. Its one of the most memorable moments landing on the beach, having your squadmates chattering! Ah well, I’m confident they put that feeling into BF3. But the vehicle park in BC2 was not as bad as you state. The Quad for instance was a fast and fun vehicle to get across large maps with a buddy. The cobra on the other hand …

Storywise (or setting/scenario) I really don’t care that much, as long as it feels right. I actually enjoy Gears pretty much – which has practically no story at all. I really hope the classes are well balanced, though. Difficult to say with just four of them. But as I mentioned, DICE is aware of the full Battlefield feel, at least its what they state every now and then.

I guess they can’t please everyone with their new iteration and it’s hard for a developer to move on and to not loose track of the hardcore fanbase on the other hand. I for myself will probably spend the rest of this and most part of next year playing this and gears.

Still not sure why they don’t have a no respawn mode in there like Attack & Defend/Search & Destroy…I know some people who will be disappointed by this, including myself, since this game looks fresher and more realistic than MW3 in my opinion…

@15 No selfrespecting keyboard user uses the Numpad. Are you mad? :p

Anyway, I absolve you of all your sins in the name of, bleh, can’t remember more of it. In any case, I just wanted to point it out, can’t expect you to be perfect all the time.

On topic: This looks like Bad Company 2 because it’s an upgraded version of the BC2 engine. It would be surprising if it DIDN’T look like BC2 and ran on the same engine.

@28 EXACTLY! Its not what it LOOKS like its what it PLAYS like…so let’s wait and see until everyone gets their hands on the beta/final product before we do so much judging…

Also, if you are thinking about responding saying you played the alpha: that is an older build of the game that any bugs/glitches/imbalances are irrelevant unless they carry over to the upcoming beta and/or final product…plus it was PC only so we wouldn’t know if any of the problems were PC specific only or not…

@ 29
Unless they are some of the same bugs that haunted BC2. In the tunnel, someone had HALF his body in a ditch with his head/chest outside. 30 rounds later, nothing touched him. It was like an invisble shield was protecting that part of him.

These are the same kind of flaws that made BC2 what is it..an after birth and not really worth of the BF name.

@26 My problem isn’t just the vehicle park though, that’s more of a symptom. It was more the sense that they hadn’t really put any thought into it. There was no underlying idea. Have some vehicles – Drive somewhere – Let everybody else tend to their own business.

BF2 had some similar maps, but it also had the whole command system, which was all one big incentive for everyone to work together. That’s all been stripped for the BC series, and I doubt it’s gonna be there in BF3.

In a game like ArmA 2 an infantry man won’t be able to do everything, and even less so in a game like Planetside. You were forced to consider the make-up of your forces, and you were forced to cooperate with vehicles and other specialists, purely because you couldn’t do everything on your own.

In BC2 it feels to me like an APC is as good as an infantryman, and an engineer is as good as an assault troop. Everybody has a different buff, but I really didn’t feel like I had to change anything in the way I played, depending on the class I chose. There was no real sense of playing a part.

Still, my complaint is mostly with the comparison to BF2. Obviously a lot of people enjoyed BC2 for a lot longer than I did, and that’s fair enough. I just think they have a lot to prove before they start calling BF3 a successor to BF2.

@30 I never saw that in BC2 maybe its a PC specific glitch…

“…new additions such as Team Deathmatch and Squad Deathmatch are new to the series.”
I’m pretty sure BFBC2 had those modes. So not really new. Plus this is supposed to have co-op mode.

No real surprises here,

Looks very BFBC2.1

@32, oh no, you definitely get bad clipping in the console versions too.

It’s most noticeable in vietnam probably, but definitely in the core game too there are places where you appear to have clear shots but bullets hit invisible things. Happens mostly around rocks, indestructible trees and conquest flag poles which are fatter than they appear to be and often absorb bullets when fires past.

It’s ludicrous that you can be sitting beside a rock firing at a 90 degree angle away from it and see the shots ricochet off as if your gun was firing side ways.

@35 So how is that in the new one?

I’m also curious to see how much prone will change. Are you able to throw yourself down?

@36, I didn’t notice it as an issue in the Alpha, but then I only played one map for a couple of hours tops, so I can’t really say.

Prone: has a dedicated key on PC so you can go from a full sprint to throwing yourself into prone. It’s a very smooth process, and definitely saved my life on many occasions on Metro (the park area has low walls a-plenty).