Sections

Rumour – Battlefield 3 Premium trailer leaked

Sunday, 3rd June 2012 22:47 GMT By Brenna Hillier

Get your first peek at EA’s long-rumoured answer to Call of Duty Elite, Battlefield 3 Premium.

The items listed in the trailer match up with those found in an allegedly leaked fact sheet on the unconfirmed service, which either adds or detracts from its authenticity depending on how you view it.

EA and DICE are yet to officially announce the service, but a PS Blog slip up after months of rumours makes it almost certainly real.

We’ll no doubt have all the details tomorrow from EA’s E3 2012 presser.

Thanks, Joystiq.

Breaking news

15 Comments

Sign in to post a comment.

  1. Erthazus

    Trailer is awesome. I so want to buy this, but i won’t.

    #1 2 years ago
  2. AHA-Lambda

    The leaks are seriously at an all time high this E3! XD

    Impressive trailer, but unfortunately BF3 is still the most disappointing game of last year to me :(

    #2 2 years ago
  3. DSB

    Yeah, I’m not sure I like where that’s going. At least with Elite, the social element is a lot more engaging. Posting replays and what not.

    If there’s one regret I have with BF3, it’s the lack of a replay function. How can you make a game that gorgeous and leave that out?

    @2 Dude, elaborate on that!

    #3 2 years ago
  4. AHA-Lambda

    Don’t know how to really explain it man, BF3 just felt really off to me and I didn’t enjoy it anywhere near as much as BC2, which I loved.

    #4 2 years ago
  5. Cozzy

    @4 I think I understand where you’re coming from. I thought BF3 was brilliant in so many ways but…It’s missing something. I didn’t find myself coming back to it on a constant basis like I did with Bad Company 2.

    #5 2 years ago
  6. strikkebil

    traded in bf3 months ago. not nearly as good as bc1 and bc2.
    hopefully well see a new game from dice at e3, theyre to big to only b working on dlc.

    #6 2 years ago
  7. Talkar

    Trailer has been removed by the user ;)

    #7 2 years ago
  8. HauntaVirus

    It’s been removed…

    #8 2 years ago
  9. mathare92

    @4 I was in the same frame of mind as you when I first started playing it. So many things felt off; the maps felt too big and indistinct; the destruction elements not as useful as BC2; the colour palette too gritty and grey; I even disliked the interface (I still think they should have stuck with BC2′s bold and streamlined menu aesthetic, even if it was a little generic). But then I realised, hey, this isn’t a Bad Company game. It’s got different quirks and a different feel altogether – for me at least – and I’ve grown to slowly appreciate it for that. What I’m basically saying, in a long-winded way, is give it time and it’ll grow on you. There isn’t a better multiplayer shooter on console right now. Cannot wait for Bad Company 3 though :)

    #9 2 years ago
  10. Texamon

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaMA-8uhqZk

    #10 2 years ago
  11. muffinmn100

    ENEMY AC130 ABOVE

    #11 2 years ago
  12. DSB

    Gosh, I’m totally the opposite of you guys.

    I thought BC2 felt pretty halfassed, BF3 really fixed a lot of the issues I had with everything from weapon handling, to movement, to level design.

    I felt like I was running around in a mech suit in that game even though I was just an infantryman.

    @9 Man, I can’t tell you how much I hated that menu. I played it on the PC, so I don’t know if it was different on consoles.

    The layout itself wasn’t very intuitive, and impressively enough, the menu itself was lagging all over the place. You’d press something and it would take something like half a second before anything happened.

    Battlelog for BF3 is different, and tying it to Origin makes it a lot less convenient than it could be, but once you’re there, you get to where you’re going in no time.

    #12 2 years ago
  13. freedoms_stain

    In terms of managing your kit loadouts (on PC) BC2 shits all over BF3, but that’s largely down to the fact that the kit system in BC2 was far simpler.

    But even taking on board the fact that there is more to BF3 in terms of equipment, the BF3 interface is shit. You need to go through 3 screens just to change your optics from ranged to close, and once you’re on that screen you have to flick through the whole lot to find the one you’re after. It’s pretty clear the interface was not designed with PC in mind tbh. It’s a flick through interface because that’s what’s easiest on a gamepad. In BC2 everything was right there on 1 screen – and the PC and console interfaces were different.

    Some guys in the BF3 community designed a concept menu screen interface that is top to bottom and inside out designed to take advantage of high resolution screen retail space and the advantages a mouse gives you in selecting things (protip, clicking, not flicking) and it hurts that their superior design will never be implemented thanks to the lack of modding or fucks given by Dice that their interface is just plain shit.

    Aside from that, I can understand why people don’t get on with BF3 as well as BC2. One of the things that distinguished BC2 from the crowd was the destruction. Destruction in BF3 is shit. The majority of structures in BC2 were fully destructible, there are a few that aren’t, but by and large if it has 4 walls and a roof you can level it in BC2. In BF3 there are almost no fully destructible structures, and the partially destructible structures are highly situational. On the same building you can blow holes in one part of the wall, but not another identical part elsewhere.

    BC2 also has a far greater sense of freedom. within the map boundaries you can go anywhere. There are no locked doors in BC2, no indestructible windows, if there’s a building you can go in it and you have access to the entire thing. In BF3 this is not the case, a lot of buildings are solid blocks you can’t enter, or you only get access to this or that little part of it – in general it feels very much more restrictive.

    As for guns… In BC2 learning to control your weapon reaped rewards, the patient burst firer would beat the sprayer at range. In BF3 you have to spray, because if you are patient and you attempt accurate burst fire the sprayer will inflict random bullet spread on you thanks to this wonderful “suppression” invention therefore most of your well aimed shots will in fact miss thanks to suppression, and although most of spray-boy’s shots will also miss the fact that he’s emptied 31 rounds in your general direction will ensure enough of his randomly spread spray bullets will hit you before enough of your burst fired randomly spread bullets hit him. So BF3 feels like a spray-athon for the most part when you go h2h – and I could tell you some fucking shocking suppression stories.

    I could honestly gripe about BF3 til the fucking cows come home, but it’s nearly 3am and we’re celebrating hereditary sponging and calling it Royalty tomorrow, so I best get some kip.

    #13 2 years ago
  14. Ireland Michael

    @13 Just a note, the effect of surpression is being reduced in the next update.

    #14 2 years ago
  15. freedoms_stain

    @14, true, but how it actually affects gameplay is yet to be seen.

    From what Alan Kertz said in a podcast after the initial patch release their thoughts on retweaking suppression centred around decreasing the effect at the outer limits of the effect radius around a player – there is sphere of effect around the player, closer bullets causing a greater effect, more distant causing a lesser effect. There are 2 problems with suppression, 1 relates to the gradient of that sphere of effect and the other relates to the actual effect itself – random bullet spread. They need to sort both, and Kertz never mentioned the spread effect, so I’m counting no chickens.

    #15 2 years ago