Battlefield 3 Full Length Fault Line Trailer is the Best B-Day Gift

How sweet of DICE and EA to drop the full length Battlefield 3 Fault Line trailer a few days early so it coincides with my Birthday. I know this is just a small coincidence, but let me have this, damn it. Following up on the previous three trailers I posted for BF3, this twelve minute numbers shows the action in its entirety with the cuts being reserved for getting you to the action quicker as opposed to just teasing the juicy bits. Enjoy.

Even though we’ve seen most of this before, it still looks amazing. Sure, the dialogue and voice acting are a little ho-hum and the AI of the enemies seems pretty basic, but for an Alpha build DICE really have the destruction mechanics and the graphics nailed down. Are you guys still pumped for BF3?

Written by

mitch@gamersushi.com Twitter: @mi7ch Gamertag: Lubeius PSN ID: Lubeius SteamID: Lube182 Origin/EA:Lube182 Currently Playing: Stardew Valley, Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam, Knights of the Old Republic 2: The Sith Lords, Battlefield 4, Tom Clancy Double Feature: Rainbow Six Siege and The Division

6 thoughts on “Battlefield 3 Full Length Fault Line Trailer is the Best B-Day Gift”

  1. Happy birthday, Mitch! *sniff* They grow up so fast!

    BF3 looks cool, buuut I really don’t want them to pull the same cliches as Call of Duty. I mean the gratuitous slow-mo, the apparent lack of any character development (which is unacceptable, since BFBC had great characters), and point thumb syndrome (the character insists on jutting his thumb out when holding his rifle and reloading; it’s nothing serious but it’s a real pet peeve of mine) might make the Campaign just really bland and CoD-ish. This mission alone is so jam-packed of constant action and varying tones (the progression from streets to crawling in a basement alone to a massive shootout is very choppy, and the lack of real narrative hurts too), so it’s clear that the guys behind BF3 are banking on a CoD-ish BF. Maybe it’s not terrible, but it’s not good, either. It’s a lack of effort on the part of writing. I’m waiting for the multiplayer; if I don’t get large maps and whatnot, and if the Campaign is just going along a single corridor of setpieces, BF3 probably won’t be worth it. Btw, where was any of the Destruction 2.0? All I saw were buildings crumbling in front of you; nobody was blasting through walls. Yeah, that one grenade blew up the balcony where the RPG guy was standing when they were fighting in the parking lot, but come on. Show us the real merits of Destruction 2.0.

    Yes, that was rambling, but BF3 so far has not impressed me.
    Oh, and the graphics. Yeah they’re nice, but has everyone forgotten about Call of Duty? CoD’s animations are smooth, photorealistic, and the close-ups in Black Ops are stunning. And they say that this shadowy, relatively slow FPS animation with what seem to be stale character faces is the best ever? No, CoD4 beats this.

  2. [quote comment=”16161″]Happy birthday, Mitch! *sniff* They grow up so fast!

    BF3 looks cool, buuut I really don’t want them to pull the same cliches as Call of Duty. I mean the gratuitous slow-mo, the apparent lack of any character development (which is unacceptable, since BFBC had great characters), and point thumb syndrome (the character insists on jutting his thumb out when holding his rifle and reloading; it’s nothing serious but it’s a real pet peeve of mine) might make the Campaign just really bland and CoD-ish. This mission alone is so jam-packed of constant action and varying tones (the progression from streets to crawling in a basement alone to a massive shootout is very choppy, and the lack of real narrative hurts too), so it’s clear that the guys behind BF3 are banking on a CoD-ish BF. Maybe it’s not terrible, but it’s not good, either. It’s a lack of effort on the part of writing. I’m waiting for the multiplayer; if I don’t get large maps and whatnot, and if the Campaign is just going along a single corridor of setpieces, BF3 probably won’t be worth it. Btw, where was any of the Destruction 2.0? All I saw were buildings crumbling in front of you; nobody was blasting through walls. Yeah, that one grenade blew up the balcony where the RPG guy was standing when they were fighting in the parking lot, but come on. Show us the real merits of Destruction 2.0.

    Yes, that was rambling, but BF3 so far has not impressed me.
    Oh, and the graphics. Yeah they’re nice, but has everyone forgotten about Call of Duty? CoD’s animations are smooth, photorealistic, and the close-ups in Black Ops are stunning. And they say that this shadowy, relatively slow FPS animation with what seem to be stale character faces is the best ever? No, CoD4 beats this.[/quote]

    They clearly stated that the maps in BF3 is the biggest maps they ever designed, even bigger than in BF2…

  3. Then good. I’m rooting for BF3’s multiplayer. I really hope they make new gametypes, also. Rush and Conquest are fun and all, but let’s get some really innovative gametypes.

  4. I am in the same boat as Cossack, although he put it more eloquently than i could. Im just to tired of shooters to be pumped for this, unless the multiplayer turns out to be phenomenal.

  5. BF3 is probably the first war game I’m actually excited for. It looks so purty. I’m probably in for a treat, as I’ve never played any of the recent war shooters (MW2, BFBC, KZ2, etc.)

    Happy belated birthday Mitch! Or, should I say mi7ch!

  6. This looks very meh. Did Battlefield always have a single player component? I have only played console itterations and I fear the desire to tap into this market could be drawing valuable resources AWAY from multiplayer. Even though multiplayer is what many console FPS gamers want.

Comments are closed.