Talk:Battlefield 3/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Release dates still wrong

I left a note about this a few days ago, and nobody has followed it up. No idea how the system works, but to whoever has the power, either unlock the article for general editing or change the dates yourself. This is a pretty major game, to get such basic info wrong is ridiculous, especially when it's already been pointed out.86.145.225.35 (talk) 09:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Release date info incorrect

http://www.enterbf3.com/topic/2482-battlefield-3-release-dates/

These are the actual release dates. The article currently (incorrectly) suggests a worldwide 25th release date. I can't edit the article, can somebody else do the honours? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.225.35 (talk) 09:37, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Done, made the article more clear it now states that the date given is for the USA ONLY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inputdata (talk • contribs) 14:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Quality of English?

I'm not entirely certain if it is just me, but the line; "The campaign is set near the Iraq-Iran border, where the US Marine Corps is fighting the People's Liberation and Resistance (PLR)" doesn't read too well. Specifically '...US Marine Corps "is" fighting...', the word "is" is a singular when used in the third-person; wouldn't the correct word be 'are' given the context while both words are the same tense, I don't think 'is' adequately deals with the clause. If it isn't just me, I spotted that almost as soon as I had loaded the page, are there any other proofing errors? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.5.49.13 (talk) 18:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah good point, I'll change that. There are probably tons so it'd be great if you felt like going through it for them. P.S, please start new topics at the bottom of the page, thanks. Muskeato 20:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Marine Corps is a singular entity, therefore is would be the correct word.Julio144 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC).

Quite stupid

A few weeks ago I posted this "A Limited Edition "Physical Warfare Pack" has been announced for release at selected retailers in the UK, including weapons unattainable through any other means. The announcement of version exclusive weapons has seen mixed reactions from fans of the series." under the name Unstable_ISOtope. I don't know if you thought it was a marketing stunt (even though MANY other articles have the same sort of thing) or that it was out of context (which it wasn't), some unwise person seems to have deleted it and now the page is locked. Obviously I'm not going to make a big deal out of this, but if this is what to expect after taking time making valid contributions to Wikipedia with the correct formatting, only for that information to be swiftly omitted by know it alls, then this place is a failure to its purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.167.117 (talk) 17:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The last version of this appears to have been removed in response to some sort of sock puppet investigation, though it reverted edits from multiple IPs and users without a clear explanation on why the edits were being reverted. I'm re-adding it because it has had coverage in reliable sources. ferret (talk) 17:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

For the future, please start a new topic at the bottom too :) Muskeato 11:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Page is totally incorrect, and is really based on Battlefield: Bad Company 2, which already has a page.

The game described is actually called Battlefield: Bad Company 2 (which already has a wikipedia page). The References are wrong. The first one is a link about the game Battlefield 1943 and the other two are about the game Battlefield: Bad Company 2. Although this game may made in the future, it is unlikely to come under that title, and will almost certainly not be using the Frostbite 2 engine as mentioned, nor is it likely to obeyed by any of the information given on this page. This is not a deliberate error, it was just an article that was made too early and as a result, contains incorrect information about a game that to date, is not even in development nor planning.

It should also be noted that the link to this page from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_video_games_in_development should also be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.11.124.101 (talk) 00:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The references are solid, there's no reason to doubt them. The first and third are clearly about Battlefield 3 and not about 1943 nor BC2; the second is about Frostbite 2. Unless you have some references behind your claims I see no problem. --MrStalker ^(talk) 06:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

How about you go to the Game Website and you wil notice that all of the information you just listed is completely confirmed. the page stays. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.25.178.60 (talk) 19:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

IP, please take notice of the date this topic started, and remember to check in the future Muskeato 20:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Platforms

Someone edited the article to show that the game was coming out for 360 and PS3, I haven't seen any sources that say that directly so I removed them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Terminxman (talk • contribs) 02:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Then why would they give Xbox and PS3 Medal of Honor gamers the beta of the game?????Homrb (talk) 06:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The beta signup page indicates an xbox live gold subscription will be required to access it on the xbox. End of discussion. 67.193.211.217 (talk) 03:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

So what? Just because you're a 360 gamer doesn't mean you just talk about 360, for PS3, you don't need a damn membership to access the beta. 70.30.55.73 (talk) 23:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Please don't try resurrecting long dead discussions. Muskeato 21:36, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Announcement

While there are a lot of signs that point to a multi-platform, and EA's CEO has stated the game will be released in the later half of 2011. We should wait for more details about the game, because we are in the dark at the moment. Jayrossss (talk) 05:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

At the same time it has not been confirmed for PC either. It has no platform at all currently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.238.133.57 (talk) 15:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

There's an interview floating around in which the devs say they're going to spend extra time on the PC version. So that means that it's confirmed for at least PC + one of the consoles. 203.217.150.69 (talk) 04:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

People who ordered MoH LE got the beta invite... I'm almost certain that it's going to be multi-platform just based on that. YuriKaslov (talk) 15:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Downloadable Content

Could somebody edit that section? It implies that it's certain there will be a "Back to Karkand" DLC, whilst the leak could very well be fake. The source is a gamespot article with a very distinct question mark in it's headline. It would be better if the section said that it is possible there will be one such expansion, but officials have not yet confirmed anything such. 158.36.131.1 (talk) 13:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.36.131.1 (talk) 13:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC) Back to Karkand has been confirmed, by DICE. In an E3 video. But could someone please add, information about the BF3 boycott due to the exclusive DLC that is given to people whom perorder the game, or buy the special edition. Include this link as well please. http://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/hy24b/battlefield_3_preorder_dlc_boycott_coordination/ Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.125.218.181 (talk) 10:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Release Date

Hey, I just wanted to let you know that an official trailer from EA said that the release will be in "Fall 2011". I don't know how to do this wiki stuff so someone else can find the citation and add it if they wish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.59.102.206 (talk) 03:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC) To add - Amazon shows date of 12/31/2011 but have not seen anything offical from EA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.91.171.42 (talk) 19:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

At Gamestop the store and on the website it says that the release date is on January 1, 2012, so stop changing it to Fall 2011. I can't do the refrence because of computer restrictions, so check if you don't believe me — Preceding unsigned comment added by AFFLICTI0Nx559 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I noticed the release date is shown as "November 1, 2011" yet the in-text citation references an article which claims that the release date is November 2, 2011. I honestly don't think it's safe to declare a release date as of yet, especially considering the amount of conflicting information regarding it. In addition, I visited GameStop's online store and couldn't locate a release date for any edition of Battlefield 3. I'm in favor of changing it to "Fall 2011" until we have more solid and citable information. --Kbo206 (talk) 03:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The release date is already correct on the article. Please mark posts as answered when completed. Thanks 71.35.174.6 (talk) 17:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Semi-Protected

Why so? I don't think theres any need for this page to be protected unless theres been vandalism I'm unaware of. Also the intro currently states: "Unusually for a contemporary big-budget shooter, its lead platform is the PC rather than a console." However the Battlefield series (excluding 'Bad Company's) have always been aimed primarily at the PC, in fact it would be unusual if its lead platform was anything but. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Speedigecko (talk • contribs) 23:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

There was persistent linkspam before the page was protected.

It also needs to be pointed out that the Bad Company games represent the last *six years* of the series...meanwhile look at the transition to consoles undergone by all other major shooters except Valve's. --Tom Edwards (talk) 23:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

"It also needs to be pointed out that the Bad Company games represent the last *six years* of the series" Only of the Bad Company series. The Battlefield main series is PC exclusive. Bad Company is just a spin-off of the main "Battlefield Franchise" and is related in name-only to the main series of BF games. Battlefield 2: Modern Combat is the only true console BF game. Bad Company is a console exclusive creation. This alone puts it in its own "side-series". Bad Company 2 was merely a port to PCs from consoles.

So the last 6 years of the Battlefield is in fact represented by Battlefield 2. And arguably BF2142, but certainly not Bad Company 1 or 2! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.84.47.184 (talk) 06:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

That is why the article says "contemporary big-budget shooter", not "Battlefield game". --Tom Edwards (talk) 20:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

What about Battlefield 1943? Is that game another true console BF game too!? 70.30.55.73 (talk) 23:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Release Date

The MightyApe website says that BF3 will be released 30 September 2010 (estimated), should this be added to the article? Beaver225 (talk) 04:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

No. Retailers often make up release dates. --Tom Edwards (talk) 19:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The Battlefield 3 beta is conformed to be launched on the 29th of September by EA on the official Battlefield site, should this be added to the article? Ddunlea21 (talk) 19:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The release date is already correct on the article. Please mark posts as answered when completed. Thanks 71.35.174.6 (talk) 17:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Undue weight to absence of commander feature

Commander mode is being presented as a core battlefield staple. But 1942 and Vietnam had no commander and in 2 and 2142 you were just as likely to see the commander using their assets personally, spam-spotting enemies, or flying around in a J10. Given that, I'm not sure that it deserves its own subsection but should be dealt with in the previous paragraph which discusses features. For now I'm just going to shift it and will leave the text and references alone, but I also want to point out that a single opt-in poll on a single forum does not provide statistically meaningful data. 203.217.150.69 (talk) 07:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Release Data reference says a different date..

The release date is stated as 1st November, however the reference shows the 2nd November. Not to mention that the reference stated is obviously pretty unreliable. Perhaps someone can find a better source, or at least change it so that the date we show is the same as something we are referencing.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.11.67.70 (talk) 18:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. The information on the exact release date is incredibly conflicting. I'm in favor of changing it to "Fall 2011" until we have better intel. --Kbo206 (talk) 03:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, all release dates are speculative until an official trailer or announcement says otherwise on the official game page! Asian Inferno 22:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpartansOnFire (talk • contribs)

The release date is already correct on the article. Please mark posts as answered when completed. Thanks 71.35.174.6 (talk) 17:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Section Blanking

I assumed it was vandalism and removed it. First time editing a Wiki, if I was in error I apologise.--80.2.187.99 (talk) 12:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Development issue

Under the development section, "The updated Frostbite 2 engine can realistically show how a seven-story building would collapse during an earthquake in a pile of smoke and debris."

However, according to this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXaFw7aC9GE, a developer himself states that the building falling in the earthquake is a scripted event. Therefore the statement above is misleading, and incorrect. --SaulRennison (talk) 11:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

It's still Frostbite 2, it's just on such a large-scale that they scripted it. I don't particularly see how it's incorrect, though it is slightly misleading. Muskeato 11:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

That said, I've changed the sentence to make it less misleading. Muskeato 11:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

EU Release Date

Any source for it? Saying Oct. 28, but I don't remember reading about it anywhere. I know some EU gamers were hoping they'd release same date, so a confirmation would be nice. Thanks Audioxbliss (talk) 03:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Singleplayer and Multiplayer Information

There has been a lot more information released about this game, and the page has not been updated. There is a 8 minute gameplay video of 'Thunder Run', which involves searching and destroying PLR targets outside of Tehran. Not only that, but multiplayer footage and classes have been revealed in great detail, and the page is locked for me to edit these details in. I do not think it's that fair that users can't even edit this page, let alone have someone suggesting that they be editing these details in. Redback One (talk) 14:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmm? Haven't been checking on BF3 too recently. If you can't edit point me in the direction of the information and I'll put it up for you. Muskeato 11:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Thunder Run Gameplay Operation Metro Trailer Frostbite 2.0 capability Operation Metro Gameplay

All of these have been released in the past few weeks, and have revealed masses of info. Redback One (talk) 02:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

"Unlike previous versions, the class, Assault, will be able to equip defibrillators and medkits."

Assault and Medic were first merged in BF2142. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.65.202 (talk) 06:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, changed it. Muskeato 15:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

What a load of shit... Assault and Medic classes have been in battlefield since the very first one (BF1942 for any BC lovers)

Nice tone ya got going there. They weren't seperate classes in BF2142, like he said. He didn't mention whether they were present in other games or not. Please read properly before shouting out. Muskeato 13:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Hscsguy, 30 June 2011

Under the section in regards to the 'Beta,' the article states that the Beta will take place starting September 11, 2011 when EA/DICE has only confirmed the Beta to take place in early September and has not stated an exact date. The source that is cited for this piece of information (citation #17) only states a September 2011 Beta, again no mention of September 11, 2011..

Hscsguy (talk) 00:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Done Jnorton7558 (talk) 02:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Update single player

The section is outdated. It only references to the "Fault Line" gameplay trailer, which was released months ago. Since then, there has been other trailers released; including the tank warfare mission that producer Pratick Bach demonstrated at E3. At the very least, the section should be re-written so that it doesn't sound like Sgt Blackburn is the ONLY character you play as. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.251.104.248 (talk) 19:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

No Steam Release

It hasn't been confirmed by an official source yet, but it's been said that EA is refusing to release the game on Steam. I don't know if anyone would consider this worth adding to the main page yet, but it's worth putting out there, at least. If it's ever confirmed, I'd say it is definitely main article worthy. Shotgunmaniac (talk) 07:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

If it isn't confirmed, then it shouldn't be on the main page. Muskeato 15:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

It's been confirmed now, it seems. Shotgunmaniac (talk) 23:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Now ya just got to convince me it's really notable :P Honestly though, I personally don't think that it needs to be on the page, especially as the game is still available on other DDs besides Origin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muskeato (talk • contribs) 00:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm honestly not sure. I was in the Alpha, and though I'm not sure if I'm still under the NDA, I can say it technically can't be on Steam, but on the whole this seems to be part of an ongoing feud between EA and Valve. I'm to the opinion that it's EA up to their "we want as much money as we can get no matter what" tricks as usual. I know that it's got quite a few Steam users (myself included) a bit peeved, and I'm personally not buying the game because Origin is just an inferior platform, but this probably isn't the place for that. Perhaps it should go under the Controversies section on the EA article since they've also removed Dragon Age II and Crysis II, but I am but a lowly lurker, so if you know the proper channels to find out and would like to pursue it go ahead. Shotgunmaniac (talk) 02:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Well I usually just stick to editing a select couple of articles myself, but I feel it might be better on the EA article. I'll have a gander around and see if anyone has made any moves into this area anwyehere else. Kudos for getting into the Alpha by the way. Muskeato 11:58, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Update: well the issue is mentioned on the Origin page which seems enough to me. If people start clammering here for information I'll add a link to that. Muskeato 12:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. I think many people will come here to find out more about the game before it comes out, and it's important to lay everything out for them. They may assume that Steam will have it, and then be peeved at Valve for not having, not knowing it was EA who made the decision. At the very least, a small blurb with a link to the Origin section would be sufficient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.111.201.15 (talk) 13:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

New Stuff You MUST! Add!

If you've seen E3 2011, you would say that a new mission was shown called "Thunder Run" and that a new character was introduced. Also a map called "Operation Metro" at E3 for the Rush game mode was announced. Then in July, certain people (like Yuri Kaslov) received codes to play the Alpha for the game and many people leaked videos of gameplay there and most of them were removed except for those that blanked out all names of the players there. Also an Open Beta was announced to take place in September. Owners of Medal of Honor: Limited Edition or Tier 1 Edition and those who preordered Battlefield 3 through Origin, get two days early access to the Open Beta in September. 70.30.55.73 (talk) 03:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)70.30.55.73 UTC 11:24 P.M.70.30.55.73 (talk) 03:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow ok. Well the beta is on there unless someones taken it down. Don't know why we'd need to name every newly announced mission or map, it's not the recommended practice on such pages. I'm not sure what you're saying about the alpha, that we should add that the videos were leaked and then taken down? Or that there was an alpha? Muskeato 12:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Well you named the "Fault Line" mission, didn't you. And you can say the Alpha for Battlefield 3 came out in July, which is rare since only QA Testers have access, but DICE was hoping that the public might do a better job. Also in the Alpha, most of the features were disabled, such as total destruction, so you can only blow up certain walls and part of buildings, and also you can rank up to a certain level before stopping. Some bugs were spotted, such as walking on water and awkward death animations.

I honestly don't understand why you think that they had an Alpha is notable. I'm aware most of the features were disabled or limited, but as you say, it was an alpha, so that's not unusual. Of course bugs were spotted, again that's part of it being an Alpha. Regarding the levels, I take it you mean they should be mentioned in the marketing section then? And 'I' didn't mention Fault Line, I didn't create the whole page. P.S, please indent your replies properly, it makes it much easier to read on the talk page. Thanks Muskeato 02:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

An Open Beta for BF3 is supposed to take place in September and MOH:LE or Tier 1 owners and those who pre-ordered BF3 through Origin get two days early access to the Open Beta before everyone else. You can use this info to replace the outdated "Owners of MOH:LE have access to the Closed Beta for BF3." And did I say a new single player trailer was shown at E3? Huh? Maybe you can add that to the "Singleplayer" section of BF3 and for "Multiplayer" you can add that like BC2, there are two factions in there, USMC and Spetsnaz, hey it's true, read the Battlefield Wiki. Also for "Limited Edition", you can list the offers many retailers will give you, like if you per-order from Best Buy, you get a code that gives you access to special BF3 SPECACT skins when they come out. You should figure out the rest.70.30.55.73 (talk) 01:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to quote to you from the page from BEFORE you even mentioned these suggestions. "The open beta is scheduled to start in September, 2011 on all platforms. 48 hour early access will be granted to those players that bought Medal of Honor: Tier 1 edition first-hand or that have pre-ordered Battlefield 3: Limited Edition on Origin.[21]" The beta information is already there, please stop saying it should be added. Trailers have been mentioned in the marketing section, which has a reference going to where all the official videos are. That is the correct place for mentioning that. Game wiki's aren't seen as reliable sources here. Hey don't blame me it's part of the rules. The different pre-order bonuses are mentioned, though which you can get from where isn't specific (besides the Origin stuff), though I would argue that isn't appropriate for an encyclopaedia. Muskeato 18:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for adding some of this to the page. But, you still should add the "Thunder Run" mission to the "Singleplayer" section, otherwise this turns into a riot.70.30.55.73 (talk) 00:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Is that a threat or a joke? Please, check other pages from the genre such as Modern Warfare 2. It is not the standard practice to list missions in FPSs. Muskeato 01:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

It's a joke, but why you write in "Marine Sgt. Miller" it doesn't make sense, I'm not saying write mission. I'm saying this how you should write it. "At E3 2011, another mission was introduced, called Thunder Run, introducing a new playable character, Jonathan "Jono" Miller. The mission takes place in (I forgot the name) desert. It showed how the graphical quality of the Frostbite engine is able to be excellent is huge areas." Whatever! How friggin' hard is it to add to the "Singleplayer" section, it's outdated, also change the goddamn "Multiplayer" section, there's a ton of shit confirmed for it. Just put a lot of new things, otherwise it might not be a joke....70.30.55.73 (talk) 00:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Well cheers for finally giving a proper suggestion of what to add, though you've proven yourself to be something of an idiot so I don't really feel like helping you out any more. Oh well. Muskeato 11:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

IDIOT? WTF! are you talking about? I show you something interesting I know that you don't know, type the tilda ( ~ ) 4 times and you won't have to write out the exact name and time anymore. And help me!? I don't need your help, goddamnit. I just want somebody who reads this to add something to Battlefield 3 and make it an awesome page before the game comes out, then we can make the page way more awesome. Also, it's not Marine Sgt. Miller, it's Jonathan "Jono" Miller, goddamnit how can they forget the full name.70.30.55.73 (talk) 00:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure you've shown me anything I didn't already know, my knowledge isn't summed up by this page - except for Miller's full name. That said, not everything I know about BF3 is suitable to go on the page. And I was willing to add some of what you suggested to the main page, which to me is helping you, but I guess our definitions differ. Wikipedia isn't meant to be awesome, it's meant to be encyclopaedic. And yeah, it did seem a bit idiotic to edit what I wrote here, and then to threaten some kind of 'riot'. I probably won't reply again because this doesn't look like it's going anywhere nice. Muskeato 12:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Here's something nice and you don't even have to reply to it. THE END!70.30.55.73 (talk) 00:50, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

2 GB of Hard disk?

The system requirements in the infobox says you need "2 GB of Hard disk". That doesn't make any sense. It should be "At least 15 GB of available Hard disk space". Jørgen88 (talk) 11:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I also like the part where it says you can use a radeon x1950, which is a DX9 card, then goes on to say you need a DX10 card. Whoever wrote those sys requirements was a moron. 79.70.80.55 (talk) 14:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

They likely based this information on the beta specs. These specs are taken from the Orgin store: http://store.origin.com/store/ea/html/pbPage.BF3_ps/ThemeID.718200 (you must click the "system requirements" link manually)

Minimum System Requirements
OS	Windows Vista (Service Pack 1) 32-bit
PROCESSOR	2 GHz Dual Core (Core 2 Duo 2.4 GHz or Athlon X2 2.7 GHz)
MEMORY	2 GB
HARD DRIVE	20 GB
GRAPHICS CARD (AMD)	DirectX 10.1 compatible with 512 MB RAM (ATI Radeon 3000, 4000, 5000 or 6000 series, with ATI Radeon 3870 or higher performance)
GRAPHICS CARD (NVIDIA)	DirectX 10.0 compatible with 512 MB RAM (NVIDIA GeForce 8, 9, 200, 300, 400 or 500 series with NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT or higher performance)
SOUND CARD	DirectX Compatible
KEYBOARD AND MOUSE	Any
DVD ROM DRIVE	Any
Recommended System Requirements
OS	Windows 7 64-bit
PROCESSOR	Quad-core CPU
MEMORY	4 GB
HARD DRIVE	20 GB
GRAPHICS CARD	DirectX 11 compatible with 1024 MB RAM (NVIDIA GeForce GTX 570 or ATI Radeon 6950)
SOUND CARD	DirectX Compatible
KEYBOARD AND MOUSE	Any
DVD ROM DRIVE	Any

71.35.174.6 (talk) 16:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Battlefield 3 will NOT allow you to browse dedicated servers on PC while retaining this ability on consoles

I wasn't sure which section to put it into or if the source is reliable so I'll raise it here first.

Full story: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/112468-PC-Battlefield-3-Lacks-Key-FPS-Feature

Meh. I'm inclined to wait for more definitive evidence before it goes on the page. Muskeato 08:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

WAKE UP!

At the Co-op section of Battlefield 3, one of you guys typed this incomplete phrase "GM Karl Magnus". Karl Magnus WHAT!? As I remember, his complete name is Karl Magnus Troedsson. So I'll say thanks to the person who fixes the incomplete name. THANK YOU! 64.228.212.75 (talk) 23:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

No need for the all caps there mate, but thanks for the heads up. Muskeato 00:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much Muskeato! 64.228.212.75 (talk) 01:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Bipods

LMGs aren't the only guns to utilize the new engine, what about sniper rifles!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.30.52.20 (talk) 03:19, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Y Fixed, thanks. –xeno^talk 19:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Operation Guillotine

New mission has been introduced, called Operation Guillotine. Just search it in YouTube and you'll see. You should probably add it to the Singleplayer section. 70.30.52.20 (talk) 02:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

There's no reason to name every mission on the page unless one is particularly notable Muskeato 10:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

When did I say you had to give the name of a mission? I just said for you to put in some info of a new mission being introduced that involves the main character heading to Tehran to attack an apartment complex. 70.30.52.20 (talk) 22:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Beta Date

Beta date at this website. --70.30.52.20 (talk) 22:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Grammar correction...

"It is a direct sequel to 2005's Battlefield 2, but the eleventh installment in the Battlefield franchise."

-Why but? There is no negation or negativity to BF3 being the the 11th game of the series.

-Replace ', but' with 'and'.

Ice3d (talk) 05:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Theme Music

Where did the theme music for Battlefield 3 in this article come from? As far as I can tell it is an unofficial fan creation, and should therefore be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tompie913 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I've removed it, after a second user reported the same. The song itself had no details filled in on it's page, other than claiming it was from Dice. ferret (talk) 12:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Anecdotal. Present proof of this claim before removing it again. --User:DiscipleOfKnowledge (talk) 15:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand how proof is necessary for it to be unofficial and removed, but proof is NOT required for it to be proclaimed as official. It should be removed on RS grounds if nothing else, which is why I mentioned the fact that the audio file details are missing and lacking. So you're saying I need to find an RS that states this clip is unofficial, rather than we need to find an RS that shows this clip is official? ferret (talk) 15:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

http://remobaldi.com/ Scroll down till you see the Battlefield stuff. It's the same song, and clearly a tribute. Regardless, Ferret is right, proof should be required to claim it as the official song, not the other way around. Muskeato 16:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

You think I did not know that the burden of proof rested with me? I was just testing to see whether you were an idiot. Congratulations, you passed the test. Now have a cookie. --User:DiscipleOfKnowledge (talk) 21:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

If you reverted the removal as a "test" that would potentially fall under vandalism or trolling. I'd suggest you consider not doing so in the future. ferret (talk) 01:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

You mad, bro? --User:DiscipleOfKnowledge (talk) 16:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Really? A cookie! Gee whiz mister! Maybe stop being an idiot and find a ball to play with. Muskeato 20:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Will NOT run on Windows XP, recommended system Windows 7 64 bit

Could someone please add that to the article as it is big news as 25 % of PC gamers are still using XP and as a matter of fact 99,9% of all games work on Windows XP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.150.22.137 (talk) 15:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The system requirements are on the page, which state the minimum requirement of Vista. If you think that there is controversy in regards to this game in particular, please point me to a valid source that indicates this. Muskeato 16:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, first of all most video game articles starts with the typical: "The game is set to be released on Microsoft Windows, PlayStation 3, Xbox 360" which means that PS3 and/or 360 owners have no worries if it will work, WINDOWS OS is however another story. Usually a game for Windows PC works with XP in 99,9% of the cases this one being an exceptional exception. While its somewhat stated in a WAY TOO SMALL TEXT on the main/first page, I feel that the text is TOO SMALL and users could EASILY MISS the CRITICAL INFO that it does NOT work with XP. Please change the intro to: The game is set to be released on Microsoft WINDOWS VISTA OS, PlayStation 3, Xbox 360" so it would be more obvious that its NOT for XP. For references regarding controversies see Steam windows downloads (25 % uses XP) also search for: Battlefield 3 will not work on XP (Its pretty obvious in the comments that this is a big deal in the PC gaming community) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.150.22.137 (talk) 02:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if this seems rude, but I'm gonna point out that anyone who plays on the PC should know to check the requirements either on the box or on the website/DD they're using to buy it. Anyway yeah I'll throw in a line saying xp isn't supported, though I didn't actually find much "controversy" around it, just people stating the fact. For future reference, all caps isn't needed, I can read. Muskeato 16:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the update on the main page! I appreciate it. Regarding the controversy or whatever one wanna call it, I think its a pretty big deal when 25% of PC gamers will miss out unless they install Windows 7 (Ok, Vista with SP2 will do it, not that I know anyone that runs Vista any longer). I mean how many PC games are really made for something else than Windows XP, except Halo 2, Just cause 2 and Battlefield 3? I mean lets be honest here almost everybody runs either Windows XP or WIN 7. Another factor to keep in mind is that while more and more games indeed support DX 11 these games have still supported the XP OS. So in short PC gamers takes it as granted that games will work on XP (With some extra eye candy if its run on WIN7) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.150.26.194 (talk) 11:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

music is wrong

main theme is some unofficial version — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.204.7.20 (talk) 04:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, this has been corrected. Muskeato 16:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

WHAT ABOUT SPYWARE?

EA is forcing gamers to install Origin. So it won't be possible to play BF3 on PC without installing a program which is basically spyware. It should be listed mandatory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.102.222.242 (talk) 20:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you even know what spyware means? First find out what spyware actually is before coming on here again. --User:DiscipleOfKnowledge (talk) 21:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

You mean difference that usual spyware is installed without user knowledge? Don't be so aggressive, it's not your court. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.102.222.242 (talk) 21:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I assume you were referring to this:EA Origin which has since been amended by EA. Oh, and sorry, I had a bad day. :)--User:DiscipleOfKnowledge (talk) 22:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Peace.;) Amended isn't a proper word I'm afraid. They've just redraft it, they did not say that they'd not collect our data, the only thing that's differ is that they claim they won't share it. Still, it should be listed that there's a BIG fly in the ointment. Just for sake of the gaming's future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.102.222.242 (talk) 00:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

It's mentioned within the article pertaining to EA Origin, so doesn't really belong in the BF3 article other than a basic note that the game requires Origin. This currently does not appear to be listed anywhere, but I will add it. ferret (talk) 01:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Possible Steam release? (rumor from major bf3 blog)

This is an unofficial blog and probably unreliable, so I'm not adding it to the article at this time: http://bf3blog.com/2011/10/report-ea-and-valve-in-late-stage-talks-to-get-battlefield-3-to-steam/

Just posting so others can keep an eye out for any further developements or better more reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferret99gt (talk • contribs) 01:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 7 October 2011: Official Site Link

Hi - could somebody please update the "Official Site" link to be "http://www.battlefield.com/battlefield3" , instead of "http://www.ea.com/battlefield3"? DICE now has a proper franchise URL set-up. Thanks!

The Lonely Grue (talk) 12:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Done — Bility (talk) 18:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Beta Closed

The beta and battlelog website are closed as of 10/10/2011. http://battlelog.battlefield.com/ http://www.gamepur.com/news/5689-dice-battlefield-3-beta-ended-all-platforms.html Aadams1278 (talk) 18:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Shouldnt the Norwegian EA controversy be mentioned in the article, ASAP?

According to PCgamer.com the most trusted review site in the world it should, because EA violates good faith:

"EA asks for reviewers gaming history pre-Battlefield reviews, calls it “a mistake”: (http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/10/19/ea-asks-for-reviewers-gaming-history/)

"Out in Norway, EA have admitted that sending out surveys that question reviewers’ history with the Battlefield and Call of Duty games is a mistake. And the outcry sheds a light on how publishers can predict how their games will score.

Reviewers in Norway, understandably, aren’t pleased.

EA’s apparent attempt to pull the strings on Norwegian Battlefield 3 reviews only has one of those things, but boy is it sketchy. Sure, the survey’s first question – a simple request for contact info – is about as cut-and-dry as can be, but sharper probes like “Is [your reviewer] a fan of Call of Duty?” and “Has he expressed enthusiasm for Battlefield 3?” make a mad dash toward eyebrow-raising territory. Reviewers, understandably, aren’t pleased.

According to Gameranx, the questionnaire found its way into the mailboxes of Press Fire/Dagbladet, Gamer.no, and Gamereactor in response to requests for review copies of the massively anticipated shooter. It asks the following questions:

   * Did the reviewer personally review BFBC2 or Black Ops?
   * What score did he give it?
   * What is his past experience with Battlefield?
   * Is he a fan of Battlefield?
   * Is he a fan of Call of Duty?
   * Has he been playing BF Franchise? BFBC2? 1943? BF2?
   * Has he expressed enthusiasm or concern for BF3? What are they?
   * Did he play the beta? Did he enjoy it / get frustrated with it?
   * What is his present view on the game?

Yeah.

In response to an upsurge of outcry from sites like NRK, EA Norway marketing manager Oliver Sveen released a statement.

“It is a human error that was sent out,” he said to Pressfire.no. “We have made a mistake and we apologize. It is not something that should have happened earlier or [that] we intend to continue.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.150.23.44 (talk) 22:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 24 October 2011

Hello, someone will do it eventually, if you haven't already gotten the request. I was going to write about the reception of Battlefield 3, saying it is scoring high reviews. IGN gave it a 9.0 and 1UP an A-

CarlosTheDon (talk) 10:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

This has been done, IGN and Joystiq reviews have been posted. -- Sleegi^[✆Talk] 17:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Soundtrack now available

Just wanted to point out there is now a soundtrack available for digital download on Amazon and iTunes, containing 19 tracks.

http://www.amazon.com/Battlefield-3/dp/B005U8D3R4

http://itunes.apple.com/gb/album/battlefield-3/id464379358

http://itunes.apple.com/us/album/battlefield-3-original-video/id471768685 General AUS (talk) 08:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

This is interesting, but I fail to see what significance this is towards the game. -- Sleegi^[✆Talk] 14:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Critical reception

Critical reception section seems a little biased. There are roughly 80 words describing praise and 140 describing negative aspects of the game. From a quotation perspective, 1 positive, 60 negative. Seems a little strange for a game that has garnered net positive review numbers. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.47.208.34 (talk) 20:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The section should be edited. It has recieved great reviews and the majority of descriptive words should not be negative.Millertime246 (talk) 20:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The Meta Critic score IMO should be removed as all reviews have not been counted on the site and so the score WILL change - it is NOT finalised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.167.74 (talk) 21:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree strongly about the bias. Since the game has received scores in the 90% range, it seems strange to spend more time talking about the negatives than the positives. 203.217.150.69 (talk) 03:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

MetaCritic & GameRankings scores need updates! — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrostAcolyte (talk • contribs) 09:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. -- Sleegi^[✆Talk] 03:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Torrent Trackers

Whether or running a torrent tracker is illegal is irrelevant and a disputed issue. I think the word should be removed. In any case the leak was a scene release and so was distributed by FTP server to begin with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.23.53.81 (talk) 07:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Removed. ferret (talk) 11:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Job description of LT Hawkins

Saying "Hawkins is an F-18 pilot" is factually incorrect, she's an F/A-18 NFO (Naval Flight Officer). Pilots don't sit in the back seat, and saying that makes this page look ridiculous from a Naval Aviation perspective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.147.249.190 (talk) 08:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, saying she was a pilot is inaccurate when she only sat in the gunner seat. I have edited this. -- Sleegi^[✆Talk] 14:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Archive Needed

This discussion page is getting rather big, and its time for this current page to be archived in my opnion. I would do it myself, but lack the knowledge of how to do so. -- Sleegi^[✆Talk] 03:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2