Looks like the Uncharted that I know and love. 
The lighting and textures do look weirdly bland in that video, especially in comparison to Uncharted 2 which looked absolutely spectacular in that regard. I suspect it's down to poor video compression more than anything — the 'Making Of' videos for UC2 had the same problem and made amazing scenes look much less detailed and refined — although presumably there's more polish to be applied to the game regardless.
Maybe it does, but that's largely because the level design imposes a certain style of play upon people. Larger and more open games like Battlefield can be absolute messes of gameplay, but if you do play with people who play the game strategically — and DICE employ various tricks to encourage this, not least the commander role — it's a far more satisfying tactical and strategic experience than Counter-Strike in my opinion.
I can't deny that Counter-Strike offers a good experience, but it becomes extremely tired very quickly once you've gotten used to a map because everyone does the same thing every time. I could practically play the two Dust levels in my sleep, literally pulling the trigger before someone appeared in a certain place and/or shooting them through surfaces because the game played in such a predictable way.
Eventually it got to the point where I and most other people knew every Counter-Strike map inside out, and matches became little more than going through the motions and whichever team had the fastest and most accurate twitch skills (usually me 
) won.
Whatever the case, arguing that the more tightly controlled style of Counter-Strike is superior to something seemingly more chaotic like Battlefield or Crysis is something I contest. And that's what the image was presumably trying to do. Both have their appeal, I wouldn't have invested countless hours into the fuckers if not. But I much prefer a game which gives you more freedom because with the right people it leads to deeper strategy, and am glad they've evolved as such. If people want to continue playing CS-style games that's fine with me. 
That image implies that heavily restricted playing areas in a multiplayer shooter is a good thing. As a huge fan of Battlefield — particularly its larger, more open maps — I can safely say that I don't think this is the case. Makes gameplay more interesting, more reliant on skill and adaptation rather than simply memorising the map, and it makes the game feel more dynamic as a whole. The further away I get from the theatre rehearsal gameplay of a typical Counter-Strike match the better IMo.
It does seem a strange decision to me to release the multiplayer demo before the single-player demo. Whereas with a single-player demo people can be introduced to the gameplay and controls smoothly and in a nice, controlled manner, with a multiplayer demo people are thrust into a (probably laggy) server with loads of other (probably laggy) gamers who don't have a god damn clue what they're doing. And not only that, because there's no real tuition of how to play the game effectively it just devolves into deathmatch.
First impressions count a lot, and I can't think of a worse way of introducing people to Crysis 2 than using its multiplayer. I'm sure a lot of time has been spent on the multiplayer, but there're a lot of people who're properly anticipating the game because of its epic story-orientated trailers and such who're going to probably try the multiplayer demo out of desperation and be left stone cold.
Not that it bothers me personally because I'm just holding off for the proper game, but I'm seeing the effects of what I've described left, right, and centre. Rather than enjoying the game for what it is, everyone is too busy complaining about server/registration problems and the inherently chaotic gameplay multiplayer brings — and any technical issues such as FOV and anti-aliasing are made even more conspicuous because there's no immersive story/scripting distracting people. 
At the end of the day we all know what we're gonna get from the multiplayer and we're all going to buy it unconditionally, so they might as well take the opportunity to show off some of their single-player stuff while we anxiously devour every piece of media released leading up to the inevitable multiplayer reveal.
DICE haven't done me wrong yet (although they made no secret of taking Bad Company in a slightly different direction which I wasn't particularly into), so I see no reason to worry. Every main PC Battlefield I've played has been absolutely exemplary.
I don't get the picture the guy posted in that thread. Is he trying to show that Crysis 2 looks much better than Crysis 1? Because that's what the picture seems to show (whereas in reality they're about equal graphically from what I can see).
I've no interest in Crysis 2 multiplayer and think it may compromise my enjoyment of having everything introduced to me by the single-player story so am anxiously awaiting a single-player release. That's what Crysis has always been about, anyway. 
Cool another Insurgency ripoff
?
I'm very surprised by this GameSpy integration considering that shit is surely a complete relic by now and has been made completely obsolete by Steam? Also Crysis 2 has been marketed quite a bit through Steam. Weird.
Some cool development videos:
The Technology Behind Battlefield 3
Not spotted any in-game footage though.
Also:
Don't worry Orpheus, I wasn't trying to say you're not allowed to have an opinion or anything like that. Anyone will tell you I'm a big believer in free speech and for all I care you can rip NYC to shreds. So long as it doesn't turn into personal attacks like JeanPaul demonstrated above it's all good.
However what I do like to preserve is people getting along on MapCore, and it was obvious your torrent of criticism against NYC wasn't really going down well in this thread — especially with it being some MapCore members' home — so I thought I'd try and explain how other people might see it before things got out of hand.
Tisky is going to visit NYC and is probably quite excited about it. He wanted to know if anyone else might be there so they can meet up or something, and then later on asked for any tips about what to see, etc. Everyone knows that any city has its bad parts so it wasn't really necessary for you to start going on about bums, prostitutes, congestion, seediness etc. I mean, what city doesn't have these things? It goes without saying that everywhere good has something bad. NYC has just as much to offer as it does to take away and huge numbers of people have excellent holidays there.
As a tourist it doesn't really bother you. I know Amsterdam has a massive sex operation going on and that places like Paris have sex slavery rings, but I'd probably still manage to have a good time... and I don't mean in that way. Like I say, as a tourist you don't have to worry about the day-to-day nastiness of a place and can happily stick to the tourism-friendly areas. If you're excited about going somewhere you generally don't appreciate someone trying to ruin your buzz by going on about its bad points.
I think it's fair enough to express your feelings Orpheus but really this isn't the thread for it. Tisky has expressed that he's going to be staying in NYC and is simply looking for some cool stuff to do there. I doubt he's interested in hearing about how the city sucks, is full of problems, and that he should go elsewhere. The fact is he's going to NYC.
I mean really, everything you've said could be levelled at any city in the world. Places like London and Rome have absolutely awful areas and are rife with crime, yet people go all year round because they still have a lot to offer a tourist who's not been to the country much if ever. When you're a tourist you get to not have to live with the shitty parts of a place, and can simply enjoy the good parts. That's why tourism is fun.
If you live somewhere you're always going to fail to see any appeal in the place you're so familiar with. I myself am from 'Robin Hood country' and literally have Sherwood Forest about 20 paces away from me as I type this, but to me the area and the city I live in (Nottingham) is completely commonplace and doesn't strike me as anything anyone would be particularly interested in seeing. Yet it does have some good museums, forest walks, art galleries, restaurants, castles, etc which all deliver a good experience for tourists.
Just accept people are going to visit the city and enjoy it, and maybe even do a little to help them get the most out of it rather than do your utmost to sour their grapes. 
I wonder how my ageing Q6600, 4870 1GB, and 4GB of RAM will fare. Will it play and look good or am I going to have to invest in more hardware?
I agree. I deem the quality of that post so poor that anyone is forbidden from responding to it.
Battlefield 2 wasn't the first to do it — and if we want to get really pedantic PlanetSide did it before Enemy Territory — but it certainly popularised it and was responsible for it becoming such an integral part of modern multiplayer. It was probably inevitable as the whole concept is lifted straight from RPGs, but Battlefield did it exceedingly well (particularly in BF2142) and was one of the most popular games to ever hit the PC platform.
Man. DICE's engine really is looking incredible. I agree about the lighting — probably the finest I've seen yet.
Still unclear how much single-player factors into everything, but I'm not worried about it having a negative effect on the quality of the multiplayer experience. DICE is far from a small studio and can easily handle both, and everything I've heard about BF3 indicates they're taking delivering the PC multiplayer we all want seriously.
I do hope we see more maps in beautiful locations like China and stuff like we did in BF2, rather than just the Middle East. Also I want the commander role back.
Yeah, but it's Battlefield. It pretty much kicked off the modern warfare craze yet has been brave enough to also do a World War 2 and sci-fi version since then too. It's allowed.
TBH this has immediately shot to the very top of my anticipation list. I mean, you just can't beat the true PC Battlefield formula — not even with Bad Company 2. No other game delivers anything like it and even when they try they don't do it nearly as well as Battlefield. The Original. The best.
I was also very pleased to hear the PC is the lead platform for BF3.
First proper gameplay footage*.
http://www.ea.com/battlefield3/videos/gameplay-debut
* Not very much of it. 
From the trailer it'd seem Prophet (your team leader in Crysis 1) was given a second version of the Nanosuit which was to be a vital part of fighting the looming alien threat — presumably improved after the events of Crysis which as this trailer reveals was an exercise to test how the suits would fare against the aliens.
But then Prophet did a runner with what I'm guessing is the only prototype of the new suit, and they want it back. For some reason Prophet needs to pass the suit on, and for some reason Alcatraz is his candidate of choice.
Quite why they don't just make more Nanosuit 2s I've no idea. 
Maybe the suit has some kind of special one-off capability that makes it critical for fighting the aliens, or maybe there's some kind of information stored in it. I dunno.
The aim of the trailer was to make it hit home how those you love becoming the murderous enemy would be rather distressing, never demonstrated more effectively than when your own daughter turns against you.
Clearly this hits some much more than others, and it's far from a new theme — most zombie movies involve such conflicts. The reason people like the trailer is because it takes a standard element of most zombie fiction and does it in quite an evocative manner. It is undeniably a novel way of presenting such a scene.
It's not perfect and I think the hype has brought out many people's natural resistance, but it's a nice little teaser. It's not like there won't be later trailers that show the proper gameplay some so desire.
