# Battlefield 3



## Commiecomrade (Sep 28, 2011)

There's an older thread but I'm dead scared of necroposting.

Let's continue the discussion now that the beta is going to be released tomorrow for players who didn't pre-order the game (pre-orders got it already on the 27th).


My opinion: I expected the same huge vehicle-driven open-ish strategic world that BF2 was. The trailers are not promising. It looks like CoD to me. Here's hoping we can get more awesome gameplay like in BF2.


----------



## Cain (Sep 28, 2011)

I'm just really pissed because I preordered BF3, ad yet the beta is not avaliable to the Middle East.


FFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUU-
well atleast I can look forward to my preorder of RAGE on the 5th!


----------



## Delta (Sep 29, 2011)

Im in the early beta and I have to say OP Metro does not do the game justice at all.
The LAV was taken out of the level so its strictly infantry based on rush mode, anything but a throw back to BF2.
The rumor is that they're going to open up Caspian Border when the regular beta drops which is....now, but its not been confirmed.

There's a lot of nifty unlocks and the game is beautiful, but as a beta its buggy and really not as fun as I was expecting it to be. I was preparing to skip classes today to play it.
Nope. Its literally not worth it. Dont get me wrong, its fun, but not class-skipping fun.
They've left much to be desired.


----------



## Cain (Sep 29, 2011)

Winds said:


> Im in the early beta and I have to say OP Metro does not do the game justice at all.
> The LAV was taken out of the level so its strictly infantry based on rush mode, anything but a throw back to BF2.
> The rumor is that they're going to open up Caspian Border when the regular beta drops which is....now, but its not been confirmed.
> 
> ...


Sounds the same as RO2's beta.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Sep 29, 2011)

That's because "beta" does not mean "demo" or "pre-release access" for the full game, yes, you are playing the game before it is released, but what you're playing in the beta is not reflective of the final product, at all. If there's stuff you hate, such as bugs, give the developers feedback. That's what this particular phase is _for._

Anyway, I looked into BF3 and I hear that it's mostly a BC2 copy-pasted console port piece of rubbish, and that's coming from some of the fans. I loved BF1942 and BF2 very much (1942 more so), but BC just wasn't that great at all. I was hoping for a sequel to the "main line" series, but it's just BC3 with a different name. Looking at BC1, BC2, and BC3, I feel the business plan is starting to smell an awful lot like CoD, and that has me worried. The lack of mod tools and the appearance of paid DLC doesn't help, either.


----------



## Cain (Sep 29, 2011)

Gibby said:


> That's because "beta" does not mean "demo" or "pre-release access" for the full game, yes, you are playing the game before it is released, but what you're playing in the beta is not reflective of the final product, at all. If there's stuff you hate, such as bugs, give the developers feedback. That's what this particular phase is _for._
> 
> Anyway, I looked into BF3 and I hear that it's mostly a BC2 copy-pasted console port piece of rubbish, and that's coming from some of the fans. I loved BF1942 and BF2 very much (1942 more so), but BC just wasn't that great at all. I was hoping for a sequel to the "main line" series, but it's just BC3 with a different name. Looking at BC1, BC2, and BC3, I feel the business plan is starting to smell an awful lot like CoD, and that has me worried. The lack of mod tools and the appearance of paid DLC doesn't help, either.


I still think it's shitloads better than COD and it's STUPID 'Call Of Duty Elite'. FUCK YOU ACTIVISION.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Sep 29, 2011)

Jagged Edge said:


> I still think it's shitloads better than COD and it's STUPID 'Call Of Duty Elite'. FUCK YOU ACTIVISION.



No doubt that it is better than CoD, but at this point I really won't be surprised if EA went the same way as CoD so they could be the direct competitor. Anyway, if I'm going to play a Battlefield game in the future, I will play BC2, which I got after a sale sometime way back when. I didn't like it very much, but BF3 isn't that much different so I hear, so there's no point in buying the new version. It's going to be a disappointment to me, like how Dead Island was so very much alike to Borderlands. I already owned borderlands, so I was basically buying the same game again, just one that looks and feels different, but at least I _liked_ Borderlands and Dead Island. I don't like any new Battlefield or CoD game, so I'm only going to expect the same shit in the latest installment. 

To me, it's like Justin Beiber doing multiple versions of the exact same bloody song, when he could try doing something MUCH different to see if he could impress me with something new and improved and rightfully earn my respect. In the case of these games, we're being told how OMG SO DIFFERENT it is to the last installment in the series, only to buy the game and be vastly disappointed by the fact that it's very very similar to the last, and has little difference. We all end up buying the games and then the developers are like "lol this works, lets do it again next year." Don't forget you have to buy the game before you can decide on anything, and as far as the devs are concerned, it's worked just fine. Now don't forget, Justin Bieber has MILLIONS of views and mentions on youtube, but only small retarded children like him, and a damned awful lot of the viewers are actually the haters who came in to see what he's like out of pure curiosity. They hate him, add +1 view each, and leave. As far as Bieber is concerned, his fame is spreading, but for all the wrong reasons. But does he know? Does he care?


----------



## Cain (Sep 30, 2011)

Wow.
I've managed to get the beta (somehow) and after playing it...

It's amazing, the graphics, sound, etc.
It's actually, I'd say, more realistic that BC2/BF2, and everything else. There are quite a lot of bugs, being a beta, but it's still quite enjoyable. 
Get the beta gibby so we can play together


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Sep 30, 2011)

Jagged Edge said:


> Wow.
> I've managed to get the beta (somehow) and after playing it...
> 
> It's amazing, the graphics, sound, etc.
> ...



I appreciate the invite but after everything I've heard and seen about it. The graphics are actually not that great (they don't even look too different to MW), the guns sound seem very unsatisfactory and fake for a WAR GAME, shotguns are useless, recoil is nearly nonexistant, the gameplay is nothing new, and the game has no future potential like BF2, 2142, and 1942 had due to having no mod tools. 

The ever-original groundbreaking addition of the modern warfare setting where you get to play as a US marine, the inclusion of a prone function, and the whopping 64-player servers don't sway me either. Everything core gameplay feature found in BF3 was present in 1942 and is now being marketed as "new" despite being watered down and being very much alike to MW in terms of feel. This entire game is a step BACKWARDS from innovation and advancement, not forwards. The game could come with cake and a blowjob and I still won't be interested in getting it. 

Here's something from the EA CEO:



> "This November, we're launching Battlefield 3. It's going up against the next Call of Duty, which is presently the number one game in the game industry," he said. "A game that last year did $400 million dollars in revenue on day one. [Battlefield 3] is designed to take that game down."



Great. Because we all know the most memorable games are born when publishers push devs to top other devs, and not when a game is an original creation driven by love and the desire to make a dream into a reality. This just looks like another BC game than a fresh start for the BF series. When you're gunning for the biggest number of 13 year-olds and console fans, how finesse'd can this be?


----------



## Cain (Sep 30, 2011)

Gibby said:


> I appreciate the invite but after everything I've heard and seen about it. The graphics are actually not that great (they don't even look too different to MW), the guns sound seem very unsatisfactory and fake for a WAR GAME, shotguns are useless, recoil is nearly nonexistant, the gameplay is nothing new, and the game has no future potential like BF2, 2142, and 1942 had due to having no mod tools.
> 
> The ever-original groundbreaking addition of the modern warfare setting where you get to play as a US marine, the inclusion of a prone function, and the whopping 64-player servers don't sway me either. Everything core gameplay feature found in BF3 was present in 1942 and is now being marketed as "new" despite being watered down and being very much alike to MW in terms of feel. This entire game is a step BACKWARDS from innovation and advancement, not forwards. The game could come with cake and a blowjob and I still won't be interested in getting it.
> 
> Here's something from the EA CEO:


 "This November, we're launching Battlefield 3. It's going up against the next Call of Duty, which is presently the number one game in the game industry," he said. "A game that last year did $400 million dollars in revenue on day one. [Battlefield 3] is designed to take that game down." 





> Great. Because we all know the most memorable games are born when publishers push devs to top other devs, and not when a game is an original creation driven by love and the desire to make a dream into a reality. This just looks like another BC game than a fresh start for the BF series. When you're gunning for the biggest number of 13 year-olds and console fans, how finesse'd can this be?


You'd have to play it to understand :V


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Sep 30, 2011)

Jagged Edge said:


> You'd have to play it to understand :V



I did. It was called Bad Company.


----------



## Sarcastic Coffeecup (Sep 30, 2011)

Ultra graphics my ass. It just has nice textures, and tbh, from that screencap the graphics look like CoD MW.


----------



## Cain (Sep 30, 2011)

Gibby said:


> I did. It was called Bad Company.


Tbh, it's quite a different experience (in my opinion ^_^) from the BC series.



Sarcastic Coffeecup said:


> Ultra graphics my ass. It just has nice textures, and tbh, from that screencap the graphics look like CoD MW.


You want to see some of -my- screenies?


----------



## Onnes (Sep 30, 2011)

Gibby said:


> I appreciate the invite but after everything I've heard and seen about it. The graphics are actually not that great (they don't even look too different to MW), the guns sound seem very unsatisfactory and fake for a WAR GAME, shotguns are useless, recoil is nearly nonexistant, the gameplay is nothing new, and the game has no future potential like BF2, 2142, and 1942 had due to having no mod tools.



So instead of actually playing Battlefield 3, you're just going to let others shape your opinions on it? Then again, it sounds like you are already so dead set against it that you would be unable to find any joy in playing, no matter what the game was actually like.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Sep 30, 2011)

Onnes said:


> So instead of actually playing Battlefield 3, you're just going to let others shape your opinions on it? Then again, it sounds like you are already so dead set against it that you would be unable to find any joy in playing, no matter what the game was actually like.



Playing it is one thing. Paying full-price for it is another thing.

Edit: If I were playing it, I'd likely be entertained, but why should I shell out $60 for it? I've paid a lot less than that for games that actually felt very different to other games I've played, and therefore found my purchase worthwhile! I'd probably _like_ the newer Call of Duty games if it weren't for the utterly ridiculous business model behind it. The older BF games actually did have real improvements and changes in sequence, and I thought they were really worthwhile. Ever since Bad Company, not much has changed aside from the adjustment of existing bells and whistles, or adding some things from the older games. If this game were, say, $5-10 (or rather, Â£), I'd happily give it a go! To me, it's all down to value. I buy games that have large amounts of improvements and new features or just innovativity/originality. If anything appears to not include that, I will not pay the retail price.


----------



## Onnes (Sep 30, 2011)

Gibby said:


> Playing it is one thing. Paying full-price for it is another thing.



Beta is open to everyone now, not just pre-orders. It's basically just a demo, except with numerous game killing bugs.


----------



## Kranda (Sep 30, 2011)

Onnes said:


> Beta is open to everyone now, not just pre-orders. It's basically just a demo, except with numerous game killing bugs.



Like falling through the world? I really like the recon class and the shotgun is cool to use when you have a sprint slecilization on. It's one hit kill up close.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Sep 30, 2011)

Onnes said:


> Beta is open to everyone now, not just pre-orders. It's basically just a demo, except with numerous game killing bugs.



Read my updated answer btw.

And that's great to hear, at least. But to be honest, I quite rarely play the beta versions of games - I'd rather try something out that fully reflects the quality of what I'm paying for, rather than a version that has large amounts of unfinished code. "Beta version" does not mean "early access", after all. I may or may not take a look.


----------



## Cain (Sep 30, 2011)

Kranda said:


> Like falling through the world? I really like the recon class and the shotgun is cool to use when you have a sprint slecilization on. It's one hit kill up close.


Oh I just -hate- that glitch. It seems to only happen on some servers, though, and only on the first two M-COMS, and in the craters that you find near the M-COMS.

I'm really liking the unlocking style, and all that. DICE weren't joking when they said they would take the weapon customization  to a whole new level.

I haven't really seen much of the destruction capabilities of Frostbite 2, but the audio the engine produces is just amazing. Multi-directional fire, bullets/rockets whooshing over your head, it really does immerse yourself in the game.

One thing I do find annoying, is that nearly everyone uses the flashlight attachment. It actually doesn't do much, and gives away your position, rather than blind an enemy. Although it does work close-quarters. Using the M9 Tactical as my side-arm, it's flashlight does wonders when I'm close-quarters and ran out of ammo/cba to use my primary. And the knifing aspect is just -so- fun/funny. Watching players (myself included) run after an enemy with your knife out makes you laugh.


----------



## Cain (Sep 30, 2011)

Some screenies.

Note, these are only from the 1st group of M-COMS. There's an underground section, and another above-ground section.













Resolution: 1680-1050, Graphics settings on Ultra.


----------



## Aetius (Sep 30, 2011)

That looks sexy.


----------



## Sarcastic Coffeecup (Sep 30, 2011)

Still looks like just a bit updated graphics from MW.


----------



## Delta (Sep 30, 2011)

Gibby said:


> That's because "beta" does not mean "demo" or "pre-release access" for the full game, yes, you are playing the game before it is released, but what you're playing in the beta is not reflective of the final product, at all. If there's stuff you hate, such as bugs, give the developers feedback. That's what this particular phase is _for._
> 
> Anyway, I looked into BF3 and I hear that it's mostly a BC2 copy-pasted console port piece of rubbish, and that's coming from some of the fans. I loved BF1942 and BF2 very much (1942 more so), but BC just wasn't that great at all. I was hoping for a sequel to the "main line" series, but it's just BC3 with a different name. Looking at BC1, BC2, and BC3, I feel the business plan is starting to smell an awful lot like CoD, and that has me worried. The lack of mod tools and the appearance of paid DLC doesn't help, either.



I know its not a demo, I expected bugs that's why I said *"As a beta, its buggy..." *I was still expecting it to be a little more fun than it is. A lot of people were. Despite that its an enjoyable play, the bugs seem to fall on elements that have recently been added, so its more than understandable. In a way you can say this is the Alpha for the updates they did.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Sep 30, 2011)

Winds said:


> I know its not a demo, I expected bugs that's why I said *"As a beta, its buggy..." *I was still expecting it to be a little more fun than it is. A lot of people were. Despite that its an enjoyable play, the bugs seem to fall on elements that have recently been added, so its more than understandable. In a way you can say this is the Alpha for the updates they did.



Well herp my derps.


----------



## Cain (Sep 30, 2011)

...
COD4 is like turd on a stick, graphics wise, compared to BF3.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Sep 30, 2011)

The Cod 4 screen has ever-so-slightly blurry textures and much less bloom. Not much difference, I say.


----------



## Cain (Sep 30, 2011)

Gibby said:


> The Cod 4 screen has ever-so-slightly blurry textures and much less bloom. Not much difference, I say.


BLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!


----------



## Sarcastic Coffeecup (Oct 1, 2011)

I am disappointed about the fact that it still looks like MW games with bloom on.
So doesn't that make it BC graphics?


----------



## Scotty1700 (Oct 1, 2011)

Did you guys really just compare CoD 4 with BF3? Of course the newer game's gonna have better graphics, they're 4 years apart ffs. This should do more justice.

http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/188/bf32011093020065365.png


http://www.callofduty.com/mw3/img/images/mw3-image-2011-015.jpg



BF3 seems too bright imo, and MW3 looks more detailed. Not to say BF3 won't be a great game but I think MW3 has it beat graphics wise and based on the type of gameplay I prefer CoD more. I'll end it at that. 
/derail


----------



## Shark_the_raptor (Oct 1, 2011)

BF3 looks more "polished".


----------



## Cain (Oct 2, 2011)

Scotty1700 said:


> Did you guys really just compare CoD 4 with BF3? Of course the newer game's gonna have better graphics, they're 4 years apart ffs. This should do more justice.
> 
> http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/188/bf32011093020065365.png
> 
> ...


Well firstly, that is the most boring part of Metro. I'd find the screenshots I took of the underground elements, but they've disappeared. But I do promise you, BF3 has way more in the Graphics department than MW3. And the huge-scaled maps... Hot damn!


----------



## Flatline (Oct 2, 2011)

You're _still_ arguing about the graphics? What is this, 5th grade?

Come on, guys.


----------



## Aetius (Oct 2, 2011)

Im sorry, but if I really wanted to play Modern Warfare 3, I would play Modern Warfare 1.

BF3 has alot more innovation.


----------



## CynicalCirno (Oct 2, 2011)

Error code 1 trying to launch the game... Nice move by Origin.

I fell in love with this game after I've seen alpha and the gameplay trailers, but now?


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Oct 2, 2011)

Crusader Mike said:


> BF3 has alot more innovation.



Which is to say "more than MW3, but in the scope of games as a whole, not much at all."


----------



## Cain (Oct 2, 2011)

Satellite One said:


> Error code 1 trying to launch the game... Nice move by Origin.
> 
> I fell in love with this game after I've seen alpha and the gameplay trailers, but now?


I've managed to get around this. Log onto the battlelog direct from your browser, and go from there.


----------



## CynicalCirno (Oct 2, 2011)

Jagged Edge said:


> I've managed to get around this. Log onto the battlelog direct from your browser, and go from there.


That's the only thing I did... This game doesn't really support left hand players as well, since so many buttons are set to be chat buttons and can't be reconfigured.

Maybe it's the area.


----------



## Cain (Oct 2, 2011)

Satellite One said:


> That's the only thing I did... This game doesn't really support left hand players as well, since so many buttons are set to be chat buttons and can't be reconfigured.
> 
> Maybe it's the area.


Well if you really are in Israel, I doubt you'd be having problems if I can get on here in the UAE...


----------



## Delta (Oct 2, 2011)

Satellite One said:


> That's the only thing I did... This game doesn't really support left hand players as well, since so many buttons are set to be chat buttons and can't be reconfigured.
> 
> Maybe it's the *BETA*.



All of this stuff has been addressed, a lot of features have been turned off or not implemented into the beta.


----------



## FoxKit (Oct 2, 2011)

Hey guys. n.n
I don't... Play a lot of shooters, 'cause I'm not very competitive or anything. Still, I'm quite enjoying what I've played of the beta so far, but for the fact that I don't have anyone to play with. Has anyone thought about making a platoon yet? I'm having trouble finding any furry clans playing on the ps3. :/


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Oct 2, 2011)

FoxKit said:


> Hey guys. n.n
> I don't... Play a lot of shooters, 'cause I'm not very competitive or anything. Still, I'm quite enjoying what I've played of the beta so far, but for the fact that I don't have anyone to play with. Has anyone thought about making a platoon yet? I'm having trouble finding any furry clans playing on the ps3. :/



Pro tip: Don't ever mix with people just because they're furry. Furry should never have to be a requirement for anything!


----------



## FoxKit (Oct 2, 2011)

Gibby said:


> Pro tip: Don't ever mix with people just because they're furry. Furry should never have to be a requirement for anything!



It isn't a requirement. They just tend to be nicer to me than the average FPS player I've met. =.=
In very general terms.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Oct 2, 2011)

FoxKit said:


> It isn't a requirement. They just tend to be nicer to me than the average FPS player I've met. =.=
> In very general terms.



Well, furries who are often so sickeningly super-sweet to those who they just meet are probably the ones you'd best avoid (in general terms), trust me on that one. I gotta warn you though, the furries in FAF are more often than not rather crass to the newcomers, which is how we filter out those aforementioned "Yiffeh time, woof woof =^.^=" types. 

Welcome, anyway!


----------



## DW_ (Oct 2, 2011)

FoxKit said:


> It isn't a requirement. *They just tend to be nicer to me than the average FPS player I've met. =.=*
> In very general terms.



Bolded is actually very valid. A lot of your typical online FPS players tend to downtalk anyone with a lower K/DR or killcount than them. Never mind the fact that they're GAMES and those numbers don't _really_ matter...


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Oct 2, 2011)

TheDW said:


> Bolded is actually very valid. A lot of your typical online FPS players tend to downtalk anyone with a lower K/DR or killcount than them. Never mind the fact that they're GAMES and those numbers don't _really_ matter...



That's why I prefer to play games like Killing Floor with just friends. They _are_ games after all, and the purpose of games is to have fun, but in the casual military FPS market, everyone seems to have forgotten that.


----------



## DW_ (Oct 2, 2011)

Gibby said:


> That's why I prefer to play games like Killing Floor with just friends. They _are_ games after all, and the purpose of games is to have fun, but in the casual military FPS market, everyone seems to have forgotten that.



It's also one of the many reasons I gave up the F2Ps like Combat Arms besides their rampant hacker problems. I'd settle for a good old Unreal match with friends over the PSN or what have you any day. Hell, Ol' Faithful Battlefront 2 is great to play with friends too!

Though I have to say BF3 looks great, and knowing DICE, the beta is most certainly not representative of the final game. This should lure some prepubescent CoD junkies out from their rage harems and force them to use teamwork rather than go "LOLSOLO I GOT 1337 KILLS 0 DEATHS YOU ALL SUCK!!!11!!1!!" Besides, Battlefield is actually more fun imo.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Oct 3, 2011)

Click here for a major turn-off.


----------



## Cain (Oct 3, 2011)

Gibby said:


> Click here for a major turn-off.


Actually, I agree with this.
100 Players on a map made for 32? No. Just... No.
If EA aren't strict on this, it could turn into the travesty of mods that unlock everything on MW2 servers.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Oct 3, 2011)

Jagged Edge said:


> Actually, I agree with this.
> 100 Players on a map made for 32? No. Just... No.
> If EA aren't strict on this, it could turn into the travesty of mods that unlock everything on MW2 servers.



But don't forget that the server owners are paying out the arse to run a server that supports 100 players and adds to the fun by putting the game forwards in its potential with modded servers, and EA are not allowing them to do so. Very different from the "modded" servers in MW2, which were more of a cheat than anything else.


----------



## Cain (Oct 3, 2011)

Gibby said:


> But don't forget that the server owners are paying out the arse to run a server that supports 100 players and adds to the fun by putting the game forwards in its potential with modded servers, and EA are not allowing them to do so. Very different from the "modded" servers in MW2, which were more of a cheat than anything else.


I still doubt a 100 player server would be very fun. 
Meh.


----------



## Bambi (Oct 6, 2011)

Love the beta.

Can't wait to get this for the XBox 360. I <3 operation Metro's underground section. 

Also got some gameplay videos up, too.


----------



## Stormtail (Oct 7, 2011)

My copy is officially reserved!


----------



## Cain (Oct 7, 2011)

Been playing the beta for a while now, and most of the bugs have been fixed, which is really quite good. The neat thing is that they've opened up public Caspian Border servers, but they're really laggy due to stress-testing, so I mainly stay on Metro.

I spent ages as the support class, waiting to unlock the M223 (?) Mortar, and when I finally did: "Not Avaliable in Beta"... FFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU- But I do understand why they didn't include the mortar in the beta, because it's a completely different aspect of the game, and would be better left hidden ;D.

But I rarely see players take use in the fire-select. I use it quite often, usually as Assault or Engineer, where I switch frequently between single-shot and fully-auto, for long-medium range and short-medium range, respectively. Although subtle, can really work for you, once you get the motion of Single shot, kill long range around the M-COM, run in, switch to auto, hose anyone still around the M-COM, arm the M-COM, retreat, and switch between auto and single for targets converging on the M-COM. It is hilarious when you see someone trying to take out another cross-map fully auto, not even firing in bursts.

Anyways, I'm loving the game, and can't wait for the full release.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Oct 7, 2011)

Jagged Edge said:


> I spent ages as the support class, waiting to unlock the M223 (?) Mortar, and when I finally did: "Not Avaliable in Beta"... FFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU- But I do understand why they didn't include the mortar in the beta, because it's a completely different aspect of the game, and would be better left hidden ;D.



It'd actually be a lot better if it was left in, so it could actually be _tested._


----------



## Sarcastic Coffeecup (Oct 7, 2011)

Gibby said:


> It'd actually be a lot better if it was left in, so it could actually be _tested._


Maybe they'll unlock it for everyone later. Just like Bayonets in RO2


----------



## Cain (Oct 7, 2011)

Gibby said:


> It'd actually be a lot better if it was left in, so it could actually be _tested._


Meh, some other things aren't avaliable in the beta, like co-op, campaign, as well as some more multiplayer weapons. I don't know why they've left them out, the weapons I mean.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Oct 7, 2011)

Jagged Edge said:


> Meh, some other things aren't avaliable in the beta, like co-op, campaign, as well as some more multiplayer weapons. I don't know why they've left them out, the weapons I mean.



The thing that annoys me here is the fact that they don't seem to know if they want to make a Beta or a demo version. :/ I can understand them leaving out the campaign, but not multiplayer gamemodes. If they added certain weapons into the beta later on, that'd be fair enough, but no leaving them out of the whole thing. ._. What's the point in calling it a beta if you're not gonna bother to test some more of the core stuff?


----------



## Onnes (Oct 7, 2011)

The beta is pretty explicitly focused on the technical side of the game. In particular, they are testing the new server browser and stat tracking system. Given this focus, they don't have any reason to expose all of the game's features during the test. Developers prefer to reserve the bulk of gameplay for paying customers.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Oct 7, 2011)

Onnes said:


> The beta is pretty explicitly focused on the technical side of the game. In particular, they are testing the new server browser and stat tracking system. Given this focus, they don't have any reason to expose all of the game's features during the test. Developers prefer to reserve the bulk of gameplay for paying customers.



But what is important is testing those features. It'd be pretty embarassing for them to be hiding something during the beta, and then everyone can see on release that that feature is a buggy piece of mess.


----------



## Onnes (Oct 7, 2011)

Gibby said:


> But what is important is testing those features. It'd be pretty embarassing for them to be hiding something during the beta, and then everyone can see on release that that feature is a buggy piece of mess.



Obviously EA has a large QA team working on this title, along with more exclusive groups of unpaid testers. Stress tests are about hunting down bugs in systems like the server browser and dealing with rare hardware related issues that cannot be covered by a small base of testers. Games that make all of their features available prior to release through a beta are very much the exception and not the rule.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Oct 7, 2011)

Onnes said:


> Obviously EA has a large QA team working on this title, along with more exclusive groups of unpaid testers. Stress tests are about hunting down bugs in systems like the server browser and dealing with rare hardware related issues that cannot be covered by a small base of testers. Games that make all of their features available prior to release through a beta are very much the exception and not the rule.



If that was really the case, they wouldn't have done a public beta like this. EA has been around for years and years and in all this time they've had perfectly fine multiplayer games without external betas. In the case of BF3, they actually _sold_ the idea of early access. I miss the days when people didn't have to pay for demos and demos were used as a wonderful "try before you buy" thing that everyone found quite agreeable. I know the beta is free now, but they baited loads of people in beforehand, so the whole thing is a scam, really. In the old days, there'd just be a "demo" version of a game with no bullshit included. Back then, they actually knew how to make games and test them properly before letting the public get their hands on it, now in lots of game firms - not just EA - are pretty much selling these demo versions.


----------



## Horro (Oct 7, 2011)

I played the open beta on PS3 when it came out and it was so awesome. I even went and picked up a copy of Bad Company 2. After playing hours on end of Bad Company, I realized how much better it was than the Battlefield 3 beta. Of course it's only a beta so you can't judge everything as final but I didn't find it as fun.


----------



## Bambi (Oct 7, 2011)

FFFFFFFFF  I love the sound design in Battlefield 3. Is it wrong of me to say how much it feels and hears like a war documentary? Not exactly the most ethical thing to be pining for, but the dedication to realism is what makes the HDR-sounds in this game tits.


----------



## FF_CCSa1F (Oct 9, 2011)

Am I the only person in the whole world who things the Battlefield 3 so-called beta (I'd rather call it an alpha.) is absolutely horrible in almost every way imaginable? As someone sad enough to have spent almost 3000 hours of his life playing ranked Battlefield 2, I can't help but feel like they just took Bad Company 2 (which also is a rather horrible game, mind you) and everything they got wrong in Battlefield 2, mixed them up and called it something new.

The graphics are a horrible, low-saturation, high-contrast, high-HDR, two-colour mess. The performance on anything less than a very high end computer is horrific, considering how the game looks and behaves. The vehicle upgrade system is ridiculous. The scoring system is horrible, and you get so many little rewards along the way that ranking up loses significance. The vehicles are nowhere near as fun to drive as those in earlier Battlefield games. It is not a proper PC game. I could go on typing this all night.

Surely, I can't be the only one who feels this way.


----------



## Kryn (Oct 9, 2011)

Yeah looks like you are. I played about 400 hours of BF2, never played any of the console only versions. I thought BC2 was alright but limited by consoles. And I think BF3 is pretty fucking awesome. I run the game maxed out with 50+fps so performance is no issue to me. Honestly I think its a good blend of all the PC features like prone and 64 players combined with some console stuff for accessibility. Honestly I think it's a good blend and is simply fun to play. You're just looking to far into the details.

And whats wrong with the scoring system? Its about the same as all the past games, just lots and lots of ribbons lol.

The only real complaint I have right now is not being able to pick your squad and playing with your friends, but that's already been confirmed to be fixed for release.


----------



## FF_CCSa1F (Oct 9, 2011)

You're missing one of the most crucial points that I'm trying to make: Battlefield 3, the successor to Battlefield 2, should not be a "good blend". It should be a pure-breed. The fact that its pedigree _isn't_ Battlefield 2, but rather Battlefield Bad Company 2, a game and game engine designed with consoles in mind, is showing. It is but a console game with some "PC features" tacked onto it, half of which we haven't even seen yet.

Regarding the scoring system, there simply is too much of it. You shouldn't get extra points for ribbons and medals, it's redundant. You're given more points for earning points, and I just find that to remove some of the "soul" of the game; you don't fight to get a medal because you really want it, you fight to get it because of the _totally sweet_ 20 000 point bonus that's attached to it.

TL;DR: BF3 is a console shooter with no soul.


----------



## Scotty1700 (Oct 9, 2011)

FF_CCSa1F said:


> Am I the only person in the whole world who things the Battlefield 3 so-called beta (I'd rather call it an alpha.) is absolutely horrible in almost every way imaginable? As someone sad enough to have spent almost 3000 hours of his life playing ranked Battlefield 2, I can't help but feel like they just took Bad Company 2 (which also is a rather horrible game, mind you) and everything they got wrong in Battlefield 2, mixed them up and called it something new.
> 
> The graphics are a horrible, low-saturation, high-contrast, high-HDR, two-colour mess. The performance on anything less than a very high end computer is horrific, considering how the game looks and behaves. The vehicle upgrade system is ridiculous. The scoring system is horrible, and you get so many little rewards along the way that ranking up loses significance. The vehicles are nowhere near as fun to drive as those in earlier Battlefield games. It is not a proper PC game. I could go on typing this all night.
> 
> Surely, I can't be the only one who feels this way.



I hear ya there. Literally the only thing that had me excited about BF3 was the fact that you can have no optics on Sniper rifles.....my money's on MW3 for sure as I'm a diehard cod fan.


----------



## Cain (Oct 9, 2011)

Kryn said:


> Yeah looks like you are. I played about 400 hours of BF2, never played any of the console only versions. I thought BC2 was alright but limited by consoles. And I think BF3 is pretty fucking awesome. I run the game maxed out with 50+fps so performance is no issue to me. Honestly I think its a good blend of all the PC features like prone and 64 players combined with some console stuff for accessibility. Honestly I think it's a good blend and is simply fun to play. You're just looking to far into the details.
> 
> And whats wrong with the scoring system? Its about the same as all the past games, just lots and lots of ribbons lol.
> 
> The only real complaint I have right now is not being able to pick your squad and playing with your friends, but that's already been confirmed to be fixed for release.


I agree with this.
FF-whatever your name is, the scoring system is great, you get points for just playing a rush round, but you get more for winning it, for all the other ribbons, etc. They're rewarding your gameplay, and tbh I don't think many people focus on getting bonus points, that'd seem quite redundant tbh.


----------



## FF_CCSa1F (Oct 10, 2011)

Jagged Edge said:


> I agree with this.
> FF-whatever your name is, the scoring system is great, you get points for just playing a rush round, but you get more for winning it, for all the other ribbons, etc. They're rewarding your gameplay, and tbh I don't think many people focus on getting bonus points, that'd seem quite redundant tbh.



I wouldn't be whining if it was only that. Being rewarded with points for winning a round is fine in my book, BF2 too had that implemented. My problem is that you get extra points for virtually _everything_ you do. My opinion is that awards most definitely should not be tied to receiving extra score in any way, they should rely on your want for them to feel worthwhile.


----------



## Unsilenced (Oct 10, 2011)

At one point this was one of those games that I was just going to buy no matter what, but now I'm not so sure. Part of it is that I'm playing video games less in general, but this game especially just... doesn't really get my attention I guess. 

I liked BC2, even though it had a completely forgettable campaign (that had absolutely nothing to do at all with the idea of Bad Company.) The ability to destroy buildings completely provided a huge tactical shift from the original Bad Company since it meant that any insufficiently aggressive defense would get literally buried by mortars and grenades if they failed to clear them out. The classes were balanced and I spent a good deal of time with each of them, eventually getting all the unlocks. Teamwork was rewarded, but not at the exclusion of those who wanted to go lone wolf. 

Now BF2 (god I hate the numbering in this series) was a game I never really got into. I got it at the same time I got BF2142 (computer camp where we learned to mod the games) and never really liked it as much. Wasn't much good at either though, and my career kdr never did go above 1. 

...

Captured points like a champ though in 2142. Drop pods FTW. 

Anyways, maybe I'm judging to soon, but BF3 doesn't look like it adds much. Better graphics maybe... though if I got it it'd probably have to be for the 360 so no eye-melting visuals for me. 

I get that they're trying really hard to beat Call of Duty, but that's kind of the thing. CoD is trying to be a good* game. The fact that they're openly trying to beat CoD on CoD's home turf means they've made themselves the Pepsi of military shooters. They can be better all day long, but being Pepsi means they always lose. 


/uninformedopinions

*in terms of sales at the very least.


----------



## DexDoggy (Oct 10, 2011)

I remember reading somewhere on the official twitter that there were graphic restrictions in the beta. One can only hope.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Oct 10, 2011)

DexDoggy said:


> I remember reading somewhere on the official twitter that there were graphic restrictions in the beta.



Hahahahaha

I hope this is a joke.


----------



## DexDoggy (Oct 10, 2011)

Gibby said:


> Hahahahaha
> 
> I hope this is a joke.



Personally, I could care less. The graphics were good enough for me. But something seemed iffy about the fact that there was very little difference between high and ultra settings. I didn't notice any better textures, just some lighting.


----------



## Onnes (Oct 10, 2011)

Gibby said:


> Hahahahaha
> 
> I hope this is a joke.



DICE has stated that the Ultra graphics setting isn't implemented in the beta, which I assume means that the highest resolution textures aren't installed.


----------



## kylr23 (Oct 10, 2011)

I sort of wished I could play the game with out playing it in a lame small window. I can barly play or afford to upgrade/rebuild a pc at the time so Im sticking to bc2 for now. But the game is awsome form what I played despite my minor set back. Its like bf2 and badcompany 2 mixedtogether and it is good. Perosnaly I love rush mode the pace, and the sheer amount of stradegy you need to put itno it is enough to make me fall inlove.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Oct 11, 2011)

Onnes said:


> DICE has stated that the Ultra graphics setting isn't implemented in the beta, which I assume means that the highest resolution textures aren't installed.



But that kind of defeats the point of beta testing, does it not? One of the key things in a beta test is seeing how well the game performs on different settings on different systems.


----------



## Sarcastic Coffeecup (Oct 11, 2011)

Gibby said:


> But that kind of defeats the point of beta testing, does it not? One of the key things in a beta test is seeing how well the game performs on different settings on different systems.


Hey, it's DICE we're talking about. They're getting so cocky they don't even test properly anymore


----------



## FF_CCSa1F (Oct 11, 2011)

Gibby said:


> But that kind of defeats the point of beta testing, does it not? One of the key things in a beta test is seeing how well the game performs on different settings on different systems.



I must disagree with that. The point of a large-scale open beta (although I still hesitate calling this game a beta in its current stage) is not to test the performance of the clients, it is intended to test the stability of the servers and other background systems.



Sarcastic Coffeecup said:


> Hey, it's DICE we're talking about. They're getting so cocky they don't even test properly anymore



Have they ever?

EDIT: It seems as if I'm not the only one who doesn't like the graphics, after all!


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Oct 11, 2011)

FF_CCSa1F said:


> I must disagree with that. The point of a large-scale open beta (although I still hesitate calling this game a beta in its current stage) is not to test the performance of the clients, it is intended to test the stability of the servers and other background systems.



Both alpha and beta tests are there to test EVERYTHING, not just graphics, not just general gameplay bugs, not just servers, EVERYTHING. When you're about to release a product, EVERYTHING must be tested and examined to make sure it's in absolute full working order, otherwise you get a shitty product. There is absolutely no excuse for leaving ANYTHING out of the testing process, especially when the game is in its final testing stages and is so close to release. The purpose of a large scale test is to get all different kinds of systems involved, and different kinds of playstyles of individuals to see what bugs they may run into. Being locked in an office and playing the game over LAN will never, ever get the same results. Red Orchestra 2 had _tons_ of issues with the general gameplay during the large-scale external beta phase when the folks at the Tripwire Interactive offices were pretty sure that there weren't many issues to be found as far as their LAN connection and extremely similar office systems could tell them. When they introduced thousands of other users, surprise! Bugs out the ass. The RO2 external beta was there to check every nook and cranny. All software does the same thing, especially games, when it comes to an external beta. There is absolutely no reason as to why DICE should be doing anything differently with BF3. Still disagree with me? This is the kind of thing I study in college, this is not my opinion of how it works, it is fact and I am _telling_ you how it works.

As Coffee just said, DICE are getting real cocky, they're not even testing their shit properly anymore. It seems as if they believe that as long as it has their brand name on it, it will sell. Fuck quality.


----------



## Armaetus (Oct 11, 2011)

Looks like CoD, plays like CoD, must be like CoD. Nothing special or unique to me.


----------



## Onnes (Oct 11, 2011)

Gibby said:


> ...
> As Coffee just said, DICE are getting real cocky, they're not even testing their shit properly anymore. It seems as if they believe that as long as it has their brand name on it, it will sell. Fuck quality.



You seem to be implying that every developer should release a fully featured beta to the public prior to release. Seriously, how many developers actually do this? To put it another way, you are claiming you know better about production, marketing, and development than the majority of actual developers.


----------



## Delta (Oct 11, 2011)

Its already been stated plenty of times that the main reason for the beta was to test the clients and servers. Im not sure where all this gas bagging about ultra settings not being implemented and whether or not DICE is "testing correctly" comes from. First off how many of you are game developers who have tested multiple award winning games, most of which, despite being 5 years old, are still played today? Anyone? Yeah, didn't think so. Maybe we should drop the insinuation that we know the "correct way" to test a game. Secondly, its obvious DICE wasn't sure they wanted to make a beta or a demo - they convinced themselves there was middle ground and went for it. Not the smartest choice from our end, but apparently they got the feedback, technical results and pre-orders they wanted so in a way, they did it entirely correct from their standpoint.


----------



## FF_CCSa1F (Oct 12, 2011)

Gibby said:


> Both alpha and beta tests are there to test EVERYTHING, not just graphics, not just general gameplay bugs, not just servers, EVERYTHING. When you're about to release a product, EVERYTHING must be tested and examined to make sure it's in absolute full working order, otherwise you get a shitty product.


Of course everything needs to be tested, that is a given. My point is that not everything needs to be tested in a large-scale public setting. For instance, the performance across different systems doesn't require such testing, as the number of systems different (and popular) enough to justify special testing are so few that they'll be able to set up a local test for them, in a much more controlled environment. While there's nothing inherently wrong with also doing a graphics engine test in a large-scale, public setting, it sounds to me as the least important aspect of such a test.



Gibby said:


> Still disagree with me? This is the kind of thing I study in college, this is not my opinion of how it works, it is fact and I am _telling_ you how it works.


I'm sorry, but your theory regarding what factors to prioritise in front of others in a massive, public test sounds rather flawed; DICE have simply chosen to prioritise some tests in front of others. I fail to see how that is such improper procedure.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Oct 12, 2011)

Onnes said:


> You seem to be implying that every developer should release a fully featured beta to the public prior to release. Seriously, how many developers actually do this? To put it another way, you are claiming you know better about production, marketing, and development than the majority of actual developers.


 
I'm not claiming that I know more than actual developers about those things, not once. A lot of developers who don't do huge external public tests do friends/family tests instead. Those who don't are developers who have created something very damn simple that doesn't need external testing, or it's built for console, where every single console of that brand is identical. I'm talking about the purpose of said tests.



> I'm sorry, but your theory regarding what factors to prioritise in front of others in a massive, public test sounds rather flawed; DICE have simply chosen to prioritise some tests in front of others. I fail to see how that is such improper procedure.



Prioritising certain things is one thing, completely and fully ignoring certain things is a different thing.


----------



## FF_CCSa1F (Oct 12, 2011)

Gibby said:


> Prioritising certain things is one thing, completely and fully ignoring certain things is a different thing.


I doubt that DICE are completely ignoring testing the different graphics settings; choosing not to include them in the beta doesn't by any means imply that. The different systems that are going to run this game are so few that I can't see why external testing of the different graphics settings would be very critical. Testing them in-house is far easier. Considering how the additional information required for running ultra high-end graphics settings might make the game download considerably larger, there's probably a decent decrease in server load associated to it as well.


----------



## Fernin (Oct 12, 2011)

All I car about is that one bullet to the brain bucket on hardcore drops a man whose within reasonable range. This double tap headshot BS in the 'normal' modes of ever shooter these days is sooo fucking annoying.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Oct 12, 2011)

FF_CCSa1F said:


> I doubt that DICE are completely ignoring testing the different graphics settings; choosing not to include them in the beta doesn't by any means imply that. The different systems that are going to run this game are so few that I can't see why external testing of the different graphics settings would be very critical. Testing them in-house is far easier. Considering how the additional information required for running ultra high-end graphics settings might make the game download considerably larger, there's probably a decent decrease in server load associated to it as well.



You should take a peek at the Red Orchestra 2 forums, then. That's a new game and during the beta, there's been sooo many performance issues for users with different systems, despite being way over the recommended PC specs, testing the servers was only a small part of it all. There is little reason why any game won't bump into some issues like this. Everything needs testing, and performance testing is the one that is pretty important to include in an external beta. If anybody ever releases a game that has 100% perfect code with no needed testing, it's called plagarism.


----------



## Unsilenced (Oct 12, 2011)

Fernin said:


> All I car about is that one bullet to the brain bucket on hardcore drops a man whose within reasonable range. This double tap headshot BS in the 'normal' modes of ever shooter these days is sooo fucking annoying.



...

I'm fairly certain that a headshot is a one hit kill with just about anything in any C.o.D game, though admittedly I haven't played Black Ops that much. 

Personally the other way annoys me more, where a single 5.56 to the toe is an instant kill.


----------



## Fernin (Oct 12, 2011)

Unsilenced said:


> ...
> 
> I'm fairly certain that a headshot is a one hit kill with just about anything in any C.o.D game, though admittedly I haven't played Black Ops that much.
> 
> Personally the other way annoys me more, where a single 5.56 to the toe is an instant kill.



In "normal" modes it takes two bullets from anything but a sniper to the brain-pan to put someone in the dirt in every CoD, and most recently battlefield BC and BC2, this also often holds true in the 'hardcore" modes. It's been a source of GREAT irritation to me for a long time.


----------



## Unsilenced (Oct 12, 2011)

Fernin said:


> In "normal" modes it takes two bullets from anything but a sniper to the brain-pan to put someone in the dirt in every CoD, and most recently battlefield BC and BC2, this also often holds true in the 'hardcore" modes. It's been a source of GREAT irritation to me for a long time.



Wait what? No. 

In Cod2 the bolt-action rifles were all one-hits in anywhere but the arms basically.


----------



## Fernin (Oct 12, 2011)

Unsilenced said:


> Wait what? No.
> 
> In Cod2 the bolt-action rifles were all one-hits in anywhere but the arms basically.



Thats because the bolt actions were done that way for balance issues. Otherwise they would have been entirely useless. Load up CoD2 or any one after it and shoot a full heath player in the head with anything other than a single shot rifle, even from 2 feet away it will take 2 shots to kill. The first shot with drop them to red health and make a 'tunk' noise, the second shot will have the loud headshot 'pling' sound and kill them.

Read the wiki article, a single shot even with the head shot multiplyer will not kill in 'normal' mode in most of the game with anything but a long rifle which have 1.5x to 2x damage multipuls for head shots instead of  1.4 or lower, which is not enough to kill a full health player instantly.

Example: AK47 in MW2 at point blank range does 40 damage on a body shot, with the 1.4 multiplier it does 60 with a head shot, or 40 short of killing a player. Some other guns do more, some do less, but nothing other than single shot rifles will have a multiplyer that allows 100+ damage on a single shot.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Oct 12, 2011)

Unsilenced said:


> Wait what? No.
> 
> In Cod2 the bolt-action rifles were all one-hits in anywhere but the arms basically.



Heh, Cod2. I used to love the old, old CoD games and 4 was very deserving of its success, but I struggle to call the new games "CoD" nowadays. :/


----------



## FF_CCSa1F (Oct 12, 2011)

Gibby said:


> You should take a peek at the Red Orchestra 2 forums, then. That's a new game and during the beta, there's been sooo many performance issues for users with different systems, despite being way over the recommended PC specs, *testing the servers was only a small part of it all.*


And that is the part that the BF3 beta is aiming to test.


Gibby said:


> Everything needs testing, and performance testing is the one that is pretty important to include in an external beta.


It is a very important thing to get right, but testing it can very well be solved by other means as well, far easier than server stress testing can. If DICE do it properly, it will be fine.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Oct 12, 2011)

FF_CCSa1F said:


> And that is the part that the BF3 beta is aiming to test.



But IMO, it _really_ shouldn't be. But if they want to risk overlooking something that is actually pretty damn important that was never tested in the beta, fine by me. It's just a silly practise. :/


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Oct 12, 2011)

Gibby said:


> But IMO, it _really_ shouldn't be. But if they want to risk overlooking something that is actually pretty damn important that was never tested in the beta, fine by me. It's just a silly practise. :/



You're also not taking into account that this is more of a publicity move than anything else.  Sure it's nice that we as the players of the Beta can let DICE know that some textures are loading slow, the slug glitch is absolutely hilarious, and that people literally fall through the ground at times, but this also existed to try and expose people to Battlefield who never bothered to play BC or BC2, like myself.  A large part of Metro was the close-quarters nature of it, playing a lot like what many people expect out of a CoD game.  So it's accomplishing a lot of different things DICE wants, even if they have to deal with a bunch of people who don't realize that the Beta isn't the final product.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Oct 12, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> You're also not taking into account that this is more of a publicity move than anything else.  Sure it's nice that we as the players of the Beta can let DICE know that some textures are loading slow, the slug glitch is absolutely hilarious, and that people literally fall through the ground at times, but this also existed to try and expose people to Battlefield who never bothered to play BC or BC2, like myself.  A large part of Metro was the close-quarters nature of it, playing a lot like what many people expect out of a CoD game.  So it's accomplishing a lot of different things DICE wants, even if they have to deal with a bunch of people who don't realize that the Beta isn't the final product.



Oh, I am aware it's a bit more of a publicity move than anything else, and a publicity move is a good thing, and so is a large external beta, but my problem with it is that the end result is something wierd that can't really decide what it wants to be (beta or demo), and it has quite a likelihood of affecting the quality of the final product due to the locking of certain features and people not understanding the difference between beta and demo. If this game gets out of this "beta" phase and is absolutely perfect in what it aims to deliver, then great! But I find it a silly move to label it as a "beta." People seem a lot more understanding of the term "demo" and how it doesn't fully reflect the quality of the final product, unlike beta, and with the locking out of certain things, it sort of defeats the point of making a beta in the first place. BF3 may pull out just fine, but I'm not talking about BF3 only, I'm using it as an example of dodgy practise that game developers sometimes make, and how it sucks to see a game end up not being as good/popular as it tried to be due to taking an odd direction like this one.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Oct 12, 2011)

Gibby said:


> Oh, I am aware it's a bit more of a publicity move than anything else, and a publicity move is a good thing, and so is a large external beta, but my problem with it is that the end result is something wierd that can't really decide what it wants to be (beta or demo), and it has quite a likelihood of affecting the quality of the final product due to the locking of certain features and people not understanding the difference between beta and demo. If this game gets out of this "beta" phase and is absolutely perfect in what it aims to deliver, then great! But I find it a silly move to label it as a "beta." People seem a lot more understanding of the term "demo" and how it doesn't fully reflect the quality of the final product, unlike beta, and with the locking out of certain things, it sort of defeats the point of making a beta in the first place. BF3 may pull out just fine, but I'm not talking about BF3 only, I'm using it as an example of dodgy practise that game developers sometimes make, and how it sucks to see a game end up not being as good/popular as it tried to be due to taking an odd direction like this one.



Well unlike other "Betas" like the Uncharted 3 Multiplayer Beta, I saw an interview with a DICE employee on Kotaku I believe where he basically said "This is a REAL Beta in the sense that we have some issues with code that we're going to release it and hope to get feedback on actual gameplay and not just testing the servers."

Like I mentioned, the issues with people falling through the ground, which happened to me, and some hit detection issues have already been among the most reported issues.  Anybody who has half a brain played the Beta and realized that it was, in fact, a Beta based on these issues and others.  Meanwhile the Uncharted 3 "Beta" was much more complete with very few gameplay issues.  That was more true to a demo than it was a Beta, IMHO.

So I get what you mean that some companies release "demos" that they name "betas" and many people treated this BF3 Beta as a "demo" based on how some kids were like "I'M GUNNA FUCKIN' KILL U FOR NOT CODING THIS RITE!!!!111!!!".  But I think that just speaks to the fact that the BF3 Beta was in fact a true Beta and not just an advertising measure to make people think they were actually testing an unfinished product.  Beta just sounds more important than Demo afterall.

EDIT:  Also going to bring up a couple other issues with the Beta I reported: That headset communication didn't work for many people, including myself which is extremely important in a team objective-based shooter like BF3 and that pre-made squads would often get split up either to other squads or entirely different teams.


----------



## Alstor (Oct 12, 2011)

Gibby, why did you bash BF3 for a lack of innovation while, at an earlier time, you loved Dead Island, which basically took the contents of Borderlands, Left 4 Dead, and Dead Rising, combined them, and packaged it as a new game?


----------



## Unsilenced (Oct 12, 2011)

Fernin said:


> Thats because the bolt actions were done that way for balance issues. Otherwise they would have been entirely useless. Load up CoD2 or any one after it and shoot a full heath player in the head with anything other than a single shot rifle, even from 2 feet away it will take 2 shots to kill. The first shot with drop them to red health and make a 'tunk' noise, the second shot will have the loud headshot 'pling' sound and kill them.
> 
> Read the wiki article, a single shot even with the head shot multiplyer will not kill in 'normal' mode in most of the game with anything but a long rifle which have 1.5x to 2x damage multipuls for head shots instead of  1.4 or lower, which is not enough to kill a full health player instantly.
> 
> Example: AK47 in MW2 at point blank range does 40 damage on a body shot, with the 1.4 multiplier it does 60 with a head shot, or 40 short of killing a player. Some other guns do more, some do less, but nothing other than single shot rifles will have a multiplyer that allows 100+ damage on a single shot.



Huh. That's actually really surprising, mostly because I never noticed it. I guess I've shot a few people with pistols at point blank to little effect in CoD4, but in CoD2 I was pretty sure it was a 1-shot. Then again my favorite severs in CoD2 were always the all-bolt ones, so there's that. 

...

I've wasted so much time trying to get headshots on people. This is sad.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Oct 12, 2011)

Alstor said:


> Gibby, why did you bash BF3 for a lack of innovation while, at an earlier time, you loved Dead Island, which basically took the contents of Borderlands, Left 4 Dead, and Dead Rising, combined them, and packaged it as a new game?



I never said I_ loved_ Dead Island. :/ I even said before many times that it does what you described. I said it was a good game, but since it played like a Borderlands mod, it was nowhere near truly worth the price it was asking for. At first, I didn't even want to get it at all until a few friends of mine really wanted me to. I did have fun with it, but if it lived up to the original gritty zombie survival game as it was once planned to be several years ago instead of being a relatively colourful Borderlands clone, I would have actually loved it then. Keep up, yo.


----------



## Fernin (Oct 12, 2011)

Unsilenced said:


> Huh. That's actually really surprising, mostly because I never noticed it. I guess I've shot a few people with pistols at point blank to little effect in CoD4, but in CoD2 I was pretty sure it was a 1-shot. Then again my favorite severs in CoD2 were always the all-bolt ones, so there's that.
> 
> ...
> 
> I've wasted so much time trying to get headshots on people. This is sad.



Most of the time you kill someone with a single shot without a rifle of some sort it's usually because they were hurt before hand, with some guns even the 10 damage they take from jumping off something tall is enough to just let the multiplier kill them. As for it being a waste of time trying to get head shots, eh, with some guns yah it is, particularly at point blank range. But at anything other than knife range even though it takes 2 shots it's still best to try and slot one in the brain-pan, you'll be able to kill em that much quicker.  It's just always been an amazing annoyance to me that it takes 2 head shots to kill someone, my initiation into competitive gaming was Unreal and I learned to love hearing HEADSHOT! with almost every click of the mouse. So it was always a bit jarring for me to put a shot in someone's dome in MW and not kill them instantly, even more so if they killed me instead since  for the longest time I had a habit of just firing 1-2 shots to kill then moving onto the next target. X3


----------



## Commiecomrade (Oct 13, 2011)

On the damage thing: more damage please. BF3 is more about strategy, tactics, and squad maneuvers. I like stuff like UT3, but sometimes you should be rewarded for being the first to fire, not the most consistent.

EDIT: Oh, and big maps. I'm very happy they said "Some of the biggest maps ever" or whatever. I really hope they make it squad based since I love playing with my friends in a coherent squad. That kind of stuff was very easy to do in BF2, especially with Project Reality.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Oct 13, 2011)

Commiecomrade said:


> On the damage thing: more damage please. BF3 is more about strategy, tactics, and squad maneuvers. I like stuff like UT3, but sometimes you should be rewarded for being the first to fire, not the most consistent.



So far as I've seen, a lot of the guns have decent damage, with shotguns in particular being devastating from a good deal of distance, even moreso if you're using 12G Slugs.

Sniper rifles, in particular the semi-auto ones, are being nerfed for balance issues.  I don't have much of a problem with that, especially given I'm a bolt-action guy and headshots aren't that difficult to come by.


----------



## Commiecomrade (Oct 13, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> So far as I've seen, a lot of the guns have decent damage, with shotguns in particular being devastating from a good deal of distance, even moreso if you're using 12G Slugs.
> 
> Sniper rifles, in particular the semi-auto ones, are being nerfed for balance issues.  I don't have much of a problem with that, especially given I'm a bolt-action guy and headshots aren't that difficult to come by.



Very good news. I knew it was a bit of a gamebreaker, but the longer range one-shot-kill shotguns from the the BC2 days were very fun to use. I am rarely a sniper, so the nerfing of rifles will be great balancing. 2 shots should be good though. If I get shot once and die, that just sucks. If I get shot twice, I've been caught in an area where I was at a clear disadvantage from a sniper, and therefore should die.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Oct 13, 2011)

Commiecomrade said:


> Very good news. I knew it was a bit of a gamebreaker, but the longer range one-shot-kill shotguns from the the BC2 days were very fun to use. I am rarely a sniper, so the nerfing of rifles will be great balancing. 2 shots should be good though. If I get shot once and die, that just sucks. If I get shot twice, I've been caught in an area where I was at a clear disadvantage from a sniper, and therefore should die.



Kind of the way I felt about it.  I mean guys who know how to use the bolt-action rifles and lead their shots can and will drop you in one shot.  But that's just the direct result mostly of just running out in the open field like a chicken with it's head cut off.  You might be able to get away with it in MW or Black Ops, but with as many recon junkies there are in the Battlefield games, this just won't fly.  But as I said, the semi-autos are nerfed so it takes 2-3 shots to bring someone down.

Shotties are balanced in their own way given their limited barrels and long reload times.  Even with extended mags, you only carry seven shots (one in the chamber, 6 in the barrel).  You can still drop a dude mid-range with one buckshot shell, but it's almost a given every time you fire a slug from medium and decreases from there.

EDIT:  I just wish the 12G Frags and Flecettes were actually useful.


----------



## Fernin (Oct 13, 2011)

Personally I feel a single 7.62 or 5.56 or anything else really within a reasonable range envelope should kill instantly with shots to the head, neck, spine or heart. Because of this I tend to hate "normal" mode in most games; and while hardcore are often better often only taking 2-3 shots to the body to kill, it's still not quite where I'd like.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Oct 13, 2011)

Fernin said:


> Personally I feel a single 7.62 or 5.56 or anything else really within a reasonable range envelope should kill instantly with shots to the head, neck, spine or heart. Because of this I tend to hate "normal" mode in most games; and while hardcore are often better often only taking 2-3 shots to the body to kill, it's still not quite where I'd like.



I gotta say BF3 gets pretty close to it.

I don't know if it's a balancing thing because the guns move and sway much more with just carrying them and recoil more than MW or Black Ops which were like you were holding a laser rifle when you unloaded.  You'll fire about a quarter to a half a clip on full auto and it'll normally bring down someone quickly.  I think next time I get my hands on it when it comes out, I'll switch some of the guns to semi-auto and see how long it takes to bring someone down.  I don't think headshots are anything but insta-kills.


----------



## Unsilenced (Oct 13, 2011)

Fernin said:


> Personally I feel a single 7.62 or 5.56 or anything else really within a reasonable range envelope should kill instantly with shots to the head, neck, spine or heart. Because of this I tend to hate "normal" mode in most games; and while* hardcore are often better often only taking 2-3 shots to the body to kill,* it's still not quite where I'd like.



Which game is this? In Cod4, like I said, one toe shot from an M4A1 is an instakill at point blank on hardcore mode. With the magical dust coating that apparently makes the same round coming out of an M16A4 somehow better, that becomes an instakill at any range. 

INTERESTING FACT: In real life an M21 is just an M14 with a scope and higher quality ammunition. MFW I used "overkill" to directly compare an ACOG M21 with an ACOG M14.


----------



## Fernin (Oct 13, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> I gotta say BF3 gets pretty close to it.
> 
> I don't know if it's a balancing thing because the guns move and sway much more with just carrying them and recoil more than MW or Black Ops which were like you were holding a laser rifle when you unloaded.  You'll fire about a quarter to a half a clip on full auto and it'll normally bring down someone quickly.  I think next time I get my hands on it when it comes out, I'll switch some of the guns to semi-auto and see how long it takes to bring someone down.  I don't think headshots are anything but insta-kills.



Never got to check out hardcore mode in the BF3 beta, but if it's close to BF BC body shots should be alright and with head shots improving with most assault rifles killing instantly and only pistol caliber weapons taking more than one shot to the noggin. As for shooting sem-auto, I always shoot single shot with anything but LMGs and SMGs.




Unsilenced said:


> Which game is this? In Cod4, like I said, one toe shot from an M4A1 is an instakill at point blank on hardcore mode. With the magical dust coating that apparently makes the same round coming out of an M16A4 somehow better, that becomes an instakill at any range.
> 
> INTERESTING FACT: In real life an M21 is just an M14 with a scope and higher quality ammunition. MFW I used "overkill" to directly compare an ACOG M21 with an ACOG M14.



That's because the M4 in MW has always fired bullshit, not bullets. -_- As for damage in Hardcore in MW, it doesn't matter at all where you're hit, damage is location based only in that you have Body, arms, legs and head in normal mode and in hardcore you only have Body and Head and most guns do enough damage to kill instantly since a shot to the foot registers as a "body shot" and thus does the same damage as a shot through the spine or heart. -_-


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Oct 13, 2011)

Fernin said:


> Never got to check out hardcore mode in the BF3 beta, but if it's close to BF BC body shots should be alright and with head shots improving with most assault rifles killing instantly and only pistol caliber weapons taking more than one shot to the noggin. As for shooting sem-auto, I always shoot single shot with anything but LMGs and SMGs.



They didn't have a hardcore mode in the Beta.  It was nothing but Rush Mode, while some people who were lucky enough to be given passcodes on the PC got to try out Conquest.  So you didn't really miss out on anything.


----------



## BearlyBen (Oct 13, 2011)

I was having driver problems with the beta, but I managed to get in one night of the Beta and I had a $@^#$^ blast!

If you guys don't mind, would you check out a video I made compiling my highlights? If anything a couple scenes will give you a chuckle 

I can't get enough of how the nades cause trees to shake and rustle from the resulting shock. Little nuances like that really sell to me.

[video=youtube;Vwy-iAJFZm8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vwy-iAJFZm8[/video]


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Oct 13, 2011)

BearlyBen said:


> If you guys don't mind, would you check out a video I made compiling my highlights? If anything a couple scenes will give you a chuckle



I'd suggest tighter edits and not putting in clips of you spazzing out.  :V

Also you need to learn how to use alt-fire.


----------



## Fernin (Oct 13, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> They didn't have a hardcore mode in the Beta.  It was nothing but Rush Mode, while some people who were lucky enough to be given passcodes on the PC got to try out Conquest.  So you didn't really miss out on anything.



That's what I meant by not being able to try hardcore in the beta. X3  And I know about the Caspian Border map, I've done the beta on consoles and PC.


----------



## Bokracroc (Oct 17, 2011)

Game is leaked
http://www.gamersmint.com/pc-version-of-battlefield-3-leaked-12-days-before-release-date

*EVERY DOWNLOAD IS 1,000 LOST SALES* -Videogame Marketing research


----------



## Fernin (Oct 17, 2011)

Not surprised in the least. And people wonder why alot of devs are starting to steer away from PC.


----------



## Bokracroc (Oct 17, 2011)

It's hardly a PC problem, 360 and Wii get hammered over this as well. They just whine about PC piracy since they make less from it in the first place. Torrents for Arkham City for the 360 have been up since the 13th.


----------



## Fernin (Oct 17, 2011)

The difference is pirating console games means one needs a modded console 99% of the time and can almost never play multiplayer. Pirating on the PC however, is a free for all, no mods are needed, private servers are numerous, and there's basically no effort required on the part of the pirate to play the game. For every 1 time a console game is pirated I would expect a PC game, particularly one like BF3 is downloaded illegally 200-300 times at least.


----------



## Unsilenced (Oct 17, 2011)

BearlyBen said:


> I was having driver problems with the beta, but I managed to get in one night of the Beta and I had a $@^#$^ blast!
> 
> If you guys don't mind, would you check out a video I made compiling my highlights? If anything a couple scenes will give you a chuckle
> 
> ...



Whatever you keep deploying is hilariously huge. It's like something Wiley Coyote might bring to fight the Russians. 

"Oh here one sec. Lemme pull this gigantic crate out of a pocket I don't have." :v


----------



## Fernin (Oct 17, 2011)

Unsilenced said:


> Whatever you keep deploying is hilariously huge. It's like something Wiley Coyote might bring to fight the Russians.
> 
> "Oh here one sec. Lemme pull this gigantic crate out of a pocket I don't have." :v



In the near future... Hammerspace, is REAL! 8D


----------



## TehSean (Oct 17, 2011)

Fernin said:


> Not surprised in the least. And people wonder why alot of devs are starting to steer away from PC.



Because it's not where the money's mostly at. But we all knew that.


----------



## BearlyBen (Oct 18, 2011)

Unsilenced said:


> Whatever you keep deploying is hilariously huge. It's like something Wiley Coyote might bring to fight the Russians.
> 
> "Oh here one sec. Lemme pull this gigantic crate out of a pocket I don't have." :v



Haha, I just need to slap an "ACME" sign to it and start chasing after an imaginary Roadrunner 

I literally can't wait for this game. I've watched my own video countless times waiting for the 25th to come out >_<


----------



## Bokracroc (Oct 18, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> It was nothing but Rush Mode, while some people who were lucky enough to be given passcodes on the PC got to try out Conquest.  So you didn't really miss out on anything.


Also about that, they had dozens and dozens and dozens of public Caspian Border servers for PC for like the last... 4-5 days of the beta.


----------

