Battlefield 3

By Crisp
in Gamers' Hangout

 Share

Recommended Posts

Veteran

BoneyardBrew Member

Posted
  • Member
Posted

i just want this game to come out already so i can start finding deals for CoD...

When are there ever deals on CoD (honest question, I almost never see it on sale aside from the Direct2Drive offer I found that got me 25% off on the preorder)?

Mentor

iuerg87yerg879e0rg9erugjer

Posted
Posted

When are there ever deals on CoD (honest question, I almost never see it on sale aside from the Direct2Drive offer I found that got me 25% off on the preorder)?

steam usually have deals on COD before the new one comes out during their weekend deals. (i think this is already happend from the other week).

Veteran

BoneyardBrew Member

Posted
  • Member
Posted

steam usually have deals on COD before the new one comes out during their weekend deals. (i think this is already happend from the other week).

The sad part is even a week before a new CoD comes out, the old one only goes on sale for $10 off.

Grand Master

TheLegendOfMart

Posted
Posted

Singleplayer is dissappointing, its just a cliched CoD style FPS, there are loads of scripting glitches as well youd run to a point and men would start spawning and then the script would glitch meaning you couldnt carry on to the next objective and the men keep spawning, eventually you run out of bullets and die. Happened a few times so far. Textures are atrocious without the optional HD Texture install.

Grand Master

Muhammad Farrukh

Posted
Posted

Singleplayer is dissappointing, its just a cliched CoD style FPS, there are loads of scripting glitches as well youd run to a point and men would start spawning and then the script would glitch meaning you couldnt carry on to the next objective and the men keep spawning, eventually you run out of bullets and die. Happened a few times so far.

How are you playing it?

Grand Master

Reacon

Posted
Posted

Well, I'm also one of the apparently stupid people that quite like Battlelog. Joining a game was in no way slower than in BC2 (no experience with previous BF titles). I'd even argue that it is more pleasant than going through developer and publisher movies. Plus it allows for a more casual game launch experience, for example, I casually browse Battlelog, suddenly notice a friend playing and join for a quick match. Not necessary to launch a game to see what's going on. Also, having the server browser separate from the game client allows DICE to make adjustments, fixes, tweaks and add new features without the necessity to issue a patch that has to go through a potentially more extensive and longer QA process

While BC2 and BF2 were far worse, when you compare it to other games with properly done server lists, it doesn't compare!

Grand Master

Reacon

Posted
Posted

It was done this way so they dont have to patch the game every time they make updates to Battlelog.

Stop making excuses and think about it: What non-DICE server list needs updating, save for when the master server's API is drastically changed? Battlelog could very well operate independent of the actual game, and it could be easily optional. The people that want to use it and its features will do so. The rest of us will use the more practical solution for just playing the damn game.

I recently bought Modern Warfare from Steam to try it out. It took me quite literally 20 seconds to get from my desktop to loading a game. No opening cutscenes, just launch game > click server list > refresh > double click a game. This game is four years old, manages stats, rank, and names.

Another thing that's clearly superior in CoD4 is the fact that you can change your name with no hassle, and to something that is not necessarily unique to the rest of the world.

Now also answer me this - suppose BF3 used the Steamworks API and stats, community, rank, are all managed with Steam Community. Yet, you could only launch the game directly into a server using the Steam server browser. How would this be worse than Battlelog?

It's simpler. You're only running one program, instead of punkbuster's service, the voice service they run for VOIP, Origin, and your web browser. Fewer problems with integration and bugs because it's all integrated with the Steam client. Therefore, it's also much more efficient.

Let's face it - EA and DICE are bullsh*tting us. They could do this much more intuitively. Instead, we're getting put through a number of separate programs and EA crap just to play their game. Origin is all but forced upon us, as well. Battlefield players will take it though, because they've conditioned us with the past two games.

Grand Master

Reacon

Posted
Posted

Im not making excuses, im pretty dissappointed with Single player so far so its not like im a blind fanboy jumping to defend them.

Having used Battlelog in Alpha and Beta i dont see anything it doesnt do that its competitors does do.

Sure, it does everything that competitors care to put in, but I'm not complaining about a lacking feature set! I'm putting up a fuss about how they do it.

There's literally no excuse that DICE cannot put in a simple login and server browser, and leave everything else to the Battlelog peeps. They'll tout that "Battlelog is an advancement of PC gaming", but what does this mean to the people who just want to play, not use Facebook for Battlefield? It means we're put through a whole bunch of sh** for no gain.

Why? Because corporate EA is forcing it upon us.

Grand Master

TheLegendOfMart

Posted
Posted

Sure, it does everything that competitors care to put in, but I'm not complaining about a lacking feature set! I'm putting up a fuss about how they do it.

There's literally no excuse that DICE cannot put in a simple login and server browser, and leave everything else to the Battlelog peeps. They'll tout that "Battlelog is an advancement of PC gaming", but what does this mean to the people who just want to play, not use Facebook for Battlefield? It means we're put through a whole bunch of sh** for no gain.

Why? Because corporate EA is forcing it upon us.

Why do you need a server browser ingame, the game doesnt have a main menu, any intro videos or adverts, you click play you are instantly at loading screen, you click quit and the game instantly closes back to battlelog?

I dont give a toss about the Battlefield Facebook either, but you click servers you are at server list, no hassle, issues or problems, you are blowing it way out of proportion.

Grand Master

trag3dy

Posted
Posted

Why do you need a server browser ingame, the game doesnt have a main menu, any intro videos or adverts, you click play you are instantly at loading screen, you click quit and the game instantly closes back to battlelog?

I dont give a toss about the Battlefield Facebook either, but you click servers you are at server list, no hassle, issues or problems, you are blowing it way out of proportion.

I agree. And considering how bad the server browser was in BC2. How hacked into the game it felt, and still feels today. I think it's way better this way. It's easy to see what friends are doing, easy to join games, and all that. Not sure what all the fuss is about.

Although in that video posted earlier the console server browser looked pretty nice and don't get me wrong, I wouldn't complain if an in game browser was added, but I think battlelog is fine on it's own.

Grand Master

Ayepecks

Posted
Posted

Have you used it (Battlelog) during the aplha/beta? All those are things are possible and much more easily accessed than in a in-game browser.

Yes I did (although it ran like crap on my system), and I don't agree. I'll take implementation like TF2/CS any day of the week over Battlelog. Again, I'm not saying it's horrible, it's just not very good. I expected them to attempt to be above-average in terms of server viewing and whatnot.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing