Just played Battlefield 3 demo - not pleased

Its the beta dude give it some time!!!! well 2 months ish

reply to post by UniverSoul


Day of defeat is a proper good good war game.

To me this Beta looked alot like the BF2 demo a couple years back.
If it looks like that it can't be good.

I played one game and deleted it from my HDD.

So your mad because you die so much? Come on, its new to you its going to take time. As for campers, thats real warfare, COD you run and gun this game you get a good position take out the opposing and then MOVE UP. You have to sides defenders and attackers. Defenders camp to protect the objective from being blown, you camp, kill then move up to push them feather away from the objective.

Personally, I do not like the game so far but it is just a beta. I remember when bfbc2 came out the m60 over powered every gun. Its going to take time to tweak the game.

Originally posted by 8ILlBILl8
. As for campers, thats real warfare, COD you run and gun this game you get a good position take out the opposing and then MOVE UP. You have to sides defenders and attackers. Defenders camp to protect the objective from being blown, you camp, kill then move up to push them feather away from the objective.

Thats exactly why I enjoy Brink so much.
It's proper team warfare, defenders and attackers focused in certain battle zones.

Originally posted by Chukkles
To me this Beta looked alot like the BF2 demo a couple years back.

I played the BF2 demo also and I am failing to see the comparison. Could you be more specific?

I played Battlefield 3 Beta the way it's meant to be played. On PC. The PC beta had two maps included, each with a distinct game-type. The first map Operation Metro and had the rush game-type. It wasn't very good - the map was pretty small, there were no vehicles, there was also a massive amount of camping (especially at the start of the map) and honestly, the rush game type has always sucked.

The second map was Caspian Border and it was a huge 64 player (console will be limited to 24 players and smaller maps - due to hardware limitations) conquest map (capture and hold objectives known as flags). It was totally different to Operation Metro. It was very reminiscent of Battlefield 1942 and Battlefield 2 - there were planes, helicopters, cars, tanks, and not a whole lot of camping - if you camp you can usually be flanked easily since the map is very non-linear compared to metro and you don't get much points by only camping. Sure, there were snipers at the edge of the map, but usually they were not too difficult to avoid. It was a lot of fun and now I cannot go back to Bad Company 2... because BF3 in its crippled beta state was better, in my opinion.

Origin isn't too bad. It is in my opinion better than steam as it launches faster and requires less updates. Migrating the server browser to a web-browser was a good decision. At least then I can do other things while I look for servers - and besides if you compare the old approach of having a server browser in-game like in Bad Company 2 versus the new approach, you will see that the new approach will get you in a game much faster.

The problems with the beta were bugs, removed features (squads were crippled, destruction and ultra graphics were not fully enabled), the user interface (user menus were not fully enabled), and balance (engineer class was overpowered and vehicles were too weak). It has been confirmed that all of those problems will be improved upon or fixed by release. The beta was also over a month old by the time it was released. This was not a demo, it was a true beta as has been confirmed over and over again. Many of the problems were already solved and iirc a day-one patch was confirmed which will take into account all of the feedback from the beta.

In my opinion, reserve your judgement until you have tried retail on a conquest map or an actual demo. I also think that if the balance issues, bugs and complaints from the beta are taken into account, then this could shape up to be an extremely good game.

Here are some screenshots of Caspian Border on high settings, 1920*1080 with framerate overlay.

i.imgur.com...
i.imgur.com...
i.imgur.com...
i.imgur.com...

Core 2 Quad Q6600 2.4ghz overclocked to 3.4ghz
4gb RAM
GTX 570 overclocked

reply to post by C0bzz


Are you saying PC users will get bigger and better maps that console users will never see?

If true, that has killed it completely for me, I was considering it.

Originally posted by Chukkles
reply to post by C0bzz

 

Are you saying PC users will get bigger and better maps that console users will never see?

If true, that has killed it completely for me, I was considering it.

PC users will likely get bigger versions of the same maps that console users get. There will still be all the same vehicles. The hardware just cannot cope with 64 players.

Originally posted by C0bzz

Originally posted by Chukkles
reply to post by C0bzz

 

Are you saying PC users will get bigger and better maps that console users will never see?

If true, that has killed it completely for me, I was considering it.

PC users will likely get bigger versions of the same maps that console users get. There will still be all the same vehicles. The hardware just cannot cope with 64 players.

edit on 13/10/11 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

Strange I thought MAG for PS3 handled 128 players..... Excuses or being lazy which one is it?

Originally posted by jheated5

Originally posted by C0bzz

Originally posted by Chukkles
reply to post by C0bzz

 

Are you saying PC users will get bigger and better maps that console users will never see?

If true, that has killed it completely for me, I was considering it.

PC users will likely get bigger versions of the same maps that console users get. There will still be all the same vehicles. The hardware just cannot cope with 64 players.

edit on 13/10/11 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

Strange I thought MAG for PS3 handled 128 players..... Excuses or being lazy which one is it?

Battlefield 3 has things that MAG does not - far better graphics, destructible environments, more and better varied vehicles. Reviews of MAG also complained about lag. More network and system resources go to each player in Battlefield 3. There's a reason for that - if all the things that made Battlefield 3 Battlefield 3 were removed then sure you could get more players.

“Everything is a compromise. It’s not that we’re evil or stupid. We didn’t choose not to have more players – we would love to do 64 players on console but then we would have to cut away so much; people would get very upset that it looked worse, played worse and wasn’t as fun as the PC version. We would never do that because the fun is always more important.”

bf3blog.com...

Bad Company was the same:

First of all you are of course right when it comes to games being made on a first generation engine. There are allways things that you don't manage to fix before launch (or even notice until after launch even though you've had hundreds of testers playing the game for months)

These are the reasons why we only have 24 players in BC/1943
* Performance - making a game with so much destruction, vehicles and with that scale and still trying to keep it good looking is hard. 33ms/frame is disappearing pretty fast... if we removed the destruction and instead precalculated stuff I'm sure we could have squeezed in many more players performance-wise. We are of course always working on performance

* Network bandwidth restrictions - There are pretty tough restrictions on how much data that is allowed to be sent to the client on 360/ps3, the destruction and the vehicles steal _lots_ of bandwidth, a vehicle is much more expensive than a soldier. Every object that is moved by simulation and is gameplay affecting need to be at the same place on all clients at the same time and therefore need to be networked, the destructable state also need to be networked. And as you know we have vehicles and lots of destruction in bc/1943.

We are actually running about ~12 game servers on each physical server, meaning that each physical server can handle about ~300 players. We could easily switch so we had less game servers running 32 or more players but then every client would need to receive much more data over the network which might break the rules microsoft and sony have put up. The reason why they've put up these rules is to ensure the quality of the game for all players, maybe we could someday implement matchmaking (or server browsing) that would let the player join servers with more players if his/her internet connection bandwidth allows it.

There will of course also be lots of optimizations on the network protocol which will make it easier to squeeze in more players on a server without violating bandwidth recommendations.

* Design - I can't remember how we ended up with the limit of 24 players but I guess it was a compromise in order to get the destruction and visual quality that we wanted. It is also harder to balance gameplay on levels with more players, since we're doing lots of play testing to make the levels fun you can imagine how hard it would be to tweak if the level supported 200 players (even though it would be really cool )

There is nothing (that I know of) that limits the number of players in frostbite, and if there is, it is probably a bug. I've tested running over 80 players locally (client-server) on the consoles when measuring performance and it works just fine (except framerate).

www.gamefaqs.com...

If you wanted 64 players then something else would have to go that's in the PC version. This is what happens when you have 2005 hardware versus 2011 hardware.

reply to post by Kryties


The graphics, the feel and the overall look of it.
It just felt exactly like BF2 demo to me.
Now unless I can play a true demo to help change my mind, I won't be getting this and will happily get MW3.

reply to post by Chukkles


Don't forget that the Beta was an extremely toned down version of the retail game because the purpose of the Beta was to stress test the servers.

The retail version will be far more polished.

I was not impressed by the beta.

So much for PC players not getting just a console port.

I can't remember a game on PC that didn't have its own front end.
Battlelog is the worst pos idea I have seen in a long time.
Anyone that prefers the origin/wedbrowser combo needs to stop smoking that stuff.

The gameplay is a step backwords from bc2.
Even on the Caspian border map the vehicles are so stale and generic.
The map layout and capture points have no continuity and are just cookie cut locations strewn around the map.
They are trying hard to force this game to be battlefield and it shows.

It is already confirmed that there is no in-game squad control, squads are setup via battlelog.
So forget about getting a good squad going on the fly.

Voice com is also handled via battlelog.


The weapons are mostly the same ones from bc2, and the unlocks are a joke.
Wow, I can use a 3.5x scope or a 4x?
A red-dot or a holo site?
I am surprised they don't have a slightly shorter bipod as an unlock too.

Scopes that have glint in every environment.
Flashlights to blind everyone including your team.
Lasers to also blind people.
Not being able to adjust settings unless in game, and alive.
Etc.

These are not beta issues.


This game went from a must have to a skip for me.

Originally posted by TheOven
So much for PC players not getting just a console port.

I can't remember a game on PC that didn't have its own front end.
Battlelog is the worst pos idea I have seen in a long time.
Anyone that prefers the origin/wedbrowser combo needs to stop smoking that stuff.

Yeah, even I have to admit it's a little odd but I'm willing to give it a go - who knows it may turn out to be the better way of using the game.

The gameplay is a step backwords from bc2.
Even on the Caspian border map the vehicles are so stale and generic.
The map layout and capture points have no continuity and are just cookie cut locations strewn around the map.
They are trying hard to force this game to be battlefield and it shows.

Have you seen the other maps? The 2 shown in the Beta were by far not the best maps coming - my personal favourite is Damavand Peak - the offense has to base-jump off a 500 metre cliff at the start....

Multiplayer map reveal, from the streets of Paris to the outskirts of Tehran
Multiplayer Map Reveal, Part II

It is already confirmed that there is no in-game squad control, squads are setup via battlelog.
So forget about getting a good squad going on the fly.

Yeah I admit that's a bit silly, but not enough to stop me playing.

The weapons are mostly the same ones from bc2, and the unlocks are a joke.
Wow, I can use a 3.5x scope or a 4x?
A red-dot or a holo site?
I am surprised they don't have a slightly shorter bipod as an unlock too.

You forgot the 8x and 12x scopes plus whatever wasn't showcased in the Beta. Don't forget it was only a Beta - not the full game

Scopes that have glint in every environment.
Flashlights to blind everyone including your team.
Lasers to also blind people.
Not being able to adjust settings unless in game, and alive.
Etc.

The scope glint is great - more like real life, same with the torch and laser. As to the in-game settings, they have already said they are enabling them for the retail version.

These are not beta issues.

Yes, they are.

Seriously, I am a little sick of people spouting off about how bad the game is based on the Beta experience. Newsflash people -

It was a Beta - not the full version

A simple google search for the battlefield official blogs and forums will answer many and most of the issues people are bringing up - unless of course people just like to mudsling hoping some will stick because they are closet COD fans

I unfortunately wont be gettig this for pc until i get a comp. And i almost dont even look fwd to the console version just becaise how much they changed the gamefrom bf2. However i still got the damn thing reserved on my ps3 and still getting it nxt week.

I wish they actually spread out the classes instead of condensing them. Probably my biggest fued. I also dont know how many vehicles they've added, but was really hoping to see mraps and drones.

It will still be better than cod imo, especially since cod is somewhat adding buyable percs and no non destruction environments. However cod is adding a hoard mode similer to halo's or zombie mode with no zombies (love cod zombies tho)

I also actually liked the commander feature in bf2 (which they took out for the free version) and actually wished they woupd add an optional rts type command that offered objectives and intelligence for capture the flag scenerios where users could hide the flag, as well as the usual satelite recon, just more life like, just not supper realistic like arma lol.

www.ripten.com...

Battlefield 3 is Not Broken, The (Almost) Final Build is Magnificent

For the last three days, I’ve been playing Battlefield 3 on a decommissioned aircraft carrier floating in the San Francisco Bay.

If that fact wasn’t surreal enough, I was playing with hundreds of other PC gamers on top-of-the-line gaming rigs custom built by Nvidia to provide us with the “ultimate” BF3 experience. This event shall forever be known as the GeForce LAN 6.

However, the Battlefield 3 beta was anything but the “ultimate” BF3 experience.

This glitchy, buggy, unfinished mess that was released as a public trial only a month before the game was to go on sale left us with many questions and legions of gamers were ready to give up on Battlefield 3 all together and cancel their pre-orders right there and then.

Many of us old time testers shouted, “Hey, it’s a BETA, it’s supposed to have issues, this is an old build!” But the masses cried foul. ”There’s no way they can fix this mess in one month, I don’t care how old the build is! How dare they release this to the public, don’t they know any better?!”

[color=gold]However, the build I’ve been playing for the past few days is literally light years ahead of the beta. While not the final product, Nvidia and DICE confirmed to me that what we were playing was “damn close” to final build and if this is any indication of the final product… I’m sold.

There were no bugs, no glitches, and the Ultra quality visual settings actually looked “Ultra”. Being a high end PC gamer and a member of the press who gets to test damn near every PC game, I’m as jaded as they come. Yet everything about this build was downright beautiful. I played on new maps like “Operation Firestorm”, “Damavand Peak” and and “Grand Bazaar” and the first time I deployed on each – I did nothing but stare. The first time you see each of these landscapes laid out before you on PC, you will be in awe. Wether it be the burning oil fields of Operation Firestorm or the magnificently detailed snow capped mountains of Damavand Peak, I’ve never seen anything quite like it, especially in a first person shooter, and that’s certainly saying something.

Hell, I even noticed little things like the fact that the UMP-45 had been nerfed a bit. DICE had clearly been listening to the player feedback, even at this late stage of the game. The entire experience felt balanced, focused and rock solid. It’s a testament to DICE’s commitment to PC game development and pushing the envelope with their Frostbite 2 engine.

Their developer commitment is also evidenced by the fact that I saw no vehicles flipping over, nobody falling through the map, no flying corpses hitting me in the face and no crazy giraffe neck dubstep.

I am proud to report that Battlefield 3 (on PC at least) is finally ready for action.

The detractors are getting more wrong by the minute!!! Cry and whinge as they might, the evidence is mounting that BF3 is going to live up to, and surpass, all expectations.

I, for one, cannot wait. I have played every Battlefield game since 1942 and I have to say this is the one I am most excited about.