Battlefield 3 General Discussion Thread

Hey in hindsight after raving about the jet level... it all goes to crap as soon as you go into the bombsight scope. It then becomes a really dull and shitty version of the eye-in-the-sky missions from COD4. But the carrier takeoff and dogfighting sequence is just really well executed.
 
limitedaccess said:
If you have the underslung rail you switch to the M320 or M26 faster and back to your main weapon faster, since it is an underbarrel attachment instead of a separate weapon.
Click to expand...
Undersling is the way to go. Also if you run the AMMO perk with undersling you get 6 gernade tubes total and more ammo for the gun.

If you have no undersling with ammo perk you only get 4 tubes.
 
ballpoint said:
Two things:

1. The second mission in the BF3 single player campaign is AMAZING from an immersion standpoint. It's like being Goose in TOP GUN, but your pilot never loses his cool! I really felt like I was flying and almost got dizzy from all the aerobatics. I can't wait to sit some of my jet-enthusiast friends down in front of the computer to experience it. Might not have the most replay value or actual interaction (all you do is pop flares and send out heat seekers while an NPC does the flying). But MAN what presentation... this game's single player campaign has the best, most realistic graphics that I've ever seen on the PC... and the animation is so detailed and naturalistic... and all the hardware models are photorealistic... it's just stupendous.

I feel like BF3 might be worth the $ for the single player campaign alone. Honestly had a huge smile on my face playing it last night.

2. Rolling back Nvidia drivers did in fact fix my problem with crashing between rounds. It seems I now periodically crash in the middle of a round .. wasn't happening before but it's not very often, only once in fact.. I'll take the trade-off for now.
Click to expand...


I honestly don't know why reviewers are bashing the Single player campaign. I thought a lot of the missions were tense. They're not on the level of Michael Bay's gratuitous explosions, but I thought the game's story line followed a Tom Clancy style of narrative and action. So far, I thought the campaign is really good and fun. All my other friends agreed and couldn't understand why it received negative reviews.
 
Intel_Hydralisk said:
hmm...



Only teammates or both sides?
Click to expand...

Good question. I hope both. The "new" flashlight looks like it still obscures the person's position but not enough to be entirely blinding. I think there's still an advantage to using it (if enemy) without being overblown like it is currently.
 
redmasc said:
I honestly don't know why reviewers are bashing the Single player campaign. I thought a lot of the missions were tense. They're not on the level of Michael Bay's gratuitous explosions, but I thought the game's story line followed a Tom Clancy style of narrative and action. So far, I thought the campaign is really good and fun. All my other friends agreed and couldn't understand why it received negative reviews.
Click to expand...

Agreed. It was a little short (5 hours or so) but overall I really enjoyed the experience. When I first got the game I played like one round of Conquest and then went straight into the SP...didn't really play MP until I finished it. I thought it was excellent for what it was. The storyline has more or less been done to death, but what else are you going to say? If it involves soldiers and the military and terrorists there's not much else there. And then the end (also beginning) with the train and car chase was a really nice conclusion.

A lot of people complain about the lack of jet flying in the SP, but honestly from playing online I'm guessing about 80% of people would not be able to fly it properly, get frustrated and quit/bash the game. I would have liked to see a helicopter mission like in co-op, but it's not a dealbreaker.
 
redmasc said:
I honestly don't know why reviewers are bashing the Single player campaign. I thought a lot of the missions were tense. They're not on the level of Michael Bay's gratuitous explosions, but I thought the game's story line followed a Tom Clancy style of narrative and action. So far, I thought the campaign is really good and fun. All my other friends agreed and couldn't understand why it received negative reviews.
Click to expand...

Agreed. My only complaint was S P O I L E R the lackluster ending and missing, well, ending. There's no epilogue whatsoever that explains what happened when you catch the guy with the nuke. The Russian dude talking about his problems doesn't cut it IMO./S P O I L E R
 
chineseman said:
Looks awful. Three flags no more than 150m apart? Guess this game really is gonna end up being BFBC3.
Click to expand...

That was console footage, and didn't say what size of map they were playing on. Hopefully (fingers crossed) the Conquest Large maps will be a suitable size.
 
Well waited till today to decide on this or mw3 and i went with bf3 as i already played cod4.

I was not even considering playing single player till i read posts on here. I think ill beat single player then go to mp. thanks for the heads up.
 
For the mortar. is there any visible HUD change or indicator that shows whether you have HE or Smoke selected?
 
TexasAg05 said:
Looks good but damn it's painful to watch console play; specifically, watching the player aim with analog sticks!
Click to expand...
I agree. That was horrid. I was dying laughing at the wannabe COD noobie sniper that couldn't figure out the bullet drop.
 
Porter_ said:
hmmm that all seemed to be on one side of the canal. hope they aren't truncating the map to that portion only.



Oman looks like it will be fun as hell, just like in BF2.
Click to expand...
that was a console variant, obviously. So i bet it is truncated on console (hell, ps3 only lets 12 players a side.... thats not even battlefield)
 
ballpoint said:
Two things:

1. The second mission in the BF3 single player campaign is AMAZING from an immersion standpoint. It's like being Goose in TOP GUN, but your pilot never loses his cool! I really felt like I was flying and almost got dizzy from all the aerobatics. I can't wait to sit some of my jet-enthusiast friends down in front of the computer to experience it. Might not have the most replay value or actual interaction (all you do is pop flares and send out heat seekers while an NPC does the flying). But MAN what presentation... this game's single player campaign has the best, most realistic graphics that I've ever seen on the PC... and the animation is so detailed and naturalistic... and all the hardware models are photorealistic... it's just stupendous.

I feel like BF3 might be worth the $ for the single player campaign alone. Honestly had a huge smile on my face playing it last night.

2. Rolling back Nvidia drivers did in fact fix my problem with crashing between rounds. It seems I now periodically crash in the middle of a round .. wasn't happening before but it's not very often, only once in fact.. I'll take the trade-off for now.
Click to expand...

As a pilot, that jet scene was laughable.

WorldExclusive said:
Flashlight Fix
http://www.hotbloodedgaming.com/201...lights-finally-get-their-candlepower-lowered/
Click to expand...

Only affects teammates? They need to tone that crap down for enemies also.
 
In all honesty the single player was pretty uninspired and bland. The only level I really enjoyed was with all the paratroopers, that definitely had an "epic" feel to it. Other than that...meh. The MP, on the other hand...having a grand ol' time.
 
What do you even get with physical warfare pack?
Nvm, no wonder I've never seen those.. I don't play the classes haha.
 
So what's the "best" support weapon? It seems to be the M249, but the vertical drift is extremely bad for long sustained fire... Even when using a biopod.
 
lobski2 said:
So what's the "best" support weapon? It seems to be the M249, but the vertical drift is extremely bad for long sustained fire... Even when using a biopod.
Click to expand...

I honestly prefer the starting weapons for support... I was never a fan of the 100+ ammo LMG's that take a year to reload. Shooting blinding into a corridor / alley was never my style.
 
Intel_Hydralisk said:
I honestly prefer the starting weapons for support... I was never a fan of the 100+ ammo LMG's that take a year to reload. Shooting blinding into a corridor / alley was never my style.
Click to expand...

Eh, I rarely use the M27 or the AK74M anymore. I'm a fan of large 200-round magazines, quite useful for suppressing fire and blind shooting at a corridor chokepoint.
 
What the hell is wrong with the [H] server? The server keeps reseting, random disconnects? WTF?
 
So after all my hating on BF3 in this thread I still have to say BF3 > MW3. MW3 is MW2 with shitty maps...
 
flegg said:
So after all my hating on BF3 in this thread I still have to say BF3 > MW3. MW3 is MW2 with shitty maps...
Click to expand...

no more whining then? how much time have you put into MW3? i've played for about an hour and it feels hollow compared to BF3. your comparison to MW2 is dead on, it feels like a map/weapons pack for MW2.
 
Intel_Hydralisk said:
I honestly prefer the starting weapons for support... I was never a fan of the 100+ ammo LMG's that take a year to reload. Shooting blinding into a corridor / alley was never my style.
Click to expand...

You don't unload 100-200 rounds into a alley/corridor to rack up kills. You do so for suppressing fire. With that kind of suppression a good squad can run in and do the dirty work.
 
pigwalk said:
You don't unload 100-200 rounds into a alley/corridor to rack up kills. You do so for suppressing fire. With that kind of suppression a good squad can run in and do the dirty work.
Click to expand...

It helps that FF is off in those situations though. If you had to worry about FF, suppression would be a lot less effective.
 
Well im enjoying the game but is anyone else having problems seeing enemies? I dunno why, in bc2 I could spot and pick out enemies very quickly but in this one I just seem to have a hard time seeingg enemies at range. It just seems like they blend into the background, only real remedy is my irnv scope but that is practicly cheating with how well it works and im expecting a nerf to it anytime soon so trying not to become dependant on it lol.

I dunno why just really hard to distinguish enemies that arnt up close for me.
 
My god, they REALLY need to nerf the IRNV and soon. It's getting to the point where you can't be competitive without it. I prefer the Holo sight myself, but in areas with a lot of grass/trees it's impossible to win when the other team is using it to see you through the brush.

Now all I see are a bunch of faggots running around either with shotguns or sniper rifles with the 1x IRNV scope, and they're still able to snipe you from like a thousand meters away.

Basically, anyone who has unlocked it, uses it. It's that simple.

To be completely honest I think they should remove it from the game entirely.
 
Last edited:
I've been using it less and less lately, because I find myself playing worse after using it for a extended period of time.
 
I hate using it but frankly without it you just get raped in a forest/grassy setting.
 
I've never extensively used the IRNV other than trying it out a few times. My Favorite scope is the PK-A 3.4x, followed by ACOG 4x or Reflex RDS (and yes specifically those variants), depending on the gun/map.

Some possible ideas to balance out IRNV (without removing it completely) -
1) make it more sensitive to light sources, like thermal optics for vehicles. For instance muzzle flash would obscure the sight like thermal optics. Nor will IRNV eliminate the blinding effect of light sources anymore. Increase flashlight and laser pointer blindness.
2) reduce the size of the scope
3) vision reducing effect (similar to suppression) while leaving scoped view
4) vision adjustment period while scoping
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top