Battlefield 3 General Discussion Thread

xIronCrossx said:
You're saying it is crap because you got distracted. Good support to your argument.
Click to expand...

Yes, that ONE point was the straw the broke the camels back, ohh yes... >_>

I await the day that the browsers out pace the add-on's updates and everyone has a fit. It will happen, DICE is famous for shit like that. More-so now that they are under the guise of EA.
 
Inate8 said:
Yes, that ONE point was the straw the broke the camels back, ohh yes... >_>

I await the day that the browsers out pace the add-on's updates and everyone has a fit. It will happen, DICE is famous for shit like that. More-so now that they are under the guise of EA.
Click to expand...

Hoping for the worst. A good way to look at things.....to ruin your own experience.
 
Just a realistic look at how the industry treats it's bread and butter. Nothing more. Nothing less.
BF3 has already been a massive disappointment in the group I play with, we have all cancelled pre-orders and are waiting for 4-6 months before making another choice to buy. So far, nothing new is cropping up and we expect you all to be having fun with the exact same issues that were there in alpha/beta.
 
Inate8 said:
Just a realistic look at how the industry treats it's bread and butter. Nothing more. Nothing less.
BF3 has already been a massive disappointment in the group I play with, we have all cancelled pre-orders and are waiting for 4-6 months before making another choice to buy. So far, nothing new is cropping up and we expect you all to be having fun with the exact same issues that were there in alpha/beta.
Click to expand...

Ironically, you like this thread called BF3 right? Wanna let us know what your friends are doing and stuff right?
When it comes to games I don't like, I avoid every thread/topic about it. Seems like you want to play BF3, but your group of friends are making the decision for you.

Ha.
 
Incorrect. We played the beta together and came to the conclusion together.
Of course we want to like it, but for now we are sticking with BF2 until BF3 comes into it's own.

Ha.
 
I still do not understand how this server in a web browser is so terrible. If my favorite server is full and I only wanna play there I don't have to start my game to see that it is full. I guess some people just really hate it when things change.

BTW BF2 had a shitty server browser, yes I played it for over 500 hours and yes it was a pain in the ass until I finally found a good server that I joined everytime then.
 
I just don't see the need for the change, it makes no sense. They say it decreases dev time, I say "do it right the first time".

I still see no point for the end-user in this change. It's being different JUST for the fact that they are different. Woooo.
 
GaNGrENe said:
It's pathetic that every single news site reporting about this claims the single player is fully functional. It simply is not. The game may as well have not even been leaked because nobody can do anything with it before the 25th.

Also, I actually really liked Battlelog. I really didn't see a downside to it on my system. It was easy to find friends, join servers with friends, voice chat worked, and the server browser worked just fine. Not to mention all the neat information about how well you're doing or what you're going to unlock next.

Takes a big fat dump on BF2's in game server browser, that much is for sure.

If anything, I didn't notice Origin doing anything at all. It didn't bother me since Steam does the same thing, but is it even necessary to keep it running after you've launched battlelog?
Click to expand...


This is exactly right. Most everyone who actually played the beta came to the same conclusion. Battlelog is fine; it's better than fine actually, it works very well. Conceptually it makes a whole lot of sense to separate the browsing/chatting/team forming aspect of a multiplayer game from the actual game itself. It allows for more streamlined updating and better security for example. If they add in the ability to customize weapons/loadouts or rebind keys from within battlelog while the game is loading (may already be implemented, I'm not sure) then it's automatically better than an in game browser. It also makes it easier to co-ordinate with friends to create a team, choose a server, and all join at the same time.

Origin, on the other hand, is totally useless. It offered no benefit to players whatsoever. It's not even well integrated with Battlelog as the friend lists are unlinked. This is the aspect of the game that people should be bitching about.
 
AceTKK said:
Origin, on the other hand, is totally useless. It offered no benefit to players whatsoever. It's not even well integrated with Battlelog as the friend lists are unlinked. This is the aspect of the game that people should be bitching about.
Click to expand...

Origin wasn't designed to be integrated with the BF3 experience at all. It was designed as competition to steam. IE. a source for digital distribution of games.

In that effect, Origin has done exactly what it was designed to do.
 
AceTKK said:
This is exactly right. Most everyone who actually played the beta came to the same conclusion. Battlelog is fine; it's better than fine actually, it works very well. Conceptually it makes a whole lot of sense to separate the browsing/chatting/team forming aspect of a multiplayer game from the actual game itself. It allows for more streamlined updating and better security for example. If they add in the ability to customize weapons/loadouts or rebind keys from within battlelog while the game is loading (may already be implemented, I'm not sure) then it's automatically better than an in game browser. It also makes it easier to co-ordinate with friends to create a team, choose a server, and all join at the same time.
Click to expand...

Those were pretty much my thoughts I was too lazy to type out, Thank you. :D

I'm also just worn on the continuous pissing matches :eek:
 
Inate8 said:
I just don't see the need for the change, it makes no sense. They say it decreases dev time, I say "do it right the first time".

I still see no point for the end-user in this change. It's being different JUST for the fact that they are different. Woooo.
Click to expand...

Battlelog is 10x better than an in-game browser imo. It's one of the best things about BF3 to me.
 
OpStar said:
Battlelog is 10x better than an in-game browser imo. It's one of the best things about BF3 to me.
Click to expand...

Really, a pointless addition is one of THE BEST things about BF3 for you?

Why is that? So you can track pointless stats and stroke epeens with your 'bros'?

Keep all that, just give us the option to browse for servers IN-GAME. You guys can have all your stat tracking fun all you want. I'd like to be IN-GAME and shooting things instead.

Like it all you want, you're allowed to of course. I'm just curious what makes it 10X better than an in-game server browser(that serves the exact same function btw).
 
Inate8 said:
Origin wasn't designed to be integrated with the BF3 experience at all. It was designed as competition to steam. IE. a source for digital distribution of games.

In that effect, Origin has done exactly what it was designed to do.
Click to expand...

Sure, but to require that it be running in order to play BF3 without providing any benefit whatsoever just feels underhanded and evil. At least Steam brings some functionality (friends, chat, etc.) to games that don't provide those things inherently.

But Battlefield 3 has every function that Origin could possibly offer already built-in, via Battlelog, and BF3 is the only reason anyone would choose to install Origin.
 
What I would like to see is the ability to create a URL link to servers.

2-3 favorite servers as URL links on my desktop. click, load, play.
 
Porter_ said:
really? where'd you read that? that seems unlikely.
Click to expand...

Considering 8 million+ played the demo... er sorry beta, it wouldn't be hard to see 1 million of those paying out $1000 for a new rig/hardware.

http://uk.games.ign.com/articles/120/1200238p2.html

Near the bottom.

Of course it's all circumstance, but a sudden boom in the PC hardware industry is easy to track and attribute to large scale releases. With both Skyrim and BF3 on the horizon many are upgrading, I doubt this is all because of these games but a good deal of them could be.
 
Inate8 said:
QQ someone has a differing opinion and the willingness to speak it out loud, OMG!

Considering if I were to be playing the game I would spend the least amount of time possible in battlelog and just use the released "by-pass" to access the SP, as well as only spending a minimal amount of time hooking into my server for MP goodness.

Troll har-durr
Click to expand...

We have differing opinions.
 
Inate8 said:
Considering 8 million+ played the demo... er sorry beta, it wouldn't be hard to see 1 million of those paying out $1000 for a new rig/hardware.

http://uk.games.ign.com/articles/120/1200238p2.html

Near the bottom.

Of course it's all circumstance, but a sudden boom in the PC hardware industry is easy to track and attribute to large scale releases. With both Skyrim and BF3 on the horizon many are upgrading, I doubt this is all because of these games but a good deal of them could be.
Click to expand...

diablo 3 also soon ;)
 
Inate8 said:
I just don't see the need for the change, it makes no sense. They say it decreases dev time, I say "do it right the first time".

I still see no point for the end-user in this change. It's being different JUST for the fact that they are different. Woooo.
Click to expand...

Did you read what you wrote? The change isn't for you - the end-user, it is for the developers. It isn't different just for the fact of being different - it is different because that makes it easier for the developers. Frankly, I'd much rather they spend their time working on fixing game bugs and gameplay issues than dicking around implementing an in-game server browser that duplicates functionality that Microsoft, Mozilla, and Google have already developed.

Inate8 said:
Keep all that, just give us the option to browse for servers IN-GAME. You guys can have all your stat tracking fun all you want. I'd like to be IN-GAME and shooting things instead.
Click to expand...

And how is exiting the battle to view the in-game server browser any better than exiting the battle to view the Battlelog server browser? You still have to stop playing the game to change servers. Frankly, your arguments all boil down to "I don't like it, so it must not be good". Okay, objection noted. Let's move on.
 
Flopper said:
diablo 3 also soon ;)
Click to expand...

I really don't see D3 being that big of a hardware seller, especially after the beta impressions. Game requires very, very little to get everything out of it visually.
 
Last edited:
Forceman said:
Did you read what you wrote? The change isn't for you - the end-user, it is for the developers. It isn't different just for the fact of being different - it is different because that makes it easier for the developers. Frankly, I'd much rather they spend their time working on fixing game bugs and gameplay issues than dicking around implementing an in-game server browser that duplicates functionality that Microsoft, Mozilla, and Google have already developed.



And how is exiting the battle to view the in-game server browser any better than exiting the battle to view the Battlelog server browser? You still have to stop playing the game to change servers. Frankly, your arguments all boil down to "I don't like it, so it must not be good". Okay, objection noted. Let's move on.
Click to expand...

I've actually never said it "must not be good". I've only stated my opinion on it's uselessness as per user interaction.

I've also said: Keep your battlelog, give me an in-game option. They are doing it for the consoles, no reason to not be able to do it for PC.

Also, they are not saving dev time considering they need to fix xbox/PS3 and then PC all in different ways. Wouldn't it be easier to have fewer methods?

Fixing a browser launcher, or an in-game server listing would require exactly the same amount of time. The ONLY real difference is in the initial development time, where-in they may have saved a little time using existing protocols(browsers) if they were doing purely a PC release, but considering that they had to make in-game browsers for xbox/PS3, they could have just port that implementation into the PC version with little to no effort on their part. After either implementation(browser or in-game) was developed, the time to fix either option would be teeny, only requiring a minor patch on the in-game side of things which could be pushed through Origin quite painlessly.

I personally abhor anything to do with social media, so seeing these ideas implemented in BF3 is a terrifying waste of time IMO. It adds little to the game that hasn't already been available before(stats), and just allows kids to stroke themselves off together with their stat whoring.
 
How CPU bound is BF3? My sig has my system specs and I am wondering if it will be fast enough to run BF3 at 1920x1080 with everything maxed out.
 
tronester said:
How CPU bound is BF3? My sig has my system specs and I am wondering if it will be fast enough to run BF3 at 1920x1080 with everything maxed out.
Click to expand...

My sig specs let me run 40-60fps in metro and a little higher in caspian at 1920x1200.

CPU will play a big role, I doubt you'll be able to play at ultra, but maybe medium with chop and stutter at high.
 
Inate8 said:
My sig specs let me run 40-60fps in metro and a little higher in caspian at 1920x1200.

CPU will play a big role, I doubt you'll be able to play at ultra, but maybe medium with chop and stutter at high.
Click to expand...

It doesn't play as big a role as in Bad Company 2, oddly. GPU will be taxed to 100% during gameplay but according to HardOCP's Bulldozer review and Tweaktown's own tests, so long as you have a processor with 3 or more cores you should be just fine. Overclocking has minimal impact as well, it seems.
 
AceTKK said:
This is exactly right. Most everyone who actually played the beta came to the same conclusion. Battlelog is fine; it's better than fine actually, it works very well.
Click to expand...

Disagree. Here's how I see it:

Would I have much preferred an in-game browser? Yes, absolutely.

Does Battlelog ruin the game? No, definitely not.

Not a fan of Battlelog personally, but again, it's not going to stop me from playing and enjoying the game. And I do agree about Origin being completely useless. Battlelog does everything.
 
I'm fine with battlelog after using it, I actually like it way more then the clumsy ass BC2 server browser (what a ghastly piece of garbage). Origin however, serves no purpose other then to inflate the install base, so it looks like people are actually using Origin for any other reason then it's required for BF3.
 
i seriously couldn't care less if it had an in-game server browser or not. it's a moot point after trying battlelog during the beta. i see no problems with it whatsoever. connecting and starting up the game didn't take long at all. much better than what i had expected, and i agree that it is better than the bf2 server browser.

but as stated by several others, Origin is definitely a pointless tag-along for those that just want to play BF3. it really servers no purpose and shouldn't have to be kept open during gameplay.
 
Last edited:
Inate8 said:
I really don't see D3 being that big of a hardware seller, especially after the beta impressions. Game requires very, very little to get everything out of it visually.
Click to expand...

actually, d3 in my opinion was more taxing than i expected it to be. once you get into a multiplayer game and spells start flying from multiple people, my system started chugging a bit. on the other hand, my system ran bf3 much better than i expected.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top