merlin704
The Great Procrastinator
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2001
- Messages
- 12,836
The latest trend on these forums is that anybody supporting a developer for a controversial change is either a sheep or a fanboy.
Well said.
/thread
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
PC Battlefield 3 Lacks Key FPS Feature: No Ingame Server Browser.. Yes I'm serious.
- Thread starter piscian18
- Start date
Well said.
/thread
WorldExclusive
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2009
- Messages
- 11,548
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-08-19-battlefield-3-pc-main-menu-is-battlelog
I think it's great. Alt+Tab to quick exit, no splash screens or menus??? Awesome.
I think it's great. Alt+Tab to quick exit, no splash screens or menus??? Awesome.
Are there really people out there who care about checking their stats anywhere and anytime? lol
WorldExclusive
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2009
- Messages
- 11,548
The people that will reach LvL50 in less than 2 months are thrilled about it.
spindoctor
Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2005
- Messages
- 820
Indeed. People say that this is the best server browser DICE have ever made as if that's supposed to mean something. Just because it's not completely shit like their other ones (including BC2), that doesn't mean it's actually good. It's still crap when compared to the gold standard of the TF2 server browser.
Chris_B
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 29, 2001
- Messages
- 5,357
From what i remember of the Alpha, some Russian was already at level 50 or very close to it during the alpha duration. That being said the sad bastard never seemed to not be playing the game.
limitedaccess
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 10, 2010
- Messages
- 7,594
But the specific issue we are discussing is that it isn't in game. How would you say making it in game would improve it? Do you think battelog would lose anything by making it in game?
pigwalk
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2004
- Messages
- 8,396
Can it really be worse than the BF2 or BC2 Server Browser?
No server browser = not a true pc game.
I do not buy online games with no server browser (excluding minecraft and terraria, lol). Matchmaking doesn't work for me. I like to find a server that has the rules that I like, and then I want to join the same server and play with the same people most of the time. I don't want to play with a bunch of random people all the time. That might work for you people who play competitively, but I'm in it for the entertainment, not to be better than everyone else.
Putting the server browser on the internet separate from the game? WTF? Why? This makes no sense. Sounds like pure laziness.
I do not buy online games with no server browser (excluding minecraft and terraria, lol). Matchmaking doesn't work for me. I like to find a server that has the rules that I like, and then I want to join the same server and play with the same people most of the time. I don't want to play with a bunch of random people all the time. That might work for you people who play competitively, but I'm in it for the entertainment, not to be better than everyone else.
Putting the server browser on the internet separate from the game? WTF? Why? This makes no sense. Sounds like pure laziness.
limitedaccess
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 10, 2010
- Messages
- 7,594
How does having battlelog separate inhibit any of those things you want? How would having it in game make it better?
If anything having a separate browser is better in your case, since you can actively monitor if the server you want has slots and join it without even launching the game.
Liqq
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2010
- Messages
- 493
It's hilarious...the people complaining about it the most are the ones who didn't even participate in the alpha, there fore have zero experience with any of it. This is true unnecessary whining at its finest folks!
The web browser is very fast, much faster than any in game browser I have used. I can be in any game from Origin login to actual fighting in seconds not minutes. The server filters are excellent, and everything you need is right there. there are no ads or any of that bullshit at all.
Basically this is here to stay, but the good news is you do have the good ole option to vote with your wallet on this one. Me, I'm playing this game on day one and the crybabies can just go sit and sulk in their little corner of the internet.
The web browser is very fast, much faster than any in game browser I have used. I can be in any game from Origin login to actual fighting in seconds not minutes. The server filters are excellent, and everything you need is right there. there are no ads or any of that bullshit at all.
Basically this is here to stay, but the good news is you do have the good ole option to vote with your wallet on this one. Me, I'm playing this game on day one and the crybabies can just go sit and sulk in their little corner of the internet.
Plague_Injected
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 6,621
Seems like a very minor issue in the grand scheme of things. I'm pretty sure the final version will have some kind of advertising spaces on it, though.
WorldExclusive
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2009
- Messages
- 11,548
I think a website is much more responsive than in-game servers.
Millions of people can log onto a website and access game info faster than the same amount on game servers.
Yes? No?
Being able to monitor BF3 servers and surf the web is an interesting concept. The Beta should be very interesting.
Frraksurred
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2008
- Messages
- 2,751
Technically you are correct... because EA doesn't "create" anything, they are a publisher.
DICE on the other hand is a developer, has employed coders, and has already proven they can build a good in-game browser. However, with the features in Steam, Xbox Live and PS3 Network, perhaps they felt it prudent to be able to compete. Having played the Alpha and seen that it works, that it is not a hassle and in fact gets me into the game faster then what I've previously been used too, I am not concerned.
Positive comments from PC Gamer thread. Sounds like it's fine.. Even better than in game browser servers. I'm not worried till I actually try it.
http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/08/19/battlefield-3-pc-wont-have-in-game-server-browser-battlelog-is-the-main-menu/
------------------------
- "Shomby says:
03:58pm August 19 2011
Um i was in the Alpha and i can tell you that it was awesome , quick and easy to do it from Battelog , yeah it took some time to get used to but after that i really liked it"
-----------------------------
- "Vader says:
04:06pm August 19 2011
I played during Alpha and all I can tell you is that is not bad at all. I personally think it's even better as the loading times of the client when joining a server is greatly decreased. Not only that, but they also can add and remove features without actually messing with the client itself. I actually quite like it."
--------------------------------------
- "Adogg says:
04:27pm August 19 2011
I used it in Alpha and it was better than any other browser."
--------------------------------------
- "Euphoria says:
05:46pm August 19 2011
I was in the Alpha. It was perfectly fine. In fact, I didn't even notice it all that much. Load times are short (for my computer, 2 1/2 years old, it had a 5-10 second load time) and got me into the game quickly with no hassle.
Besides, there aren't many drawbacks. (oh yeah, takes like 1% of your CPU, big fucking deal, cause you already have a browser up listening to music anyways jackass)
It's better than BF2's browser, and the load times are practically 20x quicker. What the fuck are you kids complaining about? Change? Acne infested teenagers I say...
It's like you're complaining about something, but you can't find something negative to say about it because you haven't even tested it."
----------------------------------------
Seems the negatives are coming from those who "think" it sucks.
http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/08/19/battlefield-3-pc-wont-have-in-game-server-browser-battlelog-is-the-main-menu/
------------------------
- "Shomby says:
03:58pm August 19 2011
Um i was in the Alpha and i can tell you that it was awesome , quick and easy to do it from Battelog , yeah it took some time to get used to but after that i really liked it"
-----------------------------
- "Vader says:
04:06pm August 19 2011
I played during Alpha and all I can tell you is that is not bad at all. I personally think it's even better as the loading times of the client when joining a server is greatly decreased. Not only that, but they also can add and remove features without actually messing with the client itself. I actually quite like it."
--------------------------------------
- "Adogg says:
04:27pm August 19 2011
I used it in Alpha and it was better than any other browser."
--------------------------------------
- "Euphoria says:
05:46pm August 19 2011
I was in the Alpha. It was perfectly fine. In fact, I didn't even notice it all that much. Load times are short (for my computer, 2 1/2 years old, it had a 5-10 second load time) and got me into the game quickly with no hassle.
Besides, there aren't many drawbacks. (oh yeah, takes like 1% of your CPU, big fucking deal, cause you already have a browser up listening to music anyways jackass)
It's better than BF2's browser, and the load times are practically 20x quicker. What the fuck are you kids complaining about? Change? Acne infested teenagers I say...
It's like you're complaining about something, but you can't find something negative to say about it because you haven't even tested it."
----------------------------------------
Seems the negatives are coming from those who "think" it sucks.
Mr. Bluntman
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2007
- Messages
- 7,085
How many threads of bitching about features that the game has/lacks before it is even released?
Until the final product is released, who the fuck cares. For all we know, it could work just fine. I haven't heard too much bitching from the community who participated in the Alpha.
Until the final product is released, who the fuck cares. For all we know, it could work just fine. I haven't heard too much bitching from the community who participated in the Alpha.
Sure, it might be better than the piece of shit server browser that was in BFBC2, but there are plenty of games that have proved that they can have a very great and functional server browser in game (any game on the source engine, for example). There's really no reason to put it in a web browser. Perhaps they couldn't get it to work any better than the previous server browser, so they took the lazy route.
WorldExclusive
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2009
- Messages
- 11,548
I rather for them to use something that works, than to repeat and fail at it again.
Creating another server browser that will perform subar for this calibur of game is unacceptable, right?
Drawmonster
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 3,300
All the previous BF games had horrid in-game browsers. I'm up for anything if it's better than what we had in the past...
How it is the 'lazy route' to have it in a web browser?
I would think it would take 'more work' to have it seperate.
BC2's in-game browser sucks big time and loading times are can be horrible. If BF3 can load in 5-10 seconds, then I say bring it on!!!!
I still am unsure how this works though...
Is Battlelog a website you go to in your browser or a stand-alone "browser"? Does Battlelog reserve a slot for you? Can it be used to join with friends? Direct to same squad?
I still am unsure how this works though...
Is Battlelog a website you go to in your browser or a stand-alone "browser"? Does Battlelog reserve a slot for you? Can it be used to join with friends? Direct to same squad?
Last edited:
WorldExclusive
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2009
- Messages
- 11,548
Yes to everything you asked.
Why would you think that? Coding a web page should be much less work than actually coding a server browser into the game. All the sever browser does is retrieve a list of game servers from the host server. It would be a lot less work to make web page to do this instead of integrating all of the features that they're providing through the web page into their game.
The only way that this would be acceptable to use would be if they were releasing it for steam and you could use the steam web browser to find games, but that's not going to happen. I suppose you could use xfire (that has a web browser, doesn't it?).
I think that your just not understanding the system.
When you jump out of a game on any fps and go into a server browser, then choose and new server, what happens?
You load into the damn game.
Battlefield 3 is no different, only instead of having a main menu it has a browser based set up. I've used their system, it works fine, the game loads quickly, and honestly in the long run it probably uses less resources in between games and during. Have some faith before you stir a shit storm up over a poorly written article.
When you jump out of a game on any fps and go into a server browser, then choose and new server, what happens?
You load into the damn game.
Battlefield 3 is no different, only instead of having a main menu it has a browser based set up. I've used their system, it works fine, the game loads quickly, and honestly in the long run it probably uses less resources in between games and during. Have some faith before you stir a shit storm up over a poorly written article.
This server browser is an actual web page that you launch separate from the game, correct?
If so, it would be OK for the first game that you join, but if you wanted to join a different server, you'd have to alt-tab or quit out of the game to find a new one. That's much more of a hassle than just disconnecting from the server, being brought back to the in game server browser, and selecting a different server.
Not really, since the only difference is that you 'quit' instead of 'disconnect', the entire process takes less time than it did using BFBC2's in game browser.
But still much, much longer than any game with a good server browser. I can't imagine waiting for the game to quit and launch every time I wanted to play a new server.
You'd think that, but pretty much every server browser since UT2k4 has been utter garbage.
Did you play the beta? It's a non-issue if you have modern hardware.
By "quit", do you mean close the program completely? (That's how I'm understanding this)
If so, when you click on a server on Battlelog, do you have to wait and watch the whole EA, DICE, etc.. crap screens every time? (When you start bf2, bc2, etc.., it always shows you the logo screens, which you can kill by pressing Esc)
no, it's not, you are wrong.
i don't know why you keep insisting otherwise when 500 people to tell you that it's FASTER if anything. alt-tabbing / quitting / launching are all borderline instant, there is no wait AND it loads in the back so you don't even have to sit through a load screen (though you can if you really want). you just select a sever and it tells you when it's done, 1 second later you are in game.
Valshistixol
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2011
- Messages
- 1,809
You could have just googled this because it's been explained about 100 times. You can exit or just alt/tab.
There will be no loading screens, no logo screens, no nothing, you go straight into the game.
MavericK
Zero Cool
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2004
- Messages
- 31,890
Whether or not the web browser is good isn't really the point to me. IMO, removing in-game server browsers is a step back for PC gaming. That shit goes back to the days of Quake 2, and I thought we were past that.
Saying that DICE/EA can't code a proper in-game browser isn't an excuse, either. Should not even remotely be a problem for a developer of AAA titles.
That said, it won't affect my buying decision, but that's just my 2 cents.
Saying that DICE/EA can't code a proper in-game browser isn't an excuse, either. Should not even remotely be a problem for a developer of AAA titles.
That said, it won't affect my buying decision, but that's just my 2 cents.