Battlefield 3 Beta - Your Thoughts?

[alexhj]

To much like Call of Duty and Bad Company. Not enough like Battlefield 2

 

[Abedeus]

Well, positively surprised that it turns on High on my not-that-new-nor-shiny PC. It tried to put me on Ultra, but it was tad too much on 32 player servers.

But one map makes me very sad, especially since we don't get to see vehicles or many open spaces, unlike BC2 beta.

 

[TacticalAssassin1]

To much like Call of Duty and Bad Company. Not enough like Battlefield 2

How is it like Call of Duty? I'm curious. Have you seen any Caspian Border gameplay on YouTube?

 

[TacticalAssassin1]

Spoiler

I played it for about 30 minutes, and my initial impression was to go right back to Bad Company 2, because this feels like a step backwards. Gameplay wise, its the same old shit - however, the maps on offer are a disaster of poor design and the gameplay here has changed far too much to be called a true sequel to the terrific Battlefield 2. This is what everyone feared it would be: Battlefield of Duty.

Judging the maps by the one map offered doesn't seem very... wise. And I don't see how it's any different than any Rush map in BFBC2. Don't get me wrong, I love me some Conquest, but the Rush mode is fun too and was/is a part of BFBC2 so I'm not getting what you're so surprised/annoyed about. In fact, compared to BFBC2 Rush maps, I find it an improvement as I love the way Operation Metro gives you three completely different sceneries, each one really well crafted, I might add.

Visually, everything has a... sheen to it. Character models have strange illumination highlights that make them look like plastic, and it really underplays the detail on offer. Its kind of blurry, but in a strange way that Bad Company 2 didn't have, that makes the package frankly unattractive. The graphics aren't "bad" - all the detail you love is there - they're simply not very nice to look at thanks to some poor design choices.

Not getting where you're coming from with this, I find the graphics and the visuals properly jaw dropping, both in quality and the design. Are you playing the PC version or a console one (I heard consoles took a bit of a hit there, but no clue myself as I don't own one)?

Control wise, everything feels like its floating around and unattached. Bad Company 2 had real weight to your character, gun and movement. You felt like a physical person in a physical place. Battlefield 3, on the other hand, feels like there's no feedback to your movement and gun play in real way. It's all very... subtle, but it adds up. It clearly been done to make the game "smoother" for the CoD crowd, where you're bunny hoping around, and frankly it takes away from what Battlefield was originally about. Considering we're still supposed to sit back and hide from snipers and scoped rifles (read: everyone) the fact that you now move like an energiser bunny really begs the question: are we playing a fast paced action game, or a slower paced tactical shooter? You can't have it both ways.
This is probably my biggest complaint with the actual game: it just doesn't FEEL good to play.

Erm, bunny hopping won't work for half a second in BF3. I've seen it work in BFBC2 actually (and it pissed me off to no end cause I hate that kind of gameplay), but here no way. You die too fast for that shit to actually work. In fact, the fact you die easier/faster is what adds to the tactical element quite a bit. I find that running around headless is entirely useless, but if you take it slow and use actual tactics - taking cover, checking corners, laying down suppressive fire, storming the enemy when appropriate, utilizing flashlights/grenades/bipods/etc. - you've got a far better chance of winning. The team play really benefits from this, I find that people work together far easier and far more in BF3 than they ever did in BFBC2.

The whole "jump over obstacles" thing, which is what I think you're mostly referring to, is quite awesome. Yes, it makes the game fast(er) paced in those kinds of situations, but how is that a bad thing? As I said above, there's a time when you wanna rush an enemy (not Leeroying, but a tactical rush to secure an objective) and for that it's great. It doesn't turn the game into CoD because if you go around rushing all the time, you're gonna be admiring your spawn location locale quite a bit.

Presentation wise, everything is just too "IN YOUR FACE". Kill a guy, BOOM, neon lights across the bottom of your screen for 10 seconds. The kill tracker in the corner is about 5 sizes too big, and it honestly distracts from the actual game part of the experience. The menus are nice, however you can't cancel out of anything. You have to wait until your in a game to actually do anything. This results in a lot of standing around initially, and a lot of unrequired deaths. This leads me to the biggest issue with the whole thing:

Neon lights, wut? It just zooms into your killer, which is what BFBC2 did as well (when killcam is enabled). Again I get the feeling you've gotta be on the console (or maybe a small PC screen? I might be spoiled by my new 24") cause, like always, I can't notice the kill tracker at all, even when I want to, it's just too small for me to pay attention to it.

Dunno what you mean about not being able to cancel out of things. Do you mean during a killcam, it doesn't let you cancel out of it and go to prepare your weapon setup etc.? If so, I agree, but this was also an issue with BFBC2, you just might not have noticed it if you play on fast respawn servers. I have to agree that the whole weapon/upgrades switching needs some work, I find that the BFBC2 one was much better as you had it all in one place and could deploy right from there - it takes way too long atm if you decide you wanna switch something out on your weapon.

The Battlelog crap is a deal breaker for me. And considering I installed Origin, that should really tell you something.
It's cumbersome, invasive, difficult to understand because they've decided to ignore basically every industry standard for menus, and it in no way improves upon the experience of the end user. On top of this, its slow, glitchy as fuck (Server is full? It has 15/32 players!) and is poorly laid out, badly designed and the simple look of it all is just unattractive.

Ok, guess you're not on a console. It's not exactly the prettiest system, but it actually works. It takes some getting used to (I know, as gamers, we don't really like new things when we have functioning things already, I'm not keen on that myself), but I actually prefer it to the actual game now. The only issue I had with it was not being able to set up my options (video, keybinds, etc., maybe it's there and I'm missing it though?) prior to starting the game, but then again, that's a one time setup.

It's not glitchy on account of full servers, it's just that servers actually get populated ridiculously fast. If you refresh your server, you'll notice this, happened to me loads of times. I'm not exactly sure why there's no queue option like there was in BFBC2, but I imagine this is just missing from open beta to stop everyone queuing and overloading a few select servers. I'd suggest the Quick Match option for now, works just fine.

I have to say I actually prefer Battlelog to a normal server browser (and honestly, the first time I heard of the idea, I was appalled). The thing is, the game starts up at the same speed as it normally would, except now I can continue on browsing instead of staring at the loading screen, and just hop into the game when it's ready. This is gonna come even more in handy when the queuing option is introduced. And frankly, functionally, it's better than the BFBC2 system.

I was actually on the fence about Battlefield 3, leaning towards an early purchase. Thanks to the open beta, I know to keep Bad Company 2 installed and just ignore this CoD wannabe that feels the need to tie you into your internet browser on top of EA's Origin. Honestly, whats the point of having a fucking program required to install and play the game, if you're just going to then send your players to the internet before they can even actually launch the fucking game?

Don't see the connection between Origin and a server browser. Are you suggesting Origin should function as a server browser? BFBC2 could be purchased on Steam and have you launch Steam every time the same way you launch Origin, so yeah, no difference there aside from the service used.

Call me a fanboi if you will, but I honestly think you're wrong with all/majority of the things listed above. I love Battlefield and I hate CoD (not hate hate, but it's just not my kind of game, I like my vehicles, tactics and teamwork that comes with BF) and BF3 works just fine as a Battlefield game from the presented. Yes, no vehicles yet, but we're talking just one map that's a Rush - we've had this in BFBC2 and it was no issue, so what's the fuss here?

On the other hand, the game is improved so much, it's ridiculous. What's more, it improves exactly on the parts that make Battlefield what it is. We've got prone back (thank fuck for that, sucked that it was taken out in BFBC2), we've got planes back, we've got suppressive fire, bipods, flashlights, laser sights and a plethora of other things. I for one am loving it and can't wait to get my hands on more Battlefield-y maps (ie. large open Conquest maps with all sorts of vehicles, which was always what BF was about for me).

Yeah, my friend was saying pretty much the same thing as what you said.
Thanks for saying all that, I was worried BF3 was going to suck for a bit there
Never again will I doubt DICE like that

 

[TacticalAssassin1]

I can't understand why anyone would choose a 2 mnth old build to beta test, which is the claim.

Surely the problems with a 2 month build have already been addressed - I would hope.

Stress test the servers? Maybe, but why use an old build that you know to be broken?

Because every day spent working on the beta is a day not spent working on the end product?

 

[No_Remainders]

Love the interface... yes that is sarcasm, and the game looks like CoD more then ever before.

Not to mention it plays a lot more like CoD. I've run and gunned without using crouch or prone through the entire map several times without dying. It's really not that difficult.

Honestly? Judging by this, it won't be the day 1 buy I thought it would. It seems to play too much like a more class-based Call of Duty, and while that's not exactly bad, the general feel to the game is clunky at best.

I especially don't appreciate me killing someone then their body standing upright spinning in circles. >.>

 

[Jezzascmezza]

It was unplayable for a couple of days for me.
It'd take me five minutes to get into a match, and when I did get in, I'd move five metres forward, and then I'd lag back five metres.
When I finally got into a match that worked, I was a little underwhelmed.
There was very little explanation on what to do, and to be honest, to me, it felt like "just another shooter."

 

[TacticalAssassin1]

I can't understand why anyone would choose a 2 mnth old build to beta test, which is the claim.

Surely the problems with a 2 month build have already been addressed - I would hope.

Stress test the servers? Maybe, but why use an old build that you know to be broken?

Because every day spent working on the beta is a day not spent working on the end product?

Try making your point like a grown up and not a sarcastic teenager.

Sorry? The question mark was to show that I was offering one possible answer, and that I wasn't sure myself.

 

[ezeroast]

Its awesome, the gameplay is smooth, the sounds are unbelievable, the graphics are beautiful, the classes seem nicely balanced, weapon kit addons are very cool. The new stuff such as flashlights and laser pointers are cool. Mobile spawn points make the recon class a much better front line class. I LOVE IT
And guess what.. I actually like the server browser because it works (most of the time)

There are a couple of glitches fixable on a day 1 patch though. Mostly the falling through the floor on the first point of metro. Its annoying but easily avoidable.
Sometimes my rifle wont zoom but fixes itself if i switch to my pistol and back.
The scope glint should be toned down a bit

 

[ezeroast]

I tried it on Xbox, and wow is it ugly.

I died like 8 times before ever seeing a person, and it felt like the game was supposed to be a pixel hunt. Which is impossible due to the horrid graphics and lack of a scope on all guns but the sniper.

Also why do I have to unlock basic functionality for my classes? And where are all of the vehicles?

And falling through maps is stupid. The game has to ship in like 25 days. There just isn't enough time for them to have a chance in hell at fixing this mess.

You can actually put a scope on any gun in the game excluding pistols. I havnt seen any Xbox footage but i can tell you on the PC its looking very nice.

 

[Raideh]

Cleaned.

 

[Robert Ewing]

Urgh, I was massively disappointed.

So many lag issues. Those canned animations are truly horrible, you'd think that dice would add some better animation variables in those things. Fifa 12 has done it, and they aren't exactly cutting any edges at the moment.

And that horrible animation when you die, you reach out with your hand... What. And every time? If you're going to have that even IN the game, add some more animations at least...

Grahpics seemed really bog standard, saw my fair share of low-res textures, object clipping, broken perspectives on grass.

You'll notice that all of my arguments are graphical. Well, that's because it's just a multiplayer. The Multiplayer is as good as any war game multiplayer I suppose. And these graphical annoyances are well placed. We are talking the best of the best here... This things going up against COD. It needs to be top notch in every way. They can't go and make silly mistakes like this.

And I know it's a beta, but it's still the players job as a beta tester to pick holes in it and break the game.

 

[Hosker]

I really quite enjoyed it. I don't have anything more to add.

EDIT: why are people complaining about bugs on a beta? They will be fixed eventually; talk about the actual game.

 

[Cowabungaa]

Knife kills are impossible. Any attempt at melee gets you killed. I've pulled it off a grand total of 3 times in my 2 hours of playing. Also, the canned kill animations take so long that melee stops being a viable attack method unless you are attacking a lone target.

And this is a bad thing, how, exactly? It's actually meant to be like you describe it; a surprise attack on a lone target. A humiliation tool, and not a modern weapon of war. You're not meant to go up close in Battlefield anyway.

You'll notice that all of my arguments are graphical.

Which is stupid. Why? Because it's a beta. Beta's always have sub-par graphics compared to the end product.

Gods, it annoys me to no end that so many people here seem to judge this beta as if it's the end product.

 

[Tyrant T100]

It's a horrible bug ridden mess and it being beta means nothing. We all know that the betas of today are basically an online demo.

No, they're not. That's what many gamers think they are, or at least want them to be. But they're and they never will be. Anyone who thinks that they are is deluded, has unreasonable expectations and is going to hate the actual end-product for something that isn't the end product.

"Deluded" thank you to resorting to name calling.
Betas for a very long time have been demos and this is no exception. A real beta is invite only and the devs actually make you give feedback. Considering that EA did nothing after the BC2 and MOH betas it's pretty obvious it will be months after BF3's release that they actually fix the issues.

 

[AnotherAvatar]

Battlefield is win, and this new version looks to add new layers to the combat and a number of nice touches showing the team really listens to their fans. The beta is glitchyish, but it's a beta, that's what it's for, and it never interferes with the fun-factor. Sure, occasionally I'll see a man warped into some odd mutant, possibly ninja, turtle-man thing as he crawls on the ground... I just assume it's the side effect of some new disabling hallucinogen being used by the military.

I've been able to get on servers fine through my phone's mobile hotspot and play without lag, and if that isn't good I don't know what is. Loving the unlocks and the new layers they added to that, this game is going to be an MMO-level-addiction for some people, which is epic.

I love the idea of mixing social networking with the game so totally, in that I can like my friends achievements and even give comments. The potential and power of that idea are mind blowing, to the point I can actually forgive the browser based launcher.

The game is just smart. Where most games are very very dumb. They gave us a massive sandbox full of weapons in which we can play out all sorts of insane scenarios of combat.

My only complaint is the only unlocked map doesn't have any vehicles, and that's a big draw for this series over. Also, looming on my screen is a locked MASSIVE map full of vehicles including jets... I hope they unlock it soon as it would be nice to, you know, see the rest of the gameplay mechanics I came to the Battlefield party for.

 

[Cowabungaa]

"Deluded" thank you to resorting to name calling.
Betas for a very long time have been demos and this is no exception. A real beta is invite only and the devs actually make you give feedback. Considering that EA did nothing after the BC2 and MOH betas it's pretty obvious it will be months after BF3's release that they actually fix the issues.

Since when is deluded a swear word? Anyone who goes into a friggin' beta expecting, basically, a multiplayer demo of the complete game, is haviny way too high and completely unrealistic expectations, and is in fact, deluded. You're misleading yourself, which is what deluded means.

Regardless, you offer no counter-argument. A real beta is invite only? Where did you get that from? Why on earth would anyone would want to promote their game with an unfinished, outdated build that only offers a teeny tiny bit of the complete game in terms of graphics, gameplay, polish, everything. What you're saying just makes no sense. DICE said it themselves:

"That?s why we?re doing it. It?s not to market the game, it?s actually to test it in a proper way. There are hundreds of things that we?ve changed since the alpha."

And how would you know what they want with this beta better than they do themselves?

As for DICE (because EA is not developing this, DICE is) not doing anything with the beta info: here [http://www.vg247.com/2011/10/01/dice-lists-changes-coming-to-battlefield-3-thanks-to-beta-feedback/] and here [http://www.vg247.com/2011/09/06/battlefield-3-beta-%E2%80%93-hundreds-of-changes-from-alpha-day-one-patches-likely/] is some stuff they're already working on thanks to our input, and who says that's all?

 

[Frederik Bro Johansen]

the fact that you have to find servers through the browser, and the fact that graphical options and tanks/etc. is a no-go. i give it 7/10. But then again, so far its beta. Otherwise the game is ok, a bit better that BFBC2 (without the DLC of course)

-Fekke