Zeh Don said:
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.
Zeh Don said:
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)?
Zeh Don said:
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.
Zeh Don said:
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.
Zeh Don said:
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.
Zeh Don said:
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).
