Battlefield 3 Beta - Your Thoughts?

[Zeh Don]

Judging the maps by the one map offered doesn't seem very... wise...

This is the map DICE chose to represent their game in an open beta; their choice has ramifications. For example, few if any maps from previous BF games replicate the scenario we're seeing in Operation Metro: open field moving into sole close quarters combat. This is an example of the direction BF3 has moved in, and unfortunately it sits directly at odds with what Battlefield is known for - namely, open field combat with a focus on tactical play and team work. An Open Beta - as opposed to the usual closed Beta - serves as a demo. DICE have chosen to Demonstrate their game as Run and Gun close quarters shooter. As a Battlefield fan, then, its the opposite of why I would purchase this game. It's not about the lack of vehicles - its about the focus on close quarter combat in restricted environments; if I wanted to play CoD, I would.

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)?

PC, actually. I don't play shooters on consoles; I have a keyboard and mouse as God intended. The graphics on display here are frankly sufficient, at best. The Beta is graphically restricted, as has been confirmed, however frankly the visuals on display are a step backwards from Bad Company 2 even at the 'High' setting. The lighting is poorly handled and in some areas it's simply bad, and the shaders are decidedly console friendly - the water, the reflection maps, bump mapping; hell, even the basic texture filter strips away the detail. If you use the words "jaw dropping" to describe this, I envy you: your standards are very low, and thus easily exceeded. Their not bad, and I don't mean to say that they are, however their simply not up to the standards of a full priced, AAA, high profile, hyped shooter.

...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.

The issue isn't the movement; its the movement combined with the damage model. The damage model replicated the old school Battlefield vibe perfectly. The movement system is from Call of Duty. They sit at ends with one another. Why do I need to run around like a bat out of hell if I'm supposed to be playing a tactical shooter? The game doesn't know what it wants to be - as evidenced by the Open Beta featuring a close quarters map, and only a close quarters map.

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.

32" Sony Bravia at the native 1080 resolution. When you kill someone, there are up to and including four layers of text (Kill confirmation, assist, rank, unlock) that are large and feature heavy post-processing effects. These appear directly beneath your crosshair, and literally light up the screen. Short of a slow motion instant replay with "AWESOME" stamped across your screen for the most pedestrian of accomplishments, BF3 pushes a console focused UI on a PC Version of the game. I don't need large text; I'M SITTING RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE DAMN SCREEN.

...but it actually works... I have to say I actually prefer Battlelog to a normal server browser...

Please explain how Battlelog is a superior solution to the industry standard in-game menu system? Battlelog is a step backwards in every regard. Take Battlelog. Put it into the game. Congratulations, you've got a step up from Bad Company 2. But, launching the entire game through a web-browsing interface designed as a social network? Is this how badly Facebook has infected the planet?

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.

For Bad Company 2, I can use the integrated Steam Server Browser to view the servers through Steam. Or, I could use the in-game server browser. If Origin handled the Battlelog system - as in, Origin was used instead of an entirely separate program (read: web browser) to present it - Battlelog wouldn't be so bad. But, a Digitial Distribution program and a web browser to launch my game? How many hoops would be too many hoops?

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...

Like the Team Work reinforcement, as opposed to the mess of a request system? Like the movement system that required deliberate action and punished Rambo tactics, as opposed to the movement system that tells you to become Neo from the Matrix, and then punishes you with the damage model? Like open environments and focus on large scale encounters, as opposed to the cluster fuck of linear corridor shooting with 32 players?
Battlefield 3 is exactly what everyone feared it would be: Battlefield of Duty.

If you're enjoying it; shine on. I hope you get a blast from it. However, the concerns raised are legitimate concerns, and not over-reactions or downplays. For what "Battlefield" is, Battlefield 3 isn't.

 

[Irriduccibilli]

Server crash server crash server crash. I really hope they fix this before the game will be released. Yesterday I would be lucky if I would be able to play a whole round without the game crashing.
Also. It's pretty annoying that you get pitted against guys who are level 37 while you are only a level 5 yourself.
Other than that, it's pretty damn good, but fuck the UMP45, and the PCP Pechenge (or whatever), damn overpowered weapons. I know they want to make it realistic, but often it only takes 1-2 bullets to the leg to take you down with those

 

[Cowabungaa]

This is an example of the direction BF3 has moved in, and unfortunately it sits directly at odds with what Battlefield is known for - namely, open field combat with a focus on tactical play and team work.

Are you saying that smaller areas somehow exclude team play? Yesterday I had two matches, in Metro of course, which perfectly showed me that this is a Battlefield game; lots of teamwork, lots of tactics. Small? Yes, but that doesn't mean you can't play tactically.

An Open Beta - as opposed to the usual closed Beta - serves as a demo.

No, it isn't. That's what people want to make of it, but it simply isn't. DICE clearly stated as much.

The Beta is graphically restricted, as has been confirmed, however frankly the visuals on display are a step backwards from Bad Company 2 even at the 'High' setting. The lighting is poorly handled and in some areas it's simply bad, and the shaders are decidedly console friendly - the water, the reflection maps, bump mapping; hell, even the basic texture filter strips away the detail.

Wait for the full game. You just explained for yourself why this beta is a graphical step backwards compared to BC2: it's a beta!

The issue isn't the movement; its the movement combined with the damage model. The damage model replicated the old school Battlefield vibe perfectly. The movement system is from Call of Duty. They sit at ends with one another. Why do I need to run around like a bat out of hell if I'm supposed to be playing a tactical shooter?

What kind of movement system are we talking about here? The fact that you can sprint or? Because if I run around like a 'bat out of hell' I get my ass kicked over and over again. My best matches where the ones where I advanced through the maps tactically. And yes, the CoD-style sprinting is great for that; while my teammate suppresses the enemy, I can sprint to some cover further up to throw a grenade at them or something.

]But, launching the entire game through a web-browsing interface designed as a social network? Is this how badly Facebook has infected the planet?

Why does this matter? A BF3 beta game launches just as quickly from Battlelog for me as games launched ingame in BC2. The only big advantage is that you can't change key layouts, graphical options and all that jazz outside of an actual game, and yes that's something that really should be addressed.

Honestly, I don't get you, or people like you. Not liking certain design directions, fine, but you're judging this game on many fronts as if we're playing the final version. I mean, we got one map and we're playing an outdated, beta version of the game that's already a few months old. How can you even think about judging that as if it's the full game?

 

[Raideh]

Cleaned.

 

[Haxxle]

I love it and I want to make babies with it. end of.

 

[Mark Flanagan]

Pretty good, I wish that they had perhaps picked a different map but as they used OP Metro in the Alpha it's most likely the most finished and I do like the central and final sections quite a bit.
I like the new ranking systems and how sights and weapon attachments are given when you use said gun rather than the "Lv 11! Have an ACOG scope!" BFBC2 way.

I don't understand why people are moaning, End of the day it's a Beta not a demo and we don't have a right to demand either.

 

[chibi_jeido]

oh god not another one...

 

[Coreless]

The only problem with the game is the flashlight idea, to me its probably the worst idea I have ever seen implemented in a military shooter. Having served in the military there is no way in hell you would ever attach a flashlight on the end of your weapon, unless you have some kind of death wish. Running around with a flashlight is like painting a target on your back and asking to get yourself shot and your squads position compromised.

there is a reason that there is such a thing as night vision sights so you don't have to use a flashlight. The fact that is blinds you like if you were staring at the sun makes absolutely no sense.

Overall what sells the game for me is the sounds and the lighting. The rocket sound is especially scary having heard plenty fired at me before, its not something that is easily captured in game form but BF3 has done it.

My only question is, how many maps are actually going to support the 64 player conquest modes? I hope the Caspian Border map isn't the only one I take it.

 

[Googenstien]

Ahh,.. noobs overreacting to a beta test.. its a BETA not DEMO! They are testing all areas of the game and distribution, server stress tests, stats, unlocks, and all sorts of shit. Recently Resistance 3 beta was laggy, unlocks were overpowered and people bitched.. a few days later at release the patch they had set for it had completely changed things.

Generally console betas are out to test server stress and performance before release, not just let people try out a game before trying it.

 

[TacticalAssassin1]

I have learned that I do not like crawling around through thick grass for 2 minutes before being shot in the head by someone I didn't even see. Then respawning and doing it all again, ocasionally hitting someone far away that I can barely see as a weak reward for all that boredom.

This game is seriously not for me.

Understand that this is a beta, the full version will have much larger maps, vehicles including tanks, helicopters and jets, and will have much less boring crawling around than the beta. The beta map and experience is far inferior to what the finished product will be like.

 

[JochemDude]

I'm having a blast with it, it's a little rough about the edges, but nothing that can't be patched.
What I do know I'm gonna hate is the lack of squadbuilding, you can't select which squad to be in and if you join a friend the game could just aswell put you in the other team. Bad part is that they already said this was not a glitch and WILL stay this way.

 

[TacticalAssassin1]

What I do know I'm gonna hate is the lack of squadbuilding, you can't select which squad to be in and if you join a friend the game could just aswell put you in the other team. Bad part is that they already said this was not a glitch and WILL stay this way.

What?! Are you sure?
Can you show me the quote when they said this?
That'll piss me off if you can't choose your squad/squadmates.

 

[chibivash]

i can't get the beta to run at all. i've been trouble shooting for the last 3 days. i keep getting a display driver has stopped responding and has recovered message every time i log into a match. very annoying.

 

[Vrach]

This is the map DICE chose to represent their game in an open beta; their choice has ramifications. For example, few if any maps from previous BF games replicate the scenario we're seeing in Operation Metro: open field moving into sole close quarters combat. This is an example of the direction BF3 has moved in, and unfortunately it sits directly at odds with what Battlefield is known for - namely, open field combat with a focus on tactical play and team work.

You're still judging the whole game on one map. And you still know quite well that there are wide open maps like Caspian Border. So yeah, sorry, you haven't got a leg to stand on there. Not to mention, just because this map has 33% (it's only one of the three areas that are) closed quarters doesn't make it a CoD clone. What it does is give a difference in environments. Now, granted, you might not like that, but I for one love it (and I'm a HUGE fan of Battlefield's openness and open world in general) because it paces the experience excellently.

And once again. One map. Your argument can support it being a bad map to demo with, but it doesn't support Battlefield 3 being a bad product as a whole or a product that's gone the other way. Personally, I view it as a good map to demo with. Once again, this comes from someone who loves vehicles and open world above everything else. So why do I like this being in the open beta? Because it doesn't ruin my experience of one of the better maps by letting me play it during the beta when everything's still buggy and glitchy. I'd say their strategy of not dropping their pants for open beta is a sound one.

The graphics on display here are frankly sufficient, at best. The Beta is graphically restricted, as has been confirmed, however frankly the visuals on display are a step backwards from Bad Company 2 even at the 'High' setting. The lighting is poorly handled and in some areas it's simply bad, and the shaders are decidedly console friendly - the water, the reflection maps, bump mapping; hell, even the basic texture filter strips away the detail. If you use the words "jaw dropping" to describe this, I envy you: your standards are very low, and thus easily exceeded. Their not bad, and I don't mean to say that they are, however their simply not up to the standards of a full priced, AAA, high profile, hyped shooter.

Really no clue what you're talking about. I take a look at every graphic detail and I don't see much room for improvement. Granted, I'm not one of those people to whom graphics are the first thing on their list, but I do enjoy a good set of graphics. Having played stuff like Crysis, Far Cry 2 and similar graphically praised experiences and looking at BF3 after it, I really have not the slightest idea of what you're talking about.

The issue isn't the movement; its the movement combined with the damage model. The damage model replicated the old school Battlefield vibe perfectly. The movement system is from Call of Duty. They sit at ends with one another. Why do I need to run around like a bat out of hell if I'm supposed to be playing a tactical shooter? The game doesn't know what it wants to be - as evidenced by the Open Beta featuring a close quarters map, and only a close quarters map.

Using apples to prove oranges. And why do you need to run around like a bat out of hell? First off - why not? The system is simply obviously superior to those we've had in previous Battlefield games which were using the same damn thing we had since Quake times.

Second, because rushing is also a tactics, whether you like it or not. Lemme give you an example from last night. We're in the metro bit, my squad suddenly stops at a hallway. There's a huge firefight lasting a good long time between us and a few from the other team (nothing ridiculous, but a whole minute of shooting from both sides without stopping is long in FPS terms). I leave the rest of my squad, flank them, run like hell leaping over obstacles in the way, get around and behind the opposing team and one LMG magazine later, we've got that hallway clear. Now, last I heard, flanking was a strategy, but you may need to correct me on that.

32" Sony Bravia at the native 1080 resolution. When you kill someone, there are up to and including four layers of text (Kill confirmation, assist, rank, unlock) that are large and feature heavy post-processing effects. These appear directly beneath your crosshair, and literally light up the screen. Short of a slow motion instant replay with "AWESOME" stamped across your screen for the most pedestrian of accomplishments, BF3 pushes a console focused UI on a PC Version of the game. I don't need large text; I'M SITTING RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE DAMN SCREEN.

Oh you mean the kill/new reward thing. Yeah, we kinda had that in BFBC2. At literally the same size, the only thing that's changed is the colour. Here, compare for yourself:
http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/3227/2011073100029.jpg
http://screenshot.xfire.com/s/93922722-4.jpg

Please explain how Battlelog is a superior solution to the industry standard in-game menu system? Battlelog is a step backwards in every regard. Take Battlelog. Put it into the game. Congratulations, you've got a step up from Bad Company 2. But, launching the entire game through a web-browsing interface designed as a social network? Is this how badly Facebook has infected the planet?

Please explain how it's worse off than the in game menu system? Tell me one thing, one function, one feature that's missing or is made less functional?

You want pros? All right - I don't have to sit through EA logo, DICE logo and a BFBC2 screen for the game to load up. I gotta turn on Origin and a browser, both being on a hell of a lot faster. I'm also instantly logged in, rather than having to wait for a slow login process we've had in BFBC2. During all loading/log in process I can alt tab - and speaking of which...

Alt tabbing. Getting into a server can take several minutes (if you wanna queue up for a specific server and it's full). I don't like staring at a server browser for several minutes. I like alt tabbing to Escapist or something else and browsing it until my game is ready. Alt tabbing from a heavy program like the in game menu? Time. Alt tabbing from a browser? Instant.

For Bad Company 2, I can use the integrated Steam Server Browser to view the servers through Steam. Or, I could use the in-game server browser. If Origin handled the Battlelog system - as in, Origin was used instead of an entirely separate program (read: web browser) to present it - Battlelog wouldn't be so bad. But, a Digitial Distribution program and a web browser to launch my game? How many hoops would be too many hoops?

Ah, didn't know that about the Steam server browser - my BFBC2 copy is a retail one. Still, requiring you to open a browser is one more hoop. That doesn't put the total count up to very high.

Like the Team Work reinforcement, as opposed to the mess of a request system? Like the movement system that required deliberate action and punished Rambo tactics, as opposed to the movement system that tells you to become Neo from the Matrix, and then punishes you with the damage model? Like open environments and focus on large scale encounters, as opposed to the cluster fuck of linear corridor shooting with 32 players?

Gonna have to explain the first one, cause I have no idea what you mean by team work reinforcement and "a mess of a request system". Do you mean the fact that requesting ammo/healing is a bit spotty atm? If so, that's a bug. Other than that I have no idea, with suppressive fire and several other things added, team work works better than ever.

Movement system is improved. Instead of linear jumping, we have leaping over obstacles. More realistic, more functional, more fun, less reminiscent of a game that came out back in '96. The system doesn't tell you a thing. If you get overconfident cause of a new system, that's your problem, not the game's. As you say yourself, such behaviour is strongly discouraged by the damage model, so if you're silly enough to try and defy it just because you feel empowered by the new system somehow, that's your fault.

One map showcased, closed quarters make up a third of it, the other two thirds being open as ever.

Oh and ability to have 64 player Conquest matches. Oh and planes. Oh and factions have different weapons. Oh and flashlights, laser sights, bipods and a myriad of other weapon upgrades. Oh and new tactical possibilities from suppressive fire, ground destruction etc. Oh and I can keep this going for quite a while

 

[Carnagedude504]

It's really good, but more times than i'd like to admit i've been killed by some guy across the map with a semi-automatic sniper rifle that might as well just be considered a machine gun. Before you can react, you have two-three shots in your chest, and it only takes two shots to put you down...

So, other than sniper rifles, and the server overload from the initial public beta release, it's pretty good

 

[Cowabungaa]

You have completely misunderstood me. On the PS3 at least, that initial "harmless strike" CANNOT connect with the enemy. No matter how many times you sit behind an immobile enemy pressing the R2 button, it will continue to be a harmless strike, not my "character actually pulling out the knife before delivering the killing blow".

It doesn't connect in the way you have described. I literally spent 30 seconds trying out the method you described on an immobile enemy, and it didn't work, and he proceeded to turn round and shoot me. Hence i say it is broken.

Ah, that does sound rather broken yes. I didn't have that experience on the PC at least.

In almost every other game in the genre a melee attack is quick and to the point, including it's direct predecessor.

Hence why I see this system as an actual step forward, as I never liked melee being a close quarters win button, or at least not when it's a one-hit kill. I never liked the fact that in CoD, when you're face to face with an enemy, even at close range, a melee attack would win. I always thought that that was way too overpowered for a melee attack. When you want a system like that I'd go the way of Halo and Gears of War; use less damaging stock hits.

Compared to BC2 by the way it's neither a real step forward nor one backward, as I wouldn't say that BC2 was very quick either, I always thought that switching to my pistol was quicker and safer than trying to knife someone. The animation is a bit more elaborate, but other than that it pretty much sets the same rules for knifing as there where in BC2.

 

[Coreless]

How many maps are actually going to support 64 player conquest mode? Im interested in buying the game for the conquest mode but if they only have like 2 maps then that would be pretty disappointing.

 

[LooK iTz Jinjo]

The game is set to release in a month. If it releases anything like this it will be a horrible, horrible game. I really hope they get their act together because I've had nothing but bad experiences with this beta so far.