Battlefield 3 -- the buggiest piece of crap I've ever played (not a CoD fanboy)
- Thread starter Owyn_Merrilin
- Start date
Recommended Videos
The problem with saying "Don't judge until released" presupposes that having played the beta, and found it to be more than usually buggy, you STILL go out and buy a copy after release. If it's buggy enough to be unplayable at that point, you just wasted your money, and everyone will say "Oh you should have played the beta, it was obvious it was going to be terrible..."
I gave the beta about fifteen minutes before i got tired of it and switched it off. I didn't really have any fun at all. It felt like the bastard child of Medal of Honour and Battlefield: Bad Company 2. Actually, it just kind of feels like Bad Company 2.... v2.0, which is kind of what i expected it would turn out to be. There's nothing revolutionary here. It's still the same "walk five metres and hope to spot someone before you get shot from a direction you never anticipated" gameplay, with the same guns, same classes but not even the same large scale maps it seems as those shitty metro tunnels are a far cry from some of Bad Company 2's large scale vehicular based rush maps and even more of a far cry from Battlefield 2's immense battlefields with even more vehicular carnage!
There's one map from BF2 that i remember fondly, the Americans have to take the Chinese positions and they deploy from an aircraft carrier; you can either take the dingy or hop in a chopper. It really felt awesome as you scrambled for the boats or the choppers, rushing to shore while Chinese pilots took potshots at you. Meanwhile, the shore itself was small enough that ground infantry had a fighting chance and could still engage in fierce combat. Fantastic, i loved that. Now where has that gone? Why is it all small scale warfare? I can understand why Bad Company 2 did it - being a consolised version of Battlefield first and foremost - but there's no excuse for Battlefield 3 to do the same. It should follow in the footsteps of its true parenthood. Honestly if they were just going to copypaste Bad Company they should have just called it Bad Company 3 because honestly i had more fun playing Bad Company 2 than i did with Battlefield 3, and that's not even because of the game breaking bugs like not being able to look down the iron sights from time to time.
I'm neither a PC or console fanboy. BF2 was my favourite of the series and i absolutely enjoyed Bad Company 2, which was ideal for console play. But this is just sloppy. This is the "Madden Effect", a minor update that everyone rushes to pay £40 because it's going to be the "next big thing" everyone migrates to and so everyone is virtually required to do the same. Maybe the full retail release will change things, maybe the PC version is significantly better than the console version. (i played console not PC because i couldn't seem to download any beta for it on Origin but i could on xbox live) But as it stands it doesn't look like it will. Not to me, anyway. I am disappoint.
There's one map from BF2 that i remember fondly, the Americans have to take the Chinese positions and they deploy from an aircraft carrier; you can either take the dingy or hop in a chopper. It really felt awesome as you scrambled for the boats or the choppers, rushing to shore while Chinese pilots took potshots at you. Meanwhile, the shore itself was small enough that ground infantry had a fighting chance and could still engage in fierce combat. Fantastic, i loved that. Now where has that gone? Why is it all small scale warfare? I can understand why Bad Company 2 did it - being a consolised version of Battlefield first and foremost - but there's no excuse for Battlefield 3 to do the same. It should follow in the footsteps of its true parenthood. Honestly if they were just going to copypaste Bad Company they should have just called it Bad Company 3 because honestly i had more fun playing Bad Company 2 than i did with Battlefield 3, and that's not even because of the game breaking bugs like not being able to look down the iron sights from time to time.
I'm neither a PC or console fanboy. BF2 was my favourite of the series and i absolutely enjoyed Bad Company 2, which was ideal for console play. But this is just sloppy. This is the "Madden Effect", a minor update that everyone rushes to pay £40 because it's going to be the "next big thing" everyone migrates to and so everyone is virtually required to do the same. Maybe the full retail release will change things, maybe the PC version is significantly better than the console version. (i played console not PC because i couldn't seem to download any beta for it on Origin but i could on xbox live) But as it stands it doesn't look like it will. Not to me, anyway. I am disappoint.
This thread made me register so I could respond.
First off, EA have said that the BETA they released is a PRE-ALPHA version of the game, during the alpha they managed to iron out most of the obvious bugs, and that is the version they are releasing.
Second, EA released this BETA for the sole purpose of testing their battlelog browser system, and will be applying game fixes from the ALPHA as they go to test the updating feature of battlelog.
What people are playing is not the version of BF3 that will be released, i repeat, NOT the version that is going to be released. It is just to stress test their servers, Battlelog website and tools and the network / internet connections.
Yes it's buggy, yes it crashes, but it will be far less buggy when it is released.
It has been said before, but it is a BETA, you have to allow a fair bit for bugs, glitches and crashes.
First off, EA have said that the BETA they released is a PRE-ALPHA version of the game, during the alpha they managed to iron out most of the obvious bugs, and that is the version they are releasing.
Second, EA released this BETA for the sole purpose of testing their battlelog browser system, and will be applying game fixes from the ALPHA as they go to test the updating feature of battlelog.
What people are playing is not the version of BF3 that will be released, i repeat, NOT the version that is going to be released. It is just to stress test their servers, Battlelog website and tools and the network / internet connections.
Yes it's buggy, yes it crashes, but it will be far less buggy when it is released.
It has been said before, but it is a BETA, you have to allow a fair bit for bugs, glitches and crashes.
The map you are describing is Wake Island, it has been in the Battlefield series from the start and it is confirmed for the full release of Battlefield 3.Gralian said:
The BETA only has one map yea, but there is another behind locked test servers (but the password keeps getting leaked) called Caspian Border and it has everything that BC2 did and more, it feels like one of the large scale maps from BF2, cars, tanks, jets and choppers.
Its is larger than anything BF2 could handle, and the larger BC2 maps could fit in this twice over.
Small capture points that a well set up squad can hold on the ground, everything.
Don't throw in the towel just yet mate, it is all coming, just not in the BETA.
not so much a bug, but the shotgun seems to do random damage. i was defending an area and crouched. One guy came round the corner and died in one shot same with the second guy, however his friend following him then takes 3 shots and still doesnt die and kills me with 26% health left
You do realize that pre-alpha means "before alpha," and it means that the engine isn't even finished, let alone features, right? What you're saying even implies that, rather than actually fixing anything in the alpha test, they just reverted back to pre-alpha code after spending all that money on it -- which makes absolutely no sense. The way software development works, (at least with videogames) pre-alpha is where you get the engine up and running. Alpha is where you get all of the features into place and fix as many bugs as you can along the way. Beta is where you do the final bug fix and polish. I agree that this game is in a pre-alpha state, but I disagree that there is any excuse at all for it to be there, especially since they had a public (but not open) test of the alpha version. I would have been worried about the game if it had this kind of problem about half way through the alpha, to say nothing of it having these problems in beta. They want to call it a beta, they can expect people to be worried when it has bugs that should have been hammered out in the two phases before it. When you add the fact that the release date is a month away, and it has to go gold at least a couple of weeks before that to allow for things like disc pressing, I have every right and reason to be worried, and you people claiming "it's just a beta, stop complaining" are looking ignorant. By the way, you want to see a detailed bug report, get on the battlelog forums and do a search for the username I use here. I completely understand the meaning of "beta;" I'm wondering if those going "it's just a beta" understand it as well as they think they do.Icefyre0 said:
Isn't the battlefeild 3 beta meant to be uncomplete and the whole point of a beta testing is to test it and report glitches and stuff? The problem I had with it is that whenever I go prone i would normally either shake uncontrollably or no be able to shoot because i would either lift my gun up to reload again and again. except i wasnt even reloading. it would get halfway through the animation and he'd put the gun back down again. Bloddy annoying