What you think of BF3?

[fix-the-spade]

Is there a such thing as dog-fighting in the sky or is it all lock on and shoot now?

It's more like Lock on- fire- flare deployed- swerve ground fire- lose track of enemy- hostile lock- missile fired- deploy own flares- swerve opponent- use gun.

Although, BF2 dogfighting is better...

 

[Ironman126]

I haven't seen the multiplayer side, but if they have destructible environments that they promised (PLEASE TELL ME THEY DO), then I have to say that they've won on multiplayer

Oh, yes. They have all that and more. The Multiplayer is fan-fucking-tastic.

 

[Vigormortis]

I think the campaign was pretty fun although short. The multiplayer is very fun although sometimes you get the morons.

Now I just have to fix the problem with it crashing and I could play for hours uninterrupted.

How is the multiplayer? I haven't played since the original 1942 I'm just getting back in. Does everyone still just go off and do there own thing? Is there a such thing as dog-fighting in the sky or is it all lock on and shoot now?

Most people still "run off and do their own thing", but because of the squad mechanic, team work is much more common then it was in previous Battlefield games.

I can honestly say, as a big fan of Battlefield 1942 and Battlefield 2 myself, I'd recommend playing this. It's much closer to BF2 than it is to Bad Company 2.

And, yes. There's still plenty of vehicular combat. (fantastic vehicular combat) Including aircraft combat. In most cases you'll be fighting people who can't fly to save their lives, but every once in a while you'll come face to face with a competent pilot. When that happens, the battle is intense and fun as hell.

 

[Zack Alklazaris]

I think the campaign was pretty fun although short. The multiplayer is very fun although sometimes you get the morons.

Now I just have to fix the problem with it crashing and I could play for hours uninterrupted.

How is the multiplayer? I haven't played since the original 1942 I'm just getting back in. Does everyone still just go off and do there own thing? Is there a such thing as dog-fighting in the sky or is it all lock on and shoot now?

Most people still "run off and do their own thing", but because of the squad mechanic, team work is much more common then it was in previous Battlefield games.

I can honestly say, as a big fan of Battlefield 1942 and Battlefield 2 myself, I'd recommend playing this. It's much closer to BF2 than it is to Bad Company 2.

And, yes. There's still plenty of vehicular combat. (fantastic vehicular combat) Including aircraft combat. In most cases you'll be fighting people who can't fly to save their lives, but every once in a while you'll come face to face with a competent pilot. When that happens, the battle is intense and fun as hell.

Actually just bought the game today for the hell of it. Sounds like I made a good decision. Yes I love the aircraft combat. I have a natural touch to flying and was worried they may have turned it into a missile locked your f@#cked deal.

 

[Aprilgold]

Well I think its a DRM ridden piece of shit to where they weren't proper enough to give PC users a menu screen, WHY BATTLELOG, WWHHYY!!

I still care as little as I did when I heard it was coming.

 

[Vigormortis]

It doesn't make it special, but it helps justify the investment of a top-of-the-line gaming rig. I mean, it makes no sense to build a $1,500+ rig with all the goodies like a hexacore processor, 16GB of RAM and a big, fast GPU like a GTX 580 or an ATI 5970 and mostly play games like Doom, Wolfenstien 3d, Quake, Myst 1, Fallout 1 and uncountable browser-based games. If you have a good rig, you should play games that look out of this world on their highest settings. That is why Crysis, Battlefield 3 and Metro 2033 exist.

To be fair, Metro 2033 didn't look that amazing. I'm fairly certain it's "ultra" settings required such high-end hardware because the engine was far from optimized. But then again, that wasn't that games only issue.

 

[Dutch 924]

The plot was Black Ops, with its interrogation and flashbacks, with timing being all over the place.
Far too short.
Ending was so abrupt, its like they ran out of money and thought "Don't worry, we'll just put in a series of QTEs"

Yet to play multiplayer, I hope they did something about those bugs

 

[Sovereignty]

I enjoyed it. The campaign wasn't why I bought it. So I'm saving it for a rainy day. No real problems with running origin, it was nice to be able to play when it was midnight on the east coast (Even though I was in pacific time.)

Multiplayer is a blast, some servers have some connection issues (What game doesn't have the occasional lag server?).

I'm just disappointed you can't change your load out outside of the actual game, nor can you adjust settings or fight bots. But otherwise, battlelog is actually pretty nice to have.

 

[Exocet]

I'd like to chip in,but as of this afternoon,I can't play for 5 minutes without the game freezing up,then crashing to desktop.

 

[Frost27]

I haven't touched the single player at all yet, though I will eventually. I got it for the MP.

I like it so far overall though the connections can be a bit sketchy at times. Given the fact that I am on a 20 meg pipe I don't think it's on my end. The console graphics leave a little to be desired compared to BC2 (distance drawing and rendering is abyssmal and the graphics options menu is "brightness" and that's it).

I am finding that I can't snipe worth a damn in BF3. I was pretty damn good in BC2 but the feel of the long ranged engagements and mild changes in the way bullet drop are handled changed the feel but that's an issue with me and not the game. What isn't an issue with me is the weapon damage on sniper rifles is laughably low while a carbine can kill you in an instant. I get really tired of hitting people in hardcore in the chest with the SV98 and watching them run away before I can rescope.

 

[Dhael]

I'm a quintessential COD fanboy who jumped ship to battlefield due to apathy to the poor trailers for MW3. I really wish I didn't. I've spent two days playing this in two hour bursts of gameplay trying my hardest to get used to it, because I wanted to give it a fair shake. I knew it played different than COD going in and knew I'd have to "break it in" so to speak. But, I can't get past the poorly optimized "augmented reality" elements.

I haven't played battlefield MP before this and I have to say the Battlefield has a hilariously cluttered HUD. I gave up on conquest mode solely due to the HUD elements in that mode just dominating the screen to the point of getting me killed by players hidden by the ginormous objective indicators. Good lord, why the hell did the developers think that having the indicator zoom in to consume a good fifth of of screen (and right over the targeting reticule at that) was a good idea? At least add some transparency to it! While rush is much better here and having played the beta I somewhat adapted, there are still moments of dying entirely due to the HUD getting in the way.

Seriously, the battlefield HUD only makes me miss the relatively clean COD HUD which pushes everything to edges and out of the way. While Battlefield just crams it in my face at every moment. Yes, it's nice to know where objectives are, but if I'm at said objective, I don't need a five foot sign screaming "here I am" getting in the way. I don't need a big ass display in my right hand view to tell my I'm using a grenade launcher and how to switch back to my rifle. The target reticule is enough info for that. I don't giant button indicator appearing in the dead center of the screen along with large picture of the weapon to block my view every time I walk over a dropped gun( or worse when I'm laying on said gun because in just happens to be in my hiding spot.

To be fair I could get over the rest of my gripes with the game as being just a different game but the HUD elements drive me up the wall due to just how intrusive and distracting they are when compared to the COD HUD. It just keeps shoving things in my view without a care of how it might obstruct my ability to play. I makes me miss COD, and if Battlefield's trying to win over the COD players this intrusiveness will only frustrate those players who are used to the cleaner HUD elements of COD. I could forgive the overpowered tanks, the impossible flying vehicles, and the cheap deaths as simply an idiosyncrasy of a game I not used to, The HUD is quickly becoming a game-breaker for me.

 

[The Virgo]

I haven't seen the multiplayer side, but if they have destructible environments that they promised (PLEASE TELL ME THEY DO), then I have to say that they've won on multiplayer

Oh, yes. They have all that and more. The Multiplayer is fan-fucking-tastic.

Just to make sure, are you being sarcastic? Or is it really an awesome experience?

That's the problem with text: Sarcasm doesn't translate well using only words. <:-(

 

[vrbtny]

It doesn't make it special, but it helps justify the investment of a top-of-the-line gaming rig. I mean, it makes no sense to build a $1,500+ rig with all the goodies like a hexacore processor, 16GB of RAM and a big, fast GPU like a GTX 580 or an ATI 5970 and mostly play games like Doom, Wolfenstien 3d, Quake, Myst 1, Fallout 1 and uncountable browser-based games. If you have a good rig, you should play games that look out of this world on their highest settings. That is why Crysis, Battlefield 3 and Metro 2033 exist.

To be fair, Metro 2033 didn't look that amazing. I'm fairly certain it's "ultra" settings required such high-end hardware because the engine was far from optimized. But then again, that wasn't that games only issue.

Have you seen Metro 2033 on ultra DX11? It's like the graphical equivalent of Sex. Sure it doesn't have the colour range of Crysis, but christ! Have you seen it? The amount of passive and enviromental detail is amazing.

The way you walk down a corridor and the air is filled with little orange flecks which are actually sparks..... amazing.

 

[Frost27]

snip

You may enjoy playing hardcore mode more. The ammunition/health boxes are no longer there and for "realism" a lot of the other on screen crap is gone as well except for the map and occasional request from people to drop ammo/health. It's not a huge change but it is better than nothing.

Just wait until you get shot in the face by an enemy standing in front of you that you didn't shoot because one of your teammates is directly behind him on the other side of the map and their arrow designating them as a friend just happens to be directly on the enemy.

 

[Vigormortis]

It doesn't make it special, but it helps justify the investment of a top-of-the-line gaming rig. I mean, it makes no sense to build a $1,500+ rig with all the goodies like a hexacore processor, 16GB of RAM and a big, fast GPU like a GTX 580 or an ATI 5970 and mostly play games like Doom, Wolfenstien 3d, Quake, Myst 1, Fallout 1 and uncountable browser-based games. If you have a good rig, you should play games that look out of this world on their highest settings. That is why Crysis, Battlefield 3 and Metro 2033 exist.

To be fair, Metro 2033 didn't look that amazing. I'm fairly certain it's "ultra" settings required such high-end hardware because the engine was far from optimized. But then again, that wasn't that games only issue.

Have you seen Metro 2033 on ultra DX11? It's like the graphical equivalent of Sex. Sure it doesn't have the colour range of Crysis, but christ! Have you seen it? The amount of passive and enviromental detail is amazing.

The way you walk down a corridor and the air is filled with little orange flecks which are actually sparks..... amazing.

I have. And quite honestly, it's still not that impressive. There were plenty of things that were incredible, and it was a notch above most engines today, but overall still not "OH EMM GEE DAH GRAPHICS!!" amazing. The texture details weren't that great in many places and had that "plasticy" look to them. The level of detailed shader effects were also lacking.

That said, the model details were quite impressive. As was the lighting engine. The animations could have used some work though.

It probably would have been far more impressive if a vast majority of the DX11 features that were added had been programmed into the engine from the start instead of a month or so before release.

 

[Ironman126]

I haven't seen the multiplayer side, but if they have destructible environments that they promised (PLEASE TELL ME THEY DO), then I have to say that they've won on multiplayer

Oh, yes. They have all that and more. The Multiplayer is fan-fucking-tastic.

Just to make sure, are you being sarcastic? Or is it really an awesome experience?

That's the problem with text: Sarcasm doesn't translate well using only words. <:-(

No sarcasm. It is a great multiplayer experience.

 

[octafish]

I've played up until the AT rocket into the hotel to refine the layout for my mouse and the graphics settings and haven't picked up the Campaign again. No wait, tell a lie, I booted into Campaign to setup my joystick for jets and helis because I wanted to do it before I joined a server. I didn't actually play the campaign that time though.

I really didn't buy this for a campaign. I bought it because BF is the type of team game I like to play.