WHY BATTLEFIELD3!!! WHY WOULD YOU DO THIS TO ME!

[Darius Brogan]

So i just played Battlefield 3 for the first time (I'm behind, I know)and in the first five seconds (literally) i was blinded by a flashlight in broad daylight, which isn't physically possible, sniped by a guy with a freaking laser-sight on his RIFLE of all things, and realized that Split-screen is, evidently, not possible.

That just turned me off the game entirely. In five fucking seconds.

Reasons?

1) I use military-grade weapon-lights on a regular basis for war games, and it's not possible to blind someone whose eyes are already adjusted to mid-day light.

2) Being a self-titled perfectionist, I'm of the mind that any self respecting sniper would NEVER put any form of laser enhanced sight on their rifle, because it's a FUCKING BEE-LINE TO YOUR POSITION! And it does nothing to increase your accuracy at all.

3) The complete lack of anything resembling split-screen may as well be saying 'No, you're not allowed to have friends you wish to game with in person, YOU'RE only allowed to game with 20 guys from god-knows-where who couldn't give two shits about tactics or team-work.' and 'What's that? You have student loans, rent, groceries, hydro, and gas to pay for? Oh, AND you're saving up to move to another country entirely, and couldn't be arsed to upgrade your system and purchase a second copy for system-link purposes? Well FUCK YOU, then!'

I can overlook the first two problems as stupidity, but the growing rift between new-gen games and split screen is unforgivable. I don't game online UNLESS I can game with my friends in person, and I'm DAMN SURE I'm not alone, so, can anyone tell me why new games don't allow you to be in the same room as the people you're playing with?

EDIT: Let me just say that I'm a very logical person and I tend to take it seriously when someone says 'authentic' or 'realistic' so when there are so obvious fallacies in the realism department that was advertised, I get a bit miffed.

'Realism' to me, says more than good graphics and minor bullet drop. I don't care if you implement a revive system to extend gameplay, but at least build your classes closer to a realistic specification. If you're not going to do that, then just load your game with fun, cool features, and make it a kick-ass FPS, but don't tag it with 'authentic' or 'realistic'.

 

[Stravant]

1) Isn't exactly the most valid of complaints, because the whole reason the flashlight was included as an attachment was for the PURPOSE of blinding people in close quarters, and if it didn't do that in the sunny areas of maps it'd be next to useless.

Also 2) is just stupidity on the sniper's part because the laser sight improves hipfire accuracy in the game, which is pointless on a sniper they have so much.

3) Battlefield 3 was developed with PC as the primary platform, and you can't Split-screen on a PC, so it would be unfair to give the consoles that advantage over PCs.

 

[Paragon Fury]

So i just played Battlefield 3 for the first time (I'm behind, I know)and in the first five seconds (literally) i was blinded by a flashlight in broad daylight, which isn't physically possible, sniped by a guy with a freaking laser-sight on his RIFLE of all things, and realized that Split-screen is, evidently, not possible.

That just turned me off the game entirely. In five fucking seconds.

Reasons?

1) I use military-grade weapon-lights on a regular basis for war games, and it's not possible to blind someone whose eyes are already adjusted to mid-day light.

2) Being a self-titled perfectionist, I'm of the mind that any self respecting sniper would NEVER put any form of laser enhanced sight on their rifle, because it's a FUCKING BEE-LINE TO YOUR POSITION! And it does nothing to increase your accuracy at all.

3) The complete lack of anything resembling split-screen may as well be saying 'No, you're not allowed to have friends you wish to game with in person, YOU'RE only allowed to game with 20 guys from god-knows-where who couldn't give two shits about tactics or team-work.' and 'What's that? You have student loans, rent, groceries, hydro, and gas to pay for? Oh, AND you're saving up to move to another country entirely, and couldn't be arsed to upgrade your system and purchase a second copy for system-link purposes? Well FUCK YOU, then!'

I can overlook the first two problems as stupidity, but the growing rift between new-gen games and split screen is unforgivable. I don't game online UNLESS I can game with my friends in person, and I'm DAMN SURE I'm not alone, so, can anyone tell me why new games don't allow you to be in the same room as the people you're playing with?

1: They patched the Tac-light to be less powerful already. And it being point-blank in your eyes like it winds up many times in-game would still hurt like hell.

2: No, you wouldn't, and yes it would. But people still wanted it, so they gave it to them.

3: If you understood anything about what goes on in Battlefield, you'd understand why it can't be split-screened. (Hint: It ends with your console of choice on fire)

 

[Alexnader]

1) Tac lights are on the list of things to be nerfed. Furthermore Gameplay>Realism
2) Really? You're whining about an optional attachment being ineffective? Just use something else! A supressor, a tac light, anything. Besides in the actual game which is pretty much all that matters lasers increase your hip fired accuracy, making them useful for panic shots. Plus blinding enemy snipers gives you that split second advantage when counter sniping them.


3)Playing on console is doing it wrong. I'll substitute "lack of split screen" with "lack of LAN" and I'll accept your whining. Also you do realise that because of how taxing BF3 is in terms of resources it's actually most likely impossible to have split screen. They can't get above 30 FPS or so as it is, imagine having almost twice that load. Split screen for AAA high graphical fidelity modern games will be dead until the next generation of consoles is released imo.

3) Battlefield 3 was developed with PC as the primary platform, and you can't Split-screen on a PC, so it would be unfair to give the consoles that advantage over PCs.

Hmm, yup this guy seems to know what he's talking.... wait wut? How would split screen for consoles be "unfair"? Especially when the console version of the game is demonstrably crap when compared to the PC version. Console players get max 24 player servers instead of max 64, they get crap frame rates (though I do too because my computer's old) and they have a poor control system (they have to crab claw in order to spot enemies)

 

[Alexnader]

I'd like to point out that snipers use laser range finders all the time. It's a lot faster than using a calculator to estimate range to target (height of target in inches x 27.77 / number of mildots the target takes up gives approximate range in yards, swap out 27.77 for 24.5 for meters. This works with 10x mildot scopes)

The OP was referring to... I don't actually know what they're called. Laser sights? They're basically laser pointers you stick to the end of your gun. Either way I'm fairly certain you wouldn't use them for range finding.

 

[Robert0288]

1) If you shove a 220+ lumen flashlight in somones face, I don't care how bright it is outside, you will still be somewhat 'blinded' if your looking into it.

2)BF3 gives you the option of sticking a laser on. No one ever said it was a smart idea or that you should do it.

3) For once a game that was made for PC and ported to console instead. While I still think its retarded that you can't do it, more and more console games are doing this not just BF3. Your beef is with what/who ever started that stupid trend.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

There's so many people who don't care that a game lacks split screen that makers feel the visual downgrade to their masterpieces is an insult to their splendor which instantly trumps what use it may have for a small fraction of the audience.


If you had spent 50~ million dollars making something look pretty you may have felt like they do.

 

[Flac00]

3) Battlefield 3 was developed with PC as the primary platform, and you can't Split-screen on a PC, so it would be unfair to give the consoles that advantage over PCs.

I dont think it was a fairness issue. Bf3 already has problems running on the consoles at 30 frames per second already. Just adding that second screen would destroy your frame rate completely. It was probably more technical than anything else. Hell, even Halo 3 scaled down for splitscreen. The graphics and water physics were not as flashy in splitscreen.

 

[samsonguy920]

I'd like to point out that snipers use laser range finders all the time. It's a lot faster than using a calculator to estimate range to target (height of target in inches x 27.77 / number of mildots the target takes up gives approximate range in yards, swap out 27.77 for 24.5 for meters. This works with 10x mildot scopes)

Not to mention laser-assist missiles and bombs. I wouldn't be surprised most military-issue binoculars come with laser for range-finding these days. I have to question the idea that using a laser betrays your position. Unless you are using it at night and through fog(making the point of sniping null and void, anyway), there is going to be nobody able to determine the track of a laser beam unless they have mutant vision. The only thing that is betrayed is that someone or something is using a laser when you can see the spot, but where it's coming from is a choice of 90-270 degrees of range(and that's just on the horizontal). By the time you see the spot, it is pretty much too late, whether it is by sniper or target positioning.

That being said, if you honestly expect 100% reality in a game by EA, you are a sucker. I don't expect 100% reality from any game, and that is kind of the point of getting the game in the first place.
OP: If these three points throw you off the game entirely, you may want to re-evaluate your desire to play modern warfare games, friend.

 

[Joccaren]

1) I use military-grade weapon-lights on a regular basis for war games, and it's not possible to blind someone whose eyes are already adjusted to mid-day light.

IRL, or in other games.
If in other games, those games may be wrong in how they present Military Grade Tactical Lights.
In both cases, the point of the lights in game is to blind people in close range. Most of all maps is outdoors, and all bar 1 from memory was during the day time. The tac light would be useless if it didn't work outside too. Now, the light has been nerfed, but it will still blind in close range as it is pretty much meant to.

2) Being a self-titled perfectionist, I'm of the mind that any self respecting sniper would NEVER put any form of laser enhanced sight on their rifle, because it's a FUCKING BEE-LINE TO YOUR POSITION! And it does nothing to increase your accuracy at all.

Yep, but other snipers sometimes think its a good idea. You got killed by it, so you can't really complain about it not being a legit strategy. IMO, the point of the lasers for snipers should be to activate AFTER you have a shot lined up, to blind them somewhat then kill them, but it is still a massive give away to everyone where you are, and most in my matches get spotted and counter-sniped in under 20 seconds. Also, its not the scope that gives off the laser light, but a laser attachment used to improve from the hip accuracy (Which does nothing for snipers) and inhibit (But not completely disable) the vision of an enemy on who's face you shine it.

3) The complete lack of anything resembling split-screen may as well be saying 'No, you're not allowed to have friends you wish to game with in person, YOU'RE only allowed to game with 20 guys from god-knows-where who couldn't give two shits about tactics or team-work.' and 'What's that? You have student loans, rent, groceries, hydro, and gas to pay for? Oh, AND you're saving up to move to another country entirely, and couldn't be arsed to upgrade your system and purchase a second copy for system-link purposes? Well FUCK YOU, then!'

Ya know, I compare this to PCs not having LAN, however there is less excuse for PCs not having LAN. You are allowed to get into a game with friends, I got no clue how it works on a console but at the very least you should be able to both join the same game from the game selection menu or something. A reason not as many modern games go for split screen is due to the extra system resources it takes up. You play BF3 on 30FPS on a console as is. Take up more resources, you'll be complaining about bad lag instead. It is what you get when you use ancient hardware. Complain to Sony and Microsoft to upgrade their platforms instead. They are reaching their limits.

I can overlook the first two problems as stupidity, but the growing rift between new-gen games and split screen is unforgivable. I don't game online UNLESS I can game with my friends in person, and I'm DAMN SURE I'm not alone, so, can anyone tell me why new games don't allow you to be in the same room as the people you're playing with?

The first one is a design choice for balance, the second is user stupidity, not designer stupidity, and the third is down to lack of console capabilities.

 

[isometry]

3) Battlefield 3 was developed with PC as the primary platform, and you can't Split-screen on a PC, so it would be unfair to give the consoles that advantage over PCs.

Why do you say you can't split screen on PC? The wireless receiver for Xbox 360 controller for windows supports 4 controllers at once, the controller is the same as the console version too so friends can bring them over and sync up just like with the console. If the PC version of Battlefield 3 had a split screen mode people could use it just as easily as on consoles.

 

[Chicago Ted]

3)Playing on console is doing it wrong. I'll substitute "lack of split screen" with "lack of LAN" and I'll accept your whining. Also you do realise that because of how taxing BF3 is in terms of resources it's actually most likely impossible to have split screen. They can't get above 30 FPS or so as it is, imagine having almost twice that load. Split screen for AAA high graphical fidelity modern games will be dead until the next generation of consoles is released imo.

While part of me wants to agree with you for the size of parties being better on PC, the PC version also forces the use of Origin, which, from what I'm hearing, is VERY questionable at the moment.

That and the fact that every single online service I've used from EA already has been a massive pain in my ass, hence why I tend to stick to consoles with their games.

 

[Joccaren]

There's so many people who don't care that a game lacks split screen that makers feel the visual downgrade to their masterpieces is an insult to their splendor which instantly trumps what use it may have for a small fraction of the audience.


If you had spent 50~ million dollars making something look pretty you may have felt like they do.

Well, when you consider how downscaled the game already was simply to get it to run on consoles, downscaling it even further probably sounded like a bad idea. Hell, on a console it already looks worse than on a PC on low settings, and putting effort into other areas of the game would have seemed more important than creating yet another set of graphical settings due to the secondary platforms being unable to handle it in split screen.
The game was developed primarily for PC, and rather than work to lower the graphics - a large selling point of the game - even further for an extra feature to consoles, it was a better idea to work out some more of those bugs, which would help both PC and console.

Unfortunately, this is one of the problems with long console cycles. The old hardware shows more than it usually does, and features have to be cut. It is a reason that consoles should come out more often; they begin to hold back what is possible with old outdated hardware.

 

[ChickenZombie]

1)

3) Battlefield 3 was developed with PC as the primary platform, and you can't Split-screen on a PC, so it would be unfair to give the consoles that advantage over PCs.

They mentioned many times that the Frostbite engine on console could not handle two separate renders at the same time, which is why they didn't do it.

OT: You did a lot in five seconds.

 

[Joccaren]

3) Battlefield 3 was developed with PC as the primary platform, and you can't Split-screen on a PC, so it would be unfair to give the consoles that advantage over PCs.

Why do you say you can't split screen on PC? The wireless receiver for Xbox 360 controller for windows supports 4 controllers at once, the controller is the same as the console version too so friends can bring them over and sync up just like with the console. If the PC version of Battlefield 3 had a split screen mode people could use it just as easily as on consoles.

Few PC gamers will have Xbox controllers to link up to their PCs, and few will want to use them. The keyboard and mouse is a superior form of control, and is what PC gamers would rather use. This, however, makes split screen impractical. Hell, I'm sure a program could be made to differentiate between multiple keyboard and mouse inputs and assign them to different players, but for the low number of people who would use such an option, it isn't a worthwhile investment. The PC equivalent of Split-Screen is LAN, however you have to have individual computers for each person. Its a price most a willing to pay, as it allows them a whole screen to themselves, plenty of room for comfort, and less stress on that one individual system. Sadly, LAN in games has all but disappeared, likely as a form of Piracy protection, as previously pirates could DL a game for free and play LAN with their friends on a pirated game. These days, you have to log into some online server, which greatly inhibits pirated game multiplayer.

3)Playing on console is doing it wrong. I'll substitute "lack of split screen" with "lack of LAN" and I'll accept your whining. Also you do realise that because of how taxing BF3 is in terms of resources it's actually most likely impossible to have split screen. They can't get above 30 FPS or so as it is, imagine having almost twice that load. Split screen for AAA high graphical fidelity modern games will be dead until the next generation of consoles is released imo.

While part of me wants to agree with you for the size of parties being better on PC, the PC version also forces the use of Origin, which, from what I'm hearing, is VERY questionable at the moment.

That and the fact that every single online service I've used from EA already has been a massive pain in my ass, hence why I tend to stick to consoles with their games.

Origin isn't that questionable. Its simply scaremongering left over from the original EULA. And yeah, most EA online services are horrid, but I didn't find Origin as bad as them, and it certainly didn't have the problems with slow loading times Steam has had for me. Still, people have had problems with it and who knows if you'll be the next one that does?

 

[Chicago Ted]

While part of me wants to agree with you for the size of parties being better on PC, the PC version also forces the use of Origin, which, from what I'm hearing, is VERY questionable at the moment.

That and the fact that every single online service I've used from EA already has been a massive pain in my ass, hence why I tend to stick to consoles with their games.

Origin isn't that questionable. Its simply scaremongering left over from the original EULA. And yeah, most EA online services are horrid, but I didn't find Origin as bad as them, and it certainly didn't have the problems with slow loading times Steam has had for me. Still, people have had problems with it and who knows if you'll be the next one that does?

My questions on it are more drawn from the recent discussion over the guy getting all of his accounts banned because someone else quoting him on a forum and swearing, thus getting him processed by their filter. Granted, I don't have full details on that yet, and I'm sure more are to come, but it's hearing things like that, that are really making me wonder.

As for EA online services in general, I honestly can't think of a major one that I've had to use that hasn't given me some for of major problem that hasn't taken hours to solve, or has forced me to try and get customer service on the line to fix it. That and their method of liking accounts is absolutely dreadful, as I recently discovered I had accidentally created a second account which I can't join to my main one now because of bad interfaces.

It's on those poor experiences alone honestly that I've already been put off of buying BF3 for the PC.

 

[Darius Brogan]

1) Isn't exactly the most valid of complaints, because the whole reason the flashlight was included as an attachment was for the PURPOSE of blinding people in close quarters, and if it didn't do that in the sunny areas of maps it'd be next to useless.

Also 2) is just stupidity on the sniper's part because the laser sight improves hipfire accuracy in the game, which is pointless on a sniper they have so much.

3) Battlefield 3 was developed with PC as the primary platform, and you can't Split-screen on a PC, so it would be unfair to give the consoles that advantage over PCs.

I use those tac-lights regularly in Real Life war games, and it's not physically possible to blind someone from fifteen feet away when already adjusted to direct sunlight.

As for the other two complaints, they're based on intelligence and preference respectively. No smart sniper would use a laser sight with a visible spectrum laser, and split-screen has been my favorite mode of FPS-play since I was a kid.

 

[Darius Brogan]

I'd like to point out that snipers use laser range finders all the time. It's a lot faster than using a calculator to estimate range to target (height of target in inches x 27.77 / number of mildots the target takes up gives approximate range in yards, swap out 27.77 for 24.5 for meters. This works with 10x mildot scopes)

I'm aware of laser range-finders, but A) they're not mounted on the rifle itself, they're mounted to the spotters scope, B) They're not visible spectrum unless in almost complete darkness and C) If they're on the rifle, and in the visible spectrum, they give away your position in a heart-beat.
When trying to make a video-game as real as possible, it's best to try learning a bit about what an actual sniper would mount on his rifle.

I got shot in the back, so I couldn't see the laser, but logic tells us that my team-mates could, which is why the sniper was killed seconds after I was.

 

[Darius Brogan]

1) Isn't exactly the most valid of complaints, because the whole reason the flashlight was included as an attachment was for the PURPOSE of blinding people in close quarters, and if it didn't do that in the sunny areas of maps it'd be next to useless.

Also 2) is just stupidity on the sniper's part because the laser sight improves hipfire accuracy in the game, which is pointless on a sniper they have so much.

3) Battlefield 3 was developed with PC as the primary platform, and you can't Split-screen on a PC, so it would be unfair to give the consoles that advantage over PCs.

It's a valid complaint when taking into account that the designers were trying to make the game as realistic as possible.
Those lights really ARE useless in sunlight, because when your eyes are adjusted to mid-day light, the flash-lights ray would be negligible by comparison.

Believe me, I know. I use those lights in Real Life war games with my friends regularly.