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

Recommended Videos

Darius Brogan

New member
Apr 28, 2010
637
0
0
sextus the crazy said:
You're complaining about lack of realism in a battlefield game? I gave up complaining around BF:BC2 when everyone became a bullet sponge and the machine gun with the lowest power per bullet (MG3) was tied with another machine gun (M60) for most powerful cartridge IRL out of all the LMGs ingame.

Darius Brogan said:
I play games expecting what is advertised, and while there is bullet-drop, realistic graphics/movements/sounds, etc... there are loads of those tiny, REALLY OBVIOUS little things that destroy authenticity for me.

The game wanted to be the most realistic shooter of the generation, and failed by missing the most obvious things you can think of.
no, Arma and Red Orchestra wanted to be the most realistic shooters of this generation; battlefield wants to be more realistic than COD, which isn't that hard.
I suppose that's true, but they went so far as to include random character movements and expressions when your character is idle, an entirely new engine for the game, and brand new destruction physics that better emulate the impact of a bullet on various surfaces.

They tried being as realistic as they could, but failed on some simple facets of the game.
 

Darius Brogan

New member
Apr 28, 2010
637
0
0
zuro64 said:
Darius Brogan said:
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.
Have you ever looked into a high powered LED light in daylight at close range(within 10m or 30feet)? I have and I can say that I couldent see shit afterwards! Its called "tactical light" for a reason. Though it doesent work as good in daylight as in darkness its still pretty effective.

Stravant said:
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.
How would giving consoles split-screen be a unfair advantage? PC gamers dont care that you can play MP on consoles with the other player in the room, thats the one thing that consoles have ALWAYS had compared to the PC. Also you can play MP with they other person in the room, its called having a LAN!
Yes, I've been flashed by a high-powered LED in daylight, within 15 feet, actually. I've also got extremely sensitive eyes, and the Tac-Light barely produced a noticeable glare.
The fact that I now knew exactly where my enemy was only sweetened the deal.
 

Valanthe

New member
Sep 24, 2009
654
0
0
Really long post incoming, you have been warned.

Darius Brogan, just throwing this out there, but you know you can add more than one quote to a post with minimal effort, right? Just a little peeve of mine, sorry.

Anyway, on topic. If you want a "Realistic" modern military simulation, go play ARMA, that's as close as you'll get. Battlefield is a modern military game, spot the difference?

When creating a game, you start with something real, a Tac-light. In real life, it's not a weapon, it's a tool used to, brace yourself for this one, illuminate dark places. In a game world, where one can illuminate the darkest of foxholes by simply sliding their gamma bar over, the Tac-Light is pretty useless, so DICE found a secondary use for it as a vision impairment and adjusted how it works so it would be a fun (if sometimes frustrating) way to mix up CQC, which in most shooting games is resolved by who can circle strafe the best.

Now onto your gripe about the laser sight. I've very limited experience in Battlefield, so I must draw on what I know of shooter conventions to help you understand this. There are two possibilities for why a sniper in a game would have a laser sight on their rifle. The first, and most likely, is that said person has seen basically any movie featuring a sniper that has come out in the last say... twenty years? In film the spotting laser is used to convey the danger of the sniper quickly to the audience; they see the laser dancing on its target and automatically know that he's being sighted without ever having to see the shooter. Said shooter just -might- have seen one of these films and thought it was cool.

The second, and equally plausible option is that the shooter made a tactical decision. Most modern games take away your hipfire reticle when using a sniper rifle as a way to balance them and to teach that they are weapons of precision, not Rambo-esque carnage. The use of a laser sight, by giving you an improvised hipfire reticle, may be a way of counteracting this balance, and is a sound tactical choice if true, as the seconds it takes to swap guns in a shooting game is precious time that may cause the difference between a win and loss.

And finally, your third gripe is one I actually agree with, almost. I am one of proud yet dying breed of amers who remembers when "Console Multiplayer" meant you plus three friends and a case of beer in the living room, and I miss those days. That nostalgia is what almost made me buy the Halo HD remake. Unlike you, as you've made apparent, I do understand that not every game can or should have splitscreen multiplayer simply because of, among other reasons I won't indulge, the strain it puts on a system, (Don't believe me, fire up Starcraft for the N64 and try the splitscreen on that, then compare it to the graphics on a PC.) What you should be more concerned with is the lack of LAN, which has been a mainstay form of multiplayer for the PC crowd for decades, and as the Battlefield series is a PC game which is ported to consoles, the lack of LAN support is the real slap in the face.

In conclusion, I really find myself wondering why you bothered buying Battlefield at all, if these are the criteria by which you measure if a game is "good."
 

sextus the crazy

New member
Oct 15, 2011
2,348
0
0
Darius Brogan said:
sextus the crazy said:
You're complaining about lack of realism in a battlefield game? I gave up complaining around BF:BC2 when everyone became a bullet sponge and the machine gun with the lowest power per bullet (MG3) was tied with another machine gun (M60) for most powerful cartridge IRL out of all the LMGs ingame.

Darius Brogan said:
I play games expecting what is advertised, and while there is bullet-drop, realistic graphics/movements/sounds, etc... there are loads of those tiny, REALLY OBVIOUS little things that destroy authenticity for me.

The game wanted to be the most realistic shooter of the generation, and failed by missing the most obvious things you can think of.
no, Arma and Red Orchestra wanted to be the most realistic shooters of this generation; battlefield wants to be more realistic than COD, which isn't that hard.
I suppose that's true, but they went so far as to include random character movements and expressions when your character is idle, an entirely new engine for the game, and brand new destruction physics that better emulate the impact of a bullet on various surfaces.

They tried being as realistic as they could, but failed on some simple facets of the game.
While they can add all these little details to make it more realistic, the core problem with their lack of realism is that they prioritize making a deep, balanced team-based shooter over that. While the tac-light's amount of flash during the day is unrealistic, It's better than having an attachment that;s useless except at night. DICE wanted to add something to make the game seem a little different than before and had to weigh balance vs. realism.
 

Tayh

New member
Apr 6, 2009
775
0
0
Valanthe said:
The second, and equally plausible option is that the shooter made a tactical decision. Most modern games take away your hipfire reticle when using a sniper rifle as a way to balance them and to teach that they are weapons of precision, not Rambo-esque carnage. The use of a laser sight, by giving you an improvised hipfire reticle, may be a way of counteracting this balance, and is a sound tactical choice if true, as the seconds it takes to swap guns in a shooting game is precious time that may cause the difference between a win and loss.
I'm glad someone finally brought this up.
The laser light is there to give the sniper a fighting chance if he's caught by an enemy in close range. More so on Hardcore mode where you have no hip-fire crosshair, iirc.

The OP should be happy he wasn't on the wrong end of a IRNV scope.
 

Alexnader

$20 For Steve
May 18, 2009
526
0
0
Darius Brogan said:
Alexnader said:
Darius Brogan said:
Alexnader said:
snip
snip
As for your inability to obtain a good PC, bad luck man.
The game is based entirely on realistic graphics, physics, motions, etc... so authenticity may not parallel realism, but they share 90% features.

Think about the game for a moment, the only completely non-realistic thing about it is the revive... Everything else is as close to real as they could get the system to cop with... other than the rate of bullet drop, but a gradual increase from almost nothing to real drop-speed will help players adjust.

I could suspend disbelief better if they hadn't tried to make the game as close to realistic as possible.
I grew up on games like Doom, Golden-eye and Perfect Dark...

Scope glint is better than drawing a red-line straight to your position... at least it's, err... somewhat closer to realistic than a visible-spectrum red laser...

Yep. I'm a PC gamer at heart, even though I game primarily on consoles these days. My computer's just too old to keep up with my gaming demands anymore.
Exactly, authenticity is close to realism but just that little bit off. I can base jump off a cliff, deploy my parachute about two stories off the ground and be just fine. That's an example of an authentic experience i.e. I see a cliff, I'm allowed to run off it but not a realistic one.

That lack of realism is not accidental, DICE could've easily made it accurately reflect real life physics. Only it wouldn't be as fun if they did. Contrary to what you believe DICE did not want it as realistic as possible.

They could've easily put in realistic health systems, like those in America's Army, where one shot will have you bleeding unless you can put a field dressing on it. Where a 50 cal hit anywhere will kill you instantly. Where you get incapacitated and lie there bleeding out watching your medic who can't get to you because he's pinned down.

Only that wouldn't be battlefield.

Battlefield as a series has always been about that balance between realism and gameplay, authenticity is that balance. With that in mind I fail to see how a laser sight can be a gamebreaking issue to you.

Also as someone who has played a lot of recon I assure you that flashlight scope effect is just as bad if not worse than the laser. The scope can be seen by the unassisted eye at ranges well outside 200 meters, by anyone who's in the general direction of where you're pointing, including tank drivers. The laser on the other hand gives away your position to anyone up to 100 meters away from you but outside that it's pretty hard to see in daylight unless the sniper is shining it right at you.
 

Mayamellissa

New member
Dec 3, 2011
169
0
0
The only Battlefield game I have played was Bad Company and it was only because I wanted to. I've never been into war games but I do like FPS style games.
 

Darius Brogan

New member
Apr 28, 2010
637
0
0
sextus the crazy said:
Darius Brogan said:
sextus the crazy said:
You're complaining about lack of realism in a battlefield game? I gave up complaining around BF:BC2 when everyone became a bullet sponge and the machine gun with the lowest power per bullet (MG3) was tied with another machine gun (M60) for most powerful cartridge IRL out of all the LMGs ingame.

Darius Brogan said:
I play games expecting what is advertised, and while there is bullet-drop, realistic graphics/movements/sounds, etc... there are loads of those tiny, REALLY OBVIOUS little things that destroy authenticity for me.

The game wanted to be the most realistic shooter of the generation, and failed by missing the most obvious things you can think of.
no, Arma and Red Orchestra wanted to be the most realistic shooters of this generation; battlefield wants to be more realistic than COD, which isn't that hard.
I suppose that's true, but they went so far as to include random character movements and expressions when your character is idle, an entirely new engine for the game, and brand new destruction physics that better emulate the impact of a bullet on various surfaces.

They tried being as realistic as they could, but failed on some simple facets of the game.
While they can add all these little details to make it more realistic, the core problem with their lack of realism is that they prioritize making a deep, balanced team-based shooter over that. While the tac-light's amount of flash during the day is unrealistic, It's better than having an attachment that;s useless except at night. DICE wanted to add something to make the game seem a little different than before and had to weigh balance vs. realism.
I think it primarily comes down to my over-active sense of perfectionism, really.
- Tac-Lights don't function that way IRL, so they shouldn't in a game going for authenticity. It's just one of those teeny, almost petty gripes that get me.
 

CaptOfSerenity

New member
Mar 8, 2011
199
0
0
Yeah, those lights are stupid as shit in daytime. Plus, laser sights and flashlights on a rifle are, as you said, beelines to your position.
 

Darius Brogan

New member
Apr 28, 2010
637
0
0
GreatTeacherCAW said:
Darius Brogan said:
GreatTeacherCAW said:
Darius Brogan said:
I play games expecting what is advertised, and while there is bullet-drop, realistic graphics/movements/sounds, etc... there are loads of those tiny, REALLY OBVIOUS little things that destroy authenticity for me.

The game wanted to be the most realistic shooter of the generation, and failed by missing the most obvious things you can think of.
ultrachicken said:
BF3 tries to be realistic but only to the point that fun is not compromised.
If you had played BF1942, 2142, or 2, you wouldn't have expected such things. Why you did baffles me.
Because when I play a game advertised as being authentic and realistic, I expect it to be so?
Though I guess at this point, expecting any company to follow through with what it's promised is like expecting a politician to not be corrupt.
True. That is why I always like being pessimistic, and keeping my expectations for things like video games low. It actually allows me to enjoy more things.
I should probably transition to that way of thinking for the new-generation of games. It's extremely unlikely that they'll ever provide everything advertised perfectly, so one should never expect perfection.
 

Darius Brogan

New member
Apr 28, 2010
637
0
0
Valanthe said:
Really long post incoming, you have been warned.

Darius Brogan, just throwing this out there, but you know you can add more than one quote to a post with minimal effort, right? Just a little peeve of mine, sorry.

Anyway, on topic. If you want a "Realistic" modern military simulation, go play ARMA, that's as close as you'll get. Battlefield is a modern military game, spot the difference?

When creating a game, you start with something real, a Tac-light. In real life, it's not a weapon, it's a tool used to, brace yourself for this one, illuminate dark places. In a game world, where one can illuminate the darkest of foxholes by simply sliding their gamma bar over, the Tac-Light is pretty useless, so DICE found a secondary use for it as a vision impairment and adjusted how it works so it would be a fun (if sometimes frustrating) way to mix up CQC, which in most shooting games is resolved by who can circle strafe the best.

Now onto your gripe about the laser sight. I've very limited experience in Battlefield, so I must draw on what I know of shooter conventions to help you understand this. There are two possibilities for why a sniper in a game would have a laser sight on their rifle. The first, and most likely, is that said person has seen basically any movie featuring a sniper that has come out in the last say... twenty years? In film the spotting laser is used to convey the danger of the sniper quickly to the audience; they see the laser dancing on its target and automatically know that he's being sighted without ever having to see the shooter. Said shooter just -might- have seen one of these films and thought it was cool.

The second, and equally plausible option is that the shooter made a tactical decision. Most modern games take away your hipfire reticle when using a sniper rifle as a way to balance them and to teach that they are weapons of precision, not Rambo-esque carnage. The use of a laser sight, by giving you an improvised hipfire reticle, may be a way of counteracting this balance, and is a sound tactical choice if true, as the seconds it takes to swap guns in a shooting game is precious time that may cause the difference between a win and loss.

And finally, your third gripe is one I actually agree with, almost. I am one of proud yet dying breed of amers who remembers when "Console Multiplayer" meant you plus three friends and a case of beer in the living room, and I miss those days. That nostalgia is what almost made me buy the Halo HD remake. Unlike you, as you've made apparent, I do understand that not every game can or should have splitscreen multiplayer simply because of, among other reasons I won't indulge, the strain it puts on a system, (Don't believe me, fire up Starcraft for the N64 and try the splitscreen on that, then compare it to the graphics on a PC.) What you should be more concerned with is the lack of LAN, which has been a mainstay form of multiplayer for the PC crowd for decades, and as the Battlefield series is a PC game which is ported to consoles, the lack of LAN support is the real slap in the face.

In conclusion, I really find myself wondering why you bothered buying Battlefield at all, if these are the criteria by which you measure if a game is "good."
Yes, I do know about multi-quoting, but I prefer individual posts to walls of text. If each post I'm quoting is small enough, I'll usually multi-quote, but if not, I avoid it.

I understand the basis of the Tac-Light, but aiming for authenticity and getting a light as powerful as a flash-bang is just ridiculous.

Oh, yes, I keep forgetting that 90% of everyone who plays video-games thinks movies make any sense realistically... I'll have to make a note of that somewhere 'Common gamers are retarded'.

Any gamer worth his salt doesn't use a long-range rifle when the map is small enough for him to be engaged in CQC faster than he can swap weapons but this, I suppose, can be chalked-up to my previous note of 'Common gamers are retards'.

I do not assume all games should be split-screen, and never implied it. I do, however, believe that any game which involves the almost exclusive use of multi-player as a selling point (Read the back of the BF3 Case, it's there) should at least attempt to level the playing field for those who actually LIKE hanging out with their friends to game on the weekends.
I'm pretty sure that most social-gamers would gladly sacrifice some inane character expressions and motions, a few polygons, and a render distance of a full astronomical unit in favor of a good split-screen game with their drinking buddies.

Also: I didn't buy Battlefield 3, my brother bought it for me, and my gripes come directly from the misguided assumption that a game millions of dollars in development should provide that which is advertised, in the way it is advertised.

If this confuses you, I apologize. I'll have to remember to not expect much of giant, multi-billion dollar AAA game development companies anymore.
 

Darius Brogan

New member
Apr 28, 2010
637
0
0
Tayh said:
Valanthe said:
The second, and equally plausible option is that the shooter made a tactical decision. Most modern games take away your hipfire reticle when using a sniper rifle as a way to balance them and to teach that they are weapons of precision, not Rambo-esque carnage. The use of a laser sight, by giving you an improvised hipfire reticle, may be a way of counteracting this balance, and is a sound tactical choice if true, as the seconds it takes to swap guns in a shooting game is precious time that may cause the difference between a win and loss.
I'm glad someone finally brought this up.
The laser light is there to give the sniper a fighting chance if he's caught by an enemy in close range. More so on Hardcore mode where you have no hip-fire crosshair, iirc.

The OP should be happy he wasn't on the wrong end of a IRNV scope.
I'm not angry that I died, in fact, I don't really care at all that I died. I'd been playing the game for all of three minutes, so my lack of understanding about controls and in-game physics was understandable.

I'm angry about the fact that everyone seems to think that A) A sniper would ever be caught dead in a CQC battle, even in a video-game. They're smarter than that in CoD, for crying out loud. If the map is too small to find a distanced vantage point, find an accurate assault rifle and make due with that.
and B) That adding a laser-sight to the most accurate weapons designed to date would actually increase accuracy.
 

Darius Brogan

New member
Apr 28, 2010
637
0
0
Alexnader said:
Darius Brogan said:
Alexnader said:
Darius Brogan said:
Alexnader said:
snip
snip
As for your inability to obtain a good PC, bad luck man.
The game is based entirely on realistic graphics, physics, motions, etc... so authenticity may not parallel realism, but they share 90% features.

Think about the game for a moment, the only completely non-realistic thing about it is the revive... Everything else is as close to real as they could get the system to cop with... other than the rate of bullet drop, but a gradual increase from almost nothing to real drop-speed will help players adjust.

I could suspend disbelief better if they hadn't tried to make the game as close to realistic as possible.
I grew up on games like Doom, Golden-eye and Perfect Dark...

Scope glint is better than drawing a red-line straight to your position... at least it's, err... somewhat closer to realistic than a visible-spectrum red laser...

Yep. I'm a PC gamer at heart, even though I game primarily on consoles these days. My computer's just too old to keep up with my gaming demands anymore.
Exactly, authenticity is close to realism but just that little bit off. I can base jump off a cliff, deploy my parachute about two stories off the ground and be just fine. That's an example of an authentic experience i.e. I see a cliff, I'm allowed to run off it but not a realistic one.

That lack of realism is not accidental, DICE could've easily made it accurately reflect real life physics. Only it wouldn't be as fun if they did. Contrary to what you believe DICE did not want it as realistic as possible.

They could've easily put in realistic health systems, like those in America's Army, where one shot will have you bleeding unless you can put a field dressing on it. Where a 50 cal hit anywhere will kill you instantly. Where you get incapacitated and lie there bleeding out watching your medic who can't get to you because he's pinned down.

Only that wouldn't be battlefield.

Battlefield as a series has always been about that balance between realism and gameplay, authenticity is that balance. With that in mind I fail to see how a laser sight can be a gamebreaking issue to you.

Also as someone who has played a lot of recon I assure you that flashlight scope effect is just as bad if not worse than the laser. The scope can be seen by the unassisted eye at ranges well outside 200 meters, by anyone who's in the general direction of where you're pointing, including tank drivers. The laser on the other hand gives away your position to anyone up to 100 meters away from you but outside that it's pretty hard to see in daylight unless the sniper is shining it right at you.
Well, I don't think I'd have any problems with the game if they hadn't attempted the complete realism in the first place. All those little additions to the game like character expression and movement, environmental damage like shattering wooden planks etc, and the massive attempt at realistic graphics (Which I think did pretty well, actually) lent the game a realism effect that had me expecting something closer to real than it was.

Also, scope-glint is only a detriment if you're in an area with enough ambient light to provide the glint in the first place.

The game-breaker for me was the expectation of higher levels of realism, broken by the super-nova-flashlight, the inclusion of laser-sights ON the rifles, and the lack of split-screen.

I understand the laser improves hip-firing accuracy, but nobody ever would carry a Sniper rifle at his hip anyways, because hip-firing it would break his shoulder, and there's no point in making your game ludicrously powerful and realistic if it impedes social-multi-player.

I game online only if I've got at least one friend with me I can chat with. If I don't, I don't game online, because I'd rather avoid the assholes inherent in online interactions.
 

Alexnader

$20 For Steve
May 18, 2009
526
0
0
Darius Brogan said:
Alexnader said:
Darius Brogan said:
Alexnader said:
Darius Brogan said:
Alexnader said:
snip
snip
As for your inability to obtain a good PC, bad luck man.
snip
Exactly, authenticity is close to realism but just that little bit off. I can base jump off a cliff, deploy my parachute about two stories off the ground and be just fine. That's an example of an authentic experience i.e. I see a cliff, I'm allowed to run off it but not a realistic one.

That lack of realism is not accidental, DICE could've easily made it accurately reflect real life physics. Only it wouldn't be as fun if they did. Contrary to what you believe DICE did not want it as realistic as possible.

They could've easily put in realistic health systems, like those in America's Army, where one shot will have you bleeding unless you can put a field dressing on it. Where a 50 cal hit anywhere will kill you instantly. Where you get incapacitated and lie there bleeding out watching your medic who can't get to you because he's pinned down.

Only that wouldn't be battlefield.

Battlefield as a series has always been about that balance between realism and gameplay, authenticity is that balance. With that in mind I fail to see how a laser sight can be a gamebreaking issue to you.

Also as someone who has played a lot of recon I assure you that flashlight scope effect is just as bad if not worse than the laser. The scope can be seen by the unassisted eye at ranges well outside 200 meters, by anyone who's in the general direction of where you're pointing, including tank drivers. The laser on the other hand gives away your position to anyone up to 100 meters away from you but outside that it's pretty hard to see in daylight unless the sniper is shining it right at you.
Well, I don't think I'd have any problems with the game if they hadn't attempted the complete realism in the first place. All those little additions to the game like character expression and movement, environmental damage like shattering wooden planks etc, and the massive attempt at realistic graphics (Which I think did pretty well, actually) lent the game a realism effect that had me expecting something closer to real than it was.

Also, scope-glint is only a detriment if you're in an area with enough ambient light to provide the glint in the first place.

The game-breaker for me was the expectation of higher levels of realism, broken by the super-nova-flashlight, the inclusion of laser-sights ON the rifles, and the lack of split-screen.

I understand the laser improves hip-firing accuracy, but nobody ever would carry a Sniper rifle at his hip anyways, because hip-firing it would break his shoulder, and there's no point in making your game ludicrously powerful and realistic if it impedes social-multi-player.

I game online only if I've got at least one friend with me I can chat with. If I don't, I don't game online, because I'd rather avoid the assholes inherent in online interactions.
You keep missing my main point, DICE never aimed for realism. Good graphics, good animations, good lighting, environmental destructability. All those were done in order to make a good game, not to simulate real life. An authentic game in short.

You also missed my point entirely about scope glint, the scope glint is not a glint. It is a permanent light source that is of the same intensity regardless of whether you're hiding in a tunnel or lying out on a hill in broad daylight. The game is not realistic. You seem to think I'm talking about real life. I know shit all about real life. I know Battlefield 3.

Finally you think realism impedes social-multiplayer? Tell that to the Arma fans who make their own fake military units and address each other by rank. There's a great video of this guy playing as a platoon commander and leading an assault on a town, all coordinated through VOIP. There's realistic health in Arma (more realistic than Battlefield at least) and they seem to do teamplay just fine.

In the end, if little things like laser sights break your experience of the game then that's your problem and you're free to stop playing. Just don't act like you've been betrayed somehow. This game was never marketed as a combat simulator and if anyone told it was then they're an idiot.

This game has been about crap like bailing out of a burning chopper, firing an unguided RPG into the cockpit of the chopper that shot you down, parachuting on top of someone and knifing them before being run over by a jeep laden with C4. All unscripted, all multiplayer.
 

octafish

New member
Apr 23, 2010
5,137
0
0
GreatTeacherCAW said:
These are about the worst reasons for not playing BF3 that I have ever heard, for all the various reasons that were listed above. Sounds like you need something that isn't fun to play, like ARMA.

It isn't possible to weld a tank back together in 5 seconds, but you can do that. Does that just fucking kill it for you? Does the magical health kits that remove bullets from your body ruin the experience for you?

Fact of the matter is that BF3 is extremely fun to play. If your gripe is that it just isn't "real" enough, then I think you need to just stop playing shooters all together.
Yep, go and play ARMA II. I think it is a brilliant game, but I don't find it fun. I think it supports LAN too.
 

Darius Brogan

New member
Apr 28, 2010
637
0
0
Alexnader said:
Darius Brogan said:
Alexnader said:
Darius Brogan said:
Alexnader said:
Darius Brogan said:
Alexnader said:
snip
snip
As for your inability to obtain a good PC, bad luck man.
snip
Exactly, authenticity is close to realism but just that little bit off. I can base jump off a cliff, deploy my parachute about two stories off the ground and be just fine. That's an example of an authentic experience i.e. I see a cliff, I'm allowed to run off it but not a realistic one.

That lack of realism is not accidental, DICE could've easily made it accurately reflect real life physics. Only it wouldn't be as fun if they did. Contrary to what you believe DICE did not want it as realistic as possible.

They could've easily put in realistic health systems, like those in America's Army, where one shot will have you bleeding unless you can put a field dressing on it. Where a 50 cal hit anywhere will kill you instantly. Where you get incapacitated and lie there bleeding out watching your medic who can't get to you because he's pinned down.

Only that wouldn't be battlefield.

Battlefield as a series has always been about that balance between realism and gameplay, authenticity is that balance. With that in mind I fail to see how a laser sight can be a gamebreaking issue to you.

Also as someone who has played a lot of recon I assure you that flashlight scope effect is just as bad if not worse than the laser. The scope can be seen by the unassisted eye at ranges well outside 200 meters, by anyone who's in the general direction of where you're pointing, including tank drivers. The laser on the other hand gives away your position to anyone up to 100 meters away from you but outside that it's pretty hard to see in daylight unless the sniper is shining it right at you.
Well, I don't think I'd have any problems with the game if they hadn't attempted the complete realism in the first place. All those little additions to the game like character expression and movement, environmental damage like shattering wooden planks etc, and the massive attempt at realistic graphics (Which I think did pretty well, actually) lent the game a realism effect that had me expecting something closer to real than it was.

Also, scope-glint is only a detriment if you're in an area with enough ambient light to provide the glint in the first place.

The game-breaker for me was the expectation of higher levels of realism, broken by the super-nova-flashlight, the inclusion of laser-sights ON the rifles, and the lack of split-screen.

I understand the laser improves hip-firing accuracy, but nobody ever would carry a Sniper rifle at his hip anyways, because hip-firing it would break his shoulder, and there's no point in making your game ludicrously powerful and realistic if it impedes social-multi-player.

I game online only if I've got at least one friend with me I can chat with. If I don't, I don't game online, because I'd rather avoid the assholes inherent in online interactions.
You keep missing my main point, DICE never aimed for realism. Good graphics, good animations, good lighting, environmental destructability. All those were done in order to make a good game, not to simulate real life. An authentic game in short.

You also missed my point entirely about scope glint, the scope glint is not a glint. It is a permanent light source that is of the same intensity regardless of whether you're hiding in a tunnel or lying out on a hill in broad daylight. The game is not realistic. You seem to think I'm talking about real life. I know shit all about real life. I know Battlefield 3.

Finally you think realism impedes social-multiplayer? Tell that to the Arma fans who make their own fake military units and address each other by rank. There's a great video of this guy playing as a platoon commander and leading an assault on a town, all coordinated through VOIP. There's realistic health in Arma (more realistic than Battlefield at least) and they seem to do teamplay just fine.

In the end, if little things like laser sights break your experience of the game then that's your problem and you're free to stop playing. Just don't act like you've been betrayed somehow. This game was never marketed as a combat simulator and if anyone told it was then they're an idiot.

This game has been about crap like bailing out of a burning chopper, firing an unguided RPG into the cockpit of the chopper that shot you down, parachuting on top of someone and knifing them before being run over by a jeep laden with C4. All unscripted, all multiplayer.
I'm not missing your point at all, you're interpreting my comments wrong.

Realism =/= combat simulator.

Environments, lighting, effects, physics. All made to increase the experience. To make it as real as possible, while maintaining the video-game air.

No, I did not miss the point about scope-glint, I used it as more evidence that the game tried to be real, but tailored it against authenticity. Scope-glint is a real problem, and is dangerous, but only where light is present.
In BF3, it's a small super-nova. Realism tailored against itself.

Do you even know what I was talking about regarding social-multi-player?
Battlefield 3 is so powerful and loaded with 'authentic' crap that adding Split-screen isn't possible unless you want a flaming system. THAT impedes social-multi-player. SOCIAL-multi-player is the ability to be in the same room as the members of your team while playing the game.
When the game tried to be so 'Authentic' that split-screen was physically impossible, they destroyed the social aspect of the game. Sure, you can talk to people hundreds or thousand of miles away, but you're alone while gaming. Your friends have to be elsewhere, on different systems, in order to game with them.

Things like visible-spectrum laser-sights mounted on long-range rifles used in close combat, supernova-flashlights, and so much effort into lip-stick graphics that split-screen is no longer possible broke my experience in the game.
If I ever pick it up again, it's going to be for single-player campaign just so I can say that I beat it, because having, and not finishing, a game irritates me.
 

Alexnader

$20 For Steve
May 18, 2009
526
0
0
Darius Brogan said:
Alexnader said:
Darius Brogan said:
Alexnader said:
Darius Brogan said:
Alexnader said:
Darius Brogan said:
Alexnader said:
snip
snip
As for your inability to obtain a good PC, bad luck man.
snip
snip
snip
You keep missing my main point, DICE never aimed for realism. Good graphics, good animations, good lighting, environmental destructability. All those were done in order to make a good game, not to simulate real life. An authentic game in short.

You also missed my point entirely about scope glint, the scope glint is not a glint. It is a permanent light source that is of the same intensity regardless of whether you're hiding in a tunnel or lying out on a hill in broad daylight. The game is not realistic. You seem to think I'm talking about real life. I know shit all about real life. I know Battlefield 3.

Finally you think realism impedes social-multiplayer? Tell that to the Arma fans who make their own fake military units and address each other by rank. There's a great video of this guy playing as a platoon commander and leading an assault on a town, all coordinated through VOIP. There's realistic health in Arma (more realistic than Battlefield at least) and they seem to do teamplay just fine.

In the end, if little things like laser sights break your experience of the game then that's your problem and you're free to stop playing. Just don't act like you've been betrayed somehow. This game was never marketed as a combat simulator and if anyone told it was then they're an idiot.

This game has been about crap like bailing out of a burning chopper, firing an unguided RPG into the cockpit of the chopper that shot you down, parachuting on top of someone and knifing them before being run over by a jeep laden with C4. All unscripted, all multiplayer.
I'm not missing your point at all, you're interpreting my comments wrong.

Realism =/= combat simulator.

Environments, lighting, effects, physics. All made to increase the experience. To make it as real as possible, while maintaining the video-game air.

No, I did not miss the point about scope-glint, I used it as more evidence that the game tried to be real, but tailored it against authenticity. Scope-glint is a real problem, and is dangerous, but only where light is present.
In BF3, it's a small super-nova. Realism tailored against itself.

Do you even know what I was talking about regarding social-multi-player?
Battlefield 3 is so powerful and loaded with 'authentic' crap that adding Split-screen isn't possible unless you want a flaming system. THAT impedes social-multi-player. SOCIAL-multi-player is the ability to be in the same room as the members of your team while playing the game.
When the game tried to be so 'Authentic' that split-screen was physically impossible, they destroyed the social aspect of the game. Sure, you can talk to people hundreds or thousand of miles away, but you're alone while gaming. Your friends have to be elsewhere, on different systems, in order to game with them.

Things like visible-spectrum laser-sights mounted on long-range rifles used in close combat, supernova-flashlights, and so much effort into lip-stick graphics that split-screen is no longer possible broke my experience in the game.
If I ever pick it up again, it's going to be for single-player campaign just so I can say that I beat it, because having, and not finishing, a game irritates me.
I misinterpreted the social multiplayer thing, though really Battlefield is a not split screen kinda game to begin with. Split screen =/= social multiplayer. Split screen is part of the set of things that allow for social multiplayer. Multiplayer is playing with other people. Social multiplayer is playing with other people and socialising with them, something that can be done over VOIP too. I don't count myself as "alone" when I'm talking to 3 friends and laughing about how we just crashed a helicopter into a tank. I don't need to high five my bro because I totally pwned that noob.

By not including split screen they did not "destroy" the social aspect of the game, especially when Battlefield never had split screen as a franchise. I was social gaming in Battlefield 2142 damn it.

Furthermore the degree of complaining you're doing about this game's level of realism makes it sound like you want a simulator. "Laser sights are impractical on rifles because of X,Y,Z thus the game even allowing players the option of attaching them is unforgivable". You're no different to those who are whining about the 7.62 NATO round's damage not being high enough to match its RL energy.

Environments, lighting, effects, physics. All made to increase the experience. To make it as real as possible, while maintaining the video-game air.
What does that even mean? The "Video game air". It is a video game! It's more like "Environments, lighting all used to create an air of realism within a video game" which is what they've largely succeeded to do.

In BF3, it's a small super-nova. Realism tailored against itself.
What? It's not realism tailored against itself, it's gameplay balance realised through a plausible game mechanic. DICE saw a problem, "The enhanced level of foliage and large map sizes will allow snipers to hide for the entire game" so they fixed it by putting in a "glint" to reveal a sniper's location when he has his rifle out.

Same goes for the laser sights and the tac lights. Think of them not as realistic representations of real life gadgets, think of them as gameplay mechanics realised through RL items.
 

Darius Brogan

New member
Apr 28, 2010
637
0
0
Alexnader said:
Darius Brogan said:
Alexnader said:
Darius Brogan said:
Alexnader said:
Darius Brogan said:
Alexnader said:
Darius Brogan said:
Alexnader said:
snip
snip
As for your inability to obtain a good PC, bad luck man.
snip
snip
snip
Snip
Snip
I misinterpreted the social multiplayer thing, though really Battlefield is a not split screen kinda game to begin with. Split screen =/= social multiplayer. Split screen is part of the set of things that allow for social multiplayer. Multiplayer is playing with other people. Social multiplayer is playing with other people and socialising with them, something that can be done over VOIP too. I don't count myself as "alone" when I'm talking to 3 friends and laughing about how we just crashed a helicopter into a tank. I don't need to high five my bro because I totally pwned that noob.

By not including split screen they did not "destroy" the social aspect of the game, especially when Battlefield never had split screen as a franchise. I was social gaming in Battlefield 2142 damn it.

Furthermore the degree of complaining you're doing about this game's level of realism makes it sound like you want a simulator. "Laser sights are impractical on rifles because of X,Y,Z thus the game even allowing players the option of attaching them is unforgivable". You're no different to those who are whining about the 7.62 NATO round's damage not being high enough to match its RL energy.

Environments, lighting, effects, physics. All made to increase the experience. To make it as real as possible, while maintaining the video-game air.
What does that even mean? The "Video game air". It is a video game! It's more like "Environments, lighting all used to create an air of realism within a video game" which is what they've largely succeeded to do.

In BF3, it's a small super-nova. Realism tailored against itself.
What? It's not realism tailored against itself, it's gameplay balance realised through a plausible game mechanic. DICE saw a problem, "The enhanced level of foliage and large map sizes will allow snipers to hide for the entire game" so they fixed it by putting in a "glint" to reveal a sniper's location when he has his rifle out.

Same goes for the laser sights and the tac lights. Think of them not as realistic representations of real life gadgets, think of them as gameplay mechanics realised through RL items.
I'm sorry if a Voice Over Internet Protocol doesn't make the cut for socialization in my books. Socializing is going out and meeting people, talking face to face, and having conversations face to face. You and I have different opinions of social, and I can live with that, but a room-full of friends is always better than a server full of strangers with two friends just one block away that can't even come over to hang out because the game's one player otherwise.

Video-game air is the suspension of disbelief experienced when playing a video-game. Having enough realism to place yourself into a semi-plausible situation where you can convince yourself that you're playing makes it easier for people to become immersed because they can relate, to a small extent, with the closer-to-real environments.

There's no point in putting sniper rifles in a game if you're going to eliminate the only thing about them that means anything: Stealth.
Besides the glint effect is completely eliminated if you grab an accurate assault rifle with iron sights and snipe that way.