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

[Darius Brogan]

And all my friends thought I was the most anal person about realism in war games.

I believe that if you're trying to emulate a specific battle in a specific war, they you should at least TRY to make it realistic.

Otherwise, why not just make a game like Halo? Where firing rockets at your feet is totally not a lethal thing to do, and eight-foot tall worm constructs beat you bloody with giant metal shields and energy cannons?

 

[Tharwen]

The taclight thing is stupid. I don't like being blinded outside in daylight. I want to be able to tactically use it when I enter a dark building or tunnel, but it won't let me!

The laser on the sniper rifle is actually less of an issue than the fact that sniper scopes always have reflections giving away their position even when they're underground at night.

Split-screen has been missing for years (except in CoD4, oddly). It's a shame but it's true

 

[Slycne]

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.

No modern sniper rifle is going to break your shoulder by being fired in standing position, not even a .50 cal.

 

[Alexnader]

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.

You're allowed to think that you have to be in the same room as someone to socialise with them, however don't act as if Battlefield betrayed you. Split screen has never been a part of Battlefield. You claimed to be a PC gamer but you can't seem to handle anything but split screen. I do not think PC gamer means what you think it means.

Video game air is a term you made up yourself so thanks for finally explaining it and is essentially "immersiveness". Battlefield immerses you with award winning graphics and sound, I can't blame them for not catering for those who'd nitpick about the use of a laser sight.

Sniper rifles have customisable sights which you'd know if you had any understanding of this game, iron sights, holo, reflex, 3.4*, 4*, IR. All don't cause scope glint. However those reduce long range capability, removing the balance requirements that necessitated implementing the scope glint in first place. Good system huh? Funny how that works out, almost like the game was designed around both balance and realism. Sorry to be rude but you seem to be missing a fair bit of information.

For that matter stealth is still possible with a high powered scope. All you need is to only equip your rifle when you're preparing to take a shot.

At ranges >100m an assault rifle would need 5-6 shots to the body to kill an enemy. Hardly effective.

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.

No modern sniper rifle is going to break your shoulder by being fired in standing position, not even a .50 cal.

Also this, oh mah gawd it's Justin Clouse.

 

[Darius Brogan]

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.

No modern sniper rifle is going to break your shoulder by being fired in standing position, not even a .50 cal.

Do you know what the term 'Hip-fired' means? No, evidently not.

There's a very specific reason you shoulder your sniper rifle before you fire, it's called recoil.

When fired with no bracing, the recoil of a weapon powerful enough to punch through armor plating will snap your arm back so fast and so hard your shoulder will either break, or dislocate and tear every muscle in the socket.

Which is why you use your shoulder to BRACE the weapon.

 

[Darius Brogan]

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.

You're allowed to think that you have to be in the same room as someone to socialise with them, however don't act as if Battlefield betrayed you. Split screen has never been a part of Battlefield. You claimed to be a PC gamer but you can't seem to handle anything but split screen. I do not think PC gamer means what you think it means.

Video game air is a term you made up yourself so thanks for finally explaining it and is essentially "immersiveness". Battlefield immerses you with award winning graphics and sound, I can't blame them for not catering for those who'd nitpick about the use of a laser sight.

Sniper rifles have customisable sights which you'd know if you had any understanding of this game, iron sights, holo, reflex, 3.4*, 4*, IR. All don't cause scope glint. However those reduce long range capability, removing the balance requirements that necessitated implementing the scope glint in first place. Good system huh? Funny how that works out, almost like the game was designed around both balance and realism. Sorry to be rude but you seem to be missing a fair bit of information.

For that matter stealth is still possible with a high powered scope. All you need is to only equip your rifle when you're preparing to take a shot.

At ranges >100m an assault rifle would need 5-6 shots to the body to kill an enemy. Hardly effective.

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.

No modern sniper rifle is going to break your shoulder by being fired in standing position, not even a .50 cal.

Also this, oh mah gawd it's Justin Clouse.

I know exactly what PC gamer means, dude, and if you'd read my previous posts you'd realize that I state my PC isn't powerful enough to run BF3 without bursting into flames.

Ever heard the term 'Air of mystery' 'Air of intrigue' or any other abstract term?
The video-game air is not "immersiveness" alone. Suspension of disbelief is the most glaring factor, and when you base a game on reality, suspension of disbelief is very simple, because it's close to reality. My brain interprets more information than most, so it's difficult for me to accept that you base a game on being "Real-as-Hell" (It's on the freaking case) but lean away from realism in favor of inane customization options which would be unnecessary or unfavorable in a (real) battlefield situation.

Please note: I never mentioned any of the other customization options, at all. Not once.
My previous paragraph skillfully states that forgoing realism in favor of inane customization options which would most probably get you killed in a (real) battlefield, but marketing the game as "Real-as-Hell" is rather redundant.

Unless, of course, you're using any of the myriad new-generation Assault weapons available throughout the entire planet.
The AK-47 has an effective range of 400 meters. The M16: 500+.
Both rifles are over 40 years old now, and we've been getting better and better since then.

 

[Slycne]

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.

No modern sniper rifle is going to break your shoulder by being fired in standing position, not even a .50 cal.

Do you know what the term 'Hip-fired' means? No, evidently not.

There's a very specific reason you shoulder your sniper rifle before you fire, it's called recoil.

When fired with no bracing, the recoil of a weapon powerful enough to punch through armor plating will snap your arm back so fast and so hard your shoulder will either break, or dislocate and tear every muscle in the socket.

Which is why you use your shoulder to BRACE the weapon.

I certainly wouldn't recommend it, but Newton's law has something to say about it snapping and wrenching your arm back like that. The recoil energy of a .50 cal BMG is 70 foot pounds. A good punch can be easily double, if not more, than that.

Or further proof -

 

[Haywoot]

Yeah-yeah-yeah, there's still some technical/gameplay problems in Battlefield 3 even after a few patches...

But, I might say I'm technically broken as well (based on the OP's ranting) because a 300+ lumen taclight a few feet away to my eyes hurts and temporarily blinds me even during daylight. Yeah, I'm used to the outdoor light but still looking at that kind of concentrated lightbeam coming from a short distance has a negative effect on me and I really feel like looking away almost immediately.

Yeah, the taclight should be nerfed in the brightest maps' outdoor areas, but they should keep it blinding at CQB-range in any situation or it would become useless.

Anyways OP, don't be such a spoil-sport about everything... BF3 is not a combat-simulator, it's not trying to be realistic in every way, but it's a great blast to play (if you like this kind of game) when your not nitpicking on some of the slightly broken details.

 

[ThriKreen]

My friends and I crashed our BF3 server when we fired 7 javelins at one A-10. Server did not like that at all. =D

 

[Darius Brogan]

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.

No modern sniper rifle is going to break your shoulder by being fired in standing position, not even a .50 cal.

Do you know what the term 'Hip-fired' means? No, evidently not.

There's a very specific reason you shoulder your sniper rifle before you fire, it's called recoil.

When fired with no bracing, the recoil of a weapon powerful enough to punch through armor plating will snap your arm back so fast and so hard your shoulder will either break, or dislocate and tear every muscle in the socket.

Which is why you use your shoulder to BRACE the weapon.

I certainly wouldn't recommend it, but Newton's law has something to say about it snapping and wrenching your arm back like that. The recoil energy of a .50 cal BMG is 70 foot pounds. A good punch can be easily double, if not more, than that.

Or further proof -

Please note that he was almost knocked over, and that he was not only bracing himself as much as possible, he had his entire right arm tensed and his left firmly on the handle, mounted at the top of the gun.
Can YOU do that while running around, turning, jumping, and climbing all over obstacles?

No, I didn't think so, either.

 

[Darius Brogan]

Yeah-yeah-yeah, there's still some technical/gameplay problems in Battlefield 3 even after a few patches...

But, I might say I'm technically broken as well (based on the OP's ranting) because a 300+ lumen taclight a few feet away to my eyes hurts and temporarily blinds me even during daylight. Yeah, I'm used to the outdoor light but still looking at that kind of concentrated lightbeam coming from a short distance has a negative effect on me and I really feel like looking away almost immediately.

Yeah, the taclight should be nerfed in the brightest maps' outdoor areas, but they should keep it blinding at CQB-range in any situation or it would become useless.

Anyways OP, don't be such a spoil-sport about everything... BF3 is not a combat-simulator, it's not trying to be realistic in every way, but it's a great blast to play (if you like this kind of game) when your not nitpicking on some of the slightly broken details.

I only nit-pick when the game-case itself states "Real-as-Hell Multiplayer", among other things.

I guess it's far too much to expect a game to deliver what's advertised these days. Oh well.

 

[Darius Brogan]

My friends and I crashed our BF3 server when we fired 7 javelins at one A-10. Server did not like that at all. =D

If you listen closely, you can hear the server screaming in agony, lol.

I may pick it up again, after I've had time to convince myself they weren't really trying to be realistic in the game.

 

[JackWestJr]

Yeah-yeah-yeah, there's still some technical/gameplay problems in Battlefield 3 even after a few patches...

But, I might say I'm technically broken as well (based on the OP's ranting) because a 300+ lumen taclight a few feet away to my eyes hurts and temporarily blinds me even during daylight. Yeah, I'm used to the outdoor light but still looking at that kind of concentrated lightbeam coming from a short distance has a negative effect on me and I really feel like looking away almost immediately.

Yeah, the taclight should be nerfed in the brightest maps' outdoor areas, but they should keep it blinding at CQB-range in any situation or it would become useless.

Anyways OP, don't be such a spoil-sport about everything... BF3 is not a combat-simulator, it's not trying to be realistic in every way, but it's a great blast to play (if you like this kind of game) when your not nitpicking on some of the slightly broken details.

I only nit-pick when the game-case itself states "Real-as-Hell Multiplayer", among other things.

If it says 'Real-as-Hell Multiplayer' then I am quite sure that it is a reviewers quote
I guess it's far too much to expect a game to deliver what's advertised these days. Oh well.

Yeah-yeah-yeah, there's still some technical/gameplay problems in Battlefield 3 even after a few patches...

But, I might say I'm technically broken as well (based on the OP's ranting) because a 300+ lumen taclight a few feet away to my eyes hurts and temporarily blinds me even during daylight. Yeah, I'm used to the outdoor light but still looking at that kind of concentrated lightbeam coming from a short distance has a negative effect on me and I really feel like looking away almost immediately.

Yeah, the taclight should be nerfed in the brightest maps' outdoor areas, but they should keep it blinding at CQB-range in any situation or it would become useless.

Anyways OP, don't be such a spoil-sport about everything... BF3 is not a combat-simulator, it's not trying to be realistic in every way, but it's a great blast to play (if you like this kind of game) when your not nitpicking on some of the slightly broken details.

I only nit-pick when the game-case itself states "Real-as-Hell Multiplayer", among other things.

I guess it's far too much to expect a game to deliver what's advertised these days. Oh well.

 

[Darius Brogan]

And all my friends thought I was the most anal person about realism in war games.

I'm only anal about it when it's directly advertised on the case that the game is "Real-as-Hell".

If I hadn't expected realism, I wouldn't have had a problem with the game.

I expected realism, and got lights as powerful as a small supernova, scope-glint in perfect darkness, logically suicidal attachments on sniper-rifles, and a myriad other little nitpicks that, being a perfectionist, I can't seem to ignore.

 

[Darius Brogan]

Snip

No, it's in the features on the back of the case, where they tell you what's in the game.

If it was a reviewers quote it would have had the reviewers name and whatnot underneath it, and it would have been in quotes.

 

[Awexsome]

Gah! I'm so with you on the split-screen part!

More and more games that focus on multiplayer are abandoning the traditional split-screen mechanic even for local play now. Whenever I bring a friend over we could always jump online in Gears 3 or even, despite it's faults, Black Ops. And in Halo we've always had a party and STILL were all able to jump into matchmaking.

PC gamers ***** when new multiplayer games started foregoing dedicated servers and we console players will ***** when they start to phase out splitscreen for us. Being developed for one platform or the other is no excuse for either side to be shafted.

 

[Alexnader]

I know exactly what PC gamer means, dude, and if you'd read my previous posts you'd realize that I state my PC isn't powerful enough to run BF3 without bursting into flames.

Ever heard the term 'Air of mystery' 'Air of intrigue' or any other abstract term?
The video-game air is not "immersiveness" alone. Suspension of disbelief is the most glaring factor, and when you base a game on reality, suspension of disbelief is very simple, because it's close to reality. My brain interprets more information than most, so it's difficult for me to accept that you base a game on being "Real-as-Hell" (It's on the freaking case) but lean away from realism in favor of inane customization options which would be unnecessary or unfavorable in a (real) battlefield situation.

Please note: I never mentioned any of the other customization options, at all. Not once.
My previous paragraph skillfully states that forgoing realism in favor of inane customization options which would most probably get you killed in a (real) battlefield, but marketing the game as "Real-as-Hell" is rather redundant.

Unless, of course, you're using any of the myriad new-generation Assault weapons available throughout the entire planet.
The AK-47 has an effective range of 400 meters. The M16: 500+.
Both rifles are over 40 years old now, and we've been getting better and better since then.

I really hate arguing with you, I tell you why? Because we're never on the same page. When I say 5-6 shots to kill someone with an assault rifle I obviously mean in-game. If your brain really is special and interprets more information than most you might have picked up on the subtle clue that I couldn't care less what things are like in real life.

As for why I mentioned the other optical attachments, you assumed that sniper rifles could not be used stealthily because of the way DICE implemented glint. I proved you wrong.

But enough of this bollocks, this has degenerated into a tit for tat paragraph 1 is a response to your paragraph 1, paragraph 2 to your paragraph 2 etc which makes every argument we make disjointed.



So lets bring it back a bit. Here's what I can gather. You feel betrayed by DICE because you feel their game was marketed as a realistic shooter and contains elements that you do not feel are realistic. Additionally you like split screen and are disappointed that it's not in the game.

I could easily dismiss you as a whiner who complains about the most inane aspects of the game but I won't. If you somehow lose the "air of game" (not a thing, I don't care how much you try to make it one) because of laser sights on rifles then fine, what you enjoy is your domain.

All I will ask is that you drop the whiny tone exemplified by your thread title "WHY BATTLEFIELD3!!! WHY WOULD YOU DO THIS TO ME!". Drop it, because the free and open beta was in bloody October. If you had done a single shred of research, something that I thought was common practice for the enlightened internet savvy gamer, you would have realised that you would hate the game. I'm serious, youtube is a thing and it's great. There's also the review by Justin Clouse who graced this thread for some reason. Seriously, it would've taken you about 10 minutes to work out whether ~$60 purchase you were about to make would be worth it.

DICE/EA had realism as a small element of their campaign and the subtext of it all was "more realistic than bloody Call Of Duty". So maybe, if this was a month ago I would understand that you could have fooled yourself into thinking this would be some kind of milsim. But it's December!

Mount a succinct defence of your position and we'll see if we can't work this out. The silly season is well and truly upon us my friend.

Gah! I'm so with you on the split-screen part!

More and more games that focus on multiplayer are abandoning the traditional split-screen mechanic even for local play now. Whenever I bring a friend over we could always jump online in Gears 3 or even, despite it's faults, Black Ops. And in Halo we've always had a party and STILL were all able to jump into matchmaking.

PC gamers ***** when new multiplayer games started foregoing dedicated servers and we console players will ***** when they start to phase out splitscreen for us. Being developed for one platform or the other is no excuse for either side to be shafted.

Point me to a game that has better graphics than Call Of Duty and has split screen multiplayer. The sad reality is that the Xbox/PS3 are bloody old, you can't have a game that takes advantage of modern PC performance and have something that chews up as much performance as split screen does. Implement split screen and you force PC gamers to play something that looks 4 years old. That or DICE has to spend another 6 months or something completely cutting back the engine to the point where it's essentially a totally different one built for consoles. Try selling that to an EA desperate to beat CoD's release date.

 

[Kiardras]

If you have a problem with taclights and laser snipers, wait till you come up against the extended mag M249's and M60's.

 

[setting_son]

If you have a problem with taclights and laser snipers, wait till you come up against the extended mag M249's and M60's.

Did you see how they can fire four hundred rounds sustained without the barrel even starting to glow red hot? Well, when I saw that I was so mad at the betrayal of realism that I threw my own faeces at the wall as a means of expressing my displeasure.

And that was just after I'd calmed down from noticing that assault kit doesn't have realistically simulated boots - I've logged sixty hours of playtime now and NOT ONCE have I had to tie my shoes.

 

[sextus the crazy]

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.

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.

Yeah, We all have gripes like that. Personally, the tracer darts really bother me in BF:BC2 because of their ability to make unguided projectiles into fire and forget ones. Also the AT4 is laser-guided instead of unguided for some reason.