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

[wooty]

I agree with you on the flashlights strength, people just use it as an irritation now rather than a tool to light up an are.

That shit needs toning down badly, a public beta and 2 patches have been launched and none have addressed it.

 

[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.

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.

The only thing that makes me scream at the TV are the abundance of ext mag 249 users. Its like battlefield for the skilless.

That and the fact that unless there are 2-3 of you, its really really hard to shoot down planes. Spose it means working as a team is important, but its still annoying how good stealth + flares is.

 

[Robert Ewing]

So the game as a few kinks, what's new?

 

[Nalbis]

While I agree that a tac-light blinding you in day light is pretty stupid I can accept it for the fact of game balancing.

As already said, if people want to put a laser sight on a sniper rifle that's up to them - It certainly doesn't bug me (I was never aware that it showed bullet drop while scoped though, I'm not really a sniper person but I think that's pretty cool)

In all I think the OP is nit-picking far too much, and if you think that a few small features in the game ruin the whole experience for you then it makes me wonder how you enjoy anything in life without complaining. No offence meant but really, its a couple of minor features in the game.

 

[ElPatron]

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.

Because in reality it is an invisible laser to paint targets, in games it's a "cool, lasers" attachment.

Of course, it is still going to give away your position to IR sensitive optics in reality, but that tech is used anyway.




By that logic, the military does not need tracers.

There will never ever be a realistic war game, because it would suck. Nobody would play a realistic war game.

I played one (IRL).

It was 3 days patrolling a base, talking to other people, cleaning mud of trucks and fixing their busted axels. Good fun, didn't fire more than 100 times, which is what you spend in 15 minutes of BF.

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.

Moving the goal posts, are we?

First it made you rip your muscles apart and dislocate your shoulder, now you can't just hop around with it.

The AK-47 has an effective range of 400 meters.

AHAHAHA

You go buy one and do that. Post proof.

Not only the sights make it hard to aim at that range, going beyond 250m is already hard enough because of the drop.

 

[ElPatron]

And then repeat that with a handcrafted immitation AK that's often more common. I can only claim having seen them in action once and I don't care to repeat the experience, but the rounds went all over the place, and not for their lack of trying. I'm not a weapons expert, but I have the idea our diemaco 5.56'ers were about a hundred times as accurate. And that won't have been more than 200 metres apart.

Yes, in the most recent wars the AK variants used had more wobbly parts than the already wobbly Russian versions.
And the ammo used is of very poor quality.


But I was talking about an official Izhmash AK. It is possible to hit a broadest side of a barn from 400m away, and you can hit a man sized target with it.

However, it will be impractical - from my short experience with a AKM, the sights were not too much apart, it wobbles a tad bit during firing and it's tolerances are looser than in NATO military rifles. Hence, it won't be a practical range of 400m.



I've never been close to a loaded 5.56 rifle. The closest I got was when I handled a G36E, but it was unloaded and probably had the firing pin removed.

 

[herodotus]

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.

Uh, no it wasn't developed for PC as primary. It started out like that, as with all games then promptly switched to console.
Dice Devs have fessed up and admitted this, much to the chagrin of us PC gamers.

 

[danintexas]

Only thing about the game I hate is the damn camping MRV killers.

 

[ThriKreen]

BTW, if anyone wants a decent BF3 server to be a regular on, Studio Rumble has a 64-player server set up here: http://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf3/servers/show/4df8b42b-c2ba-4203-be8c-968d051e4e8d/Studio-Rumble/

It's very team-oriented and a number of game devs play on it (including yours truly).

Even better when an EA guy will tweet he's playing on it, and the server fills up within 10min - mostly due to people wanting to backstab him with the knife to steal his DICE dog tag.

http://twitter.com/#!/sargonas
http://twitter.com/#!/StudioRumble/

 

[Darius Brogan]

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.

1) Then quit arguing with me. It'll make this whole thing go by all the more quickly.

2) It states on the case that their aim was realism, so weapon stats are close to real, meaning the weapons effective range is close to real, meaning 400 yards is still enough to kill someone, albeit though you'd need some luck.

3) I didn't mention the attachments for a reason, because a Hi-Mag Scope is what a good sniper uses for long-range shots. At mid ranges an assault rifle works just fine.

4) I couldn't care less if an argument falls into a point-for-point or even a screaming match, because that never happens with me.

5) Please read the original post where I state that I'm a perfectionist. A Game advertised as Authentic and Realistic that falls under neither category is a betrayal for someone who actually cares about those little things like detail.

6) Oh? I'm desperately sorry that I have better things to do than track every miniscule movement of every single video-game that I intend to play after release. I have things like work, rent, utilities, baby-sitting, inter-provincial and rather soon after international moves to plan, along with student loans to pay for, and pre-study to worry about, followed by independent programming study, 3D graphics and mapping, and petty things like making sure I'm fed on a regular basis.
As one would imagine, that takes up a rather extensive amount of my time, and the rest is spent sleeping, or enjoying what little peace I get. My only saving grace is my typing speed, which allows me to post lovely little threads like this and not waste too much of my time.

7) A succinct defense of my position? How about being a concept planner myself with more experience in the planning and specifications of video-games than pretty much any non-dev gamer on the planet? Realistically speaking, of course.
I work with a small team on writing up the specifications, features, story-lines, characters, weapons, puzzles, maps, skills, and myriad other little niceties that gamers often enjoy in the games they play.
I'm more than aware, as an independent, of what goes into the planning stages of a video-game. I'm also aware that AAA titles have access to hundreds of times the funds I've got.
So why is it that my teeny team I can plan and conceptualize what is wanted in a title, and nix what would be too time consuming, or unnecessary while still keeping the feel of the game?

Titles like Battlefield are millions of dollars, and thousands of hours in the making, and have giant teams of people working on what to put into it and what to leave out, what would be wanted and what would not, and marketing the game based on what's going into it.

Marketing realism and authenticity, while keeping an entertaining and interesting game, are two things that Battlefield was going for. For the average gamer, they did very well. For the above average gamer, there are some miniscule gripes. For the elite gamer, there are more. But above all of them, there is (Seriously not trying to sound arrogant, but I can't phrase it differently) me.
Or, more accurately, people like me, my team, and my friends. All of whom play games based on our interests in the real world. All of whom look at a game, and what's advertised, and expect those huge, AAA titles to provide.

When Battlefield was marketed as authentic and realistic, I expected a giant, multi-billion dollar company to possess the knowledge necessary to make it so.
Even when one balances the game-play aspect against the realism, Battlefield 3 is a fun game with a few life-like touches here and there, based entirely off of game-play, and marketed as authentic and realistic, when it's neither.

I apologize for the length, but that is about as succinct as I can get. Be glad I didn't go for verbose, instead.

 

[Darius Brogan]

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.

Moving the goal posts, are we?

First it made you rip your muscles apart and dislocate your shoulder, now you can't just hop around with it.

The AK-47 has an effective range of 400 meters.

AHAHAHA

You go buy one and do that. Post proof.

Not only the sights make it hard to aim at that range, going beyond 250m is already hard enough because of the drop.

No, not moving posts, just pointing out that any human deciding they want a high-powered sniper-rifle as their primary wouldn't have the luxury of standing in one place and have enough time to tense every muscle from their eyebrows to their toe-nails to fire a few rounds.
Firing a rifle like that with no preparation, as one would in a battle-field, would actually launch your arm backwards, tearing ligaments because of the speed and force.

How's about this: YOU actually look up the specs instead of being a self-righteous ass and assuming I'm wrong because you think your information is the be-all-end-all of the military paraphernalia world?

Did I say 'Sniper-rifle accuracy at 750 yards'? No.
Did I say 'Knock-down power of a javelin rocket at 1000 yards'? No.

I used an actual statistic. Y'know, one of those things that's been tested over and over since 1944?

 

[NerfedFalcon]

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.

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.

That's what DICE might have said. As for EA? Well, between the spyware scandal, giving DLC early to PS3 players and trying to be more like Call of Duty in general (which is usually seen as a console thing anyway)...

Also, you can split-screen on a PC. I've seen it done, at least with some older games. All you need is one (or a few) friends willing to use a controller instead of M+K...

 

[ElPatron]

I used an actual statistic. Y'know, one of those things that's been tested over and over since 1944?

>quotes statistic from 1944
>disregards changes between prototypes and actual produced models

Stay classy, bro.

I don't understand why don't you admit to be overreacting? Calling me names won't lead you anywhere. You and me are on the same level. No need to lie about me and say I claimed to be the be-all-end-all of whatever.


Instead of whining about battlefield, go shoot some more guns.



And by the way, you did move the goal posts. You went from "tears a black hole in your shoulder" to a mild "almost knocked over, you can't do that jumping around and doing other stuff".

 

[Tayh]

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.

A sniper caught in CQC *is* a dead sniper. That it is different in CoD isn't necessarily better; more like lame.

Laser sight does not increase the accuracy of the rifle. It decreases the hip-fire crosshair bloom.

 

[brucelee13245]

I can kinda understand the argument against the flashlight but it isn't something i care about much. And with the second comment, yes, no one should put a red laser on their sniper rifle. But, with no other way to say it OP, it worked didn't it? I guess your argument would be valid had the laser sight given his position away and you were able to get behind his position and kill him, but you didn't. Your complaining that you got killed by a guy with a useless attachment on his gun. Loses it's validity. And with the split screen, I'd LOVE to have split screen on bf3 for consoles, but i wasn't expecting it. Black ops caught me by surprise when it did have split screen when it first came out.

 

[RA92]

PCs dont have split screen? Serious Sam 3, bitches. 4-player split screen!

 

[ChildishLegacy]

It's a video game, for FUN, not one of your war games. Nowhere on the box does it say "simulation". Lighten up and have a bit of fun.

 

[II2]

I DON`T CARE that it's not completely realistic. The game tried as hard as humanly possible to BE REALISTIC, and by allowing you to mount laser-sights on a sniper rifle that increase accuracy while hip-firing the most accurate weapons on earth, and giving Tac-lights the power of the sun, they failed horribly.

The game wanted to be the most realistic shooter of the generation, and failed by missing the most obvious things you can think of.

I don't really think that was their goal, from the outset. To create a game with the greatest visual fidelity in the presentation of "realism", was probably more of a priority than realism itself. Reality kinda takes a back seat to photo realistic cinematic realism, or "realism chic", to my mind. I think DICE was probably quite cognizant about the design decisions.

It's not as bonkers as Call of Duty / Modern Warfare, but I don't think Battlefield / DICE's mandate has ever to strive for genuine realism, so much as just improved graphics and an arcade experience in the body of a realistically rendered game. I can get behind that just fine, but I think it's a pity they're not releasing Frostbite SDK for modders, otherwise people like you, who it does detract from the experience, could build / play a Project Reality (battlefield 2) style mod.