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

[Snowblindblitz]

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.

This. The advertisements for realism were about graphics. Seemed obvious to me, with them comparing real footage to game footage to try and confuse you. Looking at a box I see the word immersion, which is a crappy, undefined term with a difference in meaning to everyone.

 

[hawkeye52]

If you wanted a realistic military shooter go for one of the operation flash point games which were boring as hell to play just because you march half way across the map encounter some enemies pick each one of them off keep on marching for 10 mins and then die to a random sniper

 

[Aeonknight]

Pfft you're complaining about laser sights on snipers?

I've seen snipers who snipe with Tac Lights as well. Something about a bright flashlight seems counterproductive. Moreso than the laser sight.

No one said everyone who plays the game knows what they're doing.

 

[Darius Brogan]

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".

No, I didn't move the posts, I just take more than a single factor into account when comparing what happened in that video, to the way it would happen when players do it in-game.

They aren't going to stay still and brace for impact, they're going to be running, gunning, turning, and firing without preparation.
That will do exactly what I said it would, and tear your ligaments apart. No black hole necessary, just a suggestion for rather immediate medical attention.

 

[Darius Brogan]

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.

Sometimes I detest being such a perfectionist. I tend to extend the scope of my assumptions concerning the advertised game into fields evidently not considered.

Though the fact that characters move and interact realistically, and every physic-type but bullet-physics is realistically inclined kind of made me assume realism was a fairly large factor in game-development.

Guess not.

 

[Akimoto]

I've already stated I'm a perfectionist, and if you market a game as realistic or authentic, but make mistakes so obvious in favor of graphical power, you may as well have not tried.

The closest is Virtual Battle Space 2, it was made especially for military institutes but each liscence costs $7k. Probably the most 'realistic' is Operation Flashpoint and Brothers In Arms.

Personally, I see the realistic/authentic tag as a marketing gimmick. Life in the service certainly was not that exciting. =)

 

[Darius Brogan]

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.

I understand that a sniper caught in CQC is a dead Sniper, but my point was that a good sniper, in pretty much any game, knows what maps are sniping maps, and what maps aren't. A sniper in a small map should choose a class/weapon better suited to the map, instead of putting a laser-pointer under their barrel that magically makes your cross-hairs smaller. (Which IS an increase in accuracy, btw, as smaller cross-hairs mean smaller spread)

 

[Darius Brogan]

I've already stated I'm a perfectionist, and if you market a game as realistic or authentic, but make mistakes so obvious in favor of graphical power, you may as well have not tried.

The closest is Virtual Battle Space 2, it was made especially for military institutes but each liscence costs $7k. Probably the most 'realistic' is Operation Flashpoint and Brothers In Arms.

Personally, I see the realistic/authentic tag as a marketing gimmick. Life in the service certainly was not that exciting. =)

Lol, then I guess you weren't the main character, were you? If you WERE it would have been AWESOME!.... Or mentally shattering... Possibly both... but probably not., lol

 

[Darius Brogan]

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.

The issue regarding that has been explained twice now, but some distance back, and it's a doosie.

I started the game, strafed around the side of a shipping-container and got blinded by a Tac-Light, strafed some more to get my sight back, and was shot in the back by the sniper in question.

(Who, btw, was killed by my team-mates seconds later because they followed his laser)

 

[Akimoto]

Lol, then I guess you weren't the main character, were you? If you WERE it would have been AWESOME!.... Or mentally shattering... Possibly both... but probably not., lol

A toast to you sir!

 

[JoesshittyOs]

Wait till you get the IRNV scope. You will literally never have to use anything else.

1) Agreed. While it's purpose in gameplay is technically suppose to blind you, it is the most blatantly unfair mechanic they could have possibly added. I've heard that they've patched?working on a patch for it, so I'm not to upset. It's one of those things where I am just confused while that thought it was a good idea in the first place. If there was actually a thing with dark places, I would've been fine with it. Personally, I like the aesthetic effect of having one on the gun. But the darkest place really is in a lighted metro, so it's redundant.

2) Once again, I agree, though it's hard something to complain about seeing how it's optional. I'm just spitballing here, but I think the laser attachment on the sniper would have been a good compensation for range. Not as in it eliminates range, but as in (unrealistically of course) it acts as a sort of guideline for where your bullet will fall. Helps make sniping a little easier to understand for beginners, but not so easy as it gives away your position.

3) Also agree, though with online multiplayer I can understand why they chose to opt out. The Co-op for example kinda makes me wonder. I would actually play it to unlock the attachments with my little brother or something if it wasn't for the fact that I have qualms with playing the same mission over and over when I'm not facing bots. To much gametime for unlockable weapons.

But seriously, fuck the IRNV. Though I heard they are nerfing that along with the flashlight. Good riddance. Would be fine if they just took that out of the game.

Another qualm I have is with heatseeking missles. The first 2 days of the game were the most fun I had in the airplanes and helicopters. As soon as you could unlock the heat seeking missles, it became so infuriating. Shooting down the planes with the built in guns was the most rewarding thing I had done in the game.

Then people unlocked the Anti Air rockets from the ground, and it made air support redundant. Helicopters and planes are nowhere near powerful enough to have someone who can shoot two missles at you from the ground in less than ten seconds. Seriously, I feel like a lot of fun is missing from the game because of it.

 

[lightningmagurn]

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)

Thank God for that, then. Also, when you develop a game to be as realistic as possible, having an error like that in the first five seconds of game-play is QUITE noticeable.
I've gotten Tac-Lights right in the face from five feet away, and they're not that bright from
fifteen feet in broad daylight.

No, I'm whining about the realism problem again. Their aim was basically a combat-sim on a controller. Up to and including realistic levels of injury, realistic as possible graphics/sounds/motions/and even BULLET DROP, but a Laser sight on a sniper rifle? Really? That's what sidearms are for, my friend.
A DMR, possibly, as well as a pistol, but NOT a sniper rifle. Snipers hide for a reason. So they're not seen. Having a visible spectrum red laser trailing straight back to you nullifies the effectiveness of sniping someone unless they're facing away from you, as I was. My team-mates got him seconds later anyways.

Also, my computer's a piece. It'd NEVER run BF3 effectively, so console's my option until my next paycheck.

I think that if you are really talking about realism, and about what a sniper would and wouldn't do you should point out that they wouldn't be there at all, and complain about how a sniper and spotter seek to infiltrate an area slowly and stealthily, observe for a long period, and then, maybe, shoot a specific target. OR, provide overwatch for a well planned operation. No, nobody in the military would put a laser on a weapon, but it's fun to be able to. You should realize that it would be impossible to make a combat sim, because it would be no fun. The planning, the preparing, the hours of driving, walking, knocking on doors, and then sudden violence, wrought by an enemy that you can't see, suppress, call for indirect, close, engage, go home.

 

[Darius Brogan]

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)

Thank God for that, then. Also, when you develop a game to be as realistic as possible, having an error like that in the first five seconds of game-play is QUITE noticeable.
I've gotten Tac-Lights right in the face from five feet away, and they're not that bright from
fifteen feet in broad daylight.

No, I'm whining about the realism problem again. Their aim was basically a combat-sim on a controller. Up to and including realistic levels of injury, realistic as possible graphics/sounds/motions/and even BULLET DROP, but a Laser sight on a sniper rifle? Really? That's what sidearms are for, my friend.
A DMR, possibly, as well as a pistol, but NOT a sniper rifle. Snipers hide for a reason. So they're not seen. Having a visible spectrum red laser trailing straight back to you nullifies the effectiveness of sniping someone unless they're facing away from you, as I was. My team-mates got him seconds later anyways.

Also, my computer's a piece. It'd NEVER run BF3 effectively, so console's my option until my next paycheck.

I think that if you are really talking about realism, and about what a sniper would and wouldn't do you should point out that they wouldn't be there at all, and complain about how a sniper and spotter seek to infiltrate an area slowly and stealthily, observe for a long period, and then, maybe, shoot a specific target. OR, provide overwatch for a well planned operation. No, nobody in the military would put a laser on a weapon, but it's fun to be able to. You should realize that it would be impossible to make a combat sim, because it would be no fun. The planning, the preparing, the hours of driving, walking, knocking on doors, and then sudden violence, wrought by an enemy that you can't see, suppress, call for indirect, close, engage, go home.

I suppose that's true, but my buddy and I spent two hours in one mission on Ghost Recon taking out every single hostile silently and efficiently and weren't seen even once the entire time...

Though, only a very small fraction of gamers take that kind of care in their play.

 

[lightningmagurn]

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)

Thank God for that, then. Also, when you develop a game to be as realistic as possible, having an error like that in the first five seconds of game-play is QUITE noticeable.
I've gotten Tac-Lights right in the face from five feet away, and they're not that bright from
fifteen feet in broad daylight.

No, I'm whining about the realism problem again. Their aim was basically a combat-sim on a controller. Up to and including realistic levels of injury, realistic as possible graphics/sounds/motions/and even BULLET DROP, but a Laser sight on a sniper rifle? Really? That's what sidearms are for, my friend.
A DMR, possibly, as well as a pistol, but NOT a sniper rifle. Snipers hide for a reason. So they're not seen. Having a visible spectrum red laser trailing straight back to you nullifies the effectiveness of sniping someone unless they're facing away from you, as I was. My team-mates got him seconds later anyways.

Also, my computer's a piece. It'd NEVER run BF3 effectively, so console's my option until my next paycheck.

I think that if you are really talking about realism, and about what a sniper would and wouldn't do you should point out that they wouldn't be there at all, and complain about how a sniper and spotter seek to infiltrate an area slowly and stealthily, observe for a long period, and then, maybe, shoot a specific target. OR, provide overwatch for a well planned operation. No, nobody in the military would put a laser on a weapon, but it's fun to be able to. You should realize that it would be impossible to make a combat sim, because it would be no fun. The planning, the preparing, the hours of driving, walking, knocking on doors, and then sudden violence, wrought by an enemy that you can't see, suppress, call for indirect, close, engage, go home.

I suppose that's true, but my buddy and I spent two hours in one mission on Ghost Recon taking out every single hostile silently and efficiently and weren't seen even once the entire time...

Though, only a very small fraction of gamers take that kind of care in their play.

But that is not vs actual humans, and still isn't how sniping works.

 

[Darius Brogan]

Lol, then I guess you weren't the main character, were you? If you WERE it would have been AWESOME!.... Or mentally shattering... Possibly both... but probably not., lol

A toast to you sir!

Why thank you, kind sir! I do try my best!

 

[Darius Brogan]

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)

Thank God for that, then. Also, when you develop a game to be as realistic as possible, having an error like that in the first five seconds of game-play is QUITE noticeable.
I've gotten Tac-Lights right in the face from five feet away, and they're not that bright from
fifteen feet in broad daylight.

No, I'm whining about the realism problem again. Their aim was basically a combat-sim on a controller. Up to and including realistic levels of injury, realistic as possible graphics/sounds/motions/and even BULLET DROP, but a Laser sight on a sniper rifle? Really? That's what sidearms are for, my friend.
A DMR, possibly, as well as a pistol, but NOT a sniper rifle. Snipers hide for a reason. So they're not seen. Having a visible spectrum red laser trailing straight back to you nullifies the effectiveness of sniping someone unless they're facing away from you, as I was. My team-mates got him seconds later anyways.

Also, my computer's a piece. It'd NEVER run BF3 effectively, so console's my option until my next paycheck.

I think that if you are really talking about realism, and about what a sniper would and wouldn't do you should point out that they wouldn't be there at all, and complain about how a sniper and spotter seek to infiltrate an area slowly and stealthily, observe for a long period, and then, maybe, shoot a specific target. OR, provide overwatch for a well planned operation. No, nobody in the military would put a laser on a weapon, but it's fun to be able to. You should realize that it would be impossible to make a combat sim, because it would be no fun. The planning, the preparing, the hours of driving, walking, knocking on doors, and then sudden violence, wrought by an enemy that you can't see, suppress, call for indirect, close, engage, go home.

I suppose that's true, but my buddy and I spent two hours in one mission on Ghost Recon taking out every single hostile silently and efficiently and weren't seen even once the entire time...

Though, only a very small fraction of gamers take that kind of care in their play.

But that is not vs actual humans, and still isn't how sniping works.

That all depends on what function the Sniper/Marksman is supposed to perform in any given situation.
Taking out vehicles, high-value targets, thinning the herd, whathaveyou.

A good example is Simo Hayha, a Finnish Sniper with WELL over 700 confirmed kills in about 100 days.
He had no spotter and no high-magnification scope, but he was still a Trained Sniper, and he still nailed almost 1000 hostiles.

 

[Darius Brogan]

Double post. Removing it now.

 

[Darius Brogan]

Good lord, I didn't think I hit the bloody button three times!
Removing again, then.

 

[lightningmagurn]

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)

Thank God for that, then. Also, when you develop a game to be as realistic as possible, having an error like that in the first five seconds of game-play is QUITE noticeable.
I've gotten Tac-Lights right in the face from five feet away, and they're not that bright from
fifteen feet in broad daylight.

No, I'm whining about the realism problem again. Their aim was basically a combat-sim on a controller. Up to and including realistic levels of injury, realistic as possible graphics/sounds/motions/and even BULLET DROP, but a Laser sight on a sniper rifle? Really? That's what sidearms are for, my friend.
A DMR, possibly, as well as a pistol, but NOT a sniper rifle. Snipers hide for a reason. So they're not seen. Having a visible spectrum red laser trailing straight back to you nullifies the effectiveness of sniping someone unless they're facing away from you, as I was. My team-mates got him seconds later anyways.

Also, my computer's a piece. It'd NEVER run BF3 effectively, so console's my option until my next paycheck.

I think that if you are really talking about realism, and about what a sniper would and wouldn't do you should point out that they wouldn't be there at all, and complain about how a sniper and spotter seek to infiltrate an area slowly and stealthily, observe for a long period, and then, maybe, shoot a specific target. OR, provide overwatch for a well planned operation. No, nobody in the military would put a laser on a weapon, but it's fun to be able to. You should realize that it would be impossible to make a combat sim, because it would be no fun. The planning, the preparing, the hours of driving, walking, knocking on doors, and then sudden violence, wrought by an enemy that you can't see, suppress, call for indirect, close, engage, go home.

I suppose that's true, but my buddy and I spent two hours in one mission on Ghost Recon taking out every single hostile silently and efficiently and weren't seen even once the entire time...

Though, only a very small fraction of gamers take that kind of care in their play.

But that is not vs actual humans, and still isn't how sniping works.

That all depends on what function the Sniper/Marksman is supposed to perform in any given situation.
Taking out vehicles, high-value targets, thinning the herd, whathaveyou.

A good example is Simo Hayha, a Finnish Sniper with WELL over 700 confirmed kills in about 100 days.
He had no spotter and no high-magnification scope, but he was still a Trained Sniper, and he still nailed almost 1000 hostiles.

I've read up on him, white death and all that. He is an admirable killing machine, but he is not a good example of what Modern snipers are trying to accomplish. Snipers mostly do recon, denial of an area i.e. the commander wants to put in a COP and clears the area out, disruption of enemy actions (also called spoiling) and again, over watch. In a modern setting, this involves small groups of highly trained dudes sitting in one spot shooting people only after a long confirmation process proves that it's ok to shoot that dude. If you want realism, why not complain about vehicles too? Why don't tanks have 4 separate crew positions? It's no fun. Why don't wounded soldiers get evacuated to field hospitals, nearby allies, and eventually home to live a life of poverty and pain before dieing early or killing them selves? It's no fun. Why don't Abrams dominate Russian tanks and why does the US use out dated planes? Why do soldiers use non issue weapons? Why do the different camo schemes represent a wide variety of services all operation together with no unified command and control? Where are all the combat support and combat service support personnel? Where are the civilians? Realism isn't fun, and to try to demand a FPS to be a combat sim is silly.