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

[Joccaren]

No. No they shouldn't. PS3 released at what, 700 USD? No. There is nothing wrong with the ps3's hardware, it is not dated.

And people claim PCs are too expensive...
And yes, the hardware is dated. 256Mb VRAM and 256Mb RAM, with 3.2 Ghz processor, and what equates to an inbuilt graphics card these days. That was dated when it first came out 6 or so years ago. Simply because they haven't exploited every single loophole it might have does not mean it isn't dated. Want my system specs of a computer that might have been good last year, if not the year before that (And by good I mean at or very near top of the line)? 12Gb RAM, 2Gb VRAM, A Quad Core CPU default clocked at 3.4, overclocked to 5.3, Liquid cooling and 2 560Ti 2Gb Phantom2 GPUs. Compare that to what a PS3 can do, the PS3 is pathetic. The fact that you later say 'They should have cut down the graphics so that other stuff could be put in' proves that the hardware is dated and unable to handle what modern games should be able to do.
Oh, and before you cry '$2000 gaming rig' on me, before I bought the 560Tis (I was using my 6 yea old 9800GTX until then), it cost me $300 to upgrade to that. The two graphics cards were the killers, costing me $300 each, but I honestly didn't need them and could play BF3 at a mix of High, Medium and Ultra settings with my 9800GTX. For something that can games far better than a PS3, it cost the exact same as it would have cost me to get one right now.

Matter of fact, we're just getting to see what it's capable of. The software however, we know what that's capable of, and we just can't have it.

More that you are finally reaching the limits of what it can do, and those limits aren't very high. The software you do know what it can do, and as you said you 'know we just can't have it' as the PS3s hardware is too outdated for it.

The point of a console is it is self contained, you DON'T need to update it so often, and it functions on its own. If we had to upgrade our consoles even half as often as we do our PCs consoles wouldn't be a thing anymore.

Do you have any idea how not often you have to upgrade your PC? The answer: Never. You don't have to. To keep up with the latest games and run them on max settings, maybe every 3 or so years, once a year if you buy cheap parts, but you never actually HAVE to upgrade your PC, it will just run new games worse and worse, which, with the current console cycle, has also become a moot point as since consoles haven't advanced, there are few PC games out there that will stress 6 year old good hardware. Yep. Six years its been, and I decide to upgrade my PC now. 6 years is a lot of development. Going by Moore's Law, CPU power doubles every 18 months or so. That is a lot of missed progress by consoles. Six years means you do need to get a new model console out there. Sure, keep supporting the old models, but get a new one out there so that better games can be made.

What developers NEED to do is not make a port as close to the PC version as possible. The PS3 does NOT need the graphics for BF3 that it has, it simply doesn't. You want that, get the hardware designed to run it properly.

You see, if they had of cut down the graphics even further they would have had to put more work into creating the settings that would run it that low, and then have even more people complain that graphics aren't as good as they showed in the adds. Yes, get the hardware designed to run it properly, but do you know how many people feel they've already skimped far too much on all the aspects of the game itself? Its not as simple as 'cut down the game for people like me, and ignore all those who say you've already cut it down too much', as that would result in less sales. It is a matter of, you want that sort of experience, get a hardware update. Seeing as PCs don't do splitscreen, or don't very often anyway, that leaves new console hardware, which isn't out yet and needs to be released for that sort of stuff to be added in.

Split screen should NEVER be missing on a console game that focuses on multiplayer, ever. The point of consoles is making it easier to sit down and enjoy with friends, that's why there are multiple controller ports set in from the beginning.

Yet Split screen is missing from more than just BF3 in the way of modern games. Even some games that don't cut out split screen for single player, cut it out for multiplayer. Yes, the point of consoles is that it is supposedly cheaper and easier to sit down with your friends and have a good time (Laptop LAN party PC equivalent *cough cough* [Yeah you all have to have your individual laptops, and its not split screen, but you can all just sit near each other, link up via the network router {Not an option in modern games where there is no LAN, so you all have to log into online instead} and have a good time together]), but consoles are beginning to show how poor and dated their hardware is. You will see some devs go 'Yeah, we are finally finding out what the Xbox/PS3 can really do (Sales talk for 'We're actually hitting the limits of what we can do with these things), but you also get other, like Crytek who released a game that was pretty reasonable on consoles in all departments, and left a lot of PC gamers crying 'port', who want the next console generation to have the effect of a Nvidia 590 and 8Gb RAM. Now, that is a bit extreme, and would send any console gamer broke, but a simple upgrade to 4Gb of RAM ($12 more expensive than 1Gb, and 8 times better than the current 512Mb), and at least the equivalent of an Nvidia 460 (Worth less than $100) and a quad core CPU (Which would actually annoy some PC gamers as they get left behind with dual core CPUs, despite quad cores not being that expensive) and we would get a console that I would accept as a viable gaming machine. That could likely handle splitscreen on BF3 with at least medium settings, and would allow for games to have a lot more power to run stuff with, allowing us to push gaming forward, beyond its current state. Sure, I'm not crying 'revolutionary games', as they will come from indie markets IMO, with low graphics and low production values, but innovative new ideas (Like that RTS in which you could go back in time, change something you did, and it would reflect on what was happening then). What I'm talking about is you getting your Splitscreen multiplayer, with some nice graphics, with PC games getting better graphical potential with reasonable RAM limits (Skyrim was a 2Gb RAM limit, soon to be patched. It crashed for me when I loaded 20 mods as it had not enough RAM to handle them. Installed the 4Gb Skyrim mod, and now I can run over 50 mods just fine [almost all graphical]), and optimisation for modern CPUs.


Consoles are behind, rather than claiming games should move backwards instead of forwards, and things should get worse than they currently are, we should be crying for platforms to get better, so that games can get better, and we can finally move forward in gaming.

 

[Darius Brogan]

I don't get you.


The guy hip-firing was "bracing himself", so I searched for shoulder fire. They were not "bracing", they were shouldering the rifle properly.


Now, I'll come up with different videos. In your opinion, the first guy "felt it".


In these videos, they don't "feel it" quite as much.

Now, go back to the video of the guy firing without muzzle brake. Doing stupid stuff like that means that the device which absorbed 65% of the recoil is not there to do it's job.

Which means that the total force pushing the rifle back will be almost 3x the normal force.


Bruised? Probably. Tore ligaments or dislocated shoulder? Not likely.



EXTRA: ONE HANDED

You don't get me because you don't understand the concept of 'Bracing yourself'.

Place weight on your rear leg, lean forward, tense muscles, fire.

Shoulder firing absorbs much of the excess recoil and prevents injuries.
Hip-firing does not. Which is why it's not recommended.

Both forms require one to brace themselves.

While those videos are indeed impressive, each person firing is tensing up their arms, legs, and abdominal muscles in order to absorb the recoil usually dispersed by the shoulder.
The guy using one hand has a strap around his neck which is effectively replacing his left arm. It's very impressive, but not detrimental to my argument.

As mentioned before: Find me a video of someone running around as they do in-game firing the rifle while on the move and unprepared. You do that, you'll have a hell of an argument.

Until then, you've got a number of guys tensed so much that they wouldn't be able to walk, let alone run-and-gun, as people do.

 

[Darius Brogan]

The difference between those comparisons, though, is that a game can never be Real, therefore, Realistic is held to a much higher standard. Especially by people like me.

(I'm pretty sure that makes it a lower standard.)

Well then you are simply being inflexible to maintain the veracity of your picked nits. You're ignoring the power and importance of visuals and sound in portraying reality, and instead focusing on something which is totally realistic to claim the game isn't realistic. It's utterly absurd.

I can't imagine you gain much enjoyment out of not enjoying your game.

Sometimes I detest being such a perfectionist.

Oh woe is you. It must be so hard being such a great person.

Honestly, I'm with everyone else on this one. You make three points in your OP:

1) Flashlights are OP

Which has been addressed by a patch already.

2) Lasersights on sniper rifles are unrealistic

The ability to mount them is realistic. Whether real-life soldiers would do it or not is irrelevant. The fact is that they can. Laser sights can physically be mounted to rifles. It's realistic. End of.

3)There's no split screen

Just like most other games since about 2008. I also noticed this, and it pissed me right off too.

If you want a game that portrays reality more fully with just its gameplay, try ARMA or Operation Flashpoint or something.

You saw the gameplay videos and the trailers and presumably read reviews before you bought it, so you knew what you were getting. If not, you have no right to take the position of the righteous consumer who has been lied to. If so, you're an idiot for buying something you wouldn't like and then complaining about it.

Find something more important to spend your time caring about instead of defending utterly indefensible views about a totally inconsequential entertainment tool on the internet because you sucked when you first tried to play it. Everyone sucks when they first try something.

I mean, do you have any idea how many jets I've crashed? It's ridiculous. Those lamp-posts just come out of no-where I swear.

1) I'm not the one that bought it. My brother did. For the umpteenth time...

2) The term Realistic, when applied to something that is inherently NON-realistic, forces one to put more effort into the realism of the game. That's a higher standard.

3) I didn't even imply my life was hard, OR that I was a great person, jackass. I notice more than other people by nature. It's a pain sometimes, but not always.
Doesn't mean it's not annoying.

4) It's only realistic if the SNIPER-RIFLE in question has an available under-mount rail in reality. Most do not.

5) When my entire screen isn't whited-out from fifty feet away, THEN the lights will be more realistic, and THEN I'll have no issue.

6) I honestly don't care if a game is realistic or not. I've said it numerous times thus far. I CARE that a game plays and functions as advertised. Battlefield 3 does not. It's smooth, graphically superior, and rather intense, but authentication and realism end there.

7) Try flying at a height of 'Not-Ground-Level' then. Common sense dictates that much.

 

[Darius Brogan]

Snip again

1) Had you bothered to read some of the other, much shorter, comments, you'd have seen it a few times.

I'm desperately apologetic for holding a game company pulling in billions of dollars in revenue annually to a rather high standard. I'll try lowering my standards to better emulate your own some time in the future.

2) If one takes the few seconds required to note it: Very few SNIPER-rifles actually have under-mount rails. For example: The USMC standard issue M40/A1/A3 has a bi-pod mount, but no rail. Nor does the M24, or the AW L96A1, or it's younger brother the AWSM, or the WA2000, or the SVD, or the PSG-90, or the MSG-90, or the PSG-1, or the SSG-69, or the M82, or the M107.
Am I making my point here?

3) Being someone who works on the internal workings video-games regularly DOES mean I have more experience in that field.
It MAKES me a perfectionist. The fact that I'm 'Suddenly' anything, is your own assumption.
I never denied the possibility, if you'll note. I denied your broad-band generalization of the process. Different departments work separately on their own projects, but MUST mingle when differences or discrepancies appear. That means errors, inconsistencies, or faults like that are hard to overlook.
It's possible the game was rushed.
It's equally possible it was completely intentional so patches could later be added to better conform the game to the players generalized specifications.

4) I never 'co-opted' anything. I use the terms Authentic and Realistic differently. It's the fault of the text that my tone is unintelligible.

5) If you don't care about immersion, it's your problem. I play games I can get sucked into. When I expect realism and authenticity, and don't get it in anything but graphical power, it breaks my immersion.
I got perfectly immersed in Doom, Golden-Eye, Perfect Dark, Ghost Recon, and Medal of Honor despite the less than massive levels of realism in ANY of them.

6) Against Soviet soldiers massing the area searching for him, using nothing but the Iron Sights on a Mosin-Nagant in 40 below for three months, amassing almost 1000 kills. I'd like to see ANY 'modern soldier' pull that off.
Hayha was targeted by both numerous counter-snipers and artillery strikes.

If your enemy can't see you, he can't kill you. That applies to EVERY sniper on Earth.

I'm done here. This argument has officially lost my interest.

 

[Danny Ocean]

Spoiler: Snip

1) I'm not the one that bought it. My brother did. For the umpteenth time...

Ah. So you're received a free game and you're complaining about it? Do you/does he have the receipt? Take it back and exchange it for ARMA or Operation Flashpoint (should still be on the shelves), or get an old BF2 box and install the project reality mod.

2) The term Realistic, when applied to something that is inherently NON-realistic, forces one to put more effort into the realism of the game. That's a higher standard.

But then surely accepting it as realistic at all means that you have a lower standard? Or do you mean that they have to put more into it to make up for the lack of realism.

Like, a book with pictures is more realistic than a book without one? Or a non-fiction book is more realistic than a fictional story, even if that story is set in reality. From what your posts tell me, you're looking for more of a non-fiction book than a fun story. A simulator rather than a game.

3) I didn't even imply my life was hard, OR that I was a great person, jackass. I notice more than other people by nature. It's a pain sometimes, but not always.
Doesn't mean it's not annoying.

You've mentioned several times that you're a perfectionist, and you did actually say that it's hard to be so. If it is hard to be so, that means your life is harder than it would otherwise be; hence "woe is you". Being a perfectionist is one of those non-character flaws people put in CVs and the like, hence "being such a great person."

It was more of a joke than anything. Sorry; I should have made my sarcasm more clear with a smiley or something.

4) It's only realistic if the SNIPER-RIFLE in question has an available under-mount rail in reality. Most do not.

Did the one in question? I presume it was an SVD or an M95B or whatever it is the snipers are using now-a-days.

And even then, don't scopes often have rails or laser-sights on them, too? You could put it there.

5) When my entire screen isn't whited-out from fifty feet away, THEN the lights will be more realistic, and THEN I'll have no issue.

When did you last play? It's definitely not an issue any more. Up close the white bit is bigger, but from more than about- I dunno- 10 meters, it no longer blinds you. From further still than in that picture, it's just a little white circle under their gun.

Spoiler: Images; click me!

6) I honestly don't care if a game is realistic or not. I've said it numerous times thus far. I CARE that a game plays and functions as advertised. Battlefield 3 does not. It's smooth, graphically superior, and rather intense, but authentication and realism end there.

No, you are not caring about whether or not it functions as advertised because the extent to which the game is realistic is a subjective judgement call. As far as most people are concerned, including dice, this game is pretty realistic, especially compared to its competition which I think was the point. I mean, even now after I've pointed it out twice, you're downplaying the importance of graphics and sound, despite the fact that sight and hearing are our two primary senses. Why do those make so little difference to you compared to one guy using a laser sight on a rifle?

7) Try flying at a height of 'Not-Ground-Level' then. Common sense dictates that much.

OoooOOOooooh. Someone's getting stroppy. Lighten up.

My six jet service stars should be ample evidence that I know what I'm doing. I was trying to lighten the mood.

Actually, nah, I can't be bothered with this any more either.

TL;DR: It's basically the OP going "I'm a perfectionist so I have high standards so this free game I got isn't real enough for me!" And everyone else going "Shut up and enjoy it; everyone sucks the first time."

 

[Darius Brogan]

Spoiler: Snip

1) I'm not the one that bought it. My brother did. For the umpteenth time...

Ah. So you're received a free game and you're complaining about it? Do you/does he have the receipt? Take it back and exchange it for ARMA or Operation Flashpoint (should still be on the shelves), or get an old BF2 box and install the project reality mod.

2) The term Realistic, when applied to something that is inherently NON-realistic, forces one to put more effort into the realism of the game. That's a higher standard.

But then surely accepting it as realistic at all means that you have a lower standard? Or do you mean that they have to put more into it to make up for the lack of realism.

Like, a book with pictures is more realistic than a book without one? Or a non-fiction book is more realistic than a fictional story, even if that story is set in reality. From what your posts tell me, you're looking for more of a non-fiction book than a fun story. A simulator rather than a game.

3) I didn't even imply my life was hard, OR that I was a great person, jackass. I notice more than other people by nature. It's a pain sometimes, but not always.
Doesn't mean it's not annoying.

You've mentioned several times that you're a perfectionist, and you did actually say that it's hard to be so. If it is hard to be so, that means your life is harder than it would otherwise be; hence "woe is you". Being a perfectionist is one of those non-character flaws people put in CVs and the like, hence "being such a great person."

It was more of a joke than anything. Sorry; I should have made my sarcasm more clear with a smiley or something.

4) It's only realistic if the SNIPER-RIFLE in question has an available under-mount rail in reality. Most do not.

Did the one in question? I presume it was an SVD or an M95B or whatever it is the snipers are using now-a-days.

And even then, don't scopes often have rails or laser-sights on them, too? You could put it there.

5) When my entire screen isn't whited-out from fifty feet away, THEN the lights will be more realistic, and THEN I'll have no issue.

When did you last play? It's definitely not an issue any more. Up close the white bit is bigger, but from more than about- I dunno- 10 meters, it no longer blinds you. From further still than in that picture, it's just a little white circle under their gun.

Spoiler: Images; click me!

6) I honestly don't care if a game is realistic or not. I've said it numerous times thus far. I CARE that a game plays and functions as advertised. Battlefield 3 does not. It's smooth, graphically superior, and rather intense, but authentication and realism end there.

No, you are not caring about whether or not it functions as advertised because the extent to which the game is realistic is a subjective judgement call. As far as most people are concerned, including dice, this game is pretty realistic, especially compared to its competition which I think was the point. I mean, even now after I've pointed it out twice, you're downplaying the importance of graphics and sound, despite the fact that sight and hearing are our two primary senses. Why do those make so little difference to you compared to one guy using a laser sight on a rifle?

7) Try flying at a height of 'Not-Ground-Level' then. Common sense dictates that much.

OoooOOOooooh. Someone's getting stroppy. Lighten up.

My six jet service stars should be ample evidence that I know what I'm doing. I was trying to lighten the mood.

Actually, nah, I can't be bothered with this any more either.

TL;DR: It's basically the OP going "I'm a perfectionist so I have high standards so this free game I got isn't real enough for me!" And everyone else going "Shut up and enjoy it; everyone sucks the first time."

1) My bro and I have the same issues with it, so this point is void.

2) That actually makes sense, but I wasn't deliberately looking for anything. All I wanted was a game that played the way it was advertised. I'll lower my standards in the future.

3) So I'm not allowed to have high standards and be irritated by it? Sarcasm aside, there are loads of things in the world that make life hard. For example: My sister has permanent nerve damage in her back from a car accident. That makes life hard, but she copes fairly easily.
My Uncle, on the other hand, lived with Blood Cancer for almost 40 years before he died. That made life REALLY FUCKING HARD, but he was still the happiest guy I knew.
Saying something's hard doesn't imply anything but difficulty. My perfectionism is a pain in the ass sometimes, but without it, I wouldn't have my job.

4) Actually, almost no sniper-rifles have under-mount rails. I didn't get much of a look at it, however, so I can't be positive.

5) So, obviously I was playing in the past then, because (I'm not even kidding) I put this thread up the day that happened, and my entire screen went white. The whole thing.
I based the distance he was standing by the fact that I was at one end of a shipping container, and he was about ten feet away from the other end. That's quite a distance.

6) This comes back to perfectionism. I have a higher standard than most (Almost all, apparently) and the advertisements painted a different picture for me.
I'm not sure WHY I have such a high standard, but I do. So I live with it.
In my defense I had half a skull of Crystal-Head Vodka in my system at the time, so my normal compulsion to ***** about the problems I found was magnified.

7) I don't even know what the hell 'Stroppy' means. Nor do I care, really.
Sorry if I came off as an asshole, but sarcasm isn't easy to translate into text, so I took it the wrong way.

Anyways, I'm about done here. Obviously, The Escapist doesn't have the same standards I do. Maybe I should quit expecting Multi-Billion-Dollar AAA game companies to produce the game they say they are, and just expect games like Halo with no rocket jumps, shields, and slightly higher gravity.

 

[GigaHz]

In real life, I can't use a blowtorch to repair a tank.
/thread

 

[Darius Brogan]

In real life, I can't use a blowtorch to repair a tank.
/thread

Did I ever demand that I feel the bullet-wounds in my side? Smell the dust and blood in the air? Hear my comrades gurgle piteously in their death throes?

No.

I want games that play as advertised. Nothing more. Nothing less.

 

[Alexnader]

Snip again

1) Had you bothered to read some of the other, much shorter, comments, you'd have seen it a few times.

I'm desperately apologetic for holding a game company pulling in billions of dollars in revenue annually to a rather high standard. I'll try lowering my standards to better emulate your own some time in the future.

2) If one takes the few seconds required to note it: Very few SNIPER-rifles actually have under-mount rails. For example: The USMC standard issue M40/A1/A3 has a bi-pod mount, but no rail. Nor does the M24, or the AW L96A1, or it's younger brother the AWSM, or the WA2000, or the SVD, or the PSG-90, or the MSG-90, or the PSG-1, or the SSG-69, or the M82, or the M107.
Am I making my point here?

3) Being someone who works on the internal workings video-games regularly DOES mean I have more experience in that field.
It MAKES me a perfectionist. The fact that I'm 'Suddenly' anything, is your own assumption.
I never denied the possibility, if you'll note. I denied your broad-band generalization of the process. Different departments work separately on their own projects, but MUST mingle when differences or discrepancies appear. That means errors, inconsistencies, or faults like that are hard to overlook.
It's possible the game was rushed.
It's equally possible it was completely intentional so patches could later be added to better conform the game to the players generalized specifications.

4) I never 'co-opted' anything. I use the terms Authentic and Realistic differently. It's the fault of the text that my tone is unintelligible.

5) If you don't care about immersion, it's your problem. I play games I can get sucked into. When I expect realism and authenticity, and don't get it in anything but graphical power, it breaks my immersion.
I got perfectly immersed in Doom, Golden-Eye, Perfect Dark, Ghost Recon, and Medal of Honor despite the less than massive levels of realism in ANY of them.

6) Against Soviet soldiers massing the area searching for him, using nothing but the Iron Sights on a Mosin-Nagant in 40 below for three months, amassing almost 1000 kills. I'd like to see ANY 'modern soldier' pull that off.
Hayha was targeted by both numerous counter-snipers and artillery strikes.

If your enemy can't see you, he can't kill you. That applies to EVERY sniper on Earth.

I'm done here. This argument has officially lost my interest.

1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHgZh4GV9G0&t=0m55s

2) Laser sight, gun, duct tape. Adapt and overcome.

3) You made it sound like you denied the possibility or at the very least made it sound like something isolated to places of lax professional standards. While my preface was a generalisation the solid examples I provided to you were not. Maybe if you spent more than 5 minutes on a response these miscommunication would not occur.

4) We're being very black and white about this. You say the game does not present an authentic war experience as advertised because of laser sights. I say it does because of the excellent graphics, environments and sound design. We will never reconcile our beliefs here. I tell you though, in those 5 seconds where I'm returning fire as mortars land around me and my squad, as dust and screams fill the air, I get what I came for. If you cannot forgive minor flaws then good luck in life.

5) False. When you expect realism and authenticity and you don't get it that's a value problem. Your entire gripe is a value problem. The immersiveness of a game is not intrinsically tied to your preconceptions of it. If you can suspend your disbelief in MoH you can do it here, you just don't want to because you feel you got shafted by the game you spent no money on.

6) We live in an age of enhanced detection and enhanced precision destruction, not to mention greater efficiency. A sniper in this age would never even be afforded 1000 targets over the course of a war, let alone be able to do too much about them directly without deadly reprisal. I won't go any further because it's irrelevant.

I want games that play as advertised. Nothing more. Nothing less.

What you think was advertised is not what was advertised. What you want is a different game.


Finally, I ask you this. You did not buy the game but you nonetheless had preconceived ideas about its contents. If you had done 5 minutes of research and found out you were wrong BEFORE you played the game, would we be here having this slap fight? Additionally, why exactly are you angry? Are you leveling a charge of false advertising against EA/DICE?