BATTLEFIELD 3 BETA a disaster?

Br4tPr1nc3

Seifer wrote: »

All of this is done in Steam but nicer and more web 2.0 with Battlelog but it's not worth it because you can't use it in the game like you can with Steam.

I'm not saying Steam is perfect; it has lots of issues of its own. I just don't see how Battlelog is in anyway a step forward.


How about the fact that you have to launch into a map to configure your graphics and customise your kits? That's a pretty big downside to me.

you can use battlelog while in game.
shift+f1 brought up the ingame overlay,
where you could use an actually decent web browser unlike steam, and log into battlelog, and do whatever from there.

Battlelog is a very good addition to battlefield,
and i really like it.
its fast for finding games, and you can easily chat to friend/join games through it.
and you can continue doing whatever while your game launches and connects to the server, and then hit join game when your ready.

I dont know how someone could complain about it.


I also have a feeling they will probably implement a way to edit your ingame settings without having to be in game.

the_syco

Br4tPr1nc3 wrote: »

I dont know how someone could complain about it.

As it's based on a server, there's no "server ping" option to sort by. This is very annoying, as you don't know what servers are good or bad. In BC2, some French servers were better than some UK servers!

Br4tPr1nc3

it showed a ping in battlelog for me,
you prob mean that the ping wouldnt have been right on it, which yeah i understand,
but ah well, sure the ping couldnt have been that bad if it was a french or uk server.

and im sure there will be irish servers that will be on the go, or servers you prefer to go to.

sink

Seifer wrote: »

Of course there is, I just explained the negatives.

So far you've stated that having to exit the game is a negative in and of itself, just because you perceive it to be does not make it so.

In objective terms it's no slower to load and has way more functions.

Seifer

Br4tPr1nc3 wrote: »

you can use battlelog while in game.
shift+f1 brought up the ingame overlay,
where you could use an actually decent web browser unlike steam, and log into battlelog, and do whatever from there.

Battlelog is a very good addition to battlefield,
and i really like it.
its fast for finding games, and you can easily chat to friend/join games through it.
and you can continue doing whatever while your game launches and connects to the server, and then hit join game when your ready.

I dont know how someone could complain about it.


I also have a feeling they will probably implement a way to edit your ingame settings without having to be in game.

Unless I'm mistaken, shift+f1 brings up Origin in game. Which begs the question of why have two programs doing the job of one?

sink

the_syco wrote: »

As it's based on a server, there's no "server ping" option to sort by. This is very annoying, as you don't know what servers are good or bad. In BC2, some French servers were better than some UK servers!

In the server browser the last column was for ping and all you had to do was click on it to change the sort order by ping.

Seifer

sink wrote: »

So far you've stated that having to exit the game is a negative in and of itself, just because you perceive it to be does not make it so.

In objective terms it's no slower to load and has way more functions.

If you were browsing the web and I told you you had to shut down the browser each time you wanted to open a new page you wouldn't think that's a negative?

How do you know it's no slower? To me it seems like that if the game were actually running you would get into a game quicker than having to launch it from your browser. You can have all the functions it has and still have an ingame browser. Nothing it's doing re stats is original just all the facebook stuff.

Adamcp898

Turbine wrote: »

You're confusing a demo with a beta, there is a huge difference. A demo, as you've explained, is a sample of the finished product. A beta is a 'still in development' product given out for testing of certain features, or in this case, the servers. So this beta served its purpose, while also creating a bit of extra hype leading up to release.

The version we've been playing is nearly 4 months old, so I'd be surprised if the finished product wasn't a big improvement on what we saw in the beta.

No I'm not, I understand completely the point you're making, but I wasn't expecting the beta test to be a demo. I just don't think you hold a public beta this close to release if you're using a product version that is very far away from being finished, it just doesn't make business sense, that is why I think this beta version is a lot closer to what people will be buying come Oct 28th than most realise. EA would have made huge release week sales on this game without an open beta at all and I think this testing period has only served to decrease those sales. Yes people will point out that they're only trying to avoid the server problems that so many games suffer from in week 1 when an open beta isn't held but I think a lot people are shoving their head in the sand if they think it's going to be shiny and perfect come release day after this beta. For me, it's a long way off the quality of BC2 and by no means will knock COD off it's throne in terms of sales or, at this rate even, fun.

sink

Seifer wrote: »

If you were browsing the web and I told you you had to shut down the browser each time you wanted to open a new page you wouldn't think that's a negative?

How do you know it's no slower? To me it seems like that if the game were actually running you would get into a game quicker than having to launch it from your browser. You can have all the functions it has and still have an ingame browser. Nothing it's doing re stats is original just all the facebook stuff.

Why is better when you're only changing the user interface? When you exit a map in BC2 you change to the in-game server browser interface, when you exit a map in BF3 you exit to the battlelog desktop interface, both only take seconds. It takes about the same time to load a BC2 map from the in-game browser as a BF3 map from the desktop. There is nothing inherently better about in-game server browser and a desktop based server browser.

From the battlelog user interface you have a wider range of options, you can even use other desktop programs and view other websites in between maps. You can also view the battlelog from other computers without the game installed. I would log into the battlelog at work to have a look at what's happening chat with friends and in the forums and view unlocks/stats.

BlitzKrieg

No I'm not, I understand completely the point you're making, but I wasn't expecting the beta test to be a demo. I just don't think you hold a public beta this close to release if you're using a product version that is very far away from being finished, it just doesn't make business sense, that is why I think this beta version is a lot closer to what people will be buying come Oct 28th than most realise.

As I said earlier on the pc side of things a lot of the serious problems with the game got fixed server side. I get the impression that Dice found they couldnt as implement the changes to the console side as easily hence for the most part those glaring bugs remained.

For example the most crucial one, the going through the ground and shoting people from underneath was pretty much gone from the beta by halfway through last week.

Clearly the beta did a lot for DICE in addressing server side issues.

Krieg

Dcully wrote: »

People having opinions about games is fine, they like or dislike but what ive quoted from you is totally false and misinformation.

Well I must admit there is a minor issue with my RAM where it will sometimes only detect 4 out of 6gb (long story) but im getting sorted this month. The game runs fine and im using high settings, but a DC or CTD gives the computer a heart attack.

Korvanica wrote: »

? Played for about 5 hours yesterday and constantly won when attacking...
Must have been your team.. Or the enemy team were too good.

Interesting, but it wouldn't have anything to do with team balance since the team change roles at the end of the round. Vast majority of my games resulted in the attackers getting to the second/third bomb objectives and not getting any further.

Br4tPr1nc3

Seifer wrote: »

Unless I'm mistaken, shift+f1 brings up Origin in game. Which begs the question of why have two programs doing the job of one?

what are the two programs doing the same job?
if your refering to steam, then thats an issue dice and steam will need to resolve, but it wont concern me(or a lot of people for that matter who have already pre ordered from origin), as I wont be buying from steam.
I hope they dont release it on steam,
I seen someone mention they would like to be able to play with friends from steam also, and they can through origin, and battlelog.

and if your refering to the fact that you already have battlelog open outside the game, thats alright too as origin in game, would mainly be used to check stats, or talk to friends. when you come out of the game, origin in game wont be used.

Snowie

BlastedGlute wrote: »

Terribly over hyped game anyway. The bf series never had (or needed) substance, but there really is no "character" in this title. The trailers scream of thrills and pounding excitement, but I never really got a proper buzz at any stage.

I have enjoyed how many folks have handicapped the disconnected feeling we've experienced with it being a beta . Eg . "DUH! It's a BETA noob, release game will be mind blowing when everything is fixed!"
It really shows a heft of faith, that's about all I can say.

Other than the desperately disappointing feeling it gave me, it really made me appreciate the genius of titles like gears 3 and rekindled my excitement for modern warfare 3, can't go wrong

Bold:
So you can draw all that from the beta and the small amount of footage youve seen on the net, has it occured to you on any level, that the mother of game offs is coming over the next few months
you've got two brands holding back on story lines and plots why because no ones giving anything away
which is the way game releases should be I remember when i had a master system only place we'd hear about games was in a magzine,

for most people who post that crap you've no idea your born when it comes to gaming content and pre release teasers .... :rolleyes:

I dont know about you but holding a position on metro was brilliant at really enjoyed the map there harder to lock down and control just like most battle feild 2 in that respects.


Italics:
so let me get this straight you from one beta level on a game have that much for sight... oooo wait judging bye your mw3 whats a matter are you not use to levels being that big ahhhhh bless


ok so you like cod well go play with the screaming princes syndrome kids and the campers Il drop bye own the levels for an hour and then go back to bf 3 :cool:

ps I used to play cod but two things got boreing level size and manogamy at least with bf i get to run over people

sink

Snow-Monkey wrote: »

ps I used to play cod but two things got boreing level size and manogamy at least with bf i get to run over people

monotony?

Seifer

sink wrote: »

Why is better when you're only changing the user interface? When you exit a map in BC2 you change to the in-game server browser interface, when you exit a map in BF3 you exit to the battlelog desktop interface, both only take seconds. It takes about the same time to load a BC2 map from the in-game browser as a BF3 map from the desktop. There is nothing inherently better about in-game server browser and a desktop based server browser.

Because the game is in memory when you're launching from within the game.

From the battlelog user interface you have a wider range of options, you can even use other desktop programs and view other websites in between maps. You can also view the battlelog from other computers without the game installed. I would log into the battlelog at work to have a look at what's happening chat with friends and in the forums and view unlocks/stats.

This has all been done before and is not my problem with the service.

Br4tPr1nc3 wrote: »

what are the two programs doing the same job?

Origin and Battlelog. Both have friends lists (which don't sync up for some reason) to allow you to communicate with your fellow players.

and if your refering to the fact that you already have battlelog open outside the game, thats alright too as origin in game, would mainly be used to check stats, or talk to friends. when you come out of the game, origin in game wont be used.

I think you are confusing the two here. Origin is the one that allows ingame communication. Battlelog's chat client seems more similar to say a gmail chat session.

sink

Seifer wrote: »

Because the game is in memory when you're launching from within the game.

No it's not, the majority of the game files which take up the vast majority of memory and hence take longest to load e.g. textures, are not loaded until you load the map. What programs sometimes do is they reserve a block of memory when they first load up but this memory is not actually used until it loads a map.

I can time it if you wish but there is no noticeable difference between BC2 and BF3 (well I can't now as the beta has ended).

Seifer

sink wrote: »

No it's not, the majority of the game files which take up the vast majority of memory and hence take longest to load e.g. textures, are not loaded until you load the map. What programs sometimes do is they reserve a block of memory when they first load up but this memory is not actually used until it loads a map.

I can time it if you wish but there is no noticeable difference between BC2 and BF3 (well I can't now as the beta has ended).

I didn't know they used the same engine?

The majority is not all though is it? I imagine there are files it can load that will need to be loaded regardless of which map is played.

And tbh even if the load times were exactly the same; I've launched the game because I want to play the game. So put me in the game, don't launch my browser. All the social stuff can be kept exactly as is but server browser belongs in the game imo.

Br4tPr1nc3

Seifer wrote: »

Because the game is in memory when you're launching from within the game.


This has all been done before and is not my problem with the service.


Origin and Battlelog. Both have friends lists (which don't sync up for some reason) to allow you to communicate with your fellow players.


I think you are confusing the two here. Origin is the one that allows ingame communication. Battlelog's chat client seems more similar to say a gmail chat session.

wait until the game comes out, and see if they look at the aspect of origin and battlelog friends lists being used together.

Seifer

Br4tPr1nc3 wrote: »

wait until the game comes out, and see if they look at the aspect of origin and battlelog friends lists being used together.

Well I hope they do if they continue down this bizarre road but this is a thread about the beta so I can only comment on what they presented to us.

sink

Seifer wrote: »

I didn't know they used the same engine?

The majority is not all though is it? I imagine there are files it can load that will need to be loaded regardless of which map is played.

Files of insignificant size maybe but they'll only have an insignificant impact.

Seifer wrote: »

And tbh even if the load times were exactly the same; I've launched the game because I want to play the game. So put me in the game, don't launch my browser. All the social stuff can be kept exactly as is but server browser belongs in the game imo.

So there are no objective measurements you can make to say in-game is better than launching from the desktop, it's down to personal preference of which everyone will have their own. Fair enough, I'd rather have the added features of battlelog thank you very much.

iColdFusion

Well I got a good 14/15 hours of beta time on 360, had plenty of glitches, lockups and changes I didn't like but still pre-ordered the limited edition last night so far from a disaster for me.

Br4tPr1nc3

Seifer wrote: »

I've launched the game because I want to play the game. So put me in the game, don't launch my browser. All the social stuff can be kept exactly as is but server browser belongs in the game imo.

why are you complaining about battlefield 3 so?

every game you launch brings up a menu,
MW2, Black ops, battlefield 2, 2142, and bad company 2 all showed "social stuff" in the menu, where you could look at your stats and friends stats and what not.

you then had to click join server to get into a game.

why is it that only now its a problem that you are presented with another menu where you still need to click join server, when the only difference is its based in your browser, instead of in the game.

cherryghost

Took god damn ages to get into some servers on PC every day. Completely packed.

Great game though. I'm confident the current bugs will be ironed out. Can't wait for release now.

Blazer

Really disheartened by BF3 and hugely disappointed with it..It seems to be COD based with vehicles thrown in to keep previous Battlefield vets happy while heavily leaning towards enticing the COD fans...
Jets/Choppers are a complete and utter disaster on it and would require a huge code rewrite to fix which EA won't bother doing (J10's in BF2 a prime example).
I'be been playing since BF1942 and for me this looks to be the worst out of all of them and I really can't see myself playing this too much.
You can see a lot of the fans are saying to give it a chance, EA will patch this and patch that...however from prior experience with each patch EA/Dice will steadily make the game even worse not better...
For me I think this is really the death of Battlefield on PC...

.K.A.L.I.M.A.

Thanks for all the replies, I see now that it wasn't a disaster, just not that many people on the PS3 when I was playing.

I really need help with this:

Today, I went into GameStop in Ballina where I pre-ordered BATTLEFIELD 3 since the start of June, and I knew that I was getting the 'Back to Karkand' limited edition version, but I only noticed today that it said on the front of the shop for BATTLEFIELD 3.

" Any pre-orders on BATTLEFIELD 3 will get the Specact Kit FREE! when released on the October 28th"

Any ways, I went in and asked someone at the counter asking was it not the 'Back to Karkand' limited edition version, and they said yes, and you get the 'Specact Kit' as well, but you might not be able to get it on the release date of October 28th, you may have to wait two weeks or so. Just to be sure before I left, I asked if I could get the game on the release date, and he said yes.

?????

I know that this is OFF-TOPIC, but if anyone know anything that will help me, please let me know.

Thanks.

BlitzKrieg

specact kit are just skins for the soldiers (going by bc2 memory they had a similar offer) its seperate to the back to karkand pack

sink

.K.A.L.I.M.A. wrote: »

Thanks for all the replies, I see now that it wasn't a disaster, just not that many people on the PS3 when I was playing.

I really need help with this:

Today, I went into GameStop in Ballina where I pre-ordered BATTLEFIELD 3 since the start of June, and I knew that I was getting the 'Back to Karkand' limited edition version, but I only noticed today that it said on the front of the shop for BATTLEFIELD 3.

" Any pre-orders on BATTLEFIELD 3 will get the Specact Kit FREE! when released on the October 28th"

Any ways, I went in and asked someone at the counter asking was it not the 'Back to Karkand' limited edition version, and they said yes, and you get the 'Specact Kit' as well, but you might not be able to get it on the release date of October 28th, you may have to wait two weeks or so. Just to be sure before I left, I asked if I could get the game on the release date, and he said yes.

?????

I know that this is OFF-TOPIC, but if anyone know anything that will help me, please let me know.

Thanks.

AFAIK the back to karkand expansion will be released sometime in weeks/months after the release of the game. Everyone will have access to it at the same time but those who pre-ordered the game will get the expansion free and everyone else will have to pay.

The retailer specific DLC e.g. specact kit or physical warfare pack, will be available to those with the unlock codes from day 1, everyone else will get them free down the line.

iColdFusion

Thats weird because I pre-ordered from gamestop.ie to get the physical warfare pack, no mention of specact.

Seifer

sink wrote: »

Files of insignificant size maybe but they'll only have an insignificant impact.

So there are no objective measurements you can make to say in-game is better than launching from the desktop, it's down to personal preference of which everyone will have their own. Fair enough, I'd rather have the added features of battlelog thank you very much.

There are no added features. In any Steam game I can see all the stats and crap of myself and friends. And I already conceded that the stats are not an issue. Battlelog can still exist without forcing me to relaunch my game every time I want to change a server. It's not a feature it's a regression.

Br4tPr1nc3 wrote: »

why are you complaining about battlefield 3 so?

I'm not.

every game you launch brings up a menu

Every game you launch launches the game except BF3 apparently.

MW2, Black ops, battlefield 2, 2142, and bad company 2 all showed "social stuff" in the menu, where you could look at your stats and friends stats and what not.

Of the games listed I've only played MW2 and it showed your stats in game. I'm not against stats, I like them and I don't really care whether they are in game or not. Although the way modern warfare handled it makes the most sense to me since you want to see what you need to do for unlocks and stuff before you join a game.

you then had to click join server to get into a game.

No, the game has launched, I click join server to join a server.

why is it that only now its a problem that you are presented with another menu where you still need to click join server, when the only difference is its based in your browser, instead of in the game.

Because what is the point of the extra layer? It adds no functionality. Why take things out of the game and put them in my browser?
From a software design perspective I just don't understand how logical developers could think is in anyway a good solution.

Br4tPr1nc3

Seifer wrote: »

There are no added features. In any Steam game I can see all the stats and crap of myself and friends. And I already conceded that the stats are not an issue. Battlelog can still exist without forcing me to relaunch my game every time I want to change a server. It's not a feature it's a regression.


I'm not.


Every game you launch launches the game except BF3 apparently.


Of the games listed I've only played MW2 and it showed your stats in game. I'm not against stats, I like them and I don't really care whether they are in game or not. Although the way modern warfare handled it makes the most sense to me since you want to see what you need to do for unlocks and stuff before you join a game.

Battlelog shows what you need to do to unlock the next weapon addon, which in this game seems to be just kill people.

No, the game has launched, I click join server to join a server.

The best way to consider it is that battlelog is the launched game.
all you need to do is find a server and join it, like any other game. The only difference is the system resources arent being used up until you start shooting people.

Because what is the point of the extra layer? It adds no functionality. Why take things out of the game and put them in my browser?
From a software design perspective I just don't understand how logical developers could think is in anyway a good solution.

I think i understand where your coming from, and to be honest, i see no reason not to like it. There is no extra layer. and it is a lot faster to play the game with battlelog, that the conventional means.

There is no developer ads like it all games. when you click the game icon, the browser opens the page(no different that when any other game launches normally, except faster), and then when you find a server, it launches the game in the background straight into the server.

KilOit

Sc@recrow wrote: »

Jets/Choppers are a complete and utter disaster on it and would require a huge code rewrite to fix which EA won't bother doing (J10's in BF2 a prime example).

Have you seen what a choppers gunner does to a tank? guess not.
also for jets look at what guided missiles can do

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaVoSlMQOPA

Far from disaster, just takes some good handling, can guarantee their will be whining on forums about them being to op on release when people get unlocks for them.

BlitzKrieg

i was a 1000 points off unlocking guided missiles when the beta ended

.K.A.L.I.M.A.

KilOit wrote: »

Have you seen what a choppers gunner does to a tank? guess not.
also for jets look at what guided missiles can do

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaVoSlMQOPA

Far from disaster, just takes some good handling, can guarantee their will be whining on forums about them being to op on release when people get unlocks for them.

PURE AWESOMENESS.......

Blazer

KilOit wrote: »

Have you seen what a choppers gunner does to a tank? guess not.
also for jets look at what guided missiles can do

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaVoSlMQOPA

Far from disaster, just takes some good handling, can guarantee their will be whining on forums about them being to op on release when people get unlocks for them.

I hope you're right dude...really hoping this game turns out ok..:(

the_syco

Br4tPr1nc3 wrote: »

it showed a ping in battlelog for me,
you prob mean that the ping wouldnt have been right on it, which yeah i understand,
but ah well, sure the ping couldnt have been that bad if it was a french or uk server.

and im sure there will be irish servers that will be on the go, or servers you prefer to go to.

It never showed a ping for me. There are usually a few UK servers which had horrificly bad pings, and I often had French or USA servers with lower pings. Also, I'd be interested to see how the web page pings the servers from my location, as opposed to from the web pages server, as the latter is totally useless!

witnessmenow

the_syco wrote: »

It never showed a ping for me. There are usually a few UK servers which had horrificly bad pings, and I often had French or USA servers with lower pings. Also, I'd be interested to see how the web page pings the servers from my location, as opposed to from the web pages server, as the latter is totally useless!

Javascript? Its client side (i.e your browser) so it would be possible to calculate pings with it. Im not saying thats what does happen though.

Seifer

http://www.joystiq.com/2011/10/10/the-beta-and-battlefield-3/

Joystiq article along the lines of the thread title. The good news is that the release version is supposed to be much better.

mozattack

Went back to BC2 yesterday and was bored (first time ever since I bought the game a year ago) so lost to what I am going to do.

Tempted to try Modern Warfare 2 until the 28th. What ya reckon?

the_syco

mozattack wrote: »

Went back to BC2 yesterday and was bored (first time ever since I bought the game a year ago) so lost to what I am going to do.

Tempted to try Modern Warfare 2 until the 28th. What ya reckon?

Unable to play BC2 after BF3. May play some GTA IV until then.

Fnz

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

specact kit are just skins for the soldiers (going by bc2 memory they had a similar offer) its seperate to the back to karkand pack

Doesn't it also allow you to have 2 x kit load-outs for each class?

Spear

Fnz wrote: »

Doesn't it also allow you to have 2 x kit load-outs for each class?

It did in BC2 at least.

yimrsg

I wouldn't call the beta a disaster but it hasn't sold me on buying it or turned me away either. My main grievance is the clear difference in the pc and console experience, BC2 wasn't all that different on the 2 systems but from watching the videos of caspian border on the pc and playing metro on a console just shows the disparity in the two systems.

Although I didn't have the chance to play it on pc but from the videos and talking to others who played on the pc it's clear that the console game is going to be stunted in comparison the it's pc sibling. You expect the graphics and player number to be of lesser quality and quantity I wonder if the gameplay has also suffered from a development glass ceiling.

I know I'm expecting (perhaps too) much from a 5 year old console but I think that this game is clearly too demanding for those not on pc and this marks the first death knell of this generation of consoles. RIP Xbox 360 you had a good outing.

mozattack

the_syco wrote: »

Unable to play BC2 after BF3. May play some GTA IV until then.

I rented Sniper; Ghost Warrior.. tis poor.

Bought BF 1943, it is okay. Worth a look

mozattack

yimrsg wrote: »

I wouldn't call the beta a disaster but it hasn't sold me on buying it or turned me away either. My main grievance is the clear difference in the pc and console experience, BC2 wasn't all that different on the 2 systems but from watching the videos of caspian border on the pc and playing metro on a console just shows the disparity in the two systems.

Although I didn't have the chance to play it on pc but from the videos and talking to others who played on the pc it's clear that the console game is going to be stunted in comparison the it's pc sibling. You expect the graphics and player number to be of lesser quality and quantity I wonder if the gameplay has also suffered from a development glass ceiling.

I know I'm expecting (perhaps too) much from a 5 year old console but I think that this game is clearly too demanding for those not on pc and this marks the first death knell of this generation of consoles. RIP Xbox 360 you had a good outing.

I guess what you are doing is driving a nice Ford Mustang and have been happy to do so all along but an Aston Martin has pulled up beside you and showing you what's what.

At the moment it feel inferior but overall there are other factors which makes PC gaming less appealing, the hassle, the whole set-up etc.

I'd easily fork out the cash for the PC to get BF3 if I thought it was worth it, but PS3 will do fine. It is all relative.

Anyway there will be no PS3 games to touch BF3. I've looked around in the last week and believe most games are crap in comparison

mozattack

KilOit wrote: »

Have you seen what a choppers gunner does to a tank? guess not.
also for jets look at what guided missiles can do

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaVoSlMQOPA

Far from disaster, just takes some good handling, can guarantee their will be whining on forums about them being to op on release when people get unlocks for them.

That looks amazing to be honest!

I hope the PS3 equivalent works. I do wonder though how it will pan out with only 24 in the game, (2 in planes, 2-3 in choppers, more in vehicles.. tis going to be lonely out there)

Mossay

I'd just like to chime in regarding the idea that people will complain about jets and helis being overpowered. First unlock for tanks (and all other ground vehicles) is Smoke which counters any guided missiles.

I'd like to think that the Recon's SOFLAM will also make Stinger rpgs have an expanded range as well as the guided missiles for land vehicles (remember the jeeps get lock-on missiles once leveled up, as do APCs and tanks).

Everyone probably realises this, but I'm gonna state it anyway just in case somebody decided not to buy Battlefield 3 from this video (nobody likes to think they'll have their asses kicked unfairly by overpowered game mechanics).- It's like those montage videos of people doing trick-shots with footballs, basketballs, etc. They'll only show the 10 times they were successful, but edit out the 100 unsuccessful attempts, condensing hours of mostly crap footage into a few minutes of seemingly pure skill.

In short, they didn't show the clips where the tanks deployed smoke and the jets deployed flares, negating any missile locks.

TheFairy

Console lads you just are not going to get the same experience as PC players. Its been the opposite way for a few years, so yes us PC players are basking in the sun that is DX11 on a decent high end rig!

TheFairy

TheFairy wrote: »

Console lads you just are not going to get the same experience as PC players. Its been the opposite way for a few years, so yes us PC players are basking in the sun that is DX11 on a decent high end rig!

All 10 of you.

Dcully

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

All 10 of you.

What a ridiculous post.
You obviously havent seen the thousands of servers each with 64 players on them, something you on your console can only dream about.

The gas thing is my sons PC is as old as when the ps3 and 360 arrived and still blows them out of the water, no issues playing on 64 player servers on an almost 5 year old rig,thought id add that bit in before you reply with the myth of having to upgrade PC very often.

Consoles do some things fine, ie footie games etc , dark souls in particular looks epic but something as huge as the 64 player maps of BF3 in directX 11 glory,high resolution,high texture quality - not a hope in hell.

but but but lets not start this tired old ****e again.

jakedixon2004

Dcully wrote: »

What a ridiculous post.
You obviously havent seen the thousands of servers each with 64 players on them, something you on your console can only dream about.

The gas thing is my sons PC is as old as when the ps3 and 360 arrived and still blows them out of the water, no issues playing on 64 player servers on an almost 5 year old rig,thought id add that bit in before you reply with the myth of having to upgrade PC very often.

Consoles do some things fine, ie footie games etc , dark souls in particular looks epic but something as huge as the 64 player maps of BF3 in directX 11 glory,high resolution,high texture quality - not a hope in hell.

but but but lets not start this tired old ****e again.

/thread