Battlefield3 Was this just a bad server or?

[hoofhearted4]

There was no demo, it was a beta. A deliberate buggy release to get as many bugs as possible out. They didnt get all, and its obvious at times, but the devs are working on another patch.

 

demo, beta, same difference. first look at the game for me. and i dont really care about the bugs, as they can be fixed (though a newly released game with little to no bugs shows more dedication from the devs) idc what anyone says, they always do it, or how can you expect there to not be bugs, or what have you, that is just poop. a game dev should be putting more time into a game to make sure it is a bug free as possible. a Beta can be buggy, 6 months before its release. but a month before its release, just means the final product is going to be buggy, which means they are pushing for a release date instead of a quality launch game.

 

anyways, besides my mini rant, as i said, i wouldnt not buy a game due to bugs, the things i didnt like about BF3, were gameplay things, such as prone. i hate it. such as dieing in two hits, i hate it.

 

the more i think about it, the more im thinking, screw BF3, and ill stay with BC2 until BC3. whenever that may be....unfortunately, me in Vin are the only one thinking this, which just shows how much BF3 didnt really live up to they hype. Ive got a few friends on PSN who made the jump over, and now regret it, i know ppl personally as school and such that cancelled pre orders (much like i did, but as i said, i cancelled mine cause i could get my for free, but now im glad that is an option, cause had that not been, i would have gotten it via pre order and wasted $60).....6 months from now, i bet youll see just as many ppl, if not more, on BC2 then BC3...

[Gracinfields]

Wrong Beta actually can run right up untill three weeks prior to release. Infact If I remember correctly World of Warcraft Beta ran up till one week prior to the early release date. Alpha ussually ends a few weeks before beta begins, and that is from my experiance from the last 10 years of being both alpha and beta tester.

 

As for Destruction what was Desctructible in BC2 is Destructible here, what wasn't Destructible in BC2 still isn't destructible here. The major differenance is on the urban maps which you can blow the sides of the buildings, chip parts of the wall off with your weapon, and blow doors off of cargo crates all to change how the battlefield to your tactical advantage.

Edited October 29, 2011 by Gracinfields

[hoofhearted4]

Wrong Beta actually can run right up untill three weeks prior to release. Infact If I remember correctly World of Warcraft Beta ran up till one week prior to the early release date. Alpha ussually ends a few weeks before beta begins, and that is from my experiance from the last 10 years of being both alpha and beta tester.

 

As for Destruction what was Desctructible in BC2 is Destructible here, what wasn't Destructible in BC2 still isn't destructible here. The major differenance is on the urban maps which you can blow the sides of the buildings, chip parts of the wall off with your weapon, and blow doors off of cargo crates all to change how the battlefield to your tactical advantage.

 

what do you mean wrong? i didnt say a Beta is supposed to be 6 months before or anything. i just said, there is a difference between a Beta that runs 6 months before and a Beta that runs a few weeks before. if it only runs a few weeks before, you can expect there to be a complete overhaul on all the bugs you find in the Beta, and in BF3s case there were quite a lot of them. and not all of them were taken care of (from what friends have told me)

 

all im saying, is if a company is running the Beta a month or less away from the release date, then you should take the Beta at face value and not just say "well its only the Beta"...and if they company is only just releasing the Beta so soon before the Release Date, then they possibly should consider releasing the game later. Devs now push for their release date so much, that many just release unfinished games and patch it later. i hate this mentality Devs have taken on games. if the would just Release the game a month or two later, they could not only release a mostly bug/glitch free (though i understand its not possible to catch everything, esp balance issues) but possibly release a wholly better game entirely.

[Vindekarr]

There was no demo, it was a beta. A deliberate buggy release to get as many bugs as possible out. They didnt get all, and its obvious at times, but the devs are working on another patch.

 

demo, beta, same difference. first look at the game for me. and i dont really care about the bugs, as they can be fixed (though a newly released game with little to no bugs shows more dedication from the devs) idc what anyone says, they always do it, or how can you expect there to not be bugs, or what have you, that is just poop. a game dev should be putting more time into a game to make sure it is a bug free as possible. a Beta can be buggy, 6 months before its release. but a month before its release, just means the final product is going to be buggy, which means they are pushing for a release date instead of a quality launch game.

 

anyways, besides my mini rant, as i said, i wouldnt not buy a game due to bugs, the things i didnt like about BF3, were gameplay things, such as prone. i hate it. such as dieing in two hits, i hate it.

 

the more i think about it, the more im thinking, screw BF3, and ill stay with BC2 until BC3. whenever that may be....unfortunately, me in Vin are the only one thinking this, which just shows how much BF3 didnt really live up to they hype. Ive got a few friends on PSN who made the jump over, and now regret it, i know ppl personally as school and such that cancelled pre orders (much like i did, but as i said, i cancelled mine cause i could get my for free, but now im glad that is an option, cause had that not been, i would have gotten it via pre order and wasted $60).....6 months from now, i bet youll see just as many ppl, if not more, on BC2 then BC3...

 

I agree this game's a wreck, and I don't especialy care what long-time fanboys have to say about it, that's going to be biased because fans can't give biased opinions. But Im reviewing this as a relative newcomer to the BF series and I personaly think it's a very sub-average shooter trading almost entirely on pretty graphics and legions of fanboys, and frankly, Im not going to be playing it. Preordering this game was a waste of money.

[hoofhearted4]

just read my post, and i meant so say me and you ARENT the only ones who are thinking this.

 

 

now, based on what ive seen and heard, i wouldnt go as far to call this game trash or anything. even the friends i speak of, who regret buying it (Ps3) arent calling it trash, but they say it doesnt beat out BC2 by a long shot. they say the game is going to work for long time fans of Battlefield or CoD fans, but if your new to battlefield through Bad Company (like most console players are, hell im new as of BC2) then this game wont work for you. my friends all compare it to CoD (which ive never played) most of them have played it, but always prefer Battlefield....and if you prefer Battlefield, comparing to CoD is almost always an insult.

 

 

as i said, the more i consider it, im just not sure if i want to "get used" prone. i loved BC2 because it didnt have it, i hate CoD because it has it. prone is best kept for single player, where you cant camp and make the game not fun. the thing i liked the most about BC2, is ppl mostly kept on the move. there were those who would try to camp in a house, but those were the ones i liked the most, cause it was so much fun blowing their walls out and watching them scramble, cause once they were on the move, 9 times out of 10 they sucked if they couldnt sit in one spot and try to pick random ppl off, but now with prone, ppl try to find the best hiding spot and just kill ppl as they run by, nvr moving.

 

i just dont think i love FPSs enough to get BF3. im coming to the conclusion that i dont actually like FPSs, i just like Bad Company. and as such, i think im just gunna skip BF3, despite all its hype. and i primarily blame prone...prone is what separated this latest generation of modern FPSs, CoD had prone and campers, Bad Company didnt have it and didnt have (as many) campers.....but Battlefield wasnt built for me. it was built for the ones who played BF2 and before. so if those who have always played BF, like it. then i guess thats what matters. because a new comer to Battlefield games like me, thinks its not worth it. hopefully BC3 is more like BC2 and stays prone-less

Edited October 30, 2011 by hoofhearted4

[antonkr]

just read my post, and i meant so say me and you ARENT the only ones who are thinking this.

 

 

now, based on what ive seen and heard, i wouldnt go as far to call this game trash or anything. even the friends i speak of, who regret buying it (Ps3) arent calling it trash, but they say it doesnt beat out BC2 by a long shot. they say the game is going to work for long time fans of Battlefield or CoD fans, but if your new to battlefield through Bad Company (like most console players are, hell im new as of BC2) then this game wont work for you. my friends all compare it to CoD (which ive never played) most of them have played it, but always prefer Battlefield....and if you prefer Battlefield, comparing to CoD is almost always an insult.

 

 

as i said, the more i consider it, im just not sure if i want to "get used" prone. i loved BC2 because it didnt have it, i hate CoD because it has it. prone is best kept for single player, where you cant camp and make the game not fun. the thing i liked the most about BC2, is ppl mostly kept on the move. there were those who would try to camp in a house, but those were the ones i liked the most, cause it was so much fun blowing their walls out and watching them scramble, cause once they were on the move, 9 times out of 10 they sucked if they couldnt sit in one spot and try to pick random ppl off, but now with prone, ppl try to find the best hiding spot and just kill ppl as they run by, nvr moving.

 

i just dont think i love FPSs enough to get BF3. im coming to the conclusion that i dont actually like FPSs, i just like Bad Company. and as such, i think im just gunna skip BF3, despite all its hype. and i primarily blame prone...prone is what separated this latest generation of modern FPSs, CoD had prone and campers, Bad Company didnt have it and didnt have (as many) campers.....but Battlefield wasnt built for me. it was built for the ones who played BF2 and before. so if those who have always played BF, like it. then i guess thats what matters. because a new comer to Battlefield games like me, thinks its not worth it. hopefully BC3 is more like BC2 and stays prone-less

But this isn't a sequel to Bad Company 2. It's a a sequel to Battlefield 2, it plays and feels more like Battlefield 2 then Bad Company 2. It is exactly what it is supposed to be.

[hoofhearted4]

just read my post, and i meant so say me and you ARENT the only ones who are thinking this.

 

 

now, based on what ive seen and heard, i wouldnt go as far to call this game trash or anything. even the friends i speak of, who regret buying it (Ps3) arent calling it trash, but they say it doesnt beat out BC2 by a long shot. they say the game is going to work for long time fans of Battlefield or CoD fans, but if your new to battlefield through Bad Company (like most console players are, hell im new as of BC2) then this game wont work for you. my friends all compare it to CoD (which ive never played) most of them have played it, but always prefer Battlefield....and if you prefer Battlefield, comparing to CoD is almost always an insult.

 

 

as i said, the more i consider it, im just not sure if i want to "get used" prone. i loved BC2 because it didnt have it, i hate CoD because it has it. prone is best kept for single player, where you cant camp and make the game not fun. the thing i liked the most about BC2, is ppl mostly kept on the move. there were those who would try to camp in a house, but those were the ones i liked the most, cause it was so much fun blowing their walls out and watching them scramble, cause once they were on the move, 9 times out of 10 they sucked if they couldnt sit in one spot and try to pick random ppl off, but now with prone, ppl try to find the best hiding spot and just kill ppl as they run by, nvr moving.

 

i just dont think i love FPSs enough to get BF3. im coming to the conclusion that i dont actually like FPSs, i just like Bad Company. and as such, i think im just gunna skip BF3, despite all its hype. and i primarily blame prone...prone is what separated this latest generation of modern FPSs, CoD had prone and campers, Bad Company didnt have it and didnt have (as many) campers.....but Battlefield wasnt built for me. it was built for the ones who played BF2 and before. so if those who have always played BF, like it. then i guess thats what matters. because a new comer to Battlefield games like me, thinks its not worth it. hopefully BC3 is more like BC2 and stays prone-less

But this isn't a sequel to Bad Company 2. It's a a sequel to Battlefield 2, it plays and feels more like Battlefield 2 then Bad Company 2. It is exactly what it is supposed to be.

 

please read the whole thing next time or if you did, re read that last sentence of my post.

[Stormcrown]

Game works well for me. Hard to launch a server a few times, but other than that I really enjoy the gameplay.

 

Vin, if this is truly what you think about the game, then by all means...

 

Go. Away.

 

Because no one is forcing you to play the game. If you think this way about Battlefield 3, then the community already has plenty of ignorant people who can't understand anything. A ton of people love this game, and you describe the game having vehicles like it's no big deal. It completely changes the game. Battlefield 3 is similar to the Call of Duty franchise because its a shooter. It's OBVIOUSLY going to be similar, but quite frankly, saying you would rather play Black Ops is just stupid and ignorant. Perhaps you are craving some sort of attention because you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.

 

@Your "Fan boys will be bias" at this point, you are looking like some sort of "Anti-Battlefield" fanboy. Because you are literally taking ANYTHING possible to say Battlefield 3 is bad. I use the word Ignorant as an adjective, not an insult, because fanboys are generally considered Ignorant and it's what I am perceiving here.

 

And my apologies, but this thread just Pi$$ed me off.

 

Edit: I've decided this is a troll thread, because the OP clearly has NOT played this game, and has no real information or even fact-based opinions to state. I'll be taking my leave here, and I suggest that NO ONE ELSE TAKE THIS TROLL SERIOUSLY because this is what I call FLAME BAITING and clearly it worked. :D

[PowderdToastMan]

Game works well for me. Hard to launch a server a few times, but other than that I really enjoy the gameplay.

 

Vin, if this is truly what you think about the game, then by all means...

 

Go. Away.

 

Because no one is forcing you to play the game. If you think this way about Battlefield 3, then the community already has plenty of ignorant people who can't understand anything. A ton of people love this game, and you describe the game having vehicles like it's no big deal. It completely changes the game. Battlefield 3 is similar to the Call of Duty franchise because its a shooter. It's OBVIOUSLY going to be similar, but quite frankly, saying you would rather play Black Ops is just stupid and ignorant. Perhaps you are craving some sort of attention because you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.

 

@Your "Fan boys will be bias" at this point, you are looking like some sort of "Anti-Battlefield" fanboy. Because you are literally taking ANYTHING possible to say Battlefield 3 is bad. I use the word Ignorant as an adjective, not an insult, because fanboys are generally considered Ignorant and it's what I am perceiving here.

 

And my apologies, but this thread just Pi$ed me off.

 

Edit: I've decided this is a troll thread, because the OP clearly has NOT played this game, and has no real information or even fact-based opinions to state. I'll be taking my leave here, and I suggest that NO ONE ELSE TAKE THIS TROLL SERIOUSLY because this is what I call FLAME BAITING and clearly it worked. :D

 

I pointed out some of the things he was claiming were all incorrect in this very thread, and he never responded to it...oh well...

 

I could say that i am just as likely to have the same reaction were i to have a game i loved changed in a manner that i was not in favor of, but the multiple threads in the post about it is a little bit over the top, and then making stuff up to boot...

...There's players not getting this game based on his incorrect information. I've tried to set the record strait for anyone reading this thread.

 

On the lighter side, toms hardware did a GPU test for battlefield 3 for all you PC players. They tested 30 GPU's. See how your GPU stands up here: http://www.tomshardw...mance,3063.html

 

EDIT*

 

For example, i was really disheartened when they took away quickscoping for black ops and did not give the 1.5 damage multiplier to the torso for the PSG-1. On the call of duty forums, i got a pm stating that i convinced the devs to edit that aspect and they changed it in the next patch.

 

My point is, vindekarr, if you are upset about the dynamics, let the devs know and build your case. They want to make as much money as possible and if your a purchaser they will listen. Although you probably wont get the degree you are upset about changed this time around, if you think a particular weapon is overpowered and prove your case, they might see something they diddnt realize and change it.