Certainly true of the open betas as you aren't necessarily getting quality testers who are going to report issues properly. Mostly the only use for open beta is stressing servers.
[Multiplat] Battlefield 3
- Thread starter dragonelite
- Start date
Certainly true of the open betas as you aren't necessarily getting quality testers who are going to report issues properly. Mostly the only use for open beta is stressing servers.
Anyone else missing the Beta? 
As per the "Beta" the problem is a large number of *open Betas on the Xbox 360* have set a standard for what *console gamers expect from an open Beta" if you know what I mean.
I miss the Beta and have the game pre-ordered but, and I am sure I could be corrected on this, it seems BF3 is undergoing more of a crunch than some titles that are essentially DONE 6 months out and the last 6 months are spent polishing, working on DLC, and getting things under the hood completed. I think Gears 3 and Halo Reach are both examples where what they showed was fairly mature.
It isn't a good/bad paradigm but it does indicate maybe there are certain development approaches that don't lend themselves as kindly to an open beta.
From where I am standing after BF:BC DICE proved to me that they could do a proper BF game on consoles. They got my money before the Beta. And as much as I love BF (my fav shooter franchise by far) I cannot say the Beta made me more excited for the franchise. And if BF3 is like BF1943 (basically a whole week where I couldn't get on) the Beta will mean even less. At the end of the day I want the product on the disk I pop in my 360 on 10/25 to be the best thing possible. Open Beta, Closed Beta, no Beta at all--I don't care. And I am sure DICE knows this as they did a Beta because they thought the game needed it. So even with some of the put offs (ugh a lot of bugs, but the gameplay is GOLD I tell you) if it makes a better end product I cannot complain.
Maybe instead of the little Battlelog thing on the opening screen of the 360 maybe as the Beta Progressed EA could have used the space to address things the Beta did, e.g. specific bugs found and fixed for release. They could even note things already fixed in the current build (e.g. graphics). Do it in descending order, newest on top, so as the Beta progresses users could get a FEEL for their contribution to the progress of the project. Heck, even a blog doing this would have been good word of mouth.
Anyhow, I already started my list of favorite things of BF3. Little things like changing the firing mode, going prone, movement influenced aim deviation, vehicles, etc. got me all excited. Being able to actually go into a TON of rooms/windows totally geeked me out.
My only regret is not playing on the PC--I guess I have to play with all you console scrubs
As per the "Beta" the problem is a large number of *open Betas on the Xbox 360* have set a standard for what *console gamers expect from an open Beta" if you know what I mean.
I miss the Beta and have the game pre-ordered but, and I am sure I could be corrected on this, it seems BF3 is undergoing more of a crunch than some titles that are essentially DONE 6 months out and the last 6 months are spent polishing, working on DLC, and getting things under the hood completed. I think Gears 3 and Halo Reach are both examples where what they showed was fairly mature.
It isn't a good/bad paradigm but it does indicate maybe there are certain development approaches that don't lend themselves as kindly to an open beta.
From where I am standing after BF:BC DICE proved to me that they could do a proper BF game on consoles. They got my money before the Beta. And as much as I love BF (my fav shooter franchise by far) I cannot say the Beta made me more excited for the franchise. And if BF3 is like BF1943 (basically a whole week where I couldn't get on) the Beta will mean even less. At the end of the day I want the product on the disk I pop in my 360 on 10/25 to be the best thing possible. Open Beta, Closed Beta, no Beta at all--I don't care. And I am sure DICE knows this as they did a Beta because they thought the game needed it. So even with some of the put offs (ugh a lot of bugs, but the gameplay is GOLD I tell you) if it makes a better end product I cannot complain.
Maybe instead of the little Battlelog thing on the opening screen of the 360 maybe as the Beta Progressed EA could have used the space to address things the Beta did, e.g. specific bugs found and fixed for release. They could even note things already fixed in the current build (e.g. graphics). Do it in descending order, newest on top, so as the Beta progresses users could get a FEEL for their contribution to the progress of the project. Heck, even a blog doing this would have been good word of mouth.
Anyhow, I already started my list of favorite things of BF3. Little things like changing the firing mode, going prone, movement influenced aim deviation, vehicles, etc. got me all excited. Being able to actually go into a TON of rooms/windows totally geeked me out.
My only regret is not playing on the PC--I guess I have to play with all you console scrubs
Closed betas among educated gamers is what's needed. Sony and MS (and Nintendo if they ever take online seriously) should find and recruit a core set of beta testers from their userbase. Perhaps have a test wherein they play a buggy game and have to file a report on the issues. Those who submit valuable reports get into the Beta crew and are trusted to test games. In return they should get some bonuses like in-game costumes, DLC vouchers, or whatever. The Beta crews would be recruited and managed via the console companies and the developers would request Beta time from them. There's clearly a professional divison between a beta tester (an actual tester serving a professional role) and a game that has to be recognised and developed accordingly.
I just think console "betas" in general have given gamers the wrong idea over what a real beta is. Regardless if these past betas were glorified demos or actual betas to improve the final game, most of them have been console exclusives and built on mature engines, so it's no surprise they showed a higher level of polish.
Yup, I said the same thing to a friend when we were playing the BF3 beta. They should look at what Bungie (and now 343i) does with Reach, throwing a splash screen up and let it sit there for a few seconds before giving the player an option to move on.
This is a great idea but wouldn't a completely open beta still produce better results? I always thought you want your test environment to match real world scenarios as close as possible.
Yup, I said the same thing to a friend when we were playing the BF3 beta. They should look at what Bungie (and now 343i) does with Reach, throwing a splash screen up and let it sit there for a few seconds before giving the player an option to move on.
This is a great idea but wouldn't a completely open beta still produce better results? I always thought you want your test environment to match real world scenarios as close as possible.
"Battlefield 3 beta in a nutshell" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEfL9oUVxFg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEfL9oUVxFg
I am afraid EA made the made mistake as with Crysis 2 (which for me is one of the best games I've seen running on a console, technically-wise) showing a poor demo which doesn't make justice to the final game.
One of the smartest guys I know told me once (back in the late 90s, as teenagers,, when I showed him a PC cd-rom of a magazine featuring a lot of demos from software like Lotus Smartsuite, Corel, etc, the typical demos and trials with a key functionality disabled, like not being allowed to save the files you created with the software) that; "in demos and trials developers show you the best of their program".
He meant that they didn't allow you to use and know all the intricacies from the get go -though this was possible in some demos- but they wanted you to see some of the new features of their software, and their best possibilities.
And I think that's what EA should do. Why they didn't include in the Crysis 2 demo that "church" level, or even Pier 17, which was there but it was secret, and they showed a mp level which wasn't the most appealing instead?
Why launching a Battlefield 3 beta of the game when people were completely hyped and it had some bugs? A more polished demo close to launch would be a better idea.
Just goes to show that rate of development and the actual beauty of a game are by no means always correlative.
Because it wasn't a demo, it was a beta. Which had to be released in time for it to improve the RTM release. No argument about Crysis 2 btw.
Sony and EA need to "recruit" the right users for this sort of beta (specifically those who want/aspire to work in the industry). The biggest mistake is to make it open to everyone or even just PS+ members. Few people want to experience bugs and lags in their game.
EDIT: Here's a belated: "I told you so !"
EDIT: Here's a belated: "I told you so !"
Yes Richard, like you say, it was a beta... Some people think a beta is a demo. Even when BF3 developers do pretty well with technology and innovation, gamers feel let down if they don't create a perfect beta or demo. Rather twisted, isn't it, that sometimes users are disappointed in developers, when they do well in general, and not make the mistakes the person/company (EA) made letting a beta to be launched.
patsu's idea is rather fine. In that sense, the Kinect beta before launch was a great example of how to do things properly. I had a friend playing Kinect before it was launched and they had their NDAs and all. He just hinted at it -"I am playing something of the future, and let me tell you, the future is fun". I knew what it was but that's the only info I managed to get from him before bribing him and become a real pest.
I agree, in hindsight a closed (or slightly less open) beta would have been preferable. ETQW suffered the same fate back in 2007 when all the BF2 fans started dissing the game on the first of two betas.
I do believe BF3 will be a better game because of it though. DICE just needs to tweak how it handles future betas. Maybe get the most active BF3 players when the time comes + preorders.
I do believe BF3 will be a better game because of it though. DICE just needs to tweak how it handles future betas. Maybe get the most active BF3 players when the time comes + preorders.
All DICE needs to do for future betas is include a map that doesn't suck.
Caspian Border on the PC beta was so much more enjoyable than the diaper stain that was Operation Metro.
All DICE needs to do for future betas is include a map that doesn't suck.
Caspian Border on the PC beta was so much more enjoyable than the diaper stain that was Operation Metro.
On Operation Metro, engineers were useless.
On Caspian Border, everything but engineers were useless.
It's not bad if there's a couple maps with no vehicles/tons of vehicles but for a beta, where you want to get an idea of how well each class is balanced, they probably should have chosen a map that was more general. The map they chose for the BC2 beta was great for example. Every class had stuff to do.
All DICE needs to do for future betas is include a map that doesn't suck.
Caspian Border on the PC beta was so much more enjoyable than the diaper stain that was Operation Metro.
I loved the ps3 the beta even without vehicles... by the way is it yet closed?
Yesterday I can't play it because the server was down all the time...
It ended at noon on the 10th.
I have to disagree about only engy's being useful on Caspian. Every one of my best rounds I played Assault exclusively. If you defend Hill you can rack up the kills and revives while performing a useful function for your team. Plenty of foot soldiers around that area and chances are you overpower them. There are also 2 very convieniently placed static rocket launchers to deal with vehicles. When not under attack, you have a good overview of Forest and can do a reasonable job of defending that too from the cliffs, as the sun is behind you. The only thing you are very vulnerable to is a decent heli team.
I have to disagree about only engy's being useful on Caspian. Every one of my best rounds I played Assault exclusively. If you defend Hill you can rack up the kills and revives while performing a useful function for your team. Plenty of foot soldiers around that area and chances are you overpower them. There are also 2 very convieniently placed static rocket launchers to deal with vehicles. When not under attack, you have a good overview of Forest and can do a reasonable job of defending that too from the cliffs, as the sun is behind you. The only thing you are very vulnerable to is a decent heli team.
I loved the ps3 the beta even without vehicles... by the way is it yet closed?
It's good for sampling the general direction the game is taking. I went in for about 1-2 hours. Got an idea of how to work with the GAF chatroom folks, and left. The beta won't show the true "power" of BF3. So I didn't even bother with the graphics. Just looking for play style ideas and tactics.
Here is a Joystiq article from a guy who's played the (almost) final build.
He goes on to describe the change to the feel of the game... well worth a read. Looks like high damage bullets are out..
If you want high-damage bullets, just play on Hardcore mode. I'm pretty sure Battlefield 3 has it.
Similar threads
