[Multiplat] Battlefield 3

I just decided to go for it, want to encourage developers and publishers to do download games. Hopefully StarCraft isn't coming out too soon and/or too good to make me regret it. ;)

Looks like it's a 2hr download for 13GB.

Wow ! 2 hrs ! For me it will be two days :oops: !
 
It's installing now (23%), so the estimate was good, stayed under 2 hours. Yeah, it's crazy when you think about it, and I have only 30% of the current max we can get! And that's just cable ... I don't know why, but each time I half expect the install to be slower than my download. But install is still about 2-4x faster usually, I think. ;) But there must be people for whom downloading is already faster by now!

And so yeah, no complaints about PSN download speeds here. I do get the impression that your download speed stays higher when you keep it in focus, e.g. if you watch the status of your background download, it seems to speed up to the same speed of background download. It would actually make sense if it does that, but I don't know if everyone realizes that and blames bad PSN service instead.
 
Map knowledge is not a skill. Still, there is skill in the game. The bar may not be as high as other games. I don't know. The thing is, if you and your friends are able to dominate consistently, what separates you from the other squads has to be skill. If that wasn't true, then you could basically gauge a persons standing simply by looking at the number of hours played or rank. Two people playing roughly the same amount of time would have roughly the same map knowledge. Why can one person be so much better than another? Some of it has to be skill. It isn't luck(randomness) if it's consistent. It doesn't really matter anyway. If you feel that the skill level is low, and you don't like it, that's fine. Different strokes for different folks.

I think it's just the skill-set in modern warfare shooters are simply crossing over. If you are good at CoD, you are going to be good here too. I just think the barrier of entry is set so low that there's nothing really there for me to master...well...except vehicle combat.

Speaking of which...I was talking to a friend of mine and it pretty much comes down this factor, we ask ourselves: what are you playing for? Are you playing to win? Are you playing to be good? Are you playing for achievements and unlocks? Or are you simply playing to have fun. I notice where you fit on that scale pretty much determines you commitment level to mastering a system of mechanics.

I also notice myself getting frustrated when people aren't trying as hard as I am. Especially in team heavy focused games like Gears of War. Just the other day I was playing King of the Hill and people simply weren't in places where they need to be for us to win. I also notice this in Battlefield: people camping just trying to get their K/D spread higher and not capturing points - it's entirely frustrating when people aren't playing right.
 
That's the main reason people join clans, I believe. It's certainly why I did. Not for competitions, just for people to pub with who share a similar ethos.
 
I agree. But for people who take these things seriously, they may take it "too far". Occasionally I see GAF folks bickering after a few rounds because they expect better from their teammates (e.g., consecutive but accidental friendly kills ^_^).
 
People can be as serious about it as they like, that's the beauty of a game that attracts so many players and servers. Some BF2 servers were strictly VOIP only, and if you didn't use it you'd be kicked, to go and find another server where you fit in better. I like that those options are available, it means we can all play the way we want to play and with people we want to play with.

Really looking forward to unranked servers with different rule-sets and unlocks coming online as it will segregate the community in just the right way.
 
It's alright. Just part and parcel of being in the community. Folks usually get back together the next hour or day. We need the best players to hold down the objectives anyway. ^_^

Being in a clan or chatroom means we need to stomach other people's quirks, just like in real life.
 
I think it's just the skill-set in modern warfare shooters are simply crossing over. If you are good at CoD, you are going to be good here too. I just think the barrier of entry is set so low that there's nothing really there for me to master...well...except vehicle combat.

Speaking of which...I was talking to a friend of mine and it pretty much comes down this factor, we ask ourselves: what are you playing for? Are you playing to win? Are you playing to be good? Are you playing for achievements and unlocks? Or are you simply playing to have fun. I notice where you fit on that scale pretty much determines you commitment level to mastering a system of mechanics.

I also notice myself getting frustrated when people aren't trying as hard as I am. Especially in team heavy focused games like Gears of War. Just the other day I was playing King of the Hill and people simply weren't in places where they need to be for us to win. I also notice this in Battlefield: people camping just trying to get their K/D spread higher and not capturing points - it's entirely frustrating when people aren't playing right.

That's one reason why I wish Battlefield had functionality to launch with a full side, rather than just a squad of 4. Maybe the PC does? It would be nice to have a real clan matching system built in to the game. I think Killzone 2 had that. It was the one thing I thought was pretty cool in that huge piece of shit.

You're right though, about motivations. There may not be as much to master in Battlefield, and if that's what you're looking for, it might not be the game for you. I'm looking to have fun, but my idea of having fun is trying to win every single match. I'm ok with losing, but I like to know that we gave it a good go. Battlefield has sort of crazy unpredictability that I find hilariously entertaining, because of the wide variety of options that sometimes converge. I guess in NHL I tend to try to master different aspects of the game, because there is more you can do, having a lot of different tools to manually control your player. There are a lot of fine arts in NHL, and it's a team game where one person can drag a whole team down. Some people are big on unlocks. I don't really care that much. I totally agree about people who ruin the game by not playing right.
 
So after I downloaded and installed the PSN version of Battlefield 3, it was straight into the game. Quick load times, no install, I could go play the campaign directly. Framerates seem good, and haven't noticed anything that stood out in terms of textures etc. So far so good, going to try to activate battle log now.

EDIT: Ok, all that took was login with PSN id on Battlelog and done, it seems. I see lee72 play campaign ...
 
Was watching DF's console vs PC ultra settings comparison vid and was quite surprised at how well the consoles held up. I think it looks closer than Crysis 2 did.

DF said themselves in the PS3 vs 360 article that their comparison video was pretty unrepresentitive of the differences between the PC and console versions and that in actual fact they were pretty massive.
 
My hard drive finally came in and I started playing the singleplayer, this may be the best looking shooter on consoles. Only complaint is the frame tearing can be noticeable.

I also just found out that you can press down on the D pad to switch to semi-automatic fire. It really helps in multiplayer if you're using the heavy barrel.
 
Really? I didn't think so. Who knows then?

Yeah, apparently so - not sure if it has changed for the final release though:
http://mp1st.com/2011/10/17/bf3-sol...hort-time-when-firing-an-unsuppressed-weapon/

Ian Torny recently stated, “To clarify – You will appear on the map for a short time, but you will not be flagged/spotted,” referencing Fredrick Thylander’s statement, “It makes you light up on minimap for a split second. Add silencer to avoid it.”

Perhaps someone can check if they see enemies appear on radar when firing in multiplayer?

DF said themselves in the PS3 vs 360 article that their comparison video was pretty unrepresentitive of the differences between the PC and console versions and that in actual fact they were pretty massive.

Yeah, they did say that but I have yet to see anything suggesting the differences are 'pretty massive', (though I was expecting them to be) certainly not a generational leap - if anything Crysis 2 had more disparity between the PCs and the consoles.

Geometry, most textures and most importantly lighting (which is what makes the game stand out) are basically the same across all three platforms, the only differences to the PC version are higher resolution & framerates, better AA, less aggressive LOD, and higher fidelity to stuff like shadowing, effects and lighting.
 
Me and 4 other friends of mine can pretty much carry a team of 64 in any mode. It's defiantly, a camp, I-see-you-first-I-win situation most of the time. It's about knowing where people camp and setting spawn traps around them even in Conquest. It's really not my fault if their systems invoke that. There's no "oh you need to play it right to get it". The objective is to win the match, it's not my fault we can do it pretty easily with virtually no skill.

I'm also noticing a trend. You people think knowing the map and team play is a skill-set? We can easily separate the two by one simple example: You may know exactly what you need to do to gain map control but that doesn't mean you'll have the means to do it.

Certainly you have to notice you aren't even talking about individual skill. Memorization of the maps is a habit, not a skill. Map control is not a skill that can be learned or taught. The nature of a map evolves when more people simply play it but that has nothing to do with your individual skill-set. My example about movement ability in Gears of War is a perfect case in point about skill level. Now, knowing how to use the aircrafts to an efficiency that allows you to "own the sky" is a skill-set, knowing where people camp is not.

The last point I want to make. EVERY shooter these days is about team work. A well coordinated team is always going to win the day in any shooter. This is a rule, there are no exceptions. So your point about, "oh you just need to play better as a team to get it" is MOOT. The reality is: a person or persons with greater individual skill makes for a stronger team. So it doesn't matter how coordinated you think you are if your skill-set is lower than a team that's greater than your own. You still are going to get owned.

Hmmm I am pretty sure I mentioned more than "map mastery."

But I think that is the point: In the military we learn the importance of, and differences between, cover and concealment and the advantage of using tactics like flanking as well as the importance of basic fundamentals like elevation.

You also seem to confuse strategy (go for the high ground!) versus tactical engagement (I see X enemies by the fountain engaged, so I am going to loop around to their right, toss a grenade to their front to faze and then flank them) which is a *gaming skill*.

If you cannot grasp this then yes, modern warefare games are all about "see first wins" but really skilled players are 3 chess moves ahead because they aren't just trying to get a kill and hoping they see you first they are have done the things necessary to maximize their advantage before engagement.

Btw, this is no different from flying an air craft. n00bs all make the same mistakes and make the same flight patterns. e.g. When you get a tone on them they typically turn (mostly to the right!) and all you have to do is slow down, open up some distance and lead their turn and BOOM free kill. They also tend to misunderstand the advantage of elevation and assume you are going to turn around with them in "chase" fashion. And it is always fun using your own choppers and tanks as bait. These are all very basic things that begin BEFORE actual shooting. If you are waiting for guns to go live to measure skill you missed the more important part of the engagement: preparation.

As for campers, with destruction, material penetration, classes that come with RPGs and grenades, the blurring of suppression fire, tactical flash lights (!), heat sensetive scopes, open battlefields, armored vehicles, and the ability to SPAWN on teammates there is no reason for campers to cause serious issues. It isn't like MW (or worse CS) where you may have a demigod like sniper in a prime alley with 'mates covering his flanks-_BF actually gives you the ability to neutralize such tactics.

Oddly I am also part of a large PC forum and I don't hear much complaints about campers. Maybe it is time you changed up your play style. Or to be blunt, when someone struggles at a game it is usually the game's fault because it doesn't mesh with their current game skill set.

And BF3 isn't perfect, but I find your lack of specific examples and poo-poo legitimate skills PRO players use, as "skillsless" as a joke. The better arguement, from PROS, is all the Battlefields (and re: I have been playing since '42 and was part of a competitive clan) makes a poor skill/competitive game due to the balance issues and lack of consistency you see from a competition title. Map design, mod tools, and the general "big sand box" approach allows for far too many variables that aren't really conducive to pro style competitions (nor the large teams). e.g. In '42 the first thing we did in a match was send our art to a specific point and spot the sky map and tray the enemy airfield and make strategic strikes to targets/cap flags and set parameters. We knew what flags we intended to hold, which ones we would give up, etc and most matches were decided in the first couple minutes sans a huge tidal shift which was more indicative of a skill set difference. Really great players can 'sploit BF which has traditionally made the lack of super fine balance an issue. This is part of the issue with a RPS team/objective/class game this huge. In a CS or MW with random spawns and such there is a general ebb and flow that equalizes things. And you can iterate rounds quickly. Running a "best 2 of 3" in BF Conquest can take hours at times.

But for all those reason little ol' troops camping are easily -- easily I tell you -- neutralized. Heck, if you are a) playing with friends b) in a squad there is no reason for a camper to give you fit. Ok, you died. Spawn back on your SL (he better still be alive, unless somehow campers are killing your entire squad!!!!!!!) and BOOM. His position is exposed and he does. Your SQUAD moves on.

I don't get what is so hard about this.

Maybe hit up the PC forum thread here or at Ars to see if you can get some pointers on "campers." I am sure the PC gamers could give you some pointers.
 
Does anyone know if the online pass is for individual Gamertags/PSN IDs or is it tied to a particular console and other users on that console can also play online?
 
What's a good tutorial for getting used to jets? They're really fun and super effective against tanks but it's pretty hard to aim them.

Does anyone know if the online pass is for individual Gamertags/PSN IDs or is it tied to a particular console and other users on that console can also play online?

I'm pretty sure it's tied to the console but I'm not sure if it also is tied to the gamertag. When my old 360 broke a year ago, I had to get EA customer support to give me a new unlock code for Bad Company 2 which also had the same pass system.
 
Does anyone know if the online pass is for individual Gamertags/PSN IDs or is it tied to a particular console and other users on that console can also play online?

From what i have heard, people are sharing the game on the PSN. It seemingly works on all 5 ps3s and on all accounts on those PS3s. Thats what i have heard, am not 100% sure though.

Same for FIFa12, as I know a guy who has a shared version of Fifa12, and all 5 guys are playing it on their PS3s.
 
patsu said:
Crap, if they charge the same price, I would buy the DD version over BR one.

DD version always seems more expensive but in this case I could live with the difference (about 5 euros) as, as mentioned, I can apparently play it on both my PS3s, and apparently even at the same time.

But at some point the prices will have to become more of a match, or DD will never take over.
 
Played another hour or so tonight of campaign. Pretty much my first hour.

Maybe it was low expectations but the campaign isn't so far as horrible as I'd been led to believe.

And I'm quite impressed with the graphics, the lighting is amazing, for example in Operation Guillotine with the green flares.

Also the textures look good up close and pop in isn't as awful as Crysis 2, in fact didn't seem too bad at all. If the HD install buys nice textures without Crysis 2 level pop in, it's worth it.

It probably looks like what I'd though Modern Warfare could look like if they went to 30 FPS, if not maybe even better.

The games graphics actually remind me of Killzone at a lot of points. The carrier level, also very impressive. I got chills when you take off from the carrier and your ally F-18 joins you just to your right and you just fly along feeling all awesome for a bit, with awesome graphics, though I think they could have realized that moment more fully. It was an neat moment sort of like the one in MW2 where you approach that old castle in choppers. I think games and movies both do well when they have a sense of what's cool for cools sake.

That said, the shadows are terrible, particularly as they flicker on characters faces, but usually everywhere, clearly a console tradeoff. Next gen is needed if nothing else to fix things like that.

It seems to have a lot of frustrating choke points though, I bet that turned a lot of people off. A fun game quickly turns not fun if the difficulty is annoying and feels unfair, as it tends to in ultra linear and scripted games. I'm also pretty positive I have spotted that nasty trick of endlessly spawning enemies at times, which I hate.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top