[Multiplat] Battlefield 3

[RenegadeRocks]

Remembering that I do actually like the type of multiplayer that Battlefield offers (just like I loved Warhawk), I also just noticed that the full game is up on PSN for download. Advantage of that is that a multi-player game like that is nice to have installed, and also being able to have it on both my PS3s ...

Does anyone here have experience with the PSN version of Battlefield 3?

And talking about co-op, that co-op helicopter level sounds ace.

I'll be getting the psn version soon for the same reason. Its a primarily MP game and I want it installed on my hdd. Its essentially the same game, so I don't know what u mean by "experience with the psn version"! From what i heard its 13gb download.

 

[Arwin]

I'll be getting the psn version soon for the same reason. Its a primarily MP game and I want it installed on my hdd. Its essentially the same game, so I don't know what u mean by "experience with the psn version"! From what i heard its 13gb download.

I'm just curious about stuff like installing on two PS3s, how easy it is to switch (just copy save to the cloud, or does it have the 24h wait limit, etc.), if you can only play online with your main account, if there are issues because perhaps the game has been optimised to stream in paralel from disc and HDD, etc.

 

[Scott_Arm]

I don't think I defined what I think 'skill' is. First let me separate a common omen. Pretty much every shooter you play this day is highly defined in team play: you aren't going to win in 1vs4 situations in any shooter these days but a person's level of individual skill is about the mastery of mechanics.

First instance, take Gears of War. It's a cover based shooter. On a low level that's all it is: you sit behind a wall and shoot stuff. To a highly skilled player they know how to use cover as a movement tool and can move around it much more quickly virtually wall bouncing around you indefinitely. On the surface of it, an average player may not even think to 'wall bounce' but it's an invaluable tool in mastering the cover system. This is before all the shooting aspect of it. There's no tool or game system in Battlefield that's about positioning and out maneuvering. Ok you can duck behind cover or go prone in the trees what other tools are there that allows you to out position a player in 1v1 battles or just even getting out of bad situations?

Which leads me to my next point, the shooting aspect of 'modern warfare' games is a see first, die first, dice roll - as I mentioned. I get the appeal of "realism" it invokes but I don't think a virtual luck of the dice is about skill. Unless you know where all the camping spots are, you aren't going to 'see' first 100% of the time. Hell, not even 50%. In Halo, even if you catch me out in the open the game's system gives me to the tools to get out of any situation, it's the same in Gears. What are you do when you roll that dice some player simply gets the drop on you?

You talk about team play, there's far more it in Gears than any modern warfare shooter I played. If you think you're badass, the lone-wolf, you are going to get blown up. I can't count how many times in Battlefield 3 I've had a K/D of 7, 8 or 9 just lone-wolfing it. Since Gears is so individually skilled based 2 people of my skill level on the opposing team, coordinating, with me lone-wolfing it gets me blown up about 50% of the time. That's a K/D of 1. That's a 6-8 point difference. Which would turn a match in Gears.

....anyway I'm rambling again but hope you get what I mean about "skill".

I get what you're saying, but Battlefield isn't about K/D unless you play team deathmatch, which is basically blasphemy. You need to play Rush or Conquest. In those modes, K/D doesn't matter. All that matters is winning, and sometimes you've gotta let your K/D drop to win. You are right about getting caught in the open. If you get caught in the open, you're F'ed, at least if someone sees you. Really though, don't get caught in the open. The maps are fairly complex, there are a lot of places to move. Move as a group and cover eachother. If there is a lot of empty space to cover, use the vehicles provided.

There is a lot of mastery in the mechanics of the vehicles. You can see an immense difference between a good chopper pilot and an average one. A ace chopper pilot can practically dominate a team or match on her own. Capturing and holding objectives takes a lot of teamwork and coordination.

Lone-wolfing will most definitely cause you to lose if you're up against good players. I honestly think they should reduce the amount of points you get for straight-up kills. Kills at objective areas do get a bonus, but objective points should outweight straight kills by a wider margin. There are too many people that sit back and camp, ignoring objectives to get their K/D up. They just cause their team to lose. Those people should be playing TDM, not Rush or Conquest.

Maybe you're just a lot better at shooters than I am, and there is a "wall" in terms of development that's too low for you. I find the wide range of strategies because of all the kits and vehicles is what makes the game interesting. That said, there is a wide range of skill levels. Some people dominate and win almost every match they play, so the game doesn't come down to randomness in any way. The people who are winning consistently do so because they are much better at the game.

 

[tabs]

I find BF a bit less twitch skill and bit more thinking mans shooter than most arcade shooters. I think that's why it has appeal to an older audience. There is skill, but 50% of it is rooted in your ability to make wise decisions from a huge range of options. It's about planning ahead and risk management.

Bouncing around in gears is just a different kind of skill, but once you know what you're trying to achieve it's a linear path of experience and knowledge that gets you better at it. That's not better or worse, just different.

BF3 has so many different things to get better at, that ask different questions of your abilities. Being good at long range tank battles will not help you do very much else better. This is one of the core draws of the game and why it doesn't get boring fast. You can essentially play a different game by choosing another role, and learning the intricacies of that.

The act of moving as a lone wolf around a map and shooting other foot soldiers with a gun is not as deep as some other games that are essentially just that, but that's to be expected. UT2004 took that aspect to a great height IMO with lots of movement options and great rewards for accuracy, map knowledge, dodging and of course twitch skills, but I won't pretend that the game has the depth and range of skills required to be a great all round BF3 player.

 

[Ghostz]

I get what you're saying, but Battlefield isn't about K/D unless you play team deathmatch, which is basically blasphemy. You need to play Rush or Conquest. In those modes, K/D doesn't matter. All that matters is winning, and sometimes you've gotta let your K/D drop to win. You are right about getting caught in the open. If you get caught in the open, you're F'ed, at least if someone sees you. Really though, don't get caught in the open. The maps are fairly complex, there are a lot of places to move. Move as a group and cover eachother. If there is a lot of empty space to cover, use the vehicles provided.

There is a lot of mastery in the mechanics of the vehicles. You can see an immense difference between a good chopper pilot and an average one. A ace chopper pilot can practically dominate a team or match on her own. Capturing and holding objectives takes a lot of teamwork and coordination.

Lone-wolfing will most definitely cause you to lose if you're up against good players. I honestly think they should reduce the amount of points you get for straight-up kills. Kills at objective areas do get a bonus, but objective points should outweight straight kills by a wider margin. There are too many people that sit back and camp, ignoring objectives to get their K/D up. They just cause their team to lose. Those people should be playing TDM, not Rush or Conquest.

Maybe you're just a lot better at shooters than I am, and there is a "wall" in terms of development that's too low for you. I find the wide range of strategies because of all the kits and vehicles is what makes the game interesting. That said, there is a wide range of skill levels. Some people dominate and win almost every match they play, so the game doesn't come down to randomness in any way. The people who are winning consistently do so because they are much better at the game.

I do agree about the whole camping thing. People want to improve their K/D even in conquest mode. People just waiting in the corner somewhere hoping to get kills. I think that's simply the type of gameplay a modern warfare shooter invokes. The proliferation of vehicles simply makes it worse in my opinion.

 

[tabs]

On an 8v8 rush map as defender, I 'camped' today for a lot longer than I normally would. I was holding a not often used route round the back of the remaining MCOM by myself. I stayed there for a good 5-10 minutes, barely moving as my scope just had both left and right entrances at the end of this long wide corridor in it's view. I knew hardly anyone, or perhaps noone would use this route and in total I made 3 kills, 2 off the same guy. I did it so our team would have a better chance of winning, because if someone had strolled in round the back they could've taken out the defenders and the MCOM and cost us victory.

I have no idea why some people think that's not an acceptable playstyle. The game demands that sort of play in order for the team victory. If you hold more flags than the opposition, it is your duty to camp and halt their progress, because of the ticket bleed. Same goes if you're defending on rush.

Without people holding good positions this game would be no different from any other random twitch shooter.

 

[Scott_Arm]

Camping an objective on defense is fine. I have no problems with that. You've gotta do what you've gotta do to protect the MCOM or the flag. If that means sitting in a shadow by a doorway, or laying in a bush, then that's what works. What I don't like is when half the guys on the the attacking team are snipers, sitting way off from the objectives, camping a spot just to rack up kills. If you do stuff like that, your team will lose.

 

[tabs]

I dislike that too. It makes for a boring game for both teams, but thankfully people seem to be getting it slowly.

More incentives need to be given to play another way. A better end of round stats page would probably do wonders. Show the best in each field not just points and KDR. In fact you could argue for KDR being dropped altogether from that screen.

 

[Scott_Arm]

I think they should hide the K/D of other players on that screen. Sometimes it's nice to see your own. Just showing raw score would probably be the best way to do it.

 

[Onkl Bjorni]

Slowly starting to get a hang on things. Not to fond of the new ui, I feel it's a bit to complicated compared to Bad Company 2 ui. Takes to much time to pick load out for your weapons etc. IMO, but I guess it's something I'll get used to eventually

Played conquest for 3-4 houres today and even managed to get MVP in a few rounds (a good squad is really a must in this game, lone wolf is not going to get you to the top)

Think the game looks very good, but I agree that it sometime can be hard to spot enemies. So overall I'm slowly starting to get the same good feeling that I get from playing BC2

 

[(((interference)))]

I'm still waiting on my copy to arrive, decided to get it for 360 in the end - (mainly so I can use my Razer controller which i've found helps with precision aiming among other things).

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.

One thing that'll bug me about BF3 though is that it's going to take far longer to unlock everything than in previous games, excessive grinding is something I hate about all these new FPSs. I thought BFBC2 had a reasonably long unlock tree

Also, since I primarily play Recon (though I might change to Engineer seeing as how Recon has been nerfed somewhat from BC2) what is the best semi-auto sniper rifle? Are there any fully automatic snipers like the VSS from BC2?

 

[Acert93]

Ghostz, you are wrong about the skill thing. Besides the obvious, which you retracted, it isn't "see first kill first" as the end game if "skill". If that is as deep the gameplay looks to you the skill required to be good has been overlooked.

IF you are playing the game at the level of, "see-first&kill; seen-first&died" you have missed the most important elements of the game: map mastery, elevation, concealment, cover, and reading the flow of the battle/troop paths. If your engagements start at the point of seeing an enemy then yes, you are going to have a tough day. A situational gamer who has a good handle on his weapons/range and plots out high reward/low risk movements like flanking, ambushing, and various cat/mouse engagments then yes, a HUGE part of the "skill" in a modern warefare shooter has been lost on you.

That being said MW requires more straight up shooter "skillz" and is essentially a arena style game -- map mastery, knowing firing lines, and great use of your weapons is vital. BF3 is a different cat. You can be GREAT at the game with hardly shooting at all.

This reminds me of a scrim we once did in a DC ladder where all but 2 of us had negative KDR in a big match--and we blew out the other guys all because our squads knew that what mattered was holding flags so the opponent was happy to kill kill kill but that didn't win them the game--not even close. Battlefield is the rare game where a medic, or more importantly an engineer/support, can totally change the game without shooting. Ditto some smart use of vehicles.

Battlefield really relies on a non-traditional FPS skill: selflessness and patient goal oriented teamwork.

 

[(((interference)))]

If you are firing an unsuppressed weapon do you show up on the mini map like in COD?

 

[Ghostz]

Ghostz, you are wrong about the skill thing. Besides the obvious, which you retracted, it isn't "see first kill first" as the end game if "skill". If that is as deep the gameplay looks to you the skill required to be good has been overlooked.

IF you are playing the game at the level of, "see-first&kill; seen-first&died" you have missed the most important elements of the game: map mastery, elevation, concealment, cover, and reading the flow of the battle/troop paths. If your engagements start at the point of seeing an enemy then yes, you are going to have a tough day. A situational gamer who has a good handle on his weapons/range and plots out high reward/low risk movements like flanking, ambushing, and various cat/mouse engagments then yes, a HUGE part of the "skill" in a modern warefare shooter has been lost on you.

That being said MW requires more straight up shooter "skillz" and is essentially a arena style game -- map mastery, knowing firing lines, and great use of your weapons is vital. BF3 is a different cat. You can be GREAT at the game with hardly shooting at all.

This reminds me of a scrim we once did in a DC ladder where all but 2 of us had negative KDR in a big match--and we blew out the other guys all because our squads knew that what mattered was holding flags so the opponent was happy to kill kill kill but that didn't win them the game--not even close. Battlefield is the rare game where a medic, or more importantly an engineer/support, can totally change the game without shooting. Ditto some smart use of vehicles.

Battlefield really relies on a non-traditional FPS skill: selflessness and patient goal oriented teamwork.

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.

 

[Scott_Arm]

If you are firing an unsuppressed weapon do you show up on the mini map like in COD?

No You have to be spotted.

 

[Scott_Arm]

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.

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.

 

[kagemaru]

No You have to be spotted.

I'm pretty sure you show up on the minimap if you don't have a silencer attached.

 

[Scott_Arm]

I'm pretty sure you show up on the minimap if you don't have a silencer attached.

Really? I didn't think so. Who knows then?

 

[kagemaru]

Really? I didn't think so. Who knows then?

If not then I'm unequipping it since being stealthy is the only reason I use it.

 

[Arwin]

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.