BATTLEFIELD 3 BETA a disaster?

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

I'm just playing a few games on the BETA now before it over and I've just noticed that there isn't that many people playing. There might be only eight on each squad and that's it.

WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED TO IT???

B0X

There's hundreds of full servers?

Shy_Dave!

6 -10 times the amount of players than the Bad Company 2 beta had suggest not.

KilOit

Far from it, on pc and playing Caspian Border this weekend, amazing.

ktulu123

Nearly every server is full on the pc...

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

Well it must be just the PS3 then because every time I go into a game theres only around eight on each side.

Br4tPr1nc3

.K.A.L.I.M.A. wrote: »

Well it must be just the PS3 then because every time I go into a game theres only around eight on each side.

maybe you should check your server filter settings.

sink

I've played it for 13H20M total, that's more than I've played some full price games. There are some issues with it, bugs and hackers et cetera, but as it's a beta that is to be expected.

Just take one look at the leader boards for the crazy amount of hackers, I dropped into a server earlier and some asshat hacked it so that the only spawn point was directly in front of his machine gun. He had about 50 kills and 0 deaths, it didn't take long for the server to empty.

BlastedGlute

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

MayoForSam

Not at all, Caspian Border over the weekend on PC kept me well entertained - played engineer with the various kit combinations to either go tank or jet hunting, tank repairing/support, laying mines, sneaking around the foliage near bases capturing flags, sniping / spotting from on top of a few hills overlooking bases, zipping around in C4 jihad jeeps, defending flags as the enemy approached by setting up a nice kill zone (defending a flag does not equate to camping), all-in-all a typical BF experience, with only a few bugs, certainly a lot less than in Metro. Reminded me that Conquest is where it's at really, although I also enjoyed Rush on BC2 better. When the squad system is sorted, this game should really shine.

Some folks just can't be pleased, remember this was only a BETA not a DEMO and was primarily being used by Dice to stress-test the servers (64 v 64 worked quite well too). If you all want to return to COD, then be my guest.

TheFairy

MayoForSam, couldnt agree more. Hammered in as many hours as I could over the weekend on both Caspian and Metro and thoroughly enjoyed them both. The game is excellent, and with the final tweaks it will get before release cannot but fail to improve.

My only worry is that Dice will pander to all the complainers on forums and nerf x,y and z etc. I cant really see much that needs to be changed. The disabled vehicles thing I'm not sure on, and Jets need bombs or they wont really play much part of the game. Cant wait for release now!

Dcully

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

Question for ya, which format are you playing on? because if you played Caspian Border on the PC i have to 100% disagree with you.
I pumped in about 8 hours on it over the weekend and experienced no bugs at all plus the game felt like a BF game.
Jets as has been said need attention but apart from that and some minor issues im looking forward to full release.

mozattack

PS3 player here.

Seriously loved the BETA and although there are some bugs etc I would admit that I would be very happy to play the game in that format even as it is (assuming the squad system is fixed of course). It is incredible.

Sick of those coming on to moan and “threaten” that they are leaving for COD. Well do so, who cares in the slightest – there are hundreds of thousands of other people to play with.

There three game changing additions from BC2, in my opinion, are:-

(1) Prone – vital, so much so now that when I play BC2 I keep going to prone!
(2) Unlocks – the unlocking system is far better now and the amount of customisation is unreal and a real addition to the series
(3) Lighting – the tactical light, reflection from sniper score and laser lighting really adds to the drama and strategy of the game and I love it.

I played the BETA now for 15 hrs and would easily continue to play it for an hour and a half a day until the 28th October. Surely that is a positive indication of a good game!!??

Adamcp898

Alright folks here's my two cents, and this is coming from someone who played the Battlefield games to death and loved every minute.

I don't think this game feels good at all, I know it's not a continuation of the Bad Company series but it's a million miles away from what is the best multiplayer game going. I can't put my finger on what exactly makes this a bit of a failure for me but it just doesn't feel any fun to play (and I know some of you will retort "in real life it wouldn't take a full clip to kill you) but it's not the damage system that I hate, you can adapt to things like that.

Every thing just seems off, but perhaps the most worrying thing, for me at least, is that it if you think your games in bad shape you don't hold an open beta this close to release or you risk a sizeable amount of sales, you only should hold an open beta if you're sure you're close to a finished product. And well if DICE thinks this is in good shape they're wrong, and even if they do manage to release a product with all the bugs fixed and no need for a week 1 patch, then I still don't think the game will be anywhere near the world beater EA have pumped it to be. I'd love to be proven wrong but for me I think EA/DICE have encountered more problems than they forseen and are going to end up rushing this game a little bit just because they can't back down from the MW3 fight now.

TheFairy

Adamcp898 you playing on PC or Console? Theres a serious difference TBH! The game is made for PC, they put it first for the developement rights, and well its paid off!

Adamcp898

TheFairy wrote: »

Adamcp898 you playing on PC or Console? Theres a serious difference TBH! The game is made for PC, they put it first for the developement rights, and well its paid off!

Granted I'm playing on my 360, all my PC/Laptop are good for these days is running games not much higher than BF2 , and I am painfully aware that a keyboard/mouse is much better for FPS games.

They can put the PC first all they want, and it's nice of them to continue the Battlefield franchise as a PC franchise but even if this is simply a port on console, it's still a long way off the mark, there are genuinely games for me with far less hype and budget that are better than this beta.

I know the fact that I've said I'm playing this on console will mean that a lot of you will ignore my previous points, but, and I do hope I'm proven wrong come the end of the month, there really is going to be only one winner in the COD/BF3 battle right now for most people I imagine. I'm not planning on buying MW3, but this battle will be decided in terms of sales and that means winning the casual gamer market, the gamer who just wants to sit down and have some fun, and right now as much of a rehash it only is every year, COD will still give you the most fun.

TheFairy

I've totally ignored MW3 completely. This morning I glanced on a vid on youtube showing MP footage. It looked identical to BO, even the map design looked the same. Now I enjoyed BO, however the difference from BC2 to BF3 totally eclipses BO to MW3 IMO. I'd say from our clan around 12 players bought BO, however not one of us will even touch MW3 with BF3 and SWTOR filling all our time for the next few years.

BlitzKrieg

beta now closed

will write up my thoughts when I get time. Now I got to go to dentist...

ktulu123

BlastedGlute

Played on my pc (quad correct, 4gb ram, 570gtx phantom OC) and on the 360.

Both felt a bit weak. I felt no immersion. caspian felt great but it's such a loan wolf game. Everyone wants a vehicle and if your left on foot it's just a bit yawn.

My only reason for wanting mw3 is for the balancing that's been done to mp. The features of elite which heavily promote clan gaming and a deep, rich mp experience that will see team play rewarded. I could care less about graphics folks, I still play counter strike.

I want to feel quality in my gaming, I don't want to have to consider things like (hhmmm should that shot have killed him, I'm pretty sure it was spot on....ah well,this game looks great..) I even had that feeling with battlefield 2 on pc. Hit registration was a bit wanky at the best of times.

Either way we all have choices, I think the bf3 community will be very happy and will over look the bugs and short comings of a premature title that screams for developer attention. And mw3 will be the same old game with a few new bits and pieces, but it works and has a mp focus like no other game with the elite service.

So we'll see what we're all still playing in a year from now, fact is I still play mw2, couldn't care less about black ops, ****ty developer just like cod 3 and world at war.

red dave

Played Metro for a bit and saw enough of it at that stage to convince me i'll like it....then Caspian Border came along...was hooked. Up until 6 this morning on it. I just hope were able to choose squad were in at the full release. I love it.

BlitzKrieg

back on topic...

I'd call BF3 a communications fubar. Wouldnt call the beta itself a disaster. I think so many of the new features caught players by surprise, most of all battlelog.

But not least because of Caspian Boarder I feel PC gamers have warmed up to it a lot more then console players. More impressive though then caspian is that the beta went on to somewhat prove on a technical level that battlelog works as a platform for bf3 as they were able to update features and functions on the fly without the need of a patch.

Similarly the the problems the game itself, the ground clipping and other game breaking issues disappeared for me during the beta, showing that a lot of the issues were server side issues.

By the last night of the beta I was playing hours of Caspian boarder without crashing or major graphical issues (sometimes that strange screen flicker but it was rare), so clearly despite complaints the game was being tweaked quite rapidly.

I dont know what the process is on consoles, why they couldnt (or if they possibly did) update their servers to improve stability like the pc ones.

Overall the game warmed up to me very quickly. I know some issues remain, but its nowhere near as terrifyingly broken as it seemed at the beginning of the beta.


On the issues of actual gameplay.

I like the weapons, I think they feel right, I like the gameplay, Rush has always been more focused and intense then conquest, I like how metro varies the environment. I would say the UMP-45 is a bit overpowered, I'd say the same for the pp-2000 and PDWR except they both have tiny magazines. It's one of the few games I have genuinely enjoyed sniping. I think the remix of the assault and support classes works, we no longer have arnie like medics dominating games like in BC2 and the assault does not feel as useless as he did then either. If I had one complaint it would be he does feel a bit weak in conquest still due to high number of vehicles and the engie gets overplayed here.

Vehicles I enjoyed what I got my hands on, I love the tanks, though they havnt changed much beyond the bc2 icarnates, but being able to customize them on multiple levels is more depth then expected. Similarly the jets, I know they got a lot of flak, but they are not your BF2 jets, the metagame for them has completely changed. I will admit they've been nerfed hard and there is a huge initial steep learning curve coupled with a lack of opportunity targets, but like the tanks they have a surprising amount of depth with their unlocks. helicopters feel like the weak link to me, they lack the dexterity to survive stingers or jets. I've seen other players use them as flying AA platforms effectively, but I never got the hang of them even in the manner of controlling them. If I had one complaint about vehicles its that I feel at the moment if one team ignored their jets and let the other team arse around in their own, they'd win by advantage because jets are not making a big enough impact at the moment on the actual battle.

MayoForSam

BlastedGlute wrote: »

Both felt a bit weak. I felt no immersion. caspian felt great but it's such a loan wolf game. Everyone wants a vehicle and if your left on foot it's just a bit yawn.

Proper squad system should fix a lot of that. The large scale maps in BF allow you to do a spot of forced marching if needed to out-flank the enemy and come at them from a different angle, you can't do this in COD.

mozattack

PS3 player here

Well guys, now that the Beta is closed I am wondering what ye all thought of the game thus far? I have a long post on my initial impressions somewhere else here so I am not going to bore you solid (once again) with such a long one.

In summary I think it is an amazing game, I played over 15-16 hours on Metro and still not bored. I've unlocked the UMP which helped and am loving the SVD or MOD11 with the Holographic sight, quickly started kicking ass with that kit.

I LOVE the mobile spawn point, it is a pity the plebs you end up with don't understand it. This means I am recon more than I would like but it essential to have a M.S.P. otherwise you will spawn on teammates and give away their position (fair annoying)

Whether you play stealthy or all action gunning the game delivers... ended up playing a lot better towards the end cos I was crap at first.

One gripe is that the UMP is on all kits so I reckon that will be used to death cos it is basically an animal of a gun. Another is that I can't get the handle of the earlier Assault Class guns (unlocked M416 but only played if for 2 mins) as they seem to have serious kickback.

The suppression sound feature is brilliant and I LOVE the tactical lights.



Overall 9.5/10 for me irrespective of bugs and debate over graphics.

mozattack

Why do people constantly refer to "i am going to buy MW3 instead" or "DICE will lose the battle".

There is room for both on the consoles and both releases will be probably be a success so so what?


I don't give a monkey if the kids want to play MW3 instead of BF3... just dont see why they have to post that. I don't even know of any MW3 forums, nevermind feel the need to troll them with such boring information.

BlastedGlute

There's a lot of things I don't WANT to do in cod. I don't want to pilot a jet or a challenger 2. It's not fitting. That'd be like saying you can't use pistols in quake 3. Yeah I know, I don't want to.

The tactical light is an absolute joke and not something that is deployed equipment in any modern conflict. It also seems to work out doors, which means this pocket light is BRIGHTER THAN THE SUN!!! Again a complete joke.

Ah so much wrong with this game but when the full version comes out at least it will show people what's really up.

mozattack

BlastedGlute wrote: »

There's a lot of things I don't WANT to do in cod. I don't want to pilot a jet or a challenger 2. It's not fitting. That'd be like saying you can't use pistols in quake 3. Yeah I know, I don't want to.

The tactical light is an absolute joke and not something that is deployed equipment in any modern conflict. It also seems to work out doors, which means this pocket light is BRIGHTER THAN THE SUN!!! Again a complete joke.

Ah so much wrong with this game but when the full version comes out at least it will show people what's really up.

Don't buy it then, go out and have a few beers with the money saved. Simple. Doubt Dice will be too bothered.

BlitzKrieg

The tactical light is an absolute joke and not something that is deployed equipment in any modern conflict. It also seems to work out doors, which means this pocket light is BRIGHTER THAN THE SUN!!! Again a complete joke.

I think someone showed a video on a thread elsewhere here that a tactical light that the military use is actually a seriously powerful piece of kit. Its not a pocket light in the way you are thinking.

here's the video: http://youtu.be/NiKzrnKR3Ts

BlastedGlute

I didnt say there isnt lights brighter than the sun,my flash unit for my camera are, my point is that no troop would be issued with a light so bright that 1 it would act as glaring combat indicator to opposing forces and a units position on a battlefield, secondly it could give you third degree burns if it faced the wrong way for a few seconds and thirdly you could visually disable half of your fire team if you turned around for a second, rendering your team pretty useless. It's a seriously overpowered addition to a game like this and in no way holds continuity with modern conflict.

Also why is there this assumption that "kids" wont play battlefield?
This is the perfect game for them, all bright and flashy and new, it's basically the new call of duty beater right? So defection should be pretty quick leaving us with COD like it was when we played COD 2 and 4. The good old days ;D

MayoForSam

BlastedGlute wrote: »

I didnt say there isnt lights brighter than the sun,my flash unit for my camera are, my point is that no troop would be issued with a light so bright that 1 it would act as glaring combat indicator to opposing forces and a units position on a battlefield, secondly it could give you third degree burns if it faced the wrong way for a few seconds and thirdly you could visually disable half of your fire team if you turned around for a second, rendering your team pretty useless. It's a seriously overpowered addition to a game like this and in no way holds continuity with modern conflict.

1. If someone wants to use a tactical light outdoors and it gives away their position, then that's their look-out.

2. A tactical light has a very high lumen output with minimal heat emitted, no-one will get burnt .

3. Use the off switch as required. Tactical lights are just another weapon attachment that may suit indoor or night maps, people have been overusing them in the beta because they are novel, this will change upon release of the full game.

Krieg

Overall, Im left slightly underwhelmed by the game. I guess the trailers pushed my anticipation too high. I still like the game and I plan on buying it.
My bullet point opinions

*Battlelog sucks, please give me an in game browser. With previous BF games, you get disconnected, you land straight back to the in game server browser. But with BF3, it takes a minute or 2 for my desktop to reinitialize (probably not the right word). So if I want to switch servers it could take me 5mins to switch when previous titles allowed me to switch server in less than a minute.
I did like the auto-updates, very clean and well done.

*Vehicle mods need to be revised. I think all planes and helis should have flares from the very start as opposed to unlock. The vehicle mod for flares should then reduce the reload time of flares by 50% or something.

*The metro rush map needs an overhaul, too easy for defenders and campers. In 5 hours of gameplay of metro I only saw the attackers win maybe 2/3 times.

*Knife. I think this has been done correctly for BF3. BC2 made me rage with the ridiculous auto-homing knife.

*Hit-boxes. It wouldn't be a BF game without dodgy hit-boxes. Granted they get patched but it takes dice months to fix them correctly.

Turbine

Adamcp898 wrote: »

Every thing just seems off, but perhaps the most worrying thing, for me at least, is that it if you think your games in bad shape you don't hold an open beta this close to release or you risk a sizeable amount of sales, you only should hold an open beta if you're sure you're close to a finished product. And well if DICE thinks this is in good shape they're wrong, and even if they do manage to release a product with all the bugs fixed and no need for a week 1 patch, then I still don't think the game will be anywhere near the world beater EA have pumped it to be. I'd love to be proven wrong but for me I think EA/DICE have encountered more problems than they forseen and are going to end up rushing this game a little bit just because they can't back down from the MW3 fight now.

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.

Dcully

*Battlelog sucks, please give me an in game browser. With previous BF games, you get disconnected, you land straight back to the in game server browser. But with BF3, it takes a minute or 2 for my desktop to reinitialize (probably not the right word). So if I want to switch servers it could take me 5mins to switch when previous titles allowed me to switch server in less than a minute.

2 minutes for your desktop to "reinitialize"?
If it takes 2 minutes seriously you need to replace the hamsters mate.
I dont have that issue on either of the two PC`s here,one high spec,one medium spec.
5 minutes to switch servers? no offence mate but your either talking porkies or running a pre-historic pc and or connection because that is simply not true.
I can switch servers in seconds just as fast as any browser.
As for hitboxes, ive not had any issues at all.

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

Seifer

Battlelog does suck to be fair. A browser based game launcher for a game you have installed on your harddrive? How they thought that was a good idea I don't know. I'm amazed there wasn't a more vocal backlash against it.

Didn't think much of the Metro map but Caspian Border was awesome. It's a pity you can't import friends from Steam i.e. where all my gaming friends are. I'd say it's a lot more fun running around in a squad on voice comms.

Outkast_IRE

Seifer wrote: »

Battlelog does suck to be fair. A browser based game launcher for a game you have installed on your harddrive? How they thought that was a good idea I don't know. I'm amazed there wasn't a more vocal backlash against it.

Didn't think much of the Metro map but Caspian Border was awesome. It's a pity you can't import friends from Steam i.e. where all my gaming friends are. I'd say it's a lot more fun running around in a squad on voice comms.

I think metro could be a nice map if theres a alternative to Rush , it would be nice for street fighting with a few wide open areas.

Korvanica

Krieg wrote: »

*The metro rush map needs an overhaul, too easy for defenders and campers. In 5 hours of gameplay of metro I only saw the attackers win maybe 2/3 times.

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

Seifer

Korvanica wrote: »

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

He said the defenders won the majority of the time...

Korvanica

Seifer wrote: »

He said the defenders won the majority of the time...

yea i know, thats why i said I won when attacking, meaning the defenders lost.

Royal Irish

Played about 35hrs on Xbox360, loved it and will be picking up the full game on release day.

Some issues I think need fixing are,

1. the UMP-35 is too over powering. Towards the end of the beta if I was killed by anything other than a UMP-35 I was shocked. It ended up with most people using the recon kit with the UMP and spamming area with respawn becons. This in my opinion takes away from the teamwork aspect of BF. With so many people using this class its a pain in the ass to get ammo or health. In BC2 you were never to far away from a squad member with health or ammo.

2. Squad set up needs to be sorted out. But dice have already came out and said that it is already fixed for the full game. Not being able to set up a squad in game in the beta again really takes away from the teamwork aspect of the game. I remember one game I was stuck in a squad with muppets and for the whole start of Metro at the first bases, they were doing synchronized swimming in the lake.

They are about my only issues with the beta that I hope will be fixed for the full game. Other than that I am really looking forward to this game. Activision couldnt pay me to play MW3.

Seifer

Korvanica wrote: »

yea i know, thats why i said I won when attacking, meaning the defenders lost.

Ah right, you're just misusing the rolleyes emote so.

dreamers75

Seifer wrote: »

Battlelog does suck to be fair. A browser based game launcher for a game you have installed on your harddrive? How they thought that was a good idea I don't know. I'm amazed there wasn't a more vocal backlash against it.

Didn't think much of the Metro map but Caspian Border was awesome. It's a pity you can't import friends from Steam i.e. where all my gaming friends are. I'd say it's a lot more fun running around in a squad on voice comms.

When you finish a round it shows you the shiny **** you just got, people like shiny ****.

Seifer

I'm all for viewing achievements and stuff; that's fine. But server browsing and launching games? No thanks.
And does the battlelog chat even popup in game? Or do you have to use Origin for that? It really is messy. I'm too used to how well everything is integrated in Steam for all this messing.

dreamers75

Dcully wrote: »

Question for ya, which format are you playing on? because if you played Caspian Border on the PC i have to 100% disagree with you.
I pumped in about 8 hours on it over the weekend and experienced no bugs at all plus the game felt like a BF game.
Jets as has been said need attention but apart from that and some minor issues im looking forward to full release.

10 hours......yesterday alone :pac:

sink

Seifer wrote: »

Battlelog does suck to be fair. A browser based game launcher for a game you have installed on your harddrive? How they thought that was a good idea I don't know. I'm amazed there wasn't a more vocal backlash against it.

Didn't think much of the Metro map but Caspian Border was awesome. It's a pity you can't import friends from Steam i.e. where all my gaming friends are. I'd say it's a lot more fun running around in a squad on voice comms.

Battlelog was great IMO. It only took me a second to alt-f4 out of a game and less than 30 to load another map. Granted I have a SSD which makes a difference but from what I've heard people with HDD's weren't suffering either. It's ease of use, depth of information and speed of navigation was way beyond any in-game server browser I've ever used, very impressed.

Turbine

Royal Irish wrote: »

2. Squad set up needs to be sorted out. But dice have already came out and said that it is already fixed for the full game. Not being able to set up a squad in game in the beta again really takes away from the teamwork aspect of the game. I remember one game I was stuck in a squad with muppets and for the whole start of Metro at the first bases, they were doing synchronized swimming in the lake.

FWIW, Dice has already confirmed that for the final release you'll be able to manage squads in the game as well as in battlelog.

Seifer

sink wrote: »

Battlelog was great IMO. It only took me a second to alt-f4 out of a game and less than 30 to load another map. Granted I have a SSD which makes a difference but from what I've heard people with HDD's weren't suffering either. It's ease of use, depth of information and speed of navigation was way beyond any in-game server browser I've ever used, very impressed.

It's that alt-f4ing I'm saying is a complete waste of time. Why do I have to shutdown the game I want to keep playing just to swap servers? (I have an SSD too but I'm not seeing the relevance)

What did the server browser have that other in game server browsers don't? Map name, game type, number of players, ping? What else matters?

sink

Seifer wrote: »

It's that alt-f4ing I'm saying is a complete waste of time. Why do I have to shutdown the game I want to keep playing just to swap servers? (I have an SSD too but I'm not seeing the relevance)

What did the server browser have that other in game server browsers don't? Map name, game type, number of players, ping? What else matters?

You can see what server your friends are playing on, you can see full match statistics of your last game, you can view player profiles of people you were just playing with and friend them. Finding servers with the filters and search box was far quicker than even steam. Not only that but all the achievements, unlocks and stats and full integration with the forums so you see your friends latest posts. It's just farm more community orientated and persistent than any other game.

And more pertinent, connecting to a new server and loading the map from the desktop took no longer than from an in game server browser so there was no real downside.

ktulu123

When I first heard about Battlelog I thought it was a stupid idea, even when the beta first came out I thought it was crap. But it really grew on me to the point I now think its class!

The fact that they can auto update server side issues is great as issued can be fixed fairly quickly as we saw in the beta.

I love the way it goes into a huge amount of detail with stats, friends and unlocks. Also I was able to join servers very quickly any time I was disconnected.

Seifer

sink wrote: »

You can see what server your friends are playing on, you can see full match statistics of your last game, you can view player profiles of people you were just playing with and friend them. Finding servers with the filters and search box was far quicker than even steam. Not only that but all the achievements, unlocks and stats and full integration with the forums so you see your friends latest posts. It's just farm more community orientated and persistent than any other game.

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.

And more pertinent connecting to a new server and loading the map from the desktop took no longer than from an in game server browser so there was no real downside.

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.

sink

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.

I don't see how staying in game versus going back to the desktop is a negative if the load times are not impacted. Your're entitled to your preference, but I don't think there is anything objectively negative about Battlelog.

Seifer wrote: »

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.

That won't be the case in the full game.

Seifer

sink wrote: »

I don't see how staying in game versus going back to the desktop is a negative if the load times are not impacted. Your're entitled to your preference, but I don't think there is any objectively negative about Battlelog.

Of course there is, I just explained the negatives.

Can anyone answer my question of whether the Battlelog chat appears as a pop-up in game? Or do I have to use Origin for that?

The whole thing just smacks of internal developer power struggles. I mean if the rumours are true that BF3 will eventually get released on Steam then Steam will launch Origin to launch Battlelog to launch the game. The design flaws with that implementation are glaringly obvious.