BATTLEFIELD 3 BETA a disaster?

Spear

Fnz wrote: »

Doesn't it also allow you to have 2 x kit load-outs for each class?

It did in BC2 at least.

yimrsg

I wouldn't call the beta a disaster but it hasn't sold me on buying it or turned me away either. My main grievance is the clear difference in the pc and console experience, BC2 wasn't all that different on the 2 systems but from watching the videos of caspian border on the pc and playing metro on a console just shows the disparity in the two systems.

Although I didn't have the chance to play it on pc but from the videos and talking to others who played on the pc it's clear that the console game is going to be stunted in comparison the it's pc sibling. You expect the graphics and player number to be of lesser quality and quantity I wonder if the gameplay has also suffered from a development glass ceiling.

I know I'm expecting (perhaps too) much from a 5 year old console but I think that this game is clearly too demanding for those not on pc and this marks the first death knell of this generation of consoles. RIP Xbox 360 you had a good outing.

mozattack

the_syco wrote: »

Unable to play BC2 after BF3. May play some GTA IV until then.

I rented Sniper; Ghost Warrior.. tis poor.

Bought BF 1943, it is okay. Worth a look

mozattack

yimrsg wrote: »

I wouldn't call the beta a disaster but it hasn't sold me on buying it or turned me away either. My main grievance is the clear difference in the pc and console experience, BC2 wasn't all that different on the 2 systems but from watching the videos of caspian border on the pc and playing metro on a console just shows the disparity in the two systems.

Although I didn't have the chance to play it on pc but from the videos and talking to others who played on the pc it's clear that the console game is going to be stunted in comparison the it's pc sibling. You expect the graphics and player number to be of lesser quality and quantity I wonder if the gameplay has also suffered from a development glass ceiling.

I know I'm expecting (perhaps too) much from a 5 year old console but I think that this game is clearly too demanding for those not on pc and this marks the first death knell of this generation of consoles. RIP Xbox 360 you had a good outing.

I guess what you are doing is driving a nice Ford Mustang and have been happy to do so all along but an Aston Martin has pulled up beside you and showing you what's what.

At the moment it feel inferior but overall there are other factors which makes PC gaming less appealing, the hassle, the whole set-up etc.

I'd easily fork out the cash for the PC to get BF3 if I thought it was worth it, but PS3 will do fine. It is all relative.

Anyway there will be no PS3 games to touch BF3. I've looked around in the last week and believe most games are crap in comparison

mozattack

KilOit wrote: »

Have you seen what a choppers gunner does to a tank? guess not.
also for jets look at what guided missiles can do

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaVoSlMQOPA

Far from disaster, just takes some good handling, can guarantee their will be whining on forums about them being to op on release when people get unlocks for them.

That looks amazing to be honest!

I hope the PS3 equivalent works. I do wonder though how it will pan out with only 24 in the game, (2 in planes, 2-3 in choppers, more in vehicles.. tis going to be lonely out there)

Mossay

I'd just like to chime in regarding the idea that people will complain about jets and helis being overpowered. First unlock for tanks (and all other ground vehicles) is Smoke which counters any guided missiles.

I'd like to think that the Recon's SOFLAM will also make Stinger rpgs have an expanded range as well as the guided missiles for land vehicles (remember the jeeps get lock-on missiles once leveled up, as do APCs and tanks).

Everyone probably realises this, but I'm gonna state it anyway just in case somebody decided not to buy Battlefield 3 from this video (nobody likes to think they'll have their asses kicked unfairly by overpowered game mechanics).- It's like those montage videos of people doing trick-shots with footballs, basketballs, etc. They'll only show the 10 times they were successful, but edit out the 100 unsuccessful attempts, condensing hours of mostly crap footage into a few minutes of seemingly pure skill.

In short, they didn't show the clips where the tanks deployed smoke and the jets deployed flares, negating any missile locks.

TheFairy

Console lads you just are not going to get the same experience as PC players. Its been the opposite way for a few years, so yes us PC players are basking in the sun that is DX11 on a decent high end rig!

TheFairy

TheFairy wrote: »

Console lads you just are not going to get the same experience as PC players. Its been the opposite way for a few years, so yes us PC players are basking in the sun that is DX11 on a decent high end rig!

All 10 of you.

Dcully

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

All 10 of you.

What a ridiculous post.
You obviously havent seen the thousands of servers each with 64 players on them, something you on your console can only dream about.

The gas thing is my sons PC is as old as when the ps3 and 360 arrived and still blows them out of the water, no issues playing on 64 player servers on an almost 5 year old rig,thought id add that bit in before you reply with the myth of having to upgrade PC very often.

Consoles do some things fine, ie footie games etc , dark souls in particular looks epic but something as huge as the 64 player maps of BF3 in directX 11 glory,high resolution,high texture quality - not a hope in hell.

but but but lets not start this tired old ****e again.

jakedixon2004

Dcully wrote: »

What a ridiculous post.
You obviously havent seen the thousands of servers each with 64 players on them, something you on your console can only dream about.

The gas thing is my sons PC is as old as when the ps3 and 360 arrived and still blows them out of the water, no issues playing on 64 player servers on an almost 5 year old rig,thought id add that bit in before you reply with the myth of having to upgrade PC very often.

Consoles do some things fine, ie footie games etc , dark souls in particular looks epic but something as huge as the 64 player maps of BF3 in directX 11 glory,high resolution,high texture quality - not a hope in hell.

but but but lets not start this tired old ****e again.

/thread

Well of course lots of people are going to play a FREE game, will they shell out the 50 quid for it is the real question.

Can a game survive without a large console presence? I'm sure it can, but it certainly won't have as big a budget next time if they manage to cut out the tens of millions of potential console buyers for lets say, 1 million (paying) pc gamers.

I have no problem with the PC maps being bigger etc, I'm willing to accept that the 2 main consoles have been out for 5 years at this stage and would struggle to come near the performance of a PC. But when CoD is running at 60 fps and looking great, I would find it hard to switch over to BF3 at 30fps (feels choppy as hell coming from CoD) which although is a demo, plays like a game that is a year away from being launched.

I bought BFBC2 and the Vietnam expansion and I enjoyed both of these. I even played the original battlefield quite a bit on PC. But that said, I felt that BFBC2 left a lot to be desired and I think they've taken the game in totally the wrong direction. Sure the jets/choppers will be fun as hell, but what won't be fun as hell is your whole team camping at the vehicle spawn so they aren't let on foot.

Perhaps a game like battlefield will never translate well, at least until the next generation of consoles. But when you see how gorgeous and smooth other games are on consoles you really have to think that Dice have really dropped the ball as far as console optimization goes.

Fnz

Dcully wrote: »

What a ridiculous post.

Post before it seems a pretty obnoxious, out-of-nowhere, dig at console players...

unless I'm missing a thread of conversation.

cherryghost

I'd much rather a Saleen S7 over a Nissan Almera :pac::pac:

TheFairy

Fnz wrote: »

Post before it seems a pretty obnoxious, out-of-nowhere, dig at console players...

unless I'm missing a thread of conversation.

No it was pointing out that consoles are not powerful enough to do large maps with a large number of flags on Frostbite2. And yes I'm not ashamed to say that I'm enjoying using a more powerful platform and having dev's treat that platform the way I feel it should be treated.

Also I think I need to add that 12 people per team on console is an absolute BORE with 50% of play spent running around like a spanner looking for people to kill.

yimrsg

The car analogy doesn't sit right, classic cars are often more revered than the newer models, it's more the confirmation that this current generation of consoles has reached or is nearing the end of their cycle. Whilst it's always been the case the pc has a clear edge graphically and with dedicated servers allowing for many more players, I feel that listening to my friends who've played on the pc that their experience amounts to a totally different game from what I experienced on a console. Maybe I reading it wrong but I'd be interested in seeing how the two versions compare looking solely at game play aspects to one another once realised.

MayoForSam

I'll probably end up buying both the PC and 360 versions, up until recently I had focused on playing BFBC2 on the Xbox. We'll see if the extra features on the PC can outweigh the better social MP experience (to date) on the console.

Dcully

the better social MP experience (to date) on the console.

Must disagree sorry mate, 15-20 people on teamspeak,ventrilo,mumble etc [vastly superior sound quality than any voice comms on consoles] playing as a team with or against eachother, pretty hard to beat that social MP experience imo.
Regular occurance with most PC based clans and guilds.

battser

There is no argument between xbox, ps3 and PC. I got my new pc specifically for BF cause having played BC2 on the xbox I felt it was just such a let down playing 12v12. Even 16v16 is a big difference.

Apparently rush on caspian border is class! cant wait for it.

Fnz

TheFairy wrote: »

No it was pointing out that consoles are not powerful enough to do large maps with a large number of flags on Frostbite2.

Oh, I thought it was well known, since the earliest Battlefied 3 publicity, that PC was lead platform... and that the console experience would be, somewhat, degraded due to old tech.

mozattack

Geez I am fair bored of PC nerds boasting about their great PC and how great it will be in playing BF3 on 64 player servers meaning us console goofs will be wallowing in sadness.

I just don’t see it that way.

I do fear that Caspian Border could be Heavy Metal Part II and too barren for PS3 but the reality is that the maps are going to be bigger on PC meaning they should be a similar density of action. Also from what I know there won’t be many or all 64 player maps so why be so fixated about the one or two that will be 64 players. From what I know about 64 player maps the gameplay can actually suffer and it isn’t all it is cracked up to be so I am not losing sleep over it.

Those who say the PS3 is behind the times should note that the longer the consoles are out the more that developers get from them… PS3 is probably getting closed to being maxed out for performance at this stage or sooner but in the first few years the games were nowhere near as good as they look now – despite it being the same hardware.

Going to be some game all platforms so why can’t it be left at that – I guess there are some who like to quote fancy PC add ons such as having a ‘XGSS Card IV’ or ’35 RAM Giga Watt Nerdfest 76 Alpha Drive’ etc… don’t miss that being a PS3 gamer…!

Dcully

From what I know about 64 player maps the gameplay can actually suffer and it isn’t all it is cracked up to be

From what you know?Do elaborate.

So because we play on PC we are nerds but console gamers are not? :rolleyes:

The facts are exactly that, facts! console horsepower is seriously limited now,fine for games that dont have expansive maps,terrain etc but not for something like BF3, thats is all people are saying on this thread, why such hostility towards the truth?
Are you in denial?

I guess there are some who like to quote fancy PC add ons such as having a ‘XGSS Card IV’ or ’35 RAM Giga Watt Nerdfest 76 Alpha Drive’ etc…

Did you ever stop to think the quoting is simply explaining the difference in raw power, maybe you should educate yourself more on the issue instead of calling people with decent hardware names.
The simple fact remains consoles have X amount of performance, my 5 year old PC is easily 4-5 times that performance, my new PC even more so.
That doesnt make me or anyone else superior or indeed nerds, its simply we enjoy the experience.

Not everyone that quotes their PC spec is a nerd or boasting as you seem to think, most of us own consoles also, i mean FFS i plan on picking up dark souls on 360 as soon as i complete some unfinished games on pc, i regularly play footie on my 360.

TheFairy

Dcully wrote: »

...i regularly play footie on my 360.

Personally I'd like to play footie "with" my 360!

Mossay

Ive said it before and I'll say it again, Voodoo 3 16mb ftw. Put two of those bad boys in SLI and prepare for a visual feast of up to* 60fps

Fnz

Mossay wrote: »

Ive said it before and I'll say it again, Voodoo 3 16mb ftw. Put two of those bad boys in SLI and prepare for a visual feast of up to* 60fps

My experience varied!

Magill

LOL @ the PC vs Console debate again with the same old face stuck in the middle giving it all :P

As for my impressions on the beta... Played a few hours on the PS3 version, bit underwhelmed overall but i think that is mostly because of the map. Really silly map to have for a BF beta, the BF games have always been about large scale battles, not 3 CoD sized maps with more choke points than a CS map.

The games graphics are really disappointing, compared to KZ it looks like ****.. can't really say that the consoles don't have enough power when other studios push out far better looking games on the same systems... just a lack of effort on the console versions, seemed to just compress it until it ran at a reasonable frame rate... which is a shame since the consoles are where the majority of games sales will come from.

As for the bugs etc.. i've no doubt most will be fixed for release, not entirely sure how much they can reduce the screentearing tho with such a short amount of time... hopefully they can get it to a minimal.

Overall... nothing to shout home about BUT im optimistic that the larger maps with vechicles will bring back some old school battlefield. Either way, plently of promising online shooters coming out in the next 3-6 months so won't be bored in the few hours i get to play some games anyway !

Oh... and the flash light is ****ing stupid.. needs removed or nerf'd.

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

Magill wrote: »

LOL @ the PC vs Console debate again with the same old face stuck in the middle giving it all :P

As for my impressions on the beta... Played a few hours on the PS3 version, bit underwhelmed overall but i think that is mostly because of the map. Really silly map to have for a BF beta, the BF games have always been about large scale battles, not 3 CoD sized maps with more choke points than a CS map.

The games graphics are really disappointing, compared to KZ it looks like ****.. can't really say that the consoles don't have enough power when other studios push out far better looking games on the same systems... just a lack of effort on the console versions, seemed to just compress it until it ran at a reasonable frame rate... which is a shame since the consoles are where the majority of games sales will come from.

As for the bugs etc.. i've no doubt most will be fixed for release, not entirely sure how much they can reduce the screentearing tho with such a short amount of time... hopefully they can get it to a minimal.

Overall... nothing to shout home about BUT im optimistic that the larger maps with vechicles will bring back some old school battlefield. Either way, plently of promising online shooters coming out in the next 3-6 months so won't be bored in the few hours i get to play some games anyway !

Oh... and the flash light is ****ing stupid.. needs removed or nerf'd.

This isn't a debate thread I put up. I only put this up because when I was playing the BETA there was hardly any people playing the game and I was just wondering what happened (PS3):
-The map was alright, it wasn't a good choice but it was alright.
-The amount of bugs on Operation Metró was awful, if your were in area one and attacking/defending M-Com A, you would always glitch into the ground and couldn't get up.
-Flashlight, PEQ box, knife system etc..., I think they are great feature especially how your able to turn them off.

Korvanica

I really have NO clue how some people still don't know that the beta was running old code... Its been mentioned so many times in so many threads... yet people still say things like "I dont think they have time to fix it, blah blah blah"...

It is disturbing..

I loved the beta. Really like the feel of the weapons but the kick on some of the assault rifles took ages to get used to.. Support class is great fun - especially with extended mags ... (I was one of those bastards at the end of B hallway on the 2nd last set of MCOMMS ...)

My PC wouldn't run Caspian properly even on lowest settings (20fps) .. so ill be on Xbox until I upgrade... Then switching between both probably...

Dcully

LOL @ the PC vs Console debate again with the same old face stuck in the middle giving it all

and who might that be?
Might have known you would show your nose when someone said boo about a console lol.

Dcully

TheFairy wrote: »

Personally I'd like to play footie "with" my 360!

My PS3 is now a footrest,not really sure if its up to the task anymore its so fecking ancient