Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
BF3: My view from Alpha/Beta
StarSyth
Member UncommonPosts: 50
Hello Gentlemen and Gentleladies
I've been playing the beta on and off since early access and I've come to the conclusion that BF3 is confused as to what exactly its supposed to be, it covers so many different elements but feels like it falls short of the mark, let me explain.
Is it a competitive team shooter/esport?
Short Ans: No
While it has an array of decent weapons and tactical elements it lacks any real co-ordination or benefits for team-play. A lot of the time you can achieve more diving in solo than you can working as a team. While it's true you can achieve strategic objectives easier with a small team/squad of friends the game doesn't reward people for doing so and at present its too much hassle to get a squad of your friends in the game let alone squad.
Solo stomping ground?
Short Ans: No
While a single individual can outperform an entire server in score he cannot win a game alone, force multiplier combined with multiple strategic objectives that require to be taken and held at the same time requires more than a single player. So the game isn't squad orientated or for the single pro gamer to stomp around in either.
So it's a team game?
Short Ans: No
While the objective of the game is to achieve objectives as a team nothing in the game helps you to do this, no squad/team management combined with a lack of mass communication and a lack of command structure means that squads are headless chickens all running around with their own agenda based entirely on the hive mind of the individual squad members. I disliked the commander function in BF2 as a 1942 vet however with serious flaws in the game level design and structure or the game itself it now requires a commander, I see that as the only quick solution to the game.
So it's not just a BF1942 reskin?
Short Ans: No
And disappointingly so,
BF1942 had BIG maps, the frontlines where clearly defined and squads didn't even exist, or need to for that matter. Same goes for the commander, it wasn't required. The strategic objectives in BF1942 where enough to keep people fighting in hotspots and multiple would crop up across the map, the travel time and how best to get around it was a strategic element missing from modern version of the game. There is little point in setting up defensive lines in BF3 as it has the same flaws as the BFBC series in that ground is instantaneously regained with the spawn features, 1 enemy breaking behind enemy lines is a whole squad and when that is 1/4 of the entire enemy team its game breaking.
Respawning into instant action, it's a Deathmatch style shooter then?
Short Ans: No
While it has the instant action found in Deathmatch style games, its bogged down with random realism effects and some of which are just irritating. An example is soldier fitness, panting out of breath and aiming shake etc. On the one hand you can sprint across and entire map yet on the other you can only hold your breath while aiming a rifle for 2 seconds before panting like some fat smoker. You can vault over any obstacle waist high but can't climb over anything higher.
Realism you say, so it's a combat simulator?
Short Ans: No
It tries to combine realism with so many other game elements the realism part is lost. It would be nice to be able to fully customize your load out with all the fine details such as sights, scopes, clothes, different grenades and even apply that to vehicles but the RPG element requires you to start with a upgradeless version of each unlocked weapon and level it up, the progression of which means higher unlocked weapons are better than lower unlocked alternatives and so variety and customization is actually removed as you only really have one choice and that's the newest weapon available.
The realism itself also gets in the way of this game being a competitive game for me at least, take if you will sniping. In this game over a game like counter-strike there are so many external factors implemented onto your shot that it becomes less about your skill at aiming and positioning and more about who is lucky enough to fire first. A machine gunner at 700 yards should not be able to outshoot a sniper, it seems everyone has lens flare with a scope despite where the sun is or even if they are underground. I understand this may be a balancing implementation but it's not realistic.
Vehicles feel like plastic toys, we have less control over them than ever before, now it's just point and shoot. With all these graphics I would of liked to see parts of the interior and getting in and out of the vehicle. Even without the aesthetics I would of liked the vehicle combat to be.... well.... vehicle combat. it seems like vehicles are just extras pointless to the main game which is troop based. I was expecting a more engaging experience such as a better made version of World of Tanks combined with sea and air units.
As for air units, they too seem pointless. If nothing more than a nascence, I partly agree a war can't be won with air power alone, the thing I'm disappointed about is the maps are not big enough for air (and ground counter-part) transports. It's one of the aspects I miss from 1942 as well as Desert Combat (1942 modern warfare mod). I miss the collative force getting together in a transport convoy and heading to an objective, scouts and spotters then relaying the incoming forces and counter-forces being rallied to defend strategic objectives.
To wrap this section up, in bf1942 you had a whole navy of ships, waves of bombers and fighters, EVEN SUBMARINES! all controllable. Strategic objectives only boats and aircraft could capture, some only troops could capture. The fights where dictated by the style in which the players used the tools given to them. It truly was a sandbox combat simulator. Today's BF3 is nothing in comparison.
BF3 a massive disappointment and we should all get out money back?
Short ans: No
While it's not the game I would of liked it to be it will have redeeming elements, such as co-op campaigns as well as more combat emersion than its rival titles. Is it going to be the game that clans flood to and last 10 years? No, I don't think so, speaking as a clan gamer myself who plays an array of different genre of clan-able games I do not see BF3 being something I would want to play competitively in a clan, I'll be sticking to MOBA games for my clan/team play kicks.
Feel free to debate anything I've stated above or add anything you think I've missed.
StarSyth
Comments
Without playing the whole game i'll try to reserve judgement. One point i'll go with is that of the air units as all it takes is for me to switch to Engi & stinger, 2 easy shots take em down unless they're too high up and if they are to high they are too high to be causing problems for my team anyway. I'd hoped for more from the bigger maps but Caspian only seems to offer threats from snipers or ambushers near spawns or objectives, very little tactics are needed in between.
that's a lot of "no's"
. I will wait until the full release to comment on this one...
Greets
For the latest articles/news visit my blog: ==> http://linus41.blogspot.com/ <==
thanks for the replies, A lot of what I've listed here is just the setup of the game itself and thats nothing that will be changed in the final release. To do so would require a compleate game re-work.
I'm not saying it will be a bad game, just not as good as it could be. Lets hope they get it right next time.
You have a point...
For the latest articles/news visit my blog: ==> http://linus41.blogspot.com/ <==
Having played both conquest and rush mode I have to say I'm quite underwhelmed with Battlefield 3. I'm 100% positive I won't be buying - at least at its release (if it was like $19.99 I'd reconsider).
My biggest gripe - as you focused on - is the lack of teamplay. It's quite sad that with 64 players on a server it feels as if I'm playing with bots. Sure, there might be squads to join.. but all they are is extra spawn points for your teammates and then they'll run off and do their own thing. Maybe if/when they add mics/comm-rose it will be different.. but I dunno.. in Battlefield 1942 there were neither squads nor mics and people still cooperated and played together.
Plus there's just something about it that doesn't play well. Too much stuff going on - clutter on your screen, a lot of audio noise, too many explosions. It's like I always feel as if I'm part of the action.. which doesn't mean the game sucks.. but I've always prefered Battlefield when it's laid back and the action is around key points (i.e. not the whole map). It's like I'm playing a twitch shooter on a much larger scale (if that makes sense).
Currently Playing:
Nothing.
I have not played the open beta but I do have some feedback about this from BF2 and to a lesser degree, BF2142.
There was a point that the airpower became too dominating of a game, esp. BF2. There was not much static anti-aircraft (AA) defenses can do, because they were usually arty'ed real quick or a pilot specifically targetting known static AA. as soon as they fired (easy target, being stationary AA defenses). BF2 had no manportable air defense systems (MANPADS) such as the American Stingers. BF2142 tried to implement a similiar system but was very poorly underpowered, inaccurate, and had terrible range (I really, really tried to make it work, but it was useless).
IMO, low altitude flying should be dangerous for aircraft, because realistically that's where alot of threats were (20mm/23mm AAA, MANPADS, etc.). Not to mention the terrain itself, especially for a panicked helo pilot flying low. Fixed wing stuff jets can avoid the problem by hitting hard, hitting fast, and get the hell out of there. There's reasons why you don't see jets loiter around for people to see on the ground. Too much danger. At higher altitudes, they'd then contend with SAMs or enemy aircraft.
If there's combat between forces that are at least decently armed, there will be threats for low-altitude aircraft. Hell, the US gave the Mujahadeen Stingers for the Afghan War to be used against the Soviets, and they caused alot of problems for the Russians who used helicopters with impunity before.
"I have only two out of my company and 20 out of some other company. We need support, but it is almost suicide to try to get it here as we are swept by machine gun fire and a constant barrage is on us. I have no one on my left and only a few on my right. I will hold." (First Lieutenant Clifton B. Cates, US Marine Corps, Soissons, 19 July 1918)
You see you are playing a very old version of the game, not all weapons/gadgets are working/available and things like squads and parties are not implemented correctly just now.
Before making any conclusions at all about BF3 so far you need to remember what is in the game that you aren't seeing yet and a lot of people are forgetting this.
reflective of my initial post, a great deal of what I've stated is nothing to do with beta bugs and more to do with the games setup and structure. These are things that are not going to change (as fundementally that would basically be a full re-write of the game).
The games too far in development to change. While falling through the map and having things not working here all fixable bugs in the beta (actually already fixed in the launch version) This game just isnt a Battlefield, its more of a mash of other games and it comes across as a confused mess.
I'm sorry but a lot of your complaining is regarding team and squads, specifically, and since these are not actually implemented at all in the current beta you are in no situation to comment on it as if it is fact for the retail. I mean engineers don't even get to be used properly on the current map just because there are no vehicles. How the hell do you know if they are going to be very team orientated or not without even having full use of the class?
Not to mention a lot of your points are just plain wrong, you do get points for giving out squad orders and completing them and such, for example. It just doesn't work very well at the moment since it's beta and not every squad gets a squad leader etc..
I find also this section interesting...
'While it has the instant action found in Deathmatch style games, its bogged down with random realism effects and some of which are just irritating. An example is soldier fitness, panting out of breath and aiming shake etc. On the one hand you can sprint across and entire map yet on the other you can only hold your breath while aiming a rifle for 2 seconds before panting like some fat smoker. You can vault over any obstacle waist high but can't climb over anything higher.'
You complain that the realism gets in the way of the instant action feeling? That is a different game, it's called Black Ops. Also, you are allowed to have some things more realistic than others you know, you're allowed to do stuff like sprint for enternity but not parkour over terrain, it's called balance.
At the end of the day it's a beta. Beta trials can often not be reflective of the retail game, especially if they are simply gathering data and stress testing back-end systems which is exactly what DICE are doing. I think half the problem with this is that people don't actually get what a beta is and forget they are missing some of the most important aspects of the game and think this is what it's gonna be like retail.
Really, it's beta. Understand what you do not have before making any assumptions or conclusions. Disregarding these things can make the best fps title ever seem trash when you remove the one or two key features that bring the game together. Now I'm not saying BF3 is perfect or that it will be the best fps ever but you need to at least take a look at what they haven't included yet when talking about this stuff.
I will be buying BF3, Im loving the 2 maps we have to play, The 64player map is so much fun.
How can you say there is no team work? We have medics and support to heal and fill us with amo. Graphics are amazing and it will be a great gap giller before SWTOR.
teamwork will work when you're playing in a party with people you know... Not when you're jsut playing on your own. It's a total chaos then.
For the latest articles/news visit my blog: ==> http://linus41.blogspot.com/ <==
I am waiting for a serious modernized version of BF42. There is a lot that could be done now a days. Slightly more realistic, more maps, maybe even extend the era to pre-war conflicts. I would enjoy more styles of gameplay, like maps or servers that focus on infantry, armor, air, and naval. Something the original didn't take the time to really tap into.
I know I wont see anything like that, any time soon. I just really miss playing bf42, I easily played it the most out of any game I have ever owned.
Sent me an email if you want me to mail you some pizza rolls.
Currently Playing:
Nothing.
Currently Playing:
Nothing.
Problem is you are comparing Beta to the actual game. I played BFBC2 beta and bought it when it released and it was a completely different game. So you can mention all of this but it's going to be completely different with the actual release.
i'm sorry but I dont feel your counter-argument is justifiable and is more a rush to defend than a constructive counter-claim.
Let me let you in on a bit about myself, I'm a graphic designer who has been working on alpha and beta testing for going on 8 years. I'm well versed in what is expected of an alpha/beta and the timescales involved.
I was part of the alpha and the client released for the beta was virtually the same (altered level caps and tweaks but essentially the same). The issues I'm pointing out are not bugs, glitches or faults but are design elements themselves.
The issues in question are working the way the game designers intended for them to work, my issue is the style in which the game combines all these elements is like a mash of diffrent games and genres that dosnt work for myself.
I love realism simulators, I also love RTS and have a number of MMORPG games I play. I too also play MOBA games and love competition. However the elements that are mashed together in BF3 clash in a negative way for me, thats not a bug thats the game itself.
Lack of teamplay in a teamplay game - yes it has elements of teamplay but not to the extent needed.
Solo roaming stomper - I dislike these kinds of games, prefering team games. I'm not a massive CoD fan for this reason, and BF3 copies alot of the gameplay style which isnt traditional BF series gameplay.
End of the day, Yes for the 100th time its ONLY A BETA. The thing is, the issues I have are with the game design itself and that cant be fixed.
Yeah I do, I done it in metro on more than one occasion. Got points for the squad attack around the MCOM's after pressing Q over the point a few times. Similar to the way it works in BC2. A lot of the times (Most) your squad doesn't actually get a squad leader, no idea why....
this is getting alittle side tracked also, my point in my original post wasnt that it didnt have elements of a team play game present, more that it had elements of a great deal of diffrent game styles mashed together but not really pulling any of them off well.
Also, you do get squad leaders. At least on Casipans boarder as I was promoted multiple times during play to squad leader. How it happend I'd only be guessing, may have to do with top scorer.
the TLDR of this thread; EA tried to compeate with everything, put too many eggs into one basket which clashes in gameplay and makes for a less than expected experiance for anyone that picks it up. Rather than tick one box and make that group happy the devs have tried to comprimise too much trying to reach a wider market potential.
It is worth getting, because if you did buy it you would always have it on you incase you feel like playing it. Also when you do get bored of it you can normally sell it 2nd hand for 1/3rd of the price you bought it for. And also if you rented in the end if you like it you would be renting it over and over again and costing you more than it would to buy.
Wasn't ever planning on buying anyway, but interesting to read this thread. I would love a game where people actually played as tight squads or strategized.. But outside of a couple of guys I normally play FPS games with, it very rarely happens.. Its like every month that goes by , logging on a FPS gets to be a worse and worse experience for me. I've pretty much given up at this point..
Sure it's fun for a while to run and gun solo, or you might find one other guy who wants to stick together but its normally because he is terrible as a player..
Then on the opposite side of the coin you have HORRIBLE games like americas army, where everyone wants to be super realistic and play as a squad, which is great..
If only you could get BF3 players to play like ARMA / AA players we would be set! lol
Played the Open Beta and was pretty disappointed with the Rush version they made available to us. I know "it was beta" and "an old release", but I was hoping to see more teamplay and a little less prone wars.
The further beta progressed the more hackers there were ruining the expereince. I hope they were able to get the testing needed from the playerbase and took notice of the hackers being reported. People mention PB will be the saving grace, but anyone who has played FPSs knows PB doesn't do too much to deter someone intent on hacking.
I MAY break down and buy the game just to see how the combat with vehicles works out (I missed the Caspian Border events) or most likely just keep an eye out for a trial for PC or PS3.
Damned cheaters have to ruin everything. Grow a sack and play legit like the rest of us. /rant
So it still has a lot of the issues that plagued Bad Company 2?
Played on PS3.
Anyone who reads this should read the dev releases about the game. Many things the OP says are not in the game ARE in the game. Specificly team based objectives and working together as a squad. During the Beta it was hard to get with the people I play with but when we did get in the same squad we destroyed people.
They set up the "classes" to have direct synergy with the other classes if you play them right and think a little outside the box sometimes.
Also as always you DO get points for helping squad mates and acheiving objectives.
I can tell you it matters...
There are a few other points he is not completely accurate about but some of his impressions are right on. Not going to pick a fight he gave an honest opinion but is a little misinformed about the actual release.
If you like FPS team combat and play with some friends then you will have a blast. If you are more of a solo player then I would try it out first.
Kings and Sons of God
Travel on their way from here
Calming restless mobs
Easing all of their, all of their fear
Strange times are here.
I did play on the PS3 but a coworker played the PC version and complained of hacks also. He is not a whinner in general so I do believe his asessment.
Kings and Sons of God
Travel on their way from here
Calming restless mobs
Easing all of their, all of their fear
Strange times are here.
The only main fps I have played is indeed the COD series. The beta helped me decide whether to get bf3, so that was a great help. What I would say is, bf3 is not like COD, it's a whole different gameplay experience. You have to work as a team more, and be more tactical. I think that bf3 will be a good game, so I think you should buy it, but remember, it may not be like COD.