EPTBattlefield 3 - Page 63
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
DragoonPK
3259 Posts
| ||
|
askTeivospy
1525 Posts
On August 19 2011 09:36 Belisarius wrote: But that's the whole damn point. "It's only a minor step back, at least we still have a server browser... even if it's in a browser." Well yes. But if the game went back to having 4 polys per character, "consider yourself lucky. You remember when pong was the cutting edge of graphic design"? This is a retarded, frustrating decision. The game still looks sexy as hell, I'll still preorder it, but... come on... can just one company, just one, make a game with new features that doesn't randomly throw away some fundamental necessity we've had since the stone ages? Surely it can't be that hard. This particular one is going to be EA putting weight on Origin, rather than DICE directly, but still... Frustrating ? who the hell cares how you join the game, i'd rather be concerned about the actual gameplay which is what me and several other friends are excited about. We don't care about something so minor as a server browser. Personally I see benefits to actually having it browser based since I don't have to load up the game to check the server's status I figure you're one of those internet people that look for something to complain about though | ||
|
skp
Canada134 Posts
On August 19 2011 10:09 askTeivospy wrote: Frustrating ? who the hell cares how you join the game, i'd rather be concerned about the actual gameplay which is what me and several other friends are excited about. We don't care about something so minor as a server browser. Personally I see benefits to actually having it browser based since I don't have to load up the game to check the server's status I figure you're one of those internet people that look for something to complain about though A lot of people car about the server browser. Do you remember BF2? The game was fantastic but the server browser was terrible. You can say that a positive is that you don't have to load up the game to check the server's status, but then what if you want to change servers? It's even more tedious. Now everything I've said would be entirely useless IF they made the game launch much quicker and the server browser isn't absolutely unresponsive. I'd appreciate it if any of the alpha testers could share their experiences about this. | ||
|
Rybka
United States836 Posts
On August 19 2011 09:36 Belisarius wrote: But that's the whole damn point. "It's only a minor step back, at least we still have a server browser... even if it's in a browser." Well yes. But if the game went back to having 4 polys per character, "consider yourself lucky. You remember when pong was the cutting edge of graphic design"? This is a retarded, frustrating decision. The game still looks sexy as hell, I'll still preorder it, but... come on... can just one company, just one, make a game with new features that doesn't randomly throw away some fundamental necessity we've had since the stone ages? Surely it can't be that hard. This particular one is going to be EA putting weight on Origin, rather than DICE directly, but still... You're right.  | ||
|
RoosterSamurai
Japan2108 Posts
On August 19 2011 09:47 DragoonPK wrote: Would a 540M on a 720p resolution be able to run this at any setting? I'm actually interested to know the answer to this question, if anyone knows. | ||
|
xHassassin
United States270 Posts
On August 19 2011 09:47 DragoonPK wrote: Would a 540M on a 720p resolution be able to run this at any setting? Yes. Also it was just announced that BF3 would have no in game server browser. Also there's going to be like 7 expansion packs? Seriously? DICE doesnt seem to give a fuck on who they piss off now, there's too much of a fanbase already. | ||
|
Belisarius
Australia6233 Posts
On August 19 2011 10:16 skp wrote: A lot of people car about the server browser. Do you remember BF2? The game was fantastic but the server browser was terrible. You can say that a positive is that you don't have to load up the game to check the server's status, but then what if you want to change servers? It's even more tedious. Now everything I've said would be entirely useless IF they made the game launch much quicker and the server browser isn't absolutely unresponsive. I'd appreciate it if any of the alpha testers could share their experiences about this. Thank you, I agree. Teivospy, a game can have the best gameplay and balance in the world, and it won't matter at all if it takes half an hour of dropping in and out of nonexistent servers through a buggy interface to experience that. Now, I don't know for sure that that's the case here. Maybe this actually works better. If it does I'll happily be proven wrong. But what I do know is that it would take a miracle for a system which loads a huge, beautiful engine into and out of memory every time the server is changed to be better than the in-game browsers we've had since quake 2. Bottom line, change for the sake of change is bad, especially when it's for reasons other than the players' enjoyment. The archetypal example was MW2's P2P; Activision pushed a different hosting model because they thought it would make piracy harder, not because it actually improved the experience. We all know how that turned out. If that makes me "one of those internet people that look for something to complain about" then so be it. | ||
|
Penecks
United States600 Posts
Now I'm not saying having an actual server list in the game IN ADDITION to the browser component wouldn't be the best choice, but it seems EA is bent on this interface, however, I wouldn't take up the pitchforks until you've tried it. | ||
|
Belisarius
Australia6233 Posts
On August 19 2011 12:37 Penecks wrote: I played in the alpha, and like many of you I was skeptical of the internet browser server list. But trust me it is actually incredibly fast. Basically the game starts directly into the map loading screen, which is minimized. The first time I joined a server I thought: Hmm... so does this button start the game or what... do I have to- oh hey there it is. And I clicked on the BF3 icon on my taskbar and the game was loaded, no slow downs, no alt-tabbing bugs (cough cough Valve games), it was ready to play just like that. Now I'm not saying having an actual server list in the game IN ADDITION to the browser component wouldn't be the best choice, but it seems EA is bent on this interface, however, I wouldn't take up the pitchforks until you've tried it. Fair enough, thanks. So does it keep the whole thing in memory to pull that off, or what? | ||
|
Penecks
United States600 Posts
On August 19 2011 12:44 Belisarius wrote: Fair enough, thanks. So does it keep the whole thing in memory to pull that off, or what? I don't remember, I know that it installs something that it probably runs when you actually start the game from EA's Origin, which I'm guessing hooks to your browser, that then points you to the Battlelog page where you can access all of the game's multiplayer functions. I can't say I noticed any unusual resource hogging, though I probably have a slightly above average gaming rig (965BE @3.8ghz, 6950, 6GB DDR3). | ||
|
Grettin
42416 Posts
@Demize99 so if we want to change servers we gotta close the game down, then load it all back again? @Cirap In BC2 if you wanted to change servers, you had to quit the round and then load another map. This is no different at all. demize: Battlelog IS the PC main menu. You go straight from Battlelog to playing. No splash screens, no menus. Just straight to the playing. | ||
|
Grettin
42416 Posts
AUG 18TH GAMESCOM DAY 2 RECAP As the nightclubs begin to open in Cologne, Gamescom is over for the day and once again we got to learn a few new details. The day kicked off with the first Live Chat with the Battlefield 3 team. DICE representatives Daniel Matros and Gustav Halling took a few questions from the community. Most importantly they confirmed: - Stationary Carrier on Wake Island - Deployable 60mm Mortars - Hardcore/Softcore Gamemodes at Launch - No LAN Support at launch - Jets are a spawn point in CQ - Working at DICE makes it hard to have a Girlfriend Then Alan Kertz aka Demize99 gave some clarification on the new 3D Spotting system. The Community will be happy to hear that the 3D spotting has been nerfed and will no longer stay on infantry when not visible, but will remain on vehicles. Here is the full explanation: “So, a soldier in direct Line of Sight that is spotted will have a 3d red marker. If he moves behind cover or concealment, including vegetation, the 3d red marker will disappear. He will always be on the minimap. Vehicles are always fully 3D spotted, and LOS does not apply since they are larger more important targets with less threats (and it plain did not work to have jets flying around who couldn’t see the tank you spotted for him to take out). This lets you essentially “nudge” your buddy to tell him about a target, or point out a sniper on a hill you see but cannot engage (with your shotgun for example). But it prevents players from using 3D spotting as a wall hack. Additionally, the primary motivator for the change is that 3D spots that you cannot see are not threats. We noticed that players would focus on 3D spots over everything else, meaning they would ignore people in line of sight. It’s far less confusing when the 3D spot on a soldier can only be seen if you can see the soldier.” Finally, our friends from CtrlAltElite hosted a stream live from the Battlefield 3 Community Lounge. Despite there not being any gameplay footage shown, it was a good chance to see the real side of a lot of the team at DICE. The new razer products were shown as well. For those who missed the stream, you can view it here | ||
|
Pinkie
United States145 Posts
| ||
|
Grettin
42416 Posts
In the past few Days a lot of new Information surfaced through the Q/A Livestreams. DICE representatives Daniel Matros and Gustav Halling took a few questions from the Community and answered them on the Livestream. We compiled a list with every bit they confirmed in the Q/A Sessions at Gamescom 2011. Most importantly they confirmed: -they are working toward commo rose on consoles, probably not available at launch -unlimited sprint like in bc2, you can also strafe -9 MP maps confirmed “for now” (Operation Metro, Caspian Border) -dog tag customization available after you reach a certain level -limited number of rockets on planes, need to resupply at runway -hardcore mode and infantry only mode available -kill cam in normal gamemode -jets are a spawn point in Conquest -jets can fly really high in BF3, but you’ll lose controls the higher you go (1000m, like in BF2) -deployable 60mm Mortars -conquest flags will have a name and a letter -multiplayer fact sheet only confirms everything shown to this date, AND IS NOT FINAL -no LAN for BF3 at release, probably never (ANTI-CHEAT Measure) -A-10 is available in Multiplayer -AH-6J Littlebird is available in Multiplayer -no automatic hovering for the helicopters, feels more like BF2 -stationary Carrier on Wake Island -Working at DICE makes it hard to have a Girlfriend Our friends at BF-Games.net compiled a nice list of everything that got revealed at the Q/A Sessions with the Battlefield Community at Gamescom 2011. -Punkbustersupport including PB Screenshots -Close cooperation with Even Balance (Punkbuster) -Squad Menu in the GamesCom version is not final yet -Team Deathmatch is coming for all 9 announced maps -Max. 12 vs 12 in TDM -Same classes and customization in TDM as in the other modes -Functional ingamemenu with scoreboard, squadmenu, suicide, options etc. -24 player maps for console are scaled -No dynamically alligned map size based on the numbers of players -No public server files, reason is DICE’ anticheat strategy -Ingame messages to buddies in the friend list -No new info about the batterecorder question yet -Remaining tickets will be shown after end of round in the final game -Autobalance similiar to the one in BC2 -No new info about pre-order yet -There is no final decision about origin and the number of soldiers yet -Splitscreen on console is not possible due to the hardware limits on console http://battlefieldo.com/bf3-gamescom-qa-sessions-summary/ | ||
|
Keitzer
United States2509 Posts
whoah... i'd like to actually see the game now people afaik are flipping the fuck out over this "ahhh, out-of-game server"... but if like it says, the "out-of-game" server IS actually the game, then what are you complaining about? Most importantly they confirmed: -Working at DICE makes it hard to have a Girlfriend LOL | ||
|
askTeivospy
1525 Posts
The info on 3d spotting looks really good, especially with the commorose coming. I can't wait :D :D :D | ||
|
RoosterSamurai
Japan2108 Posts
Deployable mortar? That actually sounds really sick. I like the idea. | ||
|
Shockk
Germany2269 Posts
On August 19 2011 11:52 xHassassin wrote: Yes. Also it was just announced that BF3 would have no in game server browser. Also there's going to be like 7 expansion packs? Seriously? DICE doesnt seem to give a fuck on who they piss off now, there's too much of a fanbase already. Source for this? Also, what kind of expansion packs - useless skins like the packs for BC2, or maps with actual (relevant) content? | ||
|
Aduromors
United States279 Posts
BC2 was constantly updated with free map packs though, hope that's the case for BF3 as well | ||
|
RaLakedaimon
United States1564 Posts
| ||
| ||
)
