Battlefield thread...

[Vargras]

 

Anyone able to back this up?

 

That just seems bizarre. Why remove games from Steam/make them Origin only, only to release them on Steam a few months later?

[MasterDex]

I guess so EA get the biggest slice of the pie on release. Keeping Valve from getting their fingers into it at the beginning should mean EA get a bigger chunk of the sales while Steam and other services get what's left.

[Vargras]

I guess so EA get the biggest slice of the pie on release. Keeping Valve from getting their fingers into it at the beginning should mean EA get a bigger chunk of the sales while Steam and other services get what's left.

 

That just seems stupid. If people don't like Origin, they're not gonna wait for it to come out on Steam - they're just gonna get retail copies instead.

[Thursday Next]

If it plays like a Battlefield game and not Modern Warfare with vehicles, I'll be buying it for PC. That's also assuming I can somehow circumvent Origin. Which is complete fucking garbage.

 

As of right now, you can't circumvent it (and it's an absolute clusterfuck as to how to launch it).

 

You click the game in Origin, and on most other platforms, it would just launch right away, right?

 

Wrong. On Origin, clicking BF3 instead takes you to the Battlelog, which is basically a stat tracking website. From there, you then click to join multiplayer, and once it finds an open game, THEN you can launch BF3. That better not make it into the full game, because that's a horrendous way to launch a game.

 

I'm pretty sure you can just got to Battlelog and launch from there. No need to go through Origin.

[deanb]

Well I think part of Vagras point is that you also go through Battlelog. Which is a clusterfuck of a way to do it.

 

And as far as I can tell you still need to go through Origin. I added the game as Non-Steam game, clicking it launches Origin, then BF3, then opens my browser. Nothing shows up in Steam to indicate I'm playing anything. First game I've seen that refuses to run as "non-Steam game" and I've added stuff like photoshop too. It may be an unintended side effect of how they have you launch the game, but it is a mite suspicious that it some how avoids showing up on Steam at all.

[MasterDex]

I guess so EA get the biggest slice of the pie on release. Keeping Valve from getting their fingers into it at the beginning should mean EA get a bigger chunk of the sales while Steam and other services get what's left.

 

That just seems stupid. If people don't like Origin, they're not gonna wait for it to come out on Steam - they're just gonna get retail copies instead.

 

I agree, it is stupid. This whole thing with Origin is stupid. Props to EA for stepping up to the plate with Origin but seriously, it's not needed and it's not wanted and it's just going to ultimately cause confusion among customers.

[Thursday Next]

Battlelog is here to stay. It's got a few advantages over launching a client up front.

 

Firstly, you can just have a battlelog tab open and see if any of your friends are online rather than having to boot the game and see who is playing (yes Steam does this too, but BF3's not *on* Steam yet <-- Not a confirmation or denial of Steam support).

 

Secondly, you can manage your favourite servers, view your stats, see leaderboards, manage squads, add friends and people and what not all without booting the game.

 

Thirdly, when you do eventually boot the game you don't have to sit through any obnoxious EA logo --> DICE logo --> etc.

 

So far as "number of clicks" or "hassle" goes, I don't see what disadvantage Battlelog has over launching a client. Just go to Battlelog when you want to play BF3.

[deanb]

Well firstly

 

 

When Steam store front goes down I can still play TF2. When Battlelog goes down that's it (And this is EA, eventually it'll go down permanently when BF4 get's announced)

 

Why can't I use Origin to check if my friends are online and playing? I don't need to open my browser, or anything else in order to see if anyone I know is playing a Steam game.

 

 

Also there's no config editor, meaning you have to wait until Battlelog eventually loads up the game for you so that you can then change any of the (currently minimal) settings.

 

Also you can just delete the logos from the directory on most games and poof no logo to sit through on loading (though not recommended for all games: e.g Civ V). Or the devs could just not include them in the first place. Don't need to run it through a website to have that kind of functionality.

 

 

It's a farce. Plain and simple. It doesn't add any new features, it just moves them to an unreliable webservice. It's also "always-on" DRM too, without making it so obvious.;Battlelog is used for the campaign too meaning no connection to EA servers means no Singleplayer either.

[deanb]

http://forum.ea.com/eaforum/posts/list/7468888.page

 

The official word is that Battlefield 3 will not be coming to Steam, but will be coming to all other major digital retailers. (In other news SuperTux will be coming to all major PC OSes, but not Windows)

 

Basically Steams restrictive terms on having the game update automatically and supply DLC through Steam, that every other publisher who hasn't recently started their own DD service have no issues with, are a major pain in the ass for EA establishing a direct connection with customers. Cos I really feel close to the developer when I'm patching my game.

 

There is a significant amount of people who would like to buy the game through Steam. And forcing them onto Origin isn't going to make a closer connection, just resentment.

 

What is in-particular with these restrictions that no other publisher or develop but the one who recently started Origin have issues with?

[Maritan]

I think the answer is somewhere HERE, among the comments.

But we all know the reason behind this decision.

Edited August 7, 2011 by Maritan

[deanb]

https://twitter.com/#!/zh1nt0/status/100892143303925760

[Vargras]

https://twitter.com/...892143303925760

 

looooooooool

 

It was already highly unlikely that I would get BF3 (especially after seeing what was in the alpha). After seeing that? No thanks.

[Maritan]

https://twitter.com/...892143303925760

Wasn't this obvious from the begining?

I get the feeling that I'm the only one who cares about the game itself rather than this origin stuff.

[Johnny]

I'd give more of a shit about the game if it didn't seem to be "just another battlefield without any changes I care about."

As it is, without origin BF3 would have been a "eh, might get it on a steam sale sometime in the future." With Origin and all the crap surrounding it, it's not likely I'll ever pick it up.

[Vargras]

Wasn't this obvious from the begining?

I get the feeling that I'm the only one who cares about the game itself rather than this origin stuff.

 

I cared about it, because I thought it might be more like Battlefield 2/2142, rather than Bad Company.

 

Nope, it's another Bad Company game.

 

EDIT: 2142 is, in my opinion, the closest we'll ever get to a "perfect" Battlefield game. The classes were all fairly well-balanced, every vehicle had strengths and weaknesses, and all the tools had their own unique uses. Some weren't as good as others, but they weren't worthless either. Titan Mode was some of the most fun I've ever had in an online game, and none of the gametypes in Bad Company 2 were able to hold a candle to it.

 

If they ever make a sequel to 2142 and they don't completely screw it up, it'll be a day 1 buy for me.

Edited August 15, 2011 by Vargras

[Yantelope]

Can anyone tell me if the combat in BF3 feels similar to BC? I didn't like the shooting in BC, it felt very weak.

[Luftwaffles]

Can anyone tell me if the combat in BF3 feels similar to BC? I didn't like the shooting in BC, it felt very weak.

 

Yeah, it's awfully similar to BC2. There are new guns and new sound effects but guns like the M249 feel identical to their BC2 counterparts. I personally disagree on the shooting, I feel the BC2 shooting is very meaty and just inaccurate enough to be challenging, but I think the sound might be a large reason I like the weapons in BC2 so much.

[Maritan]

Can anyone tell me if the combat in BF3 feels similar to BC? I didn't like the shooting in BC, it felt very weak.

It feels good. Similar to BFBC2, but better.

And here's new trailer.

[Vargras]

Can anyone tell me if the combat in BF3 feels similar to BC? I didn't like the shooting in BC, it felt very weak.

It feels good. Similar to BFBC2, but better.

And here's new trailer.

 

Yeah, we didn't get to play with jets in the alpha. Or helicopters. Or tanks.

 

Just APCs and a very small map. Maybe the gameplay will be a bit different on larger maps/with more players, but those small maps are just... ick. Not very fun.

[Yantelope]

I really don't like shooters that make the weapons overly inaccurate. When I shoot at something I want it to die. Too many times would I fire off 15 sniper shots, a couple of them hitting a few missing only to have enemies run away. I get some of that is due to multiplayer balancing but it's still very frustrating to me.

 

Oh, that trailer looks awesome.

Edited August 16, 2011 by Yantelope

[Mal]

Yant, perhaps you could listen to Cpt. MacMillan... "The wind's gettin' a bit choppy. You can compensate for it, or you can wait it out, but he might leave before it dies down. It's your call. Remember what I've taught you. Keep in mind variable humidity and wind speed along the bullet's flight path. At this distance you'll also have to take the Coriolis Effect into account."

I kid. I doubt BF3 has such good sniping physics. If it did... damn.

 

Also, that trailer is awesome but I must... get game later. Can't have EA get that much of my money...

[Enervation]

That trailer seriously made me consider buying BF3. I wasn't going to before, not because I hate EA, but because I'm not really interested in buying another FPS. It looks awesome.

 

EDIT: Another thing I should say after watching that video a couple more times... the sound is off the charts. DICE really knows what they're doing in the sound department, which is probably also the reason why Mass Effect 3 is having some of the DICE team work on its sound.

Edited August 17, 2011 by Enervation

[Maritan]

Yeah, we didn't get to play with jets in the alpha. Or helicopters. Or tanks.

 

Just APCs and a very small map. Maybe the gameplay will be a bit different on larger maps/with more players, but those small maps are just... ick. Not very fun.

Well, it was just Rush Mode on one map in Alpha. Conquest will be much like BF2, I'm sure of it.

btw, here's the map of Caspian Border

[Thorgi Duke of Frisbee]

Apparently you'll be forced to use your web browser to search for games on BF3 for PC.

http://www.destructoid.com/battlefield-3-has-no-in-game-browser-server-on-pc-209346.phtml

That means if you want to join another server after you're finished playing in one, you have to quit out of the game completely, head over to the Battlelog website, and look for a new one.

[Mal]

I heard that alt-tab will work nicely but I seem to have heard that BC2 being pretty damn bad at being alt-tabbed.

 

Anyways, its in general a pretty crappy thing for a good chuck PC folks to deal with. Most browsers after a while can become memory hogs to the point that they can even rival a running game*, even when idle it can use a good portion that could be used for the game. So leaving it on isn't much of an option. Opening your browser every single time would be pretty damn annoying. Eh.

 

I'm sure I can handle alt-tabbing out of the game but yeah. I guess either through politics or sheer laziness, they can't bother to make an in-game server browser. Hell, an in-game Battlelog would be ideal but nope.