You really can't mock it till you try it.Sevre said:
It's the fastest start up you'll ever see.
PC Battlefield 3 Lacks Key FPS Feature
- Thread starter Marshall Honorof
- Start date
Recommended Videos
It's the fastest start up you'll ever see.
Tossers xD
I decided to not buy this because of it being on Origin only for PC (and I am only a PC gamer), but... just... this is beyond belief.
The sole business motive behind origin exclusivity was that people would buy it and they would then hopefully buy stuff off of origin...
The chances of that happening are shrinking very very fast now due to... this total fuck up XD
Quit the game, find a browser and start it up again? Oh it turns out I've joined and its full. Quit, find server, start game.
EA you are a bunch of useless c**ts.
-----------
Please please please just leave Bioware alone to work alone... so Shepard doesn't have to load up his inventory screen and you must click a button to reload instead of just pressing R, because that is the equivalent to what EA have done with this D:
I decided to not buy this because of it being on Origin only for PC (and I am only a PC gamer), but... just... this is beyond belief.
The sole business motive behind origin exclusivity was that people would buy it and they would then hopefully buy stuff off of origin...
The chances of that happening are shrinking very very fast now due to... this total fuck up XD
Quit the game, find a browser and start it up again? Oh it turns out I've joined and its full. Quit, find server, start game.
EA you are a bunch of useless c**ts.
-----------
Please please please just leave Bioware alone to work alone... so Shepard doesn't have to load up his inventory screen and you must click a button to reload instead of just pressing R, because that is the equivalent to what EA have done with this D:
Not on steam,
Requiers you be connected to the internet,
You have to install some wierd thing along with it,
Published by EA,
And now this.
I want this game less and less each day.
And I think they super jelly 'cause MW3 has moar pre orders.
Requiers you be connected to the internet,
You have to install some wierd thing along with it,
Published by EA,
And now this.
I want this game less and less each day.
And I think they super jelly 'cause MW3 has moar pre orders.
"Okay, so you advertised this car as having multiple gears for driving, right?"
"Totally!"
"Where's the stupid lever then!?"
"You have to turn off the car and do it from the outside, silly!"
"But won't that take stupidly longer?"
"Don't worry, this car starts up REAL fast."
"Why the hell didn't you put it inside the car?!?"
"...REAL fast."
So, in conclusion, EA is a used car salesman.
"Totally!"
"Where's the stupid lever then!?"
"You have to turn off the car and do it from the outside, silly!"
"But won't that take stupidly longer?"
"Don't worry, this car starts up REAL fast."
"Why the hell didn't you put it inside the car?!?"
"...REAL fast."
So, in conclusion, EA is a used car salesman.
Bolded the points I wanted to address.scott91575 said:
1: Again, I fail to see how you can defend that? There is no reason at all that the players are forced to close the damn game just to join another server. It's 2011. I'm fairly certain advanced user interfaces are the norm by now so NOT having one is stupid as hell.
2: Considering it's becoming more and more apparent that this Battlelog site is operating as the games main menu (and not just a server browser), it stands to reason that should the site be unavailable, you lose your "main menu".
3: Actually, many games still have LAN play. Moreso than don't. It's only recently that a lot of high-profile titles have been removing the option to allow for greater DRM control. (i.e. Starcraft 2)
4: Again, I reiterate, if the site is down how can you connect to anything? Even if you have the IP as I stated earlier, if the site you have to load the game from is inaccessible, how can you use it to direct-connect to an IP?
5: No. It actually is quite lazy. Not that they're using a 3rd party provider for their server browser functions, but that they're forcing you to use it outside the game. Answer me this. Why can't they just integrate the Battlelog service into the game so that you can access the browser site through the (non-existent) main menu? Seems to me it wouldn't be that hard and would remove the need to load the same server browser from a separate application. (as in, a web browser) Seems pretty lazy to not even try this method.
Oh, and "chat with other people while it loads"? Really? Have you missed out on the past 10 years of PC gaming? We've been able to do that for years. I did just that last night while loading a game of Left 4 Dead 2. All without the need of opening a web browser to join a game.
6: This isn't exactly selling me on your assertions. You say it's great because it's faster than the really crappy browser/menu interface Bad Company 2 had. That's akin to saying, "This turd is better than this turd because it has sparkles on it." Just because it's faster than an in-game browser that was really, really slow and terrible doesn't mean it's automatically good or better than the other options we have available to us in other games.
And, while you're right browsers "evolve" over time, that doesn't mean much as the actual match-making is still handled by EA. So regardless of the site allowing you to browse servers and matches, it still relies on EA providing the logistics of the match-making and server info/updates. So this does not lend itself to being more "reliable". In fact, it could be far from it as anything new added to the game or site has to make sure it's compatible with both the game and site. Meaning update intervals could double.
I have no issue with DICE and EA using the Battlelog site for matchmaking purposes. A lot of game companies use 3rd party services for some features. I do have issue with them basically "tacking it on" and not even attempting to integrate it into the game. It's lazy and unnecessary.
Wha..? Why don't they do the traditional thing: Give consoles matchmaking, give PC's server list? It's not like it's never worked in the past, has it? I'm more annoyed at that, since I'll be getting it for my Xbox. But seriously, it didn't really work for Gears of War or CoD 3, because you couldn't tell if a friend would have the same server on the same list as you. And you can't type in the IP address because it's a controller!
*SIGH*
*SIGH*
So I'm not the only one keeping a tally, huh? Good to know.tgcPheonix said:
Mine was about the same, except that mine looked more like this:
* Promises of returning to the series roots (a la BF2) - +2
* Frostbyte 2 engine tech - +2
* Amazing trailers v1 - +1
* Talk of Origin - 0 (was indifferent. didn't really care as, at the time, we were told we didn't need it)
* Needless, obnoxious mud slinging campaign against Steam - -4
* Informed by DICE that PC version is primary build - +2
* Regardless of purchase method, must use Origin - -1/2 (not that bad, but it really is a crappy DDS with stupidly insane rules)
* Amazing trailers v2 - +1
* Realizing that the whole "we're making this for PC gamers first and foremost" line of BS was just that, BS. Especially given that the console versions still get an integrated browser and a main menu that isn't a damn website - -10
Needless to say, DICE and EA have some catching up to do to convince me it should get a positive score.
I've been browsing for servers within a game since the first Half-life came out, in like, 1998. Well in-game browsing was a convenient feature since before that, really. And now, suddenly, they are taking it out.
This is a subliminal movement towards the console crowd as well, and although I have one, I won't be buying this game, because quite frankly, EA and Dice can kiss my ****. I already decided this upon hearing about Origin on-line requirement.
Nice business model guys, spend a whole lot of time on the trailers and hype, then slowly make announcements like this. And it won't even make a difference, because you're already one of the most pre-ordered games in history...*sighs* this is the new direction of gaming, everyone, like it or not.
This is a subliminal movement towards the console crowd as well, and although I have one, I won't be buying this game, because quite frankly, EA and Dice can kiss my ****. I already decided this upon hearing about Origin on-line requirement.
Nice business model guys, spend a whole lot of time on the trailers and hype, then slowly make announcements like this. And it won't even make a difference, because you're already one of the most pre-ordered games in history...*sighs* this is the new direction of gaming, everyone, like it or not.
I keep hearing the Alpha players going on and on about how its not that bad; while that may be true, EA is going about making people like it the wrong way.
What I have never understood is way people like server browsers of any kind when it is soooo much easier to just hit "find game" in the console version than spend five minutes looking for a server that looks promising only to find that it lags horribly/is full of A-holes .ect and have to go back to looking.
OT: this is incredibly stupid, trying to move a game's important features to a freaking website that you need to alt-tab out to is just moronic. if this trend of everything being announced about BF3 being bad keeps up then its never going to outsell MW3 which is a shame
OT: this is incredibly stupid, trying to move a game's important features to a freaking website that you need to alt-tab out to is just moronic. if this trend of everything being announced about BF3 being bad keeps up then its never going to outsell MW3 which is a shame
I also can't help but think that "I'm gonna boycott this PC version and get it on console!" is *exactly* what they want to do. Especially pulling this crap after making empty announcements like "primarily developed for PC" and other bullshit. Origin requirements and browser-based server search is NOT for PC development primarily, I don't care HOW you phrase it. If you're going to inconvenience the PC players, why not just say it's for consoles? Or just don't release a PC version, instead of pulling this nonsense? I have a console, but I'm still not getting this.
I will ask once again....have you used this? Of course the answer is no, I just like the fact you continue to make assumptions while I in fact have used it. Exiting the game and re entering was not any slower then using an in game browser.Vigormortis said:
How about this, wait to use it and then actually comment on it instead of making assumption after assumption. You will have your chance soon. If you don't like it, don't buy the game.
I think that sums it up well. If i was dice, i wouldnt have EA publish any more of my games ever..
Battlefield 4, PC lead, made by dice, published by Valve, available on steam. one can only dream.
Battlefield 4, PC lead, made by dice, published by Valve, available on steam. one can only dream.
I used to play Age of Empires on Microsoft's 'Zone' website. It was incredibly annoying. Quit game, launch browser, pick game, load up, host quits, close game, repeat. That was 9 years ago, and I can't think of a browser-based game I've played sense.
I'm sure this has nothing to do with bad/lazy programming. EA is just being EA. This is just an extension of the Steam/Origin bs. I'm really not that surprised. EA just can't stand not having direct control of every aspect of the game.
Anyone remember back when Xbox Live first got started? They dragged their heels for over a year before doing anything to try to work with Microsoft's vastly superior online system. And even today, all their games have SOME online aspect that requires you to tunnel through to their own server, while every other game in the world is fine with just the MS servers.
It still hurts my brain when I can play hundreds of xLive games with no set-up, and EA games make me signup/login to their specific service.
They like to tell us that this control allows them to make sure we have a better/more uniform experience, but to date every last one of these things has been at LEAST less efficient or worse, f'n broken.
The sad thing is, this probably won't hurt EA that much. Even if PC sales are low because of their short-sighted decisions, I'll bet they just claim it's because PC games are dying out anyway. In so doing, they are making their own self-fulfilling prophecy.
Sucks to be a PC gamer these days.
I'm sure this has nothing to do with bad/lazy programming. EA is just being EA. This is just an extension of the Steam/Origin bs. I'm really not that surprised. EA just can't stand not having direct control of every aspect of the game.
Anyone remember back when Xbox Live first got started? They dragged their heels for over a year before doing anything to try to work with Microsoft's vastly superior online system. And even today, all their games have SOME online aspect that requires you to tunnel through to their own server, while every other game in the world is fine with just the MS servers.
It still hurts my brain when I can play hundreds of xLive games with no set-up, and EA games make me signup/login to their specific service.
They like to tell us that this control allows them to make sure we have a better/more uniform experience, but to date every last one of these things has been at LEAST less efficient or worse, f'n broken.
The sad thing is, this probably won't hurt EA that much. Even if PC sales are low because of their short-sighted decisions, I'll bet they just claim it's because PC games are dying out anyway. In so doing, they are making their own self-fulfilling prophecy.
Sucks to be a PC gamer these days.
Funny how you arbitrarily assume I haven't used it and then expect me to take, solely on your word, that you have. The latter of which I find very hard to believe as, if you had, you'd know that you launch the game from the Battlelog site, regardless of mode. (I.E. there is no main menu for the game.)scott91575 said:
http://www.1up.com/news/first-glimpse-battlefield-3-battlelog-system
Notice at the top the button for "Resume Campaign"? Yeah. You have to launch the single-player game from a website. That is beyond stupid. Somehow EA has managed to make an "Always On" DRM scheme even worse.
Having to close the game entirely and relaunch to join a new server isn't any slower than using an in-game browser? I almost laughed but then I realized one of two things. Either you're lying in defense of this game (as there is no way having to close and then reopen a game is not slower than just clicking on a server link in a browser), or you're playing on some God-sent machine that has a 20GHz, 20 core processor with terabytes of ram. (even then, still wouldn't be faster)
I would like to believe you. I really would. But considering the alpha had a very small number of players, yet seemingly thousands upon thousands of people on the web claim they've played it, it becomes hard to believe anyone who defends it on the basis they've experienced it.
[edit] On a side note, I love how some of these people are saying they're glad EA is doing it this way as "most" in-game server browsers are bad. As if, they assume, a server browser being on a website will somehow "magically" make it better. More likely, it'll be the exact same as any other browser, same pros and cons and same instability, but with the added annoyance of having to access it solely trough a web browser.
It could be better, but this is EA we're talking about. Somehow....I just don't see it happening.
See link above.Ivan Torres said: