scott91575 said:
I have answers for all 3.
1) Alt tab can get you out. 1: You can also get out of the game by hitting ESC and then clicking quit. Just like any normal game. You don't have to Alt-Tab. It's just quicker.
2) 2: If you have an issue with single player, that is an entirely different issue and not the lack of in game server browsing. I am not even sure that has been confirmed. I have not seen anything official that say you need to launch single player from a website.
3) 3: LAN play is not even available on many games, and once again, has nothing to do with the main issue...no in game server browsing. As for losing connection, umm, an in game browser does not fix that. You still need to be connected. Connected to their server in game vs. a web browser does not resolve that. 4: As for a known server IP, the same capability is there. I have no idea where you are getting that. It's just in a browser.
5: It's not lazy. It's actually kind of cool. When I first used it I thought "this is weird." Yet I quickly got used to it and it was not different than a normal game other than the fact during the load screen it's minimized (you can watch it if you want though). Once you are in it pops up to the main screen. So actually you can chat with people while waiting for the load screen if you wanted. I would bet it's also better to have a browser in a web based environment instead of creating a unique one in game.
How can I defend it? 6: It's faster. Time how fast you can open BFBC2 and get to a load screen for a multiplayer match. Now time how quick you can go to a bookmark on your browser. On top of that, internet browsing is something that continually evolves with new stuff not designed by EA. The in game stuff is all EA. This has the liklihood of being more reliable and having more features.
Like I asked, have you used it? I have. It's not much different than an in game server browser except the fact you need to have an internet browser open. BTW...the search was much faster, but I will chalk that up to the low amount of players in alpha vs. a launched title.
Bolded the points I wanted to address.
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.
