So we've had the BF3 Beta for a while now...

Recommended Videos

Brinnmilo

New member
Mar 18, 2009
91
0
0
So yeah, we've had the Beta for a couple of days and I was curious what the Escapist Community has to say about it? Is it a Yay or Nay? Does it live up to it's rich heritage? Is the hype justified? Was it worth the wait?

I will reserve my views as my experience with the Beta has been very limited, Origin is playing up and EA customer support seems overwhelmed.
 

BiggyShackleton

New member
Nov 15, 2008
272
0
0
I think that in trying to showcase a Battlefield game, using Operation Metro on Rush was a fucking terrible idea. I've experienced a lot of graphical weird shit going on and overall have been disappointed.

However! I am playing on the Xbox 360 and I think the best way to judge the games merits would be on the PC, 64 players and a huge Conquest map. Taking this into consideration I'll say, it's alright.
 

Kopikatsu

New member
May 27, 2010
4,924
0
0
It has many bugs. Some minorly game breaking (Like going prone underneath the map and shooting people while they have no chance at reaching you. Then again, this is the BETA and not an online demo, which is what alot of people seem to be treating it as.

I have to say- The first area of Operation Metro is awful. AWFUL. It's gotten to the point where I'll just swim out to a little island and waste time picking off stragglers until we finally get to move on.

Edit: Oh yeah. Look at my accuracy: http://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf3/soldier/Kopikatsu/stats/352505148/ps3/

And that's not me spraying everywhere. You'll be wasting alot of bullets in this game.

Edit 2: Shotguns are pretty worthless. I don't know why FPSes have difficulty with shotguns. They're either ridiculously overpowered or so pitiful that they're not worth using.
 

Brinnmilo

New member
Mar 18, 2009
91
0
0
Well from the little I played of it I have to say I'm disappointed. I wish they'd called it something other than BF3 so we could wait for a true sequel to BF2. Every one seems to be saying that they've tried to make a CoD killer and from what I've played I have to agree with them. It doesn't feel at all like a BF game, especially with the removal of the commander and the ability to choose your squad (although I suspect that's just for the Beta).
Metro was an aweful choice for a BF3 Beta showcase, I agree Biggy.
As far as bugs go, I've only really encountered the butcher mole people, those damn terrain glitchers :mad:
I've also seen a lot of people saying they're cancelling their pre order, I wont do this as I hold out hoping that the proper release is better, but has any one here been that disappointed?
 

Ordinaryundone

New member
Oct 23, 2010
1,568
0
0
I like it, but Metro wasn't a great map for showcasing the game. The first cap is extremely frustrating, with an extremely campy feel. It gets better once you get into the Metro proper. I actually really like cap 3 and 4, and the terrain destruction on cap 4 is fantastic. However, its very close quarters, and doesn't really feel like a Battlefield map.

The guns feel good, nice and meaty, but the damage feels weird. Either you kill/are killed way too quickly, or you get hitmarkers a plenty and it feels like you are doing nothing. Either one would be fine, I just wish it was consistent.

Other than that...graphics are good, a little choppy but thats to be expected with a beta. The sound is, as always for Battlefield games, fantastic. It took me a bit to get in to, but now that I've gotten a feel for it I'm really enjoying myself. I look forward to seeing the other maps; they'll really make or break the game for me.
 

Jubbert

New member
Apr 3, 2010
201
0
0
It's very sporadic. Half the time I'll be on a server where people are playing tactically and have a good time supressing enemies while my squad moves up. The other half of the time everyone will pick assault or sniper and just camp or rambo, which is not fun. I guess it depends more on the people that play the game - Which, in my opinion, is not good, because in Battlefield, even if your team was terrible, the game mechanics force you to work together.
 

Brinnmilo

New member
Mar 18, 2009
91
0
0
Ordinaryundone said:
I like it, but Metro wasn't a great map for showcasing the game. The first cap is extremely frustrating, with an extremely campy feel. It gets better once you get into the Metro proper. I actually really like cap 3 and 4, and the terrain destruction on cap 4 is fantastic. However, its very close quarters, and doesn't really feel like a Battlefield map.

The guns feel good, nice and meaty, but the damage feels weird. Either you kill/are killed way too quickly, or you get hitmarkers a plenty and it feels like you are doing nothing. Either one would be fine, I just wish it was consistent.

Other than that...graphics are good, a little choppy but thats to be expected with a beta. The sound is, as always for Battlefield games, fantastic. It took me a bit to get in to, but now that I've gotten a feel for it I'm really enjoying myself. I look forward to seeing the other maps; they'll really make or break the game for me.
Hmm, I think it's got a lot to live up to in terms of game play (especially as this seems very much a lone wolfer's game rather than team play). I agree with the damage though, compared to some of the assault rifles the LMGs seem to do diddly squat.

All in all it's got a way to go for me to justify spending £30 to myself, hopefully my uncertainty is Beta based bias.

Also thanks for the link Kopikaksu, I was able to get on again by going through that :D
 

ejb626

New member
Aug 6, 2009
1,321
0
0
I can't even get it to work, first it kept saying I couldn't connect to EA Online now it seems to insist that I need an EA account to play. Do I really need to do that?
 

Last Hugh Alive

New member
Jul 6, 2011
494
0
0
I've only played Bad Company 2 and Battlefield 1943, so I don't know how BF3 stacks up against is predecessors. And I know its just a beta... But I'm just not feeling it. Maybe I just didn't like the map, but I found it to be a buggy, unenjoyable, scrambled experience. All I can really say for it from the hour or two I've played the beta, its that it LOOKS great.

I know the point of a beta is for the community to point issues out for the developers, but the game is frighteningly close to release. I hope what I've seen is not what I'm going to get.
 

enzilewulf

New member
Jun 19, 2009
2,130
0
0
Fucking love every second of it. The only complaint I have is with how the later sniper you can unlock take 3 shots to kill some times where the first one you have is a quick 1 2 shot for a kill. Besides that I love it and cannot wait for the game to come out. (Xbox 360 here)
 

Brinnmilo

New member
Mar 18, 2009
91
0
0
ejb626 said:
I can't even get it to work, first it kept saying I couldn't connect to EA Online now it seems to insist that I need an EA account to play. Do I really need to do that?
Yep and you need to have Origin as well. Which has caused some drama (what's that you cry? "Drama on the internet?!") so you may want to look into that before going any further.
 

Dirty Hipsters

This is how we praise the sun!
Legacy
Feb 7, 2011
9,035
3,715
118
Country
'Merica
Gender
3 children in a trench coat
I'm pretty interested in Battlefield 3, but since I haven't decided whether I want the game yet, I've decided to steer clear of Origin for the time being, and downloaded the beta on the PS3 (since the only difference is mostly graphical).

Here's what I have to say about the beta:

Why the hell did they pick this map and gametype to showcase the game? I mean, honestly, if they're trying to contend with Call of Duty, then they should really have picked a map and gametype that's huge, and with vehicles, and lots of buildings to destroy. The thing that Battlefield has got over Call of Duty is the tanks, and the fact that if there's a camper in a building, you can BLOW THE SHIT out of the building using a TANK.

Instead what Dice decided to showcase is something that plays almost exactly like a Call of Duty game, it's a gun on gun rushing gametype, that's mostly outdoors, and doesn't take advantage of building destruction. You can't go head to head against Call of Duty like that, because in terms of that kind of gameplay, CoD wins hands down. BF games aren't some crazy Rush-fest, they're tactical squad based games, and the beta does not show that off at all.
 

im-white

New member
Mar 24, 2010
87
0
0
i am one of the few lucky ones who got into the caspin border map when it was up and the passwords were posted secretly on certain forums. The conquest gameplay is just what i remember from the original bf titles. I will be the first to admit ignore the rush mode and go conquest on the pc you will not be disappointed. It is down right amazing. Initially when i began playing on operation metro i thought oh great this game is average even for a beta. however once i cracked out caspin border i then understood its potential. just remember just like in bf2 switch to single shot and not full automatic and u r good 2 go. hf with it... once u play a 64 man match on a conquest map u will never forget it (trust me) shooting 3 stinger missiles at jets and obliterating them and then killing an entire squad alone trying to cap a point is amazing
 

.No.

New member
Dec 29, 2010
472
0
0
It's good, but the lack of a mute function makes me really pissed off. Apparently being able to mute is one of the game's selling points, and will only be in the retail version.
 

AwkwardTurtle

New member
Aug 21, 2011
886
0
0
Well, as one who rarely ventures into the FPS genre it felt pretty nice. I played on the 360 since my PC couldn't possibly handle running such a game.

It was mostly functional aside from some graphical glitches. I've only played around a grand total of 30 minutes of Call of Duty so I can't make an accurate comparison, but I like the fact that in Battlefield 3 I can actually survive a while if I'm not being completely stupid and reckless. As opposed to me constantly dying in Call of Duty regardless of my efforts. (I suppose you could attribute it to me being "bad" at FPSs... Is it FPSs or FPS's or something else for the plural of the acronym FPS?)

One complaint I can think of is the fact that with the colors used it can be a bit difficult to tell when there's an enemy and when it's just some dusty wall from a distance. (Maybe my eyes haven't adjusted to the gritty realism that is such a key feature to most first person shooters.)

It's been said before, but it really is way too easy for defenders to just hole up right next to the bomb...thing. This is also true in the situation of attackers if the defenders decide not to hole up next to the bomb thing.

It's a game that interests me, but certainly not one that I, personally, will get for full price.
 

Zhukov

The Laughing Arsehole
Dec 29, 2009
13,757
5
43
I'm lovin' it.

It has bugs out the arse and the choice of Beta map wasn't too clever. (No vehicles? In a BF game? Really?) But I've had a ton of fun. My money is as good as theirs.

Lastly, I am glad they gave us a Rush map. I don't like conquest, too much running.
 

SL33TBL1ND

Elite Member
Nov 9, 2008
6,467
0
41
Kopikatsu said:
Edit 2: Shotguns are pretty worthless. I don't know why FPSes have difficulty with shotguns. They're either ridiculously overpowered or so pitiful that they're not worth using.
I've seen them used rather effectively in the tunnels, but let's be honest here, have shotguns ever been good in a BF game?

AwkwardTurtle said:
Well, as one who rarely ventures into the FPS genre it felt pretty nice. I played on the 360 since my PC couldn't possibly handle running such a game.

It was mostly functional aside from some graphical glitches. I've only played around a grand total of 30 minutes of Call of Duty so I can't make an accurate comparison, but I like the fact that in Battlefield 3 I can actually survive a while if I'm not being completely stupid and reckless. As opposed to me constantly dying in Call of Duty regardless of my efforts. (I suppose you could attribute it to me being "bad" at FPSs... Is it FPSs or FPS's or something else for the plural of the acronym FPS?)

One complaint I can think of is the fact that with the colors used it can be a bit difficult to tell when there's an enemy and when it's just some dusty wall from a distance. (Maybe my eyes haven't adjusted to the gritty realism that is such a key feature to most first person shooters.)

It's been said before, but it really is way too easy for defenders to just hole up right next to the bomb...thing. This is also true in the situation of attackers if the defenders decide not to hole up next to the bomb thing.

It's a game that interests me, but certainly not one that I, personally, will get for full price.
I usually use FPS' for plural, myself. Also, I find it strange that you're dying less in a BF game than a COD game. You have less health and slower regen in BF, and it's way easier to go something along the lines of 34/5 on COD.
 

psivamp

New member
Jan 7, 2010
623
0
0
My first match sucked. The second match sucked less. The third match, I slowed down and camped like a little ***** and had less bad of a time. The game's spotty. Most of the time you're dead before you realize someone even saw you. Occassionally, you'll get winged once and be able to shift slightly and live a few more seconds. Other times, you'll be stabbed by some jackass who is in the walls -- not like in some crawl-space you didn't see but glitched through the geometry.

It feels like a buggier BFBC2. They have fire-mode selection which I thought I always wanted, but it turns out that I don't care. Firing in controlled bursts is 'recommended' but I'm not sure it's better than going full-auto because on full-auto you get control of the gun after the first five rounds. I think if you're a fan of the recent Battlefield offerings, you'll like this. I, personally, have a less joyous relationship with them and probably won't be spending my money. This would probably be better played with friends and microphones, but I'm busy, my friends are busy and my cheap third-party 360 controller ate my microphone plug.
 

Joccaren

Elite Member
Mar 29, 2011
2,597
3
43
Too Different to actual BF games for my taste. (Haven't played BC so I can't speak for that) but from my meagre experience in CoD, it does take more thinking than that.

I like the flashlights. At close quarters, they are quite evil to enemies; completely blinding them, whilst at long range all they do is give away your position to a sniper.
The animations are sometimes good, other times I hate them. Being able to slide across the width of a train carriage in one press of a button, and only taking about a second to do it is good, but not being able to shoot whilst I start proning, making it useless unless you are staying proned before combat, is just annoying for me. I barely use it any more, except when my BF2 instincts kick in, instead I crouch as it achieves much the same thing, but I can shoot during the transition.
The map, is alright. Definitely not Showcasing BF, and they should have included vehicles as I doubt they'll be 100% bug free, and this is the beta, so it is something they should be checking. The map itself is actually a reasonable size, as we would see if we played a proper assault style instead of rush. Each of the 4 sections is actually completely connected to the rest of the map. Unfortunately, its a rather linear map, and quite confined except for its length, but it is larger than first impressions indicate.
I like how they have put emphasis on teamwork, with the spotting and team spawning bonuses, and you do sometimes get players who can act as a team, but usually your best bet is to join a clan's team, and then your usually somewhat left out as they will have skype or something open talking strategy whilst you try to follow them.
I have always had a problem with games that make more experienced players more powerful with perks for guns and such. An assault can 1 hit body kill me with a weapon he unlocked as he's a rank 44 or something, meanwhilst I'm left with the starting rifles. It is very unbalanced in this aspect, and needs a good matchmaker (One that works, as opposed to forcing you to pick a server yourself due to a 'generic error' (Seriously EA, you can't even tell us what the problem is?)).
Bugs, I have occasional graphical issues with random black lines connecting from the centre of my screen to the control points, but that is about the extent of it. One thing I'm hoping is a bug though, is the inability to use 'esc' unless your spawned, and if you die whilst editting your options, it just tears you to your death screen rather than letting you continue to tweak them. That needs fixing ASAP. I want to be able to quit a game at any time, not just when I spawn outside of combat, after the time between matches, hoping there is no spawn campers to drag me away from my menus.
On the PC, the browser match maker isn't too bad. I'm slightly troubled that it had campaign there, but I'm assuming that is for a co-op campaign, and you can play single player campaign without the browser.
The game looks great, even on the lowest settings (I haven't actually had much time in the menus to be able to change my resolution so I can play with better settings >.>).
There is an emphasis on cover as well, this isn't a run and gun type game, you stay out of cover in the open for more than 5 seconds, you will die. crouching and proning will prolong this, but you need to get to cover ASAP and stay there, hoping someone's RPG doesn't blow it up.

Its better than I had expected from a 'CoD killer', but worse than I had hoped.
 

Luke5515

New member
Aug 25, 2008
1,197
0
0
I'm loving it, tons of great new ideas(tac lights although i think they need to turn them down a little bit, suppression, sniper glare) and the guns all feel and sound better than I've seen in a game.
The bugs are irritating, but this is beta, so give it a few days and they'll have the half in ground unkillable thing gone.
I think it's going to be a wonderful game, and I'm really glad they did a beta, give it some time to fix all the crap.