WHY BATTLEFIELD3!!! WHY WOULD YOU DO THIS TO ME!

[Darius Brogan]

1) If you shove a 220+ lumen flashlight in somones face, I don't care how bright it is outside, you will still be somewhat 'blinded' if your looking into it.

2)BF3 gives you the option of sticking a laser on. No one ever said it was a smart idea or that you should do it.

3) For once a game that was made for PC and ported to console instead. While I still think its retarded that you can't do it, more and more console games are doing this not just BF3. Your beef is with what/who ever started that stupid trend.

1) For the record, I've HAD a Tac-Light flashed in my face from five feet in mid-darkness.
In broad daylight, after having adjusted to the mid-day brightness, that flashlight did less than nothing to save the guy I shot in the neck.

2) Understandable, but it breaks the logical realism they were aiming for to do so.

3) If I could find out who did it, I'd be a very happy individual.

 

[Darius Brogan]

I'd like to point out that snipers use laser range finders all the time. It's a lot faster than using a calculator to estimate range to target (height of target in inches x 27.77 / number of mildots the target takes up gives approximate range in yards, swap out 27.77 for 24.5 for meters. This works with 10x mildot scopes)

Not to mention laser-assist missiles and bombs. I wouldn't be surprised most military-issue binoculars come with laser for range-finding these days. I have to question the idea that using a laser betrays your position. Unless you are using it at night and through fog(making the point of sniping null and void, anyway), there is going to be nobody able to determine the track of a laser beam unless they have mutant vision. The only thing that is betrayed is that someone or something is using a laser when you can see the spot, but where it's coming from is a choice of 90-270 degrees of range(and that's just on the horizontal). By the time you see the spot, it is pretty much too late, whether it is by sniper or target positioning.

That being said, if you honestly expect 100% reality in a game by EA, you are a sucker. I don't expect 100% reality from any game, and that is kind of the point of getting the game in the first place.
OP: If these three points throw you off the game entirely, you may want to re-evaluate your desire to play modern warfare games, friend.

The laser sights in BF3 are visible spectrum red laser sights. They make this nice, clean red line from point A to point B.

Laser range finders are rarely in the visible spectrum at mid-day brightness.

No, I certainly don't expect 100%, but something so glaringly obvious is just plain stupid.

I'd be willing to play the Campaign if I had more inclination to do so, but I prefer gaming with my friends, in person. Split-screen online play gives you a room-full of friends and a full enemy team to go up against that aren't completely retarded bots.

 

[Darius Brogan]

1)

3) Battlefield 3 was developed with PC as the primary platform, and you can't Split-screen on a PC, so it would be unfair to give the consoles that advantage over PCs.

They mentioned many times that the Frostbite engine on console could not handle two separate renders at the same time, which is why they didn't do it.

OT: You did a lot in five seconds.

You'd be surprised what can happen when you join a game in progress and get sniped from behind because a guy in front of you had a Tac-Light outside in bright-ass mid-day sunlight, after figuring out that split-screen was impossible.

I had fun for a bit, and enough time to familiarize myself with the basic controls until the first two errors repeated themselves six times in two minutes.

First five seconds of game-play set the WHOLE tune for the rest of the match.

 

[ultrachicken]

1)

3) Battlefield 3 was developed with PC as the primary platform, and you can't Split-screen on a PC, so it would be unfair to give the consoles that advantage over PCs.

They mentioned many times that the Frostbite engine on console could not handle two separate renders at the same time, which is why they didn't do it.

OT: You did a lot in five seconds.

You'd be surprised what can happen when you join a game in progress and get sniped from behind because a guy in front of you had a Tac-Light outside in bright-ass mid-day sunlight, after figuring out that split-screen was impossible.

I had fun for a bit, and enough time to familiarize myself with the basic controls until the first two errors repeated themselves six times in two minutes.

First five seconds of game-play set the WHOLE tune for the rest of the match.

Have you ever played a multiplayer shooter? There will always be matches where you constantly get sniped, or (spawn)camped, or killed by some overpowered gun, etc. It does not matter what game you play, it will happen occasionally. So playing one match where you did poorly and then going online to cry about it is just having unrealistic expectations for the game.

 

[Darius Brogan]

snip

1) In Real Life. A group of friends and I are rather avid military enthusiasts, and so we go for as much genuine military gear as possible. Tac-Lights are bright as hell, but not in mid-day sunlight, lemme tell you.

2)No, game-based snipers think it's a good idea. Smart snipers aren't retarded.
I got killed by it because (And I'm serious about this) I spawned just as an enemy came around a shipping container and blinded me with his Light, only to shift myself slightly and get sniped from behind by a guy twenty feet away with a bloody laser-sight on his rifle.

3) I know the system resources are brutally limited when you factor in all they loaded the game with, but I'd sacrifice a few polygons and some level-size for split-screen in a heart-beat. Gaming alone in your room with twenty people you can't talk to face just sucks.

4) Hehehe, I never specified WHO the stupidity fell upon, but I probably should have, anyways.

 

[Darius Brogan]

1)

3) Battlefield 3 was developed with PC as the primary platform, and you can't Split-screen on a PC, so it would be unfair to give the consoles that advantage over PCs.

They mentioned many times that the Frostbite engine on console could not handle two separate renders at the same time, which is why they didn't do it.

OT: You did a lot in five seconds.

You'd be surprised what can happen when you join a game in progress and get sniped from behind because a guy in front of you had a Tac-Light outside in bright-ass mid-day sunlight, after figuring out that split-screen was impossible.

I had fun for a bit, and enough time to familiarize myself with the basic controls until the first two errors repeated themselves six times in two minutes.

First five seconds of game-play set the WHOLE tune for the rest of the match.

Have you ever played a multiplayer shooter? There will always be matches where you constantly get sniped, or (spawn)camped, or killed by some overpowered gun, etc. It does not matter what game you play, it will happen occasionally. So playing one match where you did poorly and then going online to cry about it is just having unrealistic expectations for the game.

Dude, I've been playing shooters for so long I can't even remember when I started.
I played a round of Black Ops once where I nailed a K/D of 4/24. Four kills, twenty four deaths.
The subsequent game, I got an 18 kill-streak in three minutes against the SAME enemy team from the previous match and literally killed every single player on the opposing team three times before I died.

I have my ups and I have my downs. I accept that. But for a game like BF3 to attempt realism to such an extreme extent that they have the characters move realistically, build a game-engine from the ground up specifically FOR the game, and even include BULLET DROP, only to fail miserably at a common sense intersection?
Unacceptable.
Seriously.

I use Tac-Lights in RL regularly and I have personal experience with their brightness at varying levels ambient light. They aren't capable of blinding someone who's adjusted to mid-day brightness.
And including laser sights on a SNIPER RIFLE, where any good player could swap arms in plenty of time to kill the enemy is just ridiculous.

 

[Nightwolf214]

1) the taclight hasn't been nerfed very well, I still get blinded by it in broad daylight.
2) On snipers, the laser sight shows the bullet drop on a sniper round when you zoom in.
3) Split-screen would be useless in Battlefield. It would probably break the game due to overtaxing the system.

 

[ultrachicken]

1)

3) Battlefield 3 was developed with PC as the primary platform, and you can't Split-screen on a PC, so it would be unfair to give the consoles that advantage over PCs.

They mentioned many times that the Frostbite engine on console could not handle two separate renders at the same time, which is why they didn't do it.

OT: You did a lot in five seconds.

You'd be surprised what can happen when you join a game in progress and get sniped from behind because a guy in front of you had a Tac-Light outside in bright-ass mid-day sunlight, after figuring out that split-screen was impossible.

I had fun for a bit, and enough time to familiarize myself with the basic controls until the first two errors repeated themselves six times in two minutes.

First five seconds of game-play set the WHOLE tune for the rest of the match.

Have you ever played a multiplayer shooter? There will always be matches where you constantly get sniped, or (spawn)camped, or killed by some overpowered gun, etc. It does not matter what game you play, it will happen occasionally. So playing one match where you did poorly and then going online to cry about it is just having unrealistic expectations for the game.

Dude, I've been playing shooters for so long I can't even remember when I started.
I played a round of Black Ops once where I nailed a K/D of 4/24. Four kills, twenty four deaths.
The subsequent game, I got an 18 kill-streak in three minutes against the SAME enemy team from the previous match and literally killed every single player on the opposing team three times before I died.

I have my ups and I have my downs. I accept that. But for a game like BF3 to attempt realism to such an extreme extent that they have the characters move realistically, build a game-engine from the ground up specifically FOR the game, and even include BULLET DROP, only to fail miserably at a common sense intersection?
Unacceptable.
Seriously.

I use Tac-Lights in RL regularly and I have personal experience with their brightness at varying levels ambient light. They aren't capable of blinding someone who's adjusted to mid-day brightness.
And including laser sights on a SNIPER RIFLE, where any good player could swap arms in plenty of time to kill the enemy is just ridiculous.

BF3 tries to be realistic but only to the point that fun is not compromised. That's why there's that little gameplay mechanic called regenerating health, not to mention one bullet clips, or the fact that every soldier can operate any vehicle. Because most of the maps are in broad daylight, they made the Tac-Light able to operate in daylight. Because otherwise it would be useless.

I would also like to reiterate the points that practically EVERYONE else in this thread has made: the game is not trying to be a Military Sim. Fun comes before realism, so the Tac Light has to work in daylight so as not to be a practically pointless attachment. If you want, you can put a laser sight on a sniper rifle (which is totally possible in real life, rendering your "it's unrealistic" complaint moot), despite the fact that it's not really helpful.

No, the game isn't completely realistic, but if that's what you were expecting when you bought it, you failed to do basic research on the much more major breaks from reality. Like automatically healing bullet-wounds.

 

[iLikeHippos]

Well, kid...(Speaking as a BF veteran, instantly making me 50 years older than you in a retarded kind of way) *Ditches cigar on the floor*

Welcome to No Man's Land, where there are no rules, no friends, no justice. But most importantly, don't piss anyone off on the EA forums, or your ass is fucked.

 

[Alexnader]

1) snip

Thank God for that, then. Also, when you develop a game to be as realistic as possible, having an error like that in the first five seconds of game-play is QUITE noticeable.
I've gotten Tac-Lights right in the face from five feet away, and they're not that bright from
fifteen feet in broad daylight.

No, I'm whining about the realism problem again. Their aim was basically a combat-sim on a controller. Up to and including realistic levels of injury, realistic as possible graphics/sounds/motions/and even BULLET DROP, but a Laser sight on a sniper rifle? Really? That's what sidearms are for, my friend.
A DMR, possibly, as well as a pistol, but NOT a sniper rifle. Snipers hide for a reason. So they're not seen. Having a visible spectrum red laser trailing straight back to you nullifies the effectiveness of sniping someone unless they're facing away from you, as I was. My team-mates got him seconds later anyways.

Also, my computer's a piece. It'd NEVER run BF3 effectively, so console's my option until my next paycheck.

I don't know what feature list you've been reading but I think it may have came from Arma. DICE wanted "authenticity rather than realism". If you think a game with magic boxes that dispense health and ammo, regenerating health and respawns was meant to be "a combat sim with a controller" then... well I don't know what to say.

"A combat sim with a controller" is wrong on so many levels.

Realistic levels of injury? I can take a .308 round to the face, die and then get defribrillated back to life in an instant.

Also guess what the rate of bullet drop is? A flat -15m/s for ordinary rounds and -9.8m/s for sniper rifles. In short, bullets travel in prefectly straight lines, only at a slight declination from where you're pointing! What's realistic about that?

If you can suspend your disbelief for ALL OF THESE THINGS including breaking the laws of Newtonian physics then I don't know why you're complaining about the OPTION of being able to put a laser on your sniper rifle. Furthermore you can take the scope off and use it as a mid range rifle, rifles aren't solely long range weapons.

Also as for "giving away your position" you do realise that scope glint is on irrespective of how much light is shining on your scope right? The glint is also as bright as a flashlight would be normally. Using anything above a 6 times scope is akin to strapping a flashlight onto the top of your rifle!

As for your inability to obtain a good PC, bad luck man.

 

[Zenode]

So you can take a bullet to the face and be revived but you're complaining that the tac light isn't realistic enough?

....right

 

[Darius Brogan]

These are about the worst reasons for not playing BF3 that I have ever heard, for all the various reasons that were listed above. Sounds like you need something that isn't fun to play, like ARMA.

It isn't possible to weld a tank back together in 5 seconds, but you can do that. Does that just fucking kill it for you? Does the magical health kits that remove bullets from your body ruin the experience for you?

Fact of the matter is that BF3 is extremely fun to play. If your gripe is that it just isn't "real" enough, then I think you need to just stop playing shooters all together.

Read the comment before you post, or leave.

I DON`T CARE that it's not completely realistic. The game tried as hard as humanly possible to BE REALISTIC, and by allowing you to mount laser-sights on a sniper rifle that increase accuracy while hip-firing the most accurate weapons on earth, and giving Tac-lights the power of the sun, they failed horribly.

I play games expecting what is advertised, and while there is bullet-drop, realistic graphics/movements/sounds, etc... there are loads of those tiny, REALLY OBVIOUS little things that destroy authenticity for me.

The game wanted to be the most realistic shooter of the generation, and failed by missing the most obvious things you can think of.

 

[Darius Brogan]

So you can take a bullet to the face and be revived but you're complaining that the tac light isn't realistic enough?

....right

No, I took a bullet to the back because I got a flashlight in the face in broad daylight in the first five seconds after starting the match.

The whole scenario is slightly further back in the comments, read it.

EDIT: My bad, read too fast.

I can live with the revive because it's a way to extend play, and having a Tac-Light in a dark map would be fine, but they're not effective in sunlight.

I've already stated I'm a perfectionist, and if you market a game as realistic or authentic, but make mistakes so obvious in favor of graphical power, you may as well have not tried.

 

[Darius Brogan]

1) snip

Thank God for that, then. Also, when you develop a game to be as realistic as possible, having an error like that in the first five seconds of game-play is QUITE noticeable.
I've gotten Tac-Lights right in the face from five feet away, and they're not that bright from
fifteen feet in broad daylight.

No, I'm whining about the realism problem again. Their aim was basically a combat-sim on a controller. Up to and including realistic levels of injury, realistic as possible graphics/sounds/motions/and even BULLET DROP, but a Laser sight on a sniper rifle? Really? That's what sidearms are for, my friend.
A DMR, possibly, as well as a pistol, but NOT a sniper rifle. Snipers hide for a reason. So they're not seen. Having a visible spectrum red laser trailing straight back to you nullifies the effectiveness of sniping someone unless they're facing away from you, as I was. My team-mates got him seconds later anyways.

Also, my computer's a piece. It'd NEVER run BF3 effectively, so console's my option until my next paycheck.

I don't know what feature list you've been reading but I think it may have came from Arma. DICE wanted "authenticity rather than realism". If you think a game with magic boxes that dispense health and ammo, regenerating health and respawns was meant to be "a combat sim with a controller" then... well I don't know what to say.

"A combat sim with a controller" is wrong on so many levels.

Realistic levels of injury? I can take a .308 round to the face, die and then get defribrillated back to life in an instant.

Also guess what the rate of bullet drop is? A flat -15m/s for ordinary rounds and -9.8m/s for sniper rifles. In short, bullets travel in prefectly straight lines, only at a slight declination from where you're pointing! What's realistic about that?

If you can suspend your disbelief for ALL OF THESE THINGS including breaking the laws of Newtonian physics then I don't know why you're complaining about the OPTION of being able to put a laser on your sniper rifle. Furthermore you can take the scope off and use it as a mid range rifle, rifles aren't solely long range weapons.

Also as for "giving away your position" you do realise that scope glint is on irrespective of how much light is shining on your scope right? The glint is also as bright as a flashlight would be normally. Using anything above a 6 times scope is akin to strapping a flashlight onto the top of your rifle!

As for your inability to obtain a good PC, bad luck man.

The game is based entirely on realistic graphics, physics, motions, etc... so authenticity may not parallel realism, but they share 90% features.

Think about the game for a moment, the only completely non-realistic thing about it is the revive... Everything else is as close to real as they could get the system to cop with... other than the rate of bullet drop, but a gradual increase from almost nothing to real drop-speed will help players adjust.

I could suspend disbelief better if they hadn't tried to make the game as close to realistic as possible.
I grew up on games like Doom, Golden-eye and Perfect Dark...

Scope glint is better than drawing a red-line straight to your position... at least it's, err... somewhat closer to realistic than a visible-spectrum red laser...

Yep. I'm a PC gamer at heart, even though I game primarily on consoles these days. My computer's just too old to keep up with my gaming demands anymore.

 

[sextus the crazy]

You're complaining about lack of realism in a battlefield game? I gave up complaining around BF:BC2 when everyone became a bullet sponge and the machine gun with the lowest power per bullet (MG3) was tied with another machine gun (M60) for most powerful cartridge IRL out of all the LMGs ingame.

I play games expecting what is advertised, and while there is bullet-drop, realistic graphics/movements/sounds, etc... there are loads of those tiny, REALLY OBVIOUS little things that destroy authenticity for me.

The game wanted to be the most realistic shooter of the generation, and failed by missing the most obvious things you can think of.

no, Arma and Red Orchestra wanted to be the most realistic shooters of this generation; battlefield wants to be more realistic than COD, which isn't that hard.

 

[zuro64]

1) I use military-grade weapon-lights on a regular basis for war games, and it's not possible to blind someone whose eyes are already adjusted to mid-day light.

Have you ever looked into a high powered LED light in daylight at close range(within 10m or 30feet)? I have and I can say that I couldent see shit afterwards! Its called "tactical light" for a reason. Though it doesent work as good in daylight as in darkness its still pretty effective.

3) Battlefield 3 was developed with PC as the primary platform, and you can't Split-screen on a PC, so it would be unfair to give the consoles that advantage over PCs.

How would giving consoles split-screen be a unfair advantage? PC gamers dont care that you can play MP on consoles with the other player in the room, thats the one thing that consoles have ALWAYS had compared to the PC. Also you can play MP with they other person in the room, its called having a LAN!

 

[Darius Brogan]

I play games expecting what is advertised, and while there is bullet-drop, realistic graphics/movements/sounds, etc... there are loads of those tiny, REALLY OBVIOUS little things that destroy authenticity for me.

The game wanted to be the most realistic shooter of the generation, and failed by missing the most obvious things you can think of.

BF3 tries to be realistic but only to the point that fun is not compromised.

If you had played BF1942, 2142, or 2, you wouldn't have expected such things. Why you did baffles me.

Because when I play a game advertised as being authentic and realistic, I expect it to be so?
Though I guess at this point, expecting any company to follow through with what it's promised is like expecting a politician to not be corrupt.

 

[Darius Brogan]

You're complaining about lack of realism in a battlefield game? I gave up complaining around BF:BC2 when everyone became a bullet sponge and the machine gun with the lowest power per bullet (MG3) was tied with another machine gun (M60) for most powerful cartridge IRL out of all the LMGs ingame.

I play games expecting what is advertised, and while there is bullet-drop, realistic graphics/movements/sounds, etc... there are loads of those tiny, REALLY OBVIOUS little things that destroy authenticity for me.

The game wanted to be the most realistic shooter of the generation, and failed by missing the most obvious things you can think of.

no, Arma and Red Orchestra wanted to be the most realistic shooters of this generation; battlefield wants to be more realistic than COD, which isn't that hard.

I suppose that's true, but they went so far as to include random character movements and expressions when your character is idle, an entirely new engine for the game, and brand new destruction physics that better emulate the impact of a bullet on various surfaces.

They tried being as realistic as they could, but failed on some simple facets of the game.

 

[Darius Brogan]

1) I use military-grade weapon-lights on a regular basis for war games, and it's not possible to blind someone whose eyes are already adjusted to mid-day light.

Have you ever looked into a high powered LED light in daylight at close range(within 10m or 30feet)? I have and I can say that I couldent see shit afterwards! Its called "tactical light" for a reason. Though it doesent work as good in daylight as in darkness its still pretty effective.

3) Battlefield 3 was developed with PC as the primary platform, and you can't Split-screen on a PC, so it would be unfair to give the consoles that advantage over PCs.

How would giving consoles split-screen be a unfair advantage? PC gamers dont care that you can play MP on consoles with the other player in the room, thats the one thing that consoles have ALWAYS had compared to the PC. Also you can play MP with they other person in the room, its called having a LAN!

Yes, I've been flashed by a high-powered LED in daylight, within 15 feet, actually. I've also got extremely sensitive eyes, and the Tac-Light barely produced a noticeable glare.
The fact that I now knew exactly where my enemy was only sweetened the deal.

 

[Valanthe]

Really long post incoming, you have been warned.

Darius Brogan, just throwing this out there, but you know you can add more than one quote to a post with minimal effort, right? Just a little peeve of mine, sorry.

Anyway, on topic. If you want a "Realistic" modern military simulation, go play ARMA, that's as close as you'll get. Battlefield is a modern military game, spot the difference?

When creating a game, you start with something real, a Tac-light. In real life, it's not a weapon, it's a tool used to, brace yourself for this one, illuminate dark places. In a game world, where one can illuminate the darkest of foxholes by simply sliding their gamma bar over, the Tac-Light is pretty useless, so DICE found a secondary use for it as a vision impairment and adjusted how it works so it would be a fun (if sometimes frustrating) way to mix up CQC, which in most shooting games is resolved by who can circle strafe the best.

Now onto your gripe about the laser sight. I've very limited experience in Battlefield, so I must draw on what I know of shooter conventions to help you understand this. There are two possibilities for why a sniper in a game would have a laser sight on their rifle. The first, and most likely, is that said person has seen basically any movie featuring a sniper that has come out in the last say... twenty years? In film the spotting laser is used to convey the danger of the sniper quickly to the audience; they see the laser dancing on its target and automatically know that he's being sighted without ever having to see the shooter. Said shooter just -might- have seen one of these films and thought it was cool.

The second, and equally plausible option is that the shooter made a tactical decision. Most modern games take away your hipfire reticle when using a sniper rifle as a way to balance them and to teach that they are weapons of precision, not Rambo-esque carnage. The use of a laser sight, by giving you an improvised hipfire reticle, may be a way of counteracting this balance, and is a sound tactical choice if true, as the seconds it takes to swap guns in a shooting game is precious time that may cause the difference between a win and loss.

And finally, your third gripe is one I actually agree with, almost. I am one of proud yet dying breed of amers who remembers when "Console Multiplayer" meant you plus three friends and a case of beer in the living room, and I miss those days. That nostalgia is what almost made me buy the Halo HD remake. Unlike you, as you've made apparent, I do understand that not every game can or should have splitscreen multiplayer simply because of, among other reasons I won't indulge, the strain it puts on a system, (Don't believe me, fire up Starcraft for the N64 and try the splitscreen on that, then compare it to the graphics on a PC.) What you should be more concerned with is the lack of LAN, which has been a mainstay form of multiplayer for the PC crowd for decades, and as the Battlefield series is a PC game which is ported to consoles, the lack of LAN support is the real slap in the face.

In conclusion, I really find myself wondering why you bothered buying Battlefield at all, if these are the criteria by which you measure if a game is "good."