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

[Darius Brogan]

I'm angry about the fact that everyone seems to think that A) A sniper would ever be caught dead in a CQC battle, even in a video-game. They're smarter than that in CoD, for crying out loud. If the map is too small to find a distanced vantage point, find an accurate assault rifle and make due with that.
and B) That adding a laser-sight to the most accurate weapons designed to date would actually increase accuracy.

A sniper caught in CQC *is* a dead sniper. That it is different in CoD isn't necessarily better; more like lame.

Laser sight does not increase the accuracy of the rifle. It decreases the hip-fire crosshair bloom.

I understand that a sniper caught in CQC is a dead Sniper, but my point was that a good sniper, in pretty much any game, knows what maps are sniping maps, and what maps aren't. A sniper in a small map should choose a class/weapon better suited to the map, instead of putting a laser-pointer under their barrel that magically makes your cross-hairs smaller. (Which IS an increase in accuracy, btw, as smaller cross-hairs mean smaller spread)

 

[Darius Brogan]

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.

The closest is Virtual Battle Space 2, it was made especially for military institutes but each liscence costs $7k. Probably the most 'realistic' is Operation Flashpoint and Brothers In Arms.

Personally, I see the realistic/authentic tag as a marketing gimmick. Life in the service certainly was not that exciting. =)

Lol, then I guess you weren't the main character, were you? If you WERE it would have been AWESOME!.... Or mentally shattering... Possibly both... but probably not., lol

 

[Darius Brogan]

I can kinda understand the argument against the flashlight but it isn't something i care about much. And with the second comment, yes, no one should put a red laser on their sniper rifle. But, with no other way to say it OP, it worked didn't it? I guess your argument would be valid had the laser sight given his position away and you were able to get behind his position and kill him, but you didn't. Your complaining that you got killed by a guy with a useless attachment on his gun. Loses it's validity. And with the split screen, I'd LOVE to have split screen on bf3 for consoles, but i wasn't expecting it. Black ops caught me by surprise when it did have split screen when it first came out.

The issue regarding that has been explained twice now, but some distance back, and it's a doosie.

I started the game, strafed around the side of a shipping-container and got blinded by a Tac-Light, strafed some more to get my sight back, and was shot in the back by the sniper in question.

(Who, btw, was killed by my team-mates seconds later because they followed his laser)

 

[Akimoto]

Lol, then I guess you weren't the main character, were you? If you WERE it would have been AWESOME!.... Or mentally shattering... Possibly both... but probably not., lol

A toast to you sir!

 

[JoesshittyOs]

Wait till you get the IRNV scope. You will literally never have to use anything else.

1) Agreed. While it's purpose in gameplay is technically suppose to blind you, it is the most blatantly unfair mechanic they could have possibly added. I've heard that they've patched?working on a patch for it, so I'm not to upset. It's one of those things where I am just confused while that thought it was a good idea in the first place. If there was actually a thing with dark places, I would've been fine with it. Personally, I like the aesthetic effect of having one on the gun. But the darkest place really is in a lighted metro, so it's redundant.

2) Once again, I agree, though it's hard something to complain about seeing how it's optional. I'm just spitballing here, but I think the laser attachment on the sniper would have been a good compensation for range. Not as in it eliminates range, but as in (unrealistically of course) it acts as a sort of guideline for where your bullet will fall. Helps make sniping a little easier to understand for beginners, but not so easy as it gives away your position.

3) Also agree, though with online multiplayer I can understand why they chose to opt out. The Co-op for example kinda makes me wonder. I would actually play it to unlock the attachments with my little brother or something if it wasn't for the fact that I have qualms with playing the same mission over and over when I'm not facing bots. To much gametime for unlockable weapons.

But seriously, fuck the IRNV. Though I heard they are nerfing that along with the flashlight. Good riddance. Would be fine if they just took that out of the game.

Another qualm I have is with heatseeking missles. The first 2 days of the game were the most fun I had in the airplanes and helicopters. As soon as you could unlock the heat seeking missles, it became so infuriating. Shooting down the planes with the built in guns was the most rewarding thing I had done in the game.

Then people unlocked the Anti Air rockets from the ground, and it made air support redundant. Helicopters and planes are nowhere near powerful enough to have someone who can shoot two missles at you from the ground in less than ten seconds. Seriously, I feel like a lot of fun is missing from the game because of it.

 

[lightningmagurn]

1) Tac lights are on the list of things to be nerfed. Furthermore Gameplay>Realism
2) Really? You're whining about an optional attachment being ineffective? Just use something else! A supressor, a tac light, anything. Besides in the actual game which is pretty much all that matters lasers increase your hip fired accuracy, making them useful for panic shots. Plus blinding enemy snipers gives you that split second advantage when counter sniping them.


3)Playing on console is doing it wrong. I'll substitute "lack of split screen" with "lack of LAN" and I'll accept your whining. Also you do realise that because of how taxing BF3 is in terms of resources it's actually most likely impossible to have split screen. They can't get above 30 FPS or so as it is, imagine having almost twice that load. Split screen for AAA high graphical fidelity modern games will be dead until the next generation of consoles is released imo.

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.

Hmm, yup this guy seems to know what he's talking.... wait wut? How would split screen for consoles be "unfair"? Especially when the console version of the game is demonstrably crap when compared to the PC version. Console players get max 24 player servers instead of max 64, they get crap frame rates (though I do too because my computer's old) and they have a poor control system (they have to crab claw in order to spot enemies)

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 think that if you are really talking about realism, and about what a sniper would and wouldn't do you should point out that they wouldn't be there at all, and complain about how a sniper and spotter seek to infiltrate an area slowly and stealthily, observe for a long period, and then, maybe, shoot a specific target. OR, provide overwatch for a well planned operation. No, nobody in the military would put a laser on a weapon, but it's fun to be able to. You should realize that it would be impossible to make a combat sim, because it would be no fun. The planning, the preparing, the hours of driving, walking, knocking on doors, and then sudden violence, wrought by an enemy that you can't see, suppress, call for indirect, close, engage, go home.

 

[Darius Brogan]

1) Tac lights are on the list of things to be nerfed. Furthermore Gameplay>Realism
2) Really? You're whining about an optional attachment being ineffective? Just use something else! A supressor, a tac light, anything. Besides in the actual game which is pretty much all that matters lasers increase your hip fired accuracy, making them useful for panic shots. Plus blinding enemy snipers gives you that split second advantage when counter sniping them.


3)Playing on console is doing it wrong. I'll substitute "lack of split screen" with "lack of LAN" and I'll accept your whining. Also you do realise that because of how taxing BF3 is in terms of resources it's actually most likely impossible to have split screen. They can't get above 30 FPS or so as it is, imagine having almost twice that load. Split screen for AAA high graphical fidelity modern games will be dead until the next generation of consoles is released imo.

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.

Hmm, yup this guy seems to know what he's talking.... wait wut? How would split screen for consoles be "unfair"? Especially when the console version of the game is demonstrably crap when compared to the PC version. Console players get max 24 player servers instead of max 64, they get crap frame rates (though I do too because my computer's old) and they have a poor control system (they have to crab claw in order to spot enemies)

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 think that if you are really talking about realism, and about what a sniper would and wouldn't do you should point out that they wouldn't be there at all, and complain about how a sniper and spotter seek to infiltrate an area slowly and stealthily, observe for a long period, and then, maybe, shoot a specific target. OR, provide overwatch for a well planned operation. No, nobody in the military would put a laser on a weapon, but it's fun to be able to. You should realize that it would be impossible to make a combat sim, because it would be no fun. The planning, the preparing, the hours of driving, walking, knocking on doors, and then sudden violence, wrought by an enemy that you can't see, suppress, call for indirect, close, engage, go home.

I suppose that's true, but my buddy and I spent two hours in one mission on Ghost Recon taking out every single hostile silently and efficiently and weren't seen even once the entire time...

Though, only a very small fraction of gamers take that kind of care in their play.

 

[lightningmagurn]

1) Tac lights are on the list of things to be nerfed. Furthermore Gameplay>Realism
2) Really? You're whining about an optional attachment being ineffective? Just use something else! A supressor, a tac light, anything. Besides in the actual game which is pretty much all that matters lasers increase your hip fired accuracy, making them useful for panic shots. Plus blinding enemy snipers gives you that split second advantage when counter sniping them.


3)Playing on console is doing it wrong. I'll substitute "lack of split screen" with "lack of LAN" and I'll accept your whining. Also you do realise that because of how taxing BF3 is in terms of resources it's actually most likely impossible to have split screen. They can't get above 30 FPS or so as it is, imagine having almost twice that load. Split screen for AAA high graphical fidelity modern games will be dead until the next generation of consoles is released imo.

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.

Hmm, yup this guy seems to know what he's talking.... wait wut? How would split screen for consoles be "unfair"? Especially when the console version of the game is demonstrably crap when compared to the PC version. Console players get max 24 player servers instead of max 64, they get crap frame rates (though I do too because my computer's old) and they have a poor control system (they have to crab claw in order to spot enemies)

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 think that if you are really talking about realism, and about what a sniper would and wouldn't do you should point out that they wouldn't be there at all, and complain about how a sniper and spotter seek to infiltrate an area slowly and stealthily, observe for a long period, and then, maybe, shoot a specific target. OR, provide overwatch for a well planned operation. No, nobody in the military would put a laser on a weapon, but it's fun to be able to. You should realize that it would be impossible to make a combat sim, because it would be no fun. The planning, the preparing, the hours of driving, walking, knocking on doors, and then sudden violence, wrought by an enemy that you can't see, suppress, call for indirect, close, engage, go home.

I suppose that's true, but my buddy and I spent two hours in one mission on Ghost Recon taking out every single hostile silently and efficiently and weren't seen even once the entire time...

Though, only a very small fraction of gamers take that kind of care in their play.

But that is not vs actual humans, and still isn't how sniping works.

 

[Darius Brogan]

Lol, then I guess you weren't the main character, were you? If you WERE it would have been AWESOME!.... Or mentally shattering... Possibly both... but probably not., lol

A toast to you sir!

Why thank you, kind sir! I do try my best!

 

[Darius Brogan]

1) Tac lights are on the list of things to be nerfed. Furthermore Gameplay>Realism
2) Really? You're whining about an optional attachment being ineffective? Just use something else! A supressor, a tac light, anything. Besides in the actual game which is pretty much all that matters lasers increase your hip fired accuracy, making them useful for panic shots. Plus blinding enemy snipers gives you that split second advantage when counter sniping them.


3)Playing on console is doing it wrong. I'll substitute "lack of split screen" with "lack of LAN" and I'll accept your whining. Also you do realise that because of how taxing BF3 is in terms of resources it's actually most likely impossible to have split screen. They can't get above 30 FPS or so as it is, imagine having almost twice that load. Split screen for AAA high graphical fidelity modern games will be dead until the next generation of consoles is released imo.

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.

Hmm, yup this guy seems to know what he's talking.... wait wut? How would split screen for consoles be "unfair"? Especially when the console version of the game is demonstrably crap when compared to the PC version. Console players get max 24 player servers instead of max 64, they get crap frame rates (though I do too because my computer's old) and they have a poor control system (they have to crab claw in order to spot enemies)

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 think that if you are really talking about realism, and about what a sniper would and wouldn't do you should point out that they wouldn't be there at all, and complain about how a sniper and spotter seek to infiltrate an area slowly and stealthily, observe for a long period, and then, maybe, shoot a specific target. OR, provide overwatch for a well planned operation. No, nobody in the military would put a laser on a weapon, but it's fun to be able to. You should realize that it would be impossible to make a combat sim, because it would be no fun. The planning, the preparing, the hours of driving, walking, knocking on doors, and then sudden violence, wrought by an enemy that you can't see, suppress, call for indirect, close, engage, go home.

I suppose that's true, but my buddy and I spent two hours in one mission on Ghost Recon taking out every single hostile silently and efficiently and weren't seen even once the entire time...

Though, only a very small fraction of gamers take that kind of care in their play.

But that is not vs actual humans, and still isn't how sniping works.

That all depends on what function the Sniper/Marksman is supposed to perform in any given situation.
Taking out vehicles, high-value targets, thinning the herd, whathaveyou.

A good example is Simo Hayha, a Finnish Sniper with WELL over 700 confirmed kills in about 100 days.
He had no spotter and no high-magnification scope, but he was still a Trained Sniper, and he still nailed almost 1000 hostiles.

 

[Darius Brogan]

Double post. Removing it now.

 

[Darius Brogan]

Good lord, I didn't think I hit the bloody button three times!
Removing again, then.

 

[lightningmagurn]

1) Tac lights are on the list of things to be nerfed. Furthermore Gameplay>Realism
2) Really? You're whining about an optional attachment being ineffective? Just use something else! A supressor, a tac light, anything. Besides in the actual game which is pretty much all that matters lasers increase your hip fired accuracy, making them useful for panic shots. Plus blinding enemy snipers gives you that split second advantage when counter sniping them.


3)Playing on console is doing it wrong. I'll substitute "lack of split screen" with "lack of LAN" and I'll accept your whining. Also you do realise that because of how taxing BF3 is in terms of resources it's actually most likely impossible to have split screen. They can't get above 30 FPS or so as it is, imagine having almost twice that load. Split screen for AAA high graphical fidelity modern games will be dead until the next generation of consoles is released imo.

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.

Hmm, yup this guy seems to know what he's talking.... wait wut? How would split screen for consoles be "unfair"? Especially when the console version of the game is demonstrably crap when compared to the PC version. Console players get max 24 player servers instead of max 64, they get crap frame rates (though I do too because my computer's old) and they have a poor control system (they have to crab claw in order to spot enemies)

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 think that if you are really talking about realism, and about what a sniper would and wouldn't do you should point out that they wouldn't be there at all, and complain about how a sniper and spotter seek to infiltrate an area slowly and stealthily, observe for a long period, and then, maybe, shoot a specific target. OR, provide overwatch for a well planned operation. No, nobody in the military would put a laser on a weapon, but it's fun to be able to. You should realize that it would be impossible to make a combat sim, because it would be no fun. The planning, the preparing, the hours of driving, walking, knocking on doors, and then sudden violence, wrought by an enemy that you can't see, suppress, call for indirect, close, engage, go home.

I suppose that's true, but my buddy and I spent two hours in one mission on Ghost Recon taking out every single hostile silently and efficiently and weren't seen even once the entire time...

Though, only a very small fraction of gamers take that kind of care in their play.

But that is not vs actual humans, and still isn't how sniping works.

That all depends on what function the Sniper/Marksman is supposed to perform in any given situation.
Taking out vehicles, high-value targets, thinning the herd, whathaveyou.

A good example is Simo Hayha, a Finnish Sniper with WELL over 700 confirmed kills in about 100 days.
He had no spotter and no high-magnification scope, but he was still a Trained Sniper, and he still nailed almost 1000 hostiles.

I've read up on him, white death and all that. He is an admirable killing machine, but he is not a good example of what Modern snipers are trying to accomplish. Snipers mostly do recon, denial of an area i.e. the commander wants to put in a COP and clears the area out, disruption of enemy actions (also called spoiling) and again, over watch. In a modern setting, this involves small groups of highly trained dudes sitting in one spot shooting people only after a long confirmation process proves that it's ok to shoot that dude. If you want realism, why not complain about vehicles too? Why don't tanks have 4 separate crew positions? It's no fun. Why don't wounded soldiers get evacuated to field hospitals, nearby allies, and eventually home to live a life of poverty and pain before dieing early or killing them selves? It's no fun. Why don't Abrams dominate Russian tanks and why does the US use out dated planes? Why do soldiers use non issue weapons? Why do the different camo schemes represent a wide variety of services all operation together with no unified command and control? Where are all the combat support and combat service support personnel? Where are the civilians? Realism isn't fun, and to try to demand a FPS to be a combat sim is silly.

 

[Darius Brogan]

1) Tac lights are on the list of things to be nerfed. Furthermore Gameplay>Realism
2) Really? You're whining about an optional attachment being ineffective? Just use something else! A supressor, a tac light, anything. Besides in the actual game which is pretty much all that matters lasers increase your hip fired accuracy, making them useful for panic shots. Plus blinding enemy snipers gives you that split second advantage when counter sniping them.


3)Playing on console is doing it wrong. I'll substitute "lack of split screen" with "lack of LAN" and I'll accept your whining. Also you do realise that because of how taxing BF3 is in terms of resources it's actually most likely impossible to have split screen. They can't get above 30 FPS or so as it is, imagine having almost twice that load. Split screen for AAA high graphical fidelity modern games will be dead until the next generation of consoles is released imo.

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.

Hmm, yup this guy seems to know what he's talking.... wait wut? How would split screen for consoles be "unfair"? Especially when the console version of the game is demonstrably crap when compared to the PC version. Console players get max 24 player servers instead of max 64, they get crap frame rates (though I do too because my computer's old) and they have a poor control system (they have to crab claw in order to spot enemies)

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 think that if you are really talking about realism, and about what a sniper would and wouldn't do you should point out that they wouldn't be there at all, and complain about how a sniper and spotter seek to infiltrate an area slowly and stealthily, observe for a long period, and then, maybe, shoot a specific target. OR, provide overwatch for a well planned operation. No, nobody in the military would put a laser on a weapon, but it's fun to be able to. You should realize that it would be impossible to make a combat sim, because it would be no fun. The planning, the preparing, the hours of driving, walking, knocking on doors, and then sudden violence, wrought by an enemy that you can't see, suppress, call for indirect, close, engage, go home.

I suppose that's true, but my buddy and I spent two hours in one mission on Ghost Recon taking out every single hostile silently and efficiently and weren't seen even once the entire time...

Though, only a very small fraction of gamers take that kind of care in their play.

But that is not vs actual humans, and still isn't how sniping works.

That all depends on what function the Sniper/Marksman is supposed to perform in any given situation.
Taking out vehicles, high-value targets, thinning the herd, whathaveyou.

A good example is Simo Hayha, a Finnish Sniper with WELL over 700 confirmed kills in about 100 days.
He had no spotter and no high-magnification scope, but he was still a Trained Sniper, and he still nailed almost 1000 hostiles.

I've read up on him, white death and all that. He is an admirable killing machine, but he is not a good example of what Modern snipers are trying to accomplish. Snipers mostly do recon, denial of an area i.e. the commander wants to put in a COP and clears the area out, disruption of enemy actions (also called spoiling) and again, over watch. In a modern setting, this involves small groups of highly trained dudes sitting in one spot shooting people only after a long confirmation process proves that it's ok to shoot that dude. If you want realism, why not complain about vehicles too? Why don't tanks have 4 separate crew positions? It's no fun. Why don't wounded soldiers get evacuated to field hospitals, nearby allies, and eventually home to live a life of poverty and pain before dieing early or killing them selves? It's no fun. Why don't Abrams dominate Russian tanks and why does the US use out dated planes? Why do soldiers use non issue weapons? Why do the different camo schemes represent a wide variety of services all operation together with no unified command and control? Where are all the combat support and combat service support personnel? Where are the civilians? Realism isn't fun, and to try to demand a FPS to be a combat sim is silly.

Except I don't demand that it be a Combat Sim. I demand that a game perform as advertised.

Also, four crew positions would be awesome while the Abrams is an admirable Tank it's not invincible, non-military focus in a combat sim would be superfluous, running out of ammo necessitates grabbing whichever weapon is available (Ammo-dumps everywhere, as in-game, are illogical), different camo-schemes are because players are fickle and petty, and as for out-dated planes they're still in combat use today, therefore logically would be in use in the game

Though, I should state, they still irritate me. I posted the original two + split-screen irritants because they were foremost in my mind at the time.

I don't care that it's not a 100% perfect my-god-it's-so-real combat sim, but the game advertised authenticity and realism, and didn't produce in anything but graphics.

 

[instantbenz]

What I agree with:

flashlight blinding in mid-day situations was a poor decision

What I disagree with:

complaining about a person's layout in the game. it is something available to you as well, so make that your goal. work towards that and in doing so, you'll likely see ways to foil that tactic and thus create a better build by the time such a build is available to you.

if you get too frustrated with it you have 2 choices 1. stop playing or 2. keep playing

either gives you the option of going online and complaining about how shit the mechanics or builds are and how overpowered items are.

tldr: deal with it or quit

 

[Alexnader]

snip

snip

1) Then quit arguing with me. It'll make this whole thing go by all the more quickly.

2) It states on the case that their aim was realism, so weapon stats are close to real, meaning the weapons effective range is close to real, meaning 400 yards is still enough to kill someone, albeit though you'd need some luck.

3) I didn't mention the attachments for a reason, because a Hi-Mag Scope is what a good sniper uses for long-range shots. At mid ranges an assault rifle works just fine.

4) I couldn't care less if an argument falls into a point-for-point or even a screaming match, because that never happens with me.

5) Please read the original post where I state that I'm a perfectionist. A Game advertised as Authentic and Realistic that falls under neither category is a betrayal for someone who actually cares about those little things like detail.

6) Oh? I'm desperately sorry that I have better things to do than track every miniscule movement of every single video-game that I intend to play after release. I have things like work, rent, utilities, baby-sitting, inter-provincial and rather soon after international moves to plan, along with student loans to pay for, and pre-study to worry about, followed by independent programming study, 3D graphics and mapping, and petty things like making sure I'm fed on a regular basis.
As one would imagine, that takes up a rather extensive amount of my time, and the rest is spent sleeping, or enjoying what little peace I get. My only saving grace is my typing speed, which allows me to post lovely little threads like this and not waste too much of my time.

7) A succinct defense of my position? How about being a concept planner myself with more experience in the planning and specifications of video-games than pretty much any non-dev gamer on the planet? Realistically speaking, of course.
I work with a small team on writing up the specifications, features, story-lines, characters, weapons, puzzles, maps, skills, and myriad other little niceties that gamers often enjoy in the games they play.
I'm more than aware, as an independent, of what goes into the planning stages of a video-game. I'm also aware that AAA titles have access to hundreds of times the funds I've got.
So why is it that my teeny team I can plan and conceptualize what is wanted in a title, and nix what would be too time consuming, or unnecessary while still keeping the feel of the game?

Titles like Battlefield are millions of dollars, and thousands of hours in the making, and have giant teams of people working on what to put into it and what to leave out, what would be wanted and what would not, and marketing the game based on what's going into it.

Marketing realism and authenticity, while keeping an entertaining and interesting game, are two things that Battlefield was going for. For the average gamer, they did very well. For the above average gamer, there are some miniscule gripes. For the elite gamer, there are more. But above all of them, there is (Seriously not trying to sound arrogant, but I can't phrase it differently) me.
Or, more accurately, people like me, my team, and my friends. All of whom play games based on our interests in the real world. All of whom look at a game, and what's advertised, and expect those huge, AAA titles to provide.

When Battlefield was marketed as authentic and realistic, I expected a giant, multi-billion dollar company to possess the knowledge necessary to make it so.
Even when one balances the game-play aspect against the realism, Battlefield 3 is a fun game with a few life-like touches here and there, based entirely off of game-play, and marketed as authentic and realistic, when it's neither.

I apologize for the length, but that is about as succinct as I can get. Be glad I didn't go for verbose, instead.

I received no message alert for your response... it seems the website wants us to stop discussing this. I have a main point down the bottom but here's some responses tit4tat style.

1) Also why am I the only one snipping? Each post would be a page long just off the quotes if it wasn't for me. Fine, looks like we're back to tit for tat.

2) I've got the PC limited edition case right next to me and it never uses the word "realism". The closest it comes is to claim the single player delivers "a true warrior's experience in the global war of tomorrow". All your gripes are with attachments in multiplayer.

3)I don't even care anymore nor remember why we're discussing this.

4)A point for point argument never happens for you and yet here we are? Alrighty.

5)The game was advertised as authentic. Being a perfectionist does not excuse you from being ignorant or whiny.

6)I'm sorry? You mean you don't try on a pair of pants before you buy them? Do you not scope out a menu before ordering? I'm serious, 5 minutes on youtube would've told you not to waste your money on a game that you wouldn't enjoy. If your time is worth more than that then assuming you paid $30 for BF3 then that's $360 per hour that you earn at your job or whatever. 6 hours a day, 5 days a week, 48 weeks per year then that's $518,400 per year minimum before tax. In which case why would you complain when you could buy every game that came out this year no sweat?

If you're really that busy and the only thing that lets you post in this inane argument is your typing speed then no wonder you keep misunderstanding my points and rehashing the "the game was marketed as realistic" fallacy. You're going to fast to think. If you spent 5 minutes thinking about what you were going to write and then 1 minute writing it's still better than spending 7 minutes rehashing the same thing 7 times.

7) Succinct defence of your position =/= pulling proverbial rank on me with your oodles of game development experience.

You ask how a AAA title could get wrong what you get right? I'm surprised you don't already know given you're an industry insider. If you have hundreds of people working on the same thing, it's a huge challenge keeping them on the same page. A classic example is the A-91 flava text vs. its in game properties. "The A-91's bullpup design does not allow for foregrip attachments", guess what was in the list of attachments. You and your friends/colleagues may all be able to gather round a table and say "Ok, Phason Ponies can't swim, we cool with that?" but it's most definitely not that simple in the big leagues. You say "giant teams working out what to put in and take out", however they aren't all going to be in the same department. There's going to be gameplay designers who'll say "That's unbalanced, change it", there's going to be people like you who say "That makes no sense, change it" and then there's all the coders and artists involved in actually implementing the damn things that have to interpret the garble that the designers send out. You make it sound simple.

The problem is not limited to DICE, the team who make Magic Cards wanted to put in a "tall nut" wall card to honour Pop Cap's PvZ. The writing team made up a "Tall Nut" wall that was resistant to zombies. The mechanics team saw that it was a "tall nut" and thus should also block flying creatures, however having both resistance to zombies and flying didn't match the rarity of the card so they got rid of the resistance to zombies which was the entire point of the damn thing.

For the record I'm a 19 year old student engineer who's also studied some Comp Sci. I feel I'm holding up pretty well here just on knowledge I picked up from this site, the dev blogs I follow, extra credits etc.

What you've outlined does not place you "above the elite gamer". How much you nitpick has no causal relationship with how much of a gamer you are, there is some correlation but that's it. Professionally, your worth seems to be measured by how much and to what detail you can complain about things. That has nothing to do with gaming.

This is all moot however as I'll explain in the main point
------------------------------------------

MAIN POINT ALLCAPS ARGH:

You're entitled as a professional continuity whatsit to your own opinions about the game. Where you go wrong is in implying that Battlefield 3 lied to you or betrayed you. Here's the most realism centric piece of Battlefield marketing I could find.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eedRhcpOsuU

The tagline "Is it real - or is it Battlefield 3?" seems to imply that it's a realistic, sim like shooter. However if you watch the actual ad it clearly places the focus on the game's graphics by splicing gameplay footage with hollywood "real life" combat footage. This is in key with the primary focus of EA's campaign, i.e. the Frostbite 2 engine.

Authenticity, i.e. immersion, has been their focus throughout.
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/10/18/dice-shooters-transforming-into-a-service/

Nothing about realism here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Q7GVSx7yMaA
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/10/12/confirmed-battlefield-3-features-destruction/#more-77513

In fact I challenge you to find anything that implies simulator-like realism from this game asides from that TV ad, which lets face it, are always full of shit anyway.

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/tag/battlefield-3/

Here's a compilation of news written in a witty, PC player centric manner.


Even if you somehow thought "Hmm, realistic graphics and sound? It must be ARMA THREE!!!" 5 minutes of research would've told you otherwise. Hell watching that TV ad where the sniper shoots the car which then explodes should have immediately told you all that you need to know about the "realism" of this game.

Your job requires you create a coherent universe, you are required to be more discerning than any typical consumer. You should know going into any purchase that your perception WILL NOT be catered to by the vast majority of the industry because it's just not worth it.

TL;DR Stop complaining that you made a bad purchase when it was your fault in the first place. The game was not marketed to be realistic.

 

[MisterDyslexo]

Those are.... extremely minor complaints. I mean the flashlight outside is annoying, but its usually teammates faults. I've gotten over 2000 deaths, and I wouldn't attribute more than thirty or forty of them to that. Those other two.... so what?

If they got a laser on it, good riddance. It makes it easier for you to shoot them in the face with a handgun from 200 meters away. And the bulletdrop seems reasonable, you just have to learn it. I'm a terrible sniper, but I can get used to it easily.

 

[Darius Brogan]

Those are.... extremely minor complaints. I mean the flashlight outside is annoying, but its usually teammates faults. I've gotten over 2000 deaths, and I wouldn't attribute more than thirty or forty of them to that. Those other two.... so what?

If they got a laser on it, good riddance. It makes it easier for you to shoot them in the face with a handgun from 200 meters away. And the bulletdrop seems reasonable, you just have to learn it. I'm a terrible sniper, but I can get used to it easily.

For the last goddamn time people, I've stated my position as a perfectionist many times now and mistakes like that irritate me to no end. Yeah, they ruined the experience for me. I notice these little things, and no matter how little they happen, the fact that they happened at all sticks with me.

Can you blame me for the title and petty gripes given that I had half a bottle of Crystal-head Vodka in my system at the time?

 

[Darius Brogan]

BIG FREAKING EREBUS CLASS SNIP!!!!

No, I'm not disregarding your points, I'm just too fucking tired to care tonight, and so will simply put the three points that came to mind up.

1) I DIDN'T PURCHASE IT! MY BROTHER DID. I've said that already. I also said that it's typed directly in the features on the back of the 360 case: "Real-as-Hell"

2) The 'emphasis' on graphics alone is up for interpretation. Great, and varied, interpretation.
People say the Statue of Liberty is an Illuminati or Masonic symbol based on her measurements. Doesn't make it true.
Others say the Trade Centers were clearly brought down by energy weapons. Also doesn't mean it's true.
Even more people say the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. Doesn't make that true either.

3) I didn't pull rank on you. You asked for defense of my position, and that's what you got.
I notice the things in games that others miss. I won't say I get absolutely everything, which is why I have a team, but I notice.
You mean to tell me that huge dev-teams working in various departments throughout the process conversing on which goes in and which stays out can get just about every minor complaint one could come up with regarding game physics, features, mechanics, mapping, etc... but would miss the obvious breaks in the Authenticity that EVERY SINGLE EMPLOYEE was going for?
No, now that you mention it, that makes sense. Except for the fact that every concept goes through numerous stages of development before even reaching finalized 3D mapping or programming, and long before it's actually implemented into the alpha-material.

a) ?We are not trying to create a simulator. But the feeling that what happens in the game is plausible and looks real and authentic is important to us.?
Focus, if you would, on Authentic. Authentic. That word does not apply if you forgo authenticity in favor of the players want for cool gadgets.

b) Did you even watch that trailer? It's cut-scenes. A gameplay trailer laid out like a live-action movie. Spliced and edited to look realistic... That's not even an interpretation...
The same applies to the link below it... only that almost exclusively gameplay.

c) I challenge you to point out EXACTLY where I demand SIMULATOR-LIKE gameplay. ANywhere in these comments.

Now that I've been here longer than I wanted to be anyways, I'm bidding you a good night... morning... evening... whatever, wherever you are.

 

[ElPatron]

They aren't going to stay still and brace for impact

Funny, so far no torn ligaments, and they don't seem to be "bracing" themselves - just properly applying their stance.

Saved these for last. The guy fired a .50 BMG round without a muzzle brake on. Not only he had to face the projectile recoil, he also had the gas pressure pushing the stock against his shoulder.

No dislocated shoulder.