Battlefield 3 - Part 1

[Balthus Dire]

Anyone else finding that CQ is kinda ruined now? I feel like almost every single game turns into a "spawn camp the other team" fest and it's just not even fun. The only maps that don't fall victim to this are the wide-open style maps like Firestorm, Caspian Border, Kharg Island, and maybe Canals. But all the other maps seem to be turning into a spawn camp fest and it's so lame. It happens almost every time.

I'd just jump over to Rush, but there doesn't seem to be like any Rush servers for some reason. Earlier there was literally none and now I see two in my playlist. WTF??

 

[ProjectPat2280]

Yea, iv actually started playing Rush more. Altho last night i noticed that everyone was in a squad however no one was in a squad of more than 2 people. I dont think people realize when they enter a game with friends the squad is set to private. People need to start using a full squad.

 

[Wolfwood]

How to troll in BF3:


http://kotaku.com/battlefield/

Haha those are pretty great. I love the guy that just suicides rather than be blown up.

 

[ProjectPat2280]

Haha those are pretty great. I love the guy that just suicides rather than be blown up.

Haha yea, i loved a lot of those. My fav was the UAV pushing that guy off the crane. Granted i would hate to have this dude on my team as all it seems he was doing was goofing off, but still, that video was funny as hell.

 

[Balthus Dire]

So I've been checking out the PS3 patch notes and it sounds like a nightmare. Tons of nerfs, choppers sound waaaaaaaaay too powerful now, and they nerfed the IRNV because people cried about it, even though it was completely fine IMO.

It sounds to me like it might be a rough wait for the NEXT patch to fix some balance issues. I don't know why they would've even touched the weapon balance, because IMO this game's balance was pretty much perfect.

 

[BrollySupersj]

So because I rented this game, I am limited to the campaign mode. And it's not all that special, I can see why people say it's not good.

But, is the multiplayer really that good?

 

[Clu]

So I've been checking out the PS3 patch notes and it sounds like a nightmare. Tons of nerfs, choppers sound waaaaaaaaay too powerful now, and they nerfed the IRNV because people cried about it, even though it was completely fine IMO.

It sounds to me like it might be a rough wait for the NEXT patch to fix some balance issues. I don't know why they would've even touched the weapon balance, because IMO this game's balance was pretty much perfect.

the irnv scope was way over powered...it was a walking cheat. you could see people behind walls at points so its good it got nerfed, i just dont think it should have got nerfed as badly as it did. because its pretty much now called "london fog" its pretty silly

helies are fine, they are supposed to be the most powerful thing on the map. it just takes about 3 bullets now to take out jeeps when it should take a little more then that.

im still pretty pissed they didnt nerf Sun on a stick and voice chat for ps3. voice should have been their main focus. whats the point of a multiplayer fps if you cant talk to anyone.

 

[Balthus Dire]

Eh, I don't think IRNV was that OP. It's a 1x scope that completely blocks your vision outside of the scope area. Maybe they could've toned down the brightness of the players or something through the scope but from the vids I've seen it's completely useless now, which is just stupid. And I've never even once seen someone behind a wall with it. :P

As for the choppers, I obviously haven't tested it yet, but I've read that it takes like 6 stingers now to take one out, which is stupid IMO. If you have an engie in a scout chopper repairing it, WTF is gonna take it out other than another chopper??

Also, I read that enemy claymores and mines show up on the minimap without even being spottted, as in as soon as they're laid down. I'm guessing that's an error, because I can't possibly fathom why someone would've thought that was a good idea.

 

[ProjectPat2280]

Wow, some of that sounds awful. It shouldnt ever take more than 2 Stingers or other anti air gun to take out a helo. They were unbalanced in BC2, we dont need to go back to that.

 

[Clu]

it takes 3 stingers to take a heli out. 2 will bring it down to 30hp. but since the engie doesnt overheat, it takes all 4 seconds to bring it up to 70hp so if another player hits it after 2, the 3rd will bring it back to 50hp.

you need at least 4 people targeting a heli to take it out which pretty much sucks. as in bad company it would take 2 at the most to take out a blackhawk.

the scope i agree, should have just darkened the people not outright made the scope useless. depends on maps you used to be able to see people through walls.

even now you can, if you see a shadow magically in a wall...its the other player on the other team...dont know how they managed to let that slip but its a big goof.

 

[Balthus Dire]

It's likely an issue with clipping, since I can sometimes see people's feet and arms sticking through buildings when they're prone, too.


I finally got around to the campaign yesterday and yeah, it's pretty dismal. The AI is awful and I found sometimes that the hit detection on enemies was pretty bad, too. The story was generic and uninspired, and I noticed some pretty funny glitches along the way, mostly sound loops.

But my biggest critique of the SP campaign is: it was simply boring. Apart from a few neat levels (Night Shift comes to mind) it was just a "move-here-kill-enemies" snore fest, so it was pretty mindless. I can handle games like that (I enjoyed Duke Nukem Forever. Yep.) but there has to be fun things along the way, and there just weren't enough fun or cool moments to keep the player engaged.

However, it was hardly the "worst SP campaign ever" like some others have said. There were definitely cool moments, like the opening was incredible IMO. The jet level, while lame for being on-rails, was beautiful to look at.

IMO if you think BF3 has the worst campaign ever then I truly envy you, for I can assure you there definitely ****tier SP campaigns out there that you haven't played.

 

[Why Are You Crouching Spock?]

I thought the the opening of Battlefield 3 (the fellows getting out of the car thing) was kind of like Halflife 2, when you open the big doors and get a look at city17 for the first time. I say that in the context of, if Halflife 2 wasn't very good and trying to be Modern Warfare 2. I find it really odd how you start of with tons of your dudes basically all over the city with super million dollar equipment then 5 minutes in you are alone and pinned to a wall about 30 feet away from were you started by a bunch of rebels with inferior equipment.

The trailer footage of the sniper pinning down gameplay also looked like Halflife 2, which made me hopeful of creative gameplay. In Halflife 2 you take out multiple snipers by playing basketball with a grenade with the snipers helping the player by killing off third party enemys. Here, press X during scripted sequences. Blow up building. Yay America. How original.

The single player to me seemed a total waste of resources. A bullet point shoved on the box to try compete with Call Of Duty. Dice seemed not very pleased with EA trying to make it Call Of Duty VS Battlefield 3. But the single player is a Call Of Duty clone in the most cynical way possible.

 

[Balthus Dire]

Yeah, I thought it was really strange how EA was so adamant about how much COD sucks, yet the campaign actually steals stuff right from the COD franchise but makes it more boring. You'd think they would've tried to do something original or fresh with the SP if they were gonna knock COD so much.

But, the MP is the real reason for owning BF3 anyway, and I'm still enjoying the crap outta that.

 

[StrainedEyes]

I'm excited about Wake Island, that'll get me to play BF3 more than I do.

 

[The Morningstar]

When is Back to Kirkland out?

 

[StrainedEyes]

When is Back to Kirkland out?

6th for the PS3, 13th for the 360/PC.

 

[The Morningstar]

Cool, thanks.

 

[Master Chief]

lol it's weird how words get twisted. I said it was the worst campaign I've ever experienced. Not the worst campaign to ever exist ever. I don't think anyone said that actually.

I tend to stay away from things I know I won't enjoy, so it surprised the hell out of me just how bad it was. I should have guessed though, 90% of the time I wind up dissapointed when a story begins with an amazing, intense scene only to go back in time to show what lead up to that point.

Maybe if the ending was better I wouldn't have hated it as much? Then again that would have probably meant another level or two of bland gameplay so I'm happy they decided to cut it when they did.

All that said though, MP is all that really matters.

 

[ProjectPat2280]

Finally got around to trying out some of that SP and of course, as i thought, most of you were wrong and its not that bad(but we all saw that coming). Its boring, but not bad. Its better than that other modern warfare game. I thought the jet level was neat(altho boring as well). I wish more air combat games would start with you doing equipment checks and take offs/landings. The sound is also really good. Ill finish the campaign, eventually, but for now its back to the MP.

 

[jacobed]

haha no its not better than MW3. Not even close. Mw3's campaign has you on the edge of your seat the whole time you're playing. Blood pumping action set pieces which are all awesome. BF3's campaign is trying so hard to be MW3 but fails miserably.

 

[Wolvieboy17]

MW3... played that yesterday. If that's all it takes to get you on the edge of your seat, I don't know why you bother playing video games when you would apparently be equally thrilled by watching Fox news. There is zero atmosphere in MW whatsoever, it's just big things blowing up and soldiers saying "Oh my God, what is going on?!?". I found the build up to events, like the earthquake, in BF 3 a helluva lot more engaging simply because the pacing and slow build up. It felt like a real world, grounded in real rules, so when something crazy happened it had more of an impact. Like i've said before, MW is Michael Bayformers, BF is Hurt Locker.

 

[Why Are You Crouching Spock?]

haha no its not better than MW3. Not even close. Mw3's campaign has you on the edge of your seat the whole time you're playing. Blood pumping action set pieces which are all awesome. BF3's campaign is trying so hard to be MW3 but fails miserably.

I really enjoyed the very first game way back and to a degree world at war (because it basically is the first game). It kind of becomes numbing though, Especially in how controlled it is. It's never actually done a good job in hiding how controlled and linear it is. Battlefield 3 is just as bad, if not worse. It's insinsipid. They are kinda non-games. You barely play them. It's why Shogun 2 is awsome. You get the scale of thousands of thousands of people on screen at once that would rival any war movie with gameplay to go with it. Thats a game with substance I will return to again and again.

 

[Why Are You Crouching Spock?]

MW3... played that yesterday. If that's all it takes to get you on the edge of your seat, I don't know why you bother playing video games when you would apparently be equally thrilled by watching Fox news. There is zero atmosphere in MW whatsoever, it's just big things blowing up and soldiers saying "Oh my God, what is going on?!?". I found the build up to events, like the earthquake, in BF 3 a helluva lot more engaging simply because the pacing and slow build up. It felt like a real world, grounded in real rules, so when something crazy happened it had more of an impact. Like i've said before, MW is Michael Bayformers, BF is Hurt Locker.

Theres abit were you blow up three tanks in 15 seconds with Russains shooting at you (never-endingly respawning) from a building. That's pure call of duty. You also get a nuke (super original) Russians (super original) on the rails tank sequences (super original) Allpha tango bravo we need evac now! (they probably say that) and other totally uninspired stuff. It's almost like one of those fake knock-off toys that china put out.

 

[Wolvieboy17]

I have to say, the COD single player I enjoyed the most was probably Black Ops. I mean, sure it had many of the same kind of heavily scripted sequences, but a lot of them were understated, intriguing story elements, rather than big, contrived set piece moments. I liked the stuff with Reznov in the tunnels. Whereas having my control of the game taken away every 5 minutes in MW3 just to watch a buiding collapse and have my character reacting to dust and debris just got old and totally took me out of the game. That compared to say, the build up to the jet mission in BF 3 is like chalk and cheese. By the time the jets were prepped for take off, I was totally engaged. I felt like I was in top gun or something. It's just a shame that after that it's on the rails, because I love flying in the jets in MP. Still, whilst neither SP was particularly inspired, I'll always prefer the one that plays it straight and realistic rather than one that takes itself so seriously whilst being so ridiculous that you just don't care. MW3 is popcorn, eye candy video game for teenagers, pure and simple. MP is a different kettle of fish and I don't have a problem with that, but as far as SP goes? It's simply uninspired.

 

[Clu]

bf3 is a better multiplayer, but when it comes to story its all mw. Because if you play bf3 campaign on the hardest setting then everything becomes a aim bot and you die in 1 hit because the computer only does head shots.

least in mw3 you have teammates who actually take fire off from you so you have a chance. but bf3...you can have 50 people in front of you and the computer will ignore them completely. so its more frustrating then it is fun.