I'm loving it. It's a huge improvement from both Battlefield 2 and Bad Company 2. While on the topic, I'm looking for members for my Battlefield 3 Platoon! If anyones interested, simply apply at the following link:
Playing it for a few days and must say its pretty nice , tho it feels more like bad company than bf2 for me. Also hope they optimize their engine more since my gtx 580 was only using 50 procent load so far but game wanted more . Think current beta also doesnt have all gfx options turned on since i am running ultra and it doesnt realy look better than bad company 2 ,game also needs alot of bug fixes like falling true the floor etc.
Not about this topic but does anybody else have problems with their gtx 580 and crashing on dx 10 and 11 ? . Did try everything so far but still crashes random on dx 10 games and its not a heat issue or whatever . Did read the first gtx 580 batches did have problems with their stock voltage even did put that up but no results , so if anybody else have this problem or know the fix please let me know.
When the female avatar thing comes up I always ask males "Did you play with barbie dolls when growing up or gi joe action figures?" Never had one guy say yeah I did so I could look at barbie's ass when I played.
Lol every time I ask a guy mmo player that plays a girl and ask him why I get the same response every time which is the same as yours, 'id rather look at a girls ass all day than a guys' which is complete rubbish and I think they have some deep secret where they've always wanted to be a girl in something in some way, and an mmo lets them do that without looking 'gay'.
I always find that guys that refuse to play female avatars "refuse" a little too hard if ya get my drift.
The following statement is false The previous statement is true
It's beta so not sure why there are so many people moaning about this game. Once it's out and not improved then you are able to make comments imo...Give the game a chance ffs.
Just sayin here, you stack up the best man vs the best woman at any activity, any sport, and pretty much everything else, the best man will win, that is why women are in a seperate division in every single sport/activity, because women will be beaten outright.
Ex,
best male boxer vs best female boxer
best male runner vs best female runner
best male weightlifter vs best female weightlifter
smartest male vs smartest female
best male artist vs best female artist
best male shooter vs best female shooter
best male pro gamer vs best female pro gamer
Also almost every single historic creation of anything was created by males (ex electricity, the telephone, the airplane, the computer, the operating system)
The outcome will always be the male, I'm obviously coming off as sexist here but I am actually not at all, this is just how the human anatomy is...
Well what about the best female X vs the average male X? That's what a true comparison would be especially when you are talking about the military. The armed forces are absolutely filled with average people and yet seem to still function. If a woman can perform as well as your average infantry soldier then why not have them? If every man was judged like this we'd have 1 soldier, 1 cop, 1 singer, 1 runner, 1 pro gamer, 1 boxer, 1 weightlifer, 1 carperner, etc in the world. And yes that's absurd and doesn't happen in reality, however that's what your list implies.
As to your point about who has created things over the years .. well uhh, why might that be? How many women were allowed to have any of the jobs leading up to the creation of any of these things during the time periods. Every one of the examples you listed was pre 1960 if not earlier.
"Well what about the best female X vs the average male X? That's what a true comparison would be especially when you are talking about the military. The armed forces are absolutely filled with average people and yet seem to still function. If a woman can perform as well as your average infantry soldier then why not have them?"
I never said the military should not allow women in. Truth is, males are physically better for the job than females. A woman would simply have a tougher time lugging around 40 pounds of equipment than an average male because their muscle structure is litterally weaker than a males.
"If every man was judged like this we'd have 1 soldier, 1 cop, 1 singer, 1 runner, 1 pro gamer, 1 boxer, 1 weightlifer, 1 carperner, etc in the world."
This just isn't true, because everyone wants to be the best at something, and everyone qualifies to be better at something else than the other. Ex, 2 male soldiers, one can be better with a sniper, the other could be better with assault rifles. The only way to defeat a male that is the best at something, is to 'fight fire with fire' and throw another male at him. Imagine mike tyson (in his prime) fighting the worlds best female boxer... Yea tyson would win. Now throw lenix louis at him and now you have a competition (male vs male).
"As to your point about who has created things over the years .. well uhh, why might that be? How many women were allowed to have any of the jobs leading up to the creation of any of these things during the time periods. Every one of the examples you listed was pre 1960 if not earlier."
At what point were these creations made because 'it was their job to'? The men discovering flight weren't getting paid to do it, they were simply trying to discover something reviloutionary. Why couldn't women do the same? They were of course discriminated against certain jobs and from voting at the time, but how could these limitations limit them from creating something revolutionary?
The boxing world is not made up of Mike Tyson's, it is filled with thousands of mediocre boxers and a few stars ... just like every other profession in this world including the military. The army doesn't say, oh wait we can't return fire because we don't have our all stars here.
And yes, thanks for parsing the word "job" while missing the point. Women were excluded from education and yes, occupations (musn't say jobs, oh no) that gave them the necessary experience to allow them to invent things such as flight. Although there are always exceptions that prove the rule, though in this case those exceptions sort of deflate your point, ie Mdm. Curie. Even a simple web search will reveal entire lists of female inventors/discoverers.
Even some of the old Rainbow Six games allowed one to play female avatars.
MMO's played: Ragnarok Online (For years), WoW (for a few weeks only), Guild Wars, Lineage 2, Eve, Allods, Shattered Galaxy, 9 Dragons, City of Heroes, City of Villains, Star Trek Online (Got someone ELSE to pay for it), Champions Online (Someone else paid), Dofus, Dragonica, LOTRO, DDO and more... A LOT more. I've played good AND bad. The bad didn't last long. :P
I'm guessing battlefield 3 is trying to make it as realistic as possible. There aren't any female special forces or infantry soldiers/marines, so I guess thats why. At least I never saw any with my 4yrs in the marines and 5yrs in the navy. The closest I think I've seen females get to combat are fighter pilots.
I'm guessing battlefield 3 is trying to make it as realistic as possible. There aren't any female special forces or infantry soldiers/marines, so I guess thats why. At least I never saw any with my 4yrs in the marines and 5yrs in the navy. The closest I think I've seen females get to combat are fighter pilots.
That may be true, but it is still a valid complaint for a female to have to play with a male avatar in a multiplayer game. The developer doesn't HAVE to include a female avatar, but then maybe they shouldn't be surprised if most women don't want to play it. No doubt shooters appeal less to women anyways, but they would appeal a little bit more if they could at least play a version of themselves in it.
GW2 "built from the ground up with microtransactions in mind" 1) Cash->Gems->Gold->Influence->WvWvWBoosts = PAY2WIN 2) Mystic Chests = Crass in-game cash shop advertisements
hmm i got an email about the beta, but im kind of iffy on installing origins as i distrust EA's new EULA and crap assoiated with that program.. though the game does sound fun.. hopefully its more then just a revamp of BF2...
main thing i hated about BF2 was the auto snipers people would just unscope 1 hit everyone was quite annoying plus the TKing over planes and tanks was a tad excessive
BF2/BF2142/BFVietnam is a revamp of BF1942, so will BF3.
not really, nam was revamp of 42. but bf2 had alot more improvements over 42's system.
i just want a game that actually adds stuff to it, not just a texture cover thats what i have noticed from games like CoD that have many versions they tend to just take the base and add some fancy graphical sparkle... 2042 did that on the old bf 2 eng.. really didnt add anything new i mean the walkers were ok but not impressive and the titans were a joke.. the maps were the same size from what i could tell to 1942...
You won't get any new real changes to speak of untill an indie mod is made, and made better then the original.
EA is notorious for cashing in on what works and not looking out side the box.
I put things in this kind of perspective: The main BF games, even though they haven't broken their own mold as you said, still offer a whole lot of options in gaming compared to the rest of the FPS genre.
Here's the guts of what they've traditionally offered: Team-Focus play (not about the killstreak; objectives; squad based emphasis; getting points for not necessarily putting a bullet through someone), infantry and vehicles on the same game and maps to include even jets and helos, large maps with varied terrain features to enable different gameplay success, and of course traditionally up to 64 players / 32 vs 32.
Those things are what's become important to me in FPS gaming over the years. Unless you can point me to another title or franchise that can provide that kind of varied experience presented in the way DICE can, then by all means, tell me, and I'd love to give it a whirl.
Until then, the FPS genre is for most parts dominated with very simple, very straight forward, and alot of heavily scripted play on tiny maps. Many offer goodies in different parts here and there, but few, if any, present the whole package like DICE has over the years.
The only thing I can think of that puts tremendous options for an FPS gamer is the ARMA series, but that's in the very hardcore MILSIM crowd that requires tremendous practice (which I'm fine with and it's good to me, but I know it's not the majority's cup of tea in the FPS crowd).
Again, I understand where you're coming from, but look at the whole picture and what exactly it is everyone else is doing in the FPS genre.
"I have only two out of my company and 20 out of some other company. We need support, but it is almost suicide to try to get it here as we are swept by machine gun fire and a constant barrage is on us. I have no one on my left and only a few on my right. I will hold." (First Lieutenant Clifton B. Cates, US Marine Corps, Soissons, 19 July 1918)
I had some fun with the beta, and the graphics aren't too bad (considering they are very toned down atm). I also like the movement of your soldier. Feels just about right.
That said there are a lot of dissapointing things about this beta, bugs aside. For starters, the map Metro is nothing short of an abortion of a map. It is easily one of the worste maps ever made, especially for the BF series. It feels much more like CoD than it does a BF game, and if it wasn't for my brief ability to play on one of the caspian border servers, I would've been stuck thinking that 'this is really what the game is all about, how sad'.
The guns are also a bit out of control atm. There's some ridiculously powerful / accurate guns that aren't hard to unlock. The gadjets for the most part are also a huge neussance. I'd rather have some other mechanic instead, but oh well.
Probably my biggest gripe is the balance between the recon's rifles and some of the guns in the other classes. ARs are extremely powerful (1-2shot kills if aimed right / single shots). The accuracy and range of some of the SMGs is also a bit ridiculous. Combine that with the amount of sway, and glint from the high powered rifles, and there's almost no point in using them. It is challenging to take the damn scope off and try and no scope everything. It's doable, but just doesn't feel right at all, and most people are now just running around w/ the rifles instead, CoD style. Strafe / fire on the run, just like the AWP in CS.
There's a lot of potential for this game, but I'd be lying if I wasn't concerned by what I'm seeing. The lack of squad management, and the ability to adjust options BEFORE entering a game, is also absurd. Talk about a major step backwards in game utility. As if having to open 3 programs to run 1 game wasn't bad enough.
I had zero fun with the beta. I just don't enjoy twitch shooters where you're constantly spawning and dying.. that said it's expected being rush mode.
Now for some proper criticism:
I think there's just way too much clutter going on in the game. It's nice to look at, sure, but for the most part it's very hard to tell who is who or if there's an enemy in site because there's so much folliage and what not going on. It's no wonder why DICE has put an effort to include the triangles over enemy players.
I also hate the animation for when a player does turns (specifically a 180 turn). The animation is just really hard to follow (because he leans and zig zags) and because of that he has a greater chance at dodging your bullets and kill you. Sure, a competant player can get him.. but I honestly feel it's unfair like how dolphin diving was in Battlefield 2. I just fear people are going to take advantage of it like side stepping is done in CS.
I think there's just way too much clutter going on in the game. It's nice to look at, sure, but for the most part it's very hard to tell who is who or if there's an enemy in site because there's so much folliage and what not going on. It's no wonder why DICE has put an effort to include the triangles over enemy players.
Quoted for truth. Actually I have this problem with most shooters in general now. The first game I can recall where this was a huge issue for me was Far Cry 2. To me all it emphasizes and encourages is camping... especially when you're outdoors on that Metro map looking towards the station. Not only is there so much clutter but there are so many potential places for enemies to be... not just the streets and the ground level area but you can get on second floors and shoot people from above as well.
Now Playing: Mission Against Terror, Battlefield 3, Skyrim, Dark Souls, League of Legends, Minecraft, and the piano. =3
BF2 was actually an attempt to emulate a BF1942 mod called "Desert Combat". The commander element being the only real edition to the idea (and a piss poor one imo)
Unfortunatly none of the BF series has compeated IMO to Desert Combat, the maps where 100x bigger and the gameplay much more sandbox than games today.
Essentially from what we have seen in the alpha and now beta BF3 has had to comprimise TOO much to make it a viable console port, My view is that console ports never work for PC and visa versa it seems. The two are distictly diffrent and console shooters just feel clunky/un-responsive and curb skill with mechanics to make aiming and firing more of a level playing field.
I miss actually being able to aim in these games, camera shake effects and your charater not being able to hold a gun staight with breathing meaning when you snipe you can only hold your breath for 2-3 seconds yet you can sprint unlimited around the maps leaping over everything as you go.
If you want a skilled tactical shooter then dont go for combat simulator also.
When all is said and done, it seems games developers listern to the people who shout and scream the loudest. That has never really worked for anything else in life so why suddenly does it work for game design?
Spent a good few hours today messing with the Recon UAV and the Engineer's EOD bot and strapping C4 to em. Two of us on vent and it was much more fun than the usual nonsense on that METRO map. UAV for 1st stage, EOD for second and UAV again for the third. 3rd stage was the most hilarious by far, flying the UAV strapped with C4 straight through the windows into the buildings packed with the enemy and... boom. Insta 2 - 6 kills and many WTF???!'s in chat :P
If other people aren't bothered by the failure to include female avatars in this game, that's fine with me, but I am bothered by it, to the point where I simply won't bother playing the game.
This made me laugh so hard, The game is a great start i am enjoying it runs smooth and the BF series have never let me down yet so i pre ordered.
Oh, so they've opened up the open beta to stuff outside rush & metro map?
"I have only two out of my company and 20 out of some other company. We need support, but it is almost suicide to try to get it here as we are swept by machine gun fire and a constant barrage is on us. I have no one on my left and only a few on my right. I will hold." (First Lieutenant Clifton B. Cates, US Marine Corps, Soissons, 19 July 1918)
Best advice would be to rent it before buying it. BF, in general, normally has pretty large maps. unless you jump in tank, heli, or jump - all of which you'll probably have to fight for, you'll spend a lot of time running to the action. class don't allow for quite as much customization as i'm guessing you used to in CoD. graphically, the game should be top-notch.
Comments
I'm loving it. It's a huge improvement from both Battlefield 2 and Bad Company 2. While on the topic, I'm looking for members for my Battlefield 3 Platoon! If anyones interested, simply apply at the following link:
http://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf3/platoon/2826550451887605327
Playing it for a few days and must say its pretty nice , tho it feels more like bad company than bf2 for me. Also hope they optimize their engine more since my gtx 580 was only using 50 procent load so far but game wanted more . Think current beta also doesnt have all gfx options turned on since i am running ultra and it doesnt realy look better than bad company 2 ,game also needs alot of bug fixes like falling true the floor etc.
Not about this topic but does anybody else have problems with their gtx 580 and crashing on dx 10 and 11 ? . Did try everything so far but still crashes random on dx 10 games and its not a heat issue or whatever . Did read the first gtx 580 batches did have problems with their stock voltage even did put that up but no results , so if anybody else have this problem or know the fix please let me know.
I always find that guys that refuse to play female avatars "refuse" a little too hard if ya get my drift.
The following statement is false
The previous statement is true
It's beta so not sure why there are so many people moaning about this game. Once it's out and not improved then you are able to make comments imo...Give the game a chance ffs.
Asbo
The boxing world is not made up of Mike Tyson's, it is filled with thousands of mediocre boxers and a few stars ... just like every other profession in this world including the military. The army doesn't say, oh wait we can't return fire because we don't have our all stars here.
And yes, thanks for parsing the word "job" while missing the point. Women were excluded from education and yes, occupations (musn't say jobs, oh no) that gave them the necessary experience to allow them to invent things such as flight. Although there are always exceptions that prove the rule, though in this case those exceptions sort of deflate your point, ie Mdm. Curie. Even a simple web search will reveal entire lists of female inventors/discoverers.
Even some of the old Rainbow Six games allowed one to play female avatars.
MMO's played: Ragnarok Online (For years), WoW (for a few weeks only), Guild Wars, Lineage 2, Eve, Allods, Shattered Galaxy, 9 Dragons, City of Heroes, City of Villains, Star Trek Online (Got someone ELSE to pay for it), Champions Online (Someone else paid), Dofus, Dragonica, LOTRO, DDO and more... A LOT more. I've played good AND bad. The bad didn't last long. :P
I'm guessing battlefield 3 is trying to make it as realistic as possible. There aren't any female special forces or infantry soldiers/marines, so I guess thats why. At least I never saw any with my 4yrs in the marines and 5yrs in the navy. The closest I think I've seen females get to combat are fighter pilots.
That may be true, but it is still a valid complaint for a female to have to play with a male avatar in a multiplayer game. The developer doesn't HAVE to include a female avatar, but then maybe they shouldn't be surprised if most women don't want to play it. No doubt shooters appeal less to women anyways, but they would appeal a little bit more if they could at least play a version of themselves in it.
GW2 "built from the ground up with microtransactions in mind"
1) Cash->Gems->Gold->Influence->WvWvWBoosts = PAY2WIN
2) Mystic Chests = Crass in-game cash shop advertisements
BF3 beta xbox - terrible, low experienced players.
BF3 PS3 beta - worse.
BF3 PC beta- absolutely beautiful. Hardcore FPS'ers. Not for the faint of heart.
Played - M59, EQOA, EQ, EQ2, PS, SWG[Favorite], DAoC, UO, RS, MXO, CoH/CoV, TR, FFXI, FoM, WoW, Eve, Rift, SWTOR, TSW.
Playing - PS2, AoW, GW2
Nope.
I'm playing it on PC and to be painfully blunt, the PC players on the official forum and ingame are acting like spoiled children. Its embarrassing.
I put things in this kind of perspective: The main BF games, even though they haven't broken their own mold as you said, still offer a whole lot of options in gaming compared to the rest of the FPS genre.
Here's the guts of what they've traditionally offered: Team-Focus play (not about the killstreak; objectives; squad based emphasis; getting points for not necessarily putting a bullet through someone), infantry and vehicles on the same game and maps to include even jets and helos, large maps with varied terrain features to enable different gameplay success, and of course traditionally up to 64 players / 32 vs 32.
Those things are what's become important to me in FPS gaming over the years. Unless you can point me to another title or franchise that can provide that kind of varied experience presented in the way DICE can, then by all means, tell me, and I'd love to give it a whirl.
Until then, the FPS genre is for most parts dominated with very simple, very straight forward, and alot of heavily scripted play on tiny maps. Many offer goodies in different parts here and there, but few, if any, present the whole package like DICE has over the years.
The only thing I can think of that puts tremendous options for an FPS gamer is the ARMA series, but that's in the very hardcore MILSIM crowd that requires tremendous practice (which I'm fine with and it's good to me, but I know it's not the majority's cup of tea in the FPS crowd).
Again, I understand where you're coming from, but look at the whole picture and what exactly it is everyone else is doing in the FPS genre.
"I have only two out of my company and 20 out of some other company. We need support, but it is almost suicide to try to get it here as we are swept by machine gun fire and a constant barrage is on us. I have no one on my left and only a few on my right. I will hold." (First Lieutenant Clifton B. Cates, US Marine Corps, Soissons, 19 July 1918)
Their voices would also have to sound like Oprah, to totally remove the sex appeal by audio.
BF2/BFVietnam/BF2142 is a reskinned BF1942
Stay on topic please. Thanks.
I did play a lot of battlefield series games, from bf1942 to bf2. Didnt play the newer ones like bf4free or bad company.
I did start playing battlefield 3 and played a little...was already disappointed in the first minutes and after a while i said to myself.
What a crappy game........wow. Lets see how full version will look like and how gameplay feels.
I had some fun with the beta, and the graphics aren't too bad (considering they are very toned down atm). I also like the movement of your soldier. Feels just about right.
That said there are a lot of dissapointing things about this beta, bugs aside. For starters, the map Metro is nothing short of an abortion of a map. It is easily one of the worste maps ever made, especially for the BF series. It feels much more like CoD than it does a BF game, and if it wasn't for my brief ability to play on one of the caspian border servers, I would've been stuck thinking that 'this is really what the game is all about, how sad'.
The guns are also a bit out of control atm. There's some ridiculously powerful / accurate guns that aren't hard to unlock. The gadjets for the most part are also a huge neussance. I'd rather have some other mechanic instead, but oh well.
Probably my biggest gripe is the balance between the recon's rifles and some of the guns in the other classes. ARs are extremely powerful (1-2shot kills if aimed right / single shots). The accuracy and range of some of the SMGs is also a bit ridiculous. Combine that with the amount of sway, and glint from the high powered rifles, and there's almost no point in using them. It is challenging to take the damn scope off and try and no scope everything. It's doable, but just doesn't feel right at all, and most people are now just running around w/ the rifles instead, CoD style. Strafe / fire on the run, just like the AWP in CS.
There's a lot of potential for this game, but I'd be lying if I wasn't concerned by what I'm seeing. The lack of squad management, and the ability to adjust options BEFORE entering a game, is also absurd. Talk about a major step backwards in game utility. As if having to open 3 programs to run 1 game wasn't bad enough.
I had zero fun with the beta. I just don't enjoy twitch shooters where you're constantly spawning and dying.. that said it's expected being rush mode.
Now for some proper criticism:
I think there's just way too much clutter going on in the game. It's nice to look at, sure, but for the most part it's very hard to tell who is who or if there's an enemy in site because there's so much folliage and what not going on. It's no wonder why DICE has put an effort to include the triangles over enemy players.
I also hate the animation for when a player does turns (specifically a 180 turn). The animation is just really hard to follow (because he leans and zig zags) and because of that he has a greater chance at dodging your bullets and kill you. Sure, a competant player can get him.. but I honestly feel it's unfair like how dolphin diving was in Battlefield 2. I just fear people are going to take advantage of it like side stepping is done in CS.
Currently Playing:
Nothing.
Quoted for truth. Actually I have this problem with most shooters in general now. The first game I can recall where this was a huge issue for me was Far Cry 2. To me all it emphasizes and encourages is camping... especially when you're outdoors on that Metro map looking towards the station. Not only is there so much clutter but there are so many potential places for enemies to be... not just the streets and the ground level area but you can get on second floors and shoot people from above as well.
Now Playing: Mission Against Terror, Battlefield 3, Skyrim, Dark Souls, League of Legends, Minecraft, and the piano. =3
Visit my fail Youtube channel(don't leave me nasty messages!): http://www.youtube.com/user/Mirii471
BF2 was actually an attempt to emulate a BF1942 mod called "Desert Combat". The commander element being the only real edition to the idea (and a piss poor one imo)
Unfortunatly none of the BF series has compeated IMO to Desert Combat, the maps where 100x bigger and the gameplay much more sandbox than games today.
Essentially from what we have seen in the alpha and now beta BF3 has had to comprimise TOO much to make it a viable console port, My view is that console ports never work for PC and visa versa it seems. The two are distictly diffrent and console shooters just feel clunky/un-responsive and curb skill with mechanics to make aiming and firing more of a level playing field.
I miss actually being able to aim in these games, camera shake effects and your charater not being able to hold a gun staight with breathing meaning when you snipe you can only hold your breath for 2-3 seconds yet you can sprint unlimited around the maps leaping over everything as you go.
If you want a skilled tactical shooter then dont go for combat simulator also.
When all is said and done, it seems games developers listern to the people who shout and scream the loudest. That has never really worked for anything else in life so why suddenly does it work for game design?
Spent a good few hours today messing with the Recon UAV and the Engineer's EOD bot and strapping C4 to em. Two of us on vent and it was much more fun than the usual nonsense on that METRO map. UAV for 1st stage, EOD for second and UAV again for the third. 3rd stage was the most hilarious by far, flying the UAV strapped with C4 straight through the windows into the buildings packed with the enemy and... boom. Insta 2 - 6 kills and many WTF???!'s in chat :P
This made me laugh so hard, The game is a great start i am enjoying it runs smooth and the BF series have never let me down yet so i pre ordered.
PS: Im off to Burn my Bra.
All i can say is Caspian Border with 64 players=Epic!
Oh, so they've opened up the open beta to stuff outside rush & metro map?
"I have only two out of my company and 20 out of some other company. We need support, but it is almost suicide to try to get it here as we are swept by machine gun fire and a constant barrage is on us. I have no one on my left and only a few on my right. I will hold." (First Lieutenant Clifton B. Cates, US Marine Corps, Soissons, 19 July 1918)
Best advice would be to rent it before buying it. BF, in general, normally has pretty large maps. unless you jump in tank, heli, or jump - all of which you'll probably have to fight for, you'll spend a lot of time running to the action. class don't allow for quite as much customization as i'm guessing you used to in CoD. graphically, the game should be top-notch.