Backstage - OOC Forums
General Discussion => The Speakeasy: OOG/Off-topic Discussion => Topic started by: Nmaro Makari on 09 Jan 2012, 15:18
-
I calmly took it out of the machine, placed it carefully in its box and wondered who I could flog this bloated, sluggish, purile, dissapointment to. All the while enjoying myself on Red Faction Guerrilla, a game that is appealing, replayable and not trying to poach fans from the abysmal CoD.
Now, the next day I thought perhaps I was being to quick, so of I went again. Not being able to stand the sheer irritation of multiplayer for more than a half hour, I give the campaign a try. After a half hour of that, I repeat the exercise of putting it back in the box.
So obviously you've guessed what I'm stabbing at now. Quite simply I feel is that Battlefield 3 is a terrible game. The campaign is generic and un-creative, gameplay exchanged for some admittedly impressive visuals and immerson in modern warfare. However, this a game does not make. Frankly I'm always somewhat suspicious of people who attempt to propel a game based on its "realism" or how similar it is to "on the ground" in modern warfare. Mostly because these people are usually the pockmarked pukes in that awkward pre 16th birthday phase (of which I may have been one at some point...) who salivate over the near-peverse details on the contours of a flawlessly rendered sniper rifle.
Co-incidentally, these seem to be the target audience.
It is true that being an effective FPS gamer requires practice. However having been FPSing since CoD 1, I'd hardly call myself un-practiced. I would have expected to be in the swing of multiplayer by maybe 2 hours. It was clear this wasnt going to happen though. The whole multiplayer mode feels like it was built for the teenage repetetive strain brigade, unbalanced and completely open to exploitation. To put it in perspective, here is my view of the breakdown of class selections in multiplayer:
Assault: 40%
Engineer: 40%
Support: 15%
Recon: 5%
The strange thing was the Recon 5%: could pop you from the other side of the map almost. Even if you were moving.
All in all, this feels like a ill concieved attempt to knock CoD of its pedestall, and poach from its multiplayer fanbase.
In short, a total fluster-cuck
-
Frankly I'm always somewhat suspicious of people who attempt to propel a game based on its "realism" or how similar it is to "on the ground" in modern warfare. Mostly because these people are usually the pockmarked pukes in that awkward pre 16th birthday phase (of which I may have been one at some point...) who salivate over the near-peverse details on the contours of a flawlessly rendered sniper rifle.
Actually, Battlefield 3 has been quite innovative in the pursuit of realism. For example, the inclusion of light-to-dark transition phases (as in entering a building from outdoors), the portrayal of light sources (the sun in your eyes in multiplayer can really fuck you up), reduction of sound follow explosions.
It's also introduced smaller, but inventive features that add to the intensity of the game, most notably, suppression, which I'm surprised no one thought of before. Unlike every other modern military FPS to date, suppressing fire is actually a legitimate tactical option. Bipods, laser sights, flashlights, mortars, etc... these are all things that add small, appreciable nuances to combat.
All in all, this feels like a ill concieved attempt to knock CoD of its pedestall, and poach from its multiplayer fanbase.
Battlefield focuses far from the COD crowd. Close, tightly-packed combat in small maps is the exact opposite of the Battlefield ethos. If you ran around spraying dual P90s on a Battlefield map, you wouldn't be the top player in America, you'd be target practice for literally any class. Vehicles are the other big turn-off for COD fanboys, as they typically consider it a detraction from the shooter action.
The strange thing was the Recon 5%: could pop you from the other side of the map almost. Even if you were moving.
I can't even express in words how hard it is for me to believe that statement. Looking solely at the gear barrier of "5%," I can only chalk this up to be an exaggeration. That, or you're secretly the greatest FPS sniper in the world.
In short, a total fluster-cuck
Couldn't disagree more. It's easily the best of the year.
-
As soon as Red Faction: Guerilla was mentioned I realized this was a troll post. Seriously, that game has about as much to do with shooter games as Pokemon does. Not even going to dignify that horrifying piece of crap with further reviewing beyond noting that it'll never return to my 'installed games' list.
As far as multiplayer FPS games go, BF3 has easily taken the top spot as far as I'm concerned and there is another thread discussing that.
-
I played BF3 for about 6 hours across two days. I subsequently lost interest and regretted dumping $60 or whatever it was on it and reminded myself why I don't pay $60 to play the same game re-skinned every 6 months when "the best FPS ever to happen to computer gaming ever" comes out again.
-
I played BF3 for about 6 hours across two days. I subsequently lost interest and regretted dumping $60 or whatever it was on it and reminded myself why I don't pay $60 to play the same game re-skinned every 6 months when "the best FPS ever to happen to computer gaming ever" comes out again.
Did you look at the screen at any point during gameplay and notice all the things I just bullet-pointed for the audience on how it's not a "reskinned game," or is it too tempting to be on the trendy "everything sucks these days" side of video game debates?
-
I played BF3 for about 6 hours across two days. I subsequently lost interest and regretted dumping $60 or whatever it was on it and reminded myself why I don't pay $60 to play the same game re-skinned every 6 months when "the best FPS ever to happen to computer gaming ever" comes out again.
Did you look at the screen at any point during gameplay and notice all the things I just bullet-pointed for the audience on how it's not a "reskinned game," or is it too tempting to be on the trendy "everything sucks these days" side of video game debates?
If I were on the trendy side of such debates, I'd not play SW:TOR, World of Tanks, and EVE Online on a near daily basis. I'd certainly not have re-upped my WoW account about a dozen times since 2005 (as in, come back after a long break, not only 6 months worth of playing--I've probably put 6 months of real time logged into WoW), and absolutely would not be also participating in the Diablo III beta sporadically.
-
I played BF3 for perhaps 20 hours. of which perhaps half was single player (which was very pretty, but so on rails as to leave grazes on my elbows when I didn't turn exactly when they wanted me too - I mean BFBC2 had more room to move)
and the other half was multiplayer on Australia/NZ servers (nice ping times).
The graphics were very pretty, the audio after explosions etc. Absolutely, not disagreeing. I liked how it was difficult to see people on one hand, but on the other that meant that infantry engagements rarely happened at ranges further than 100 meters, and combined with the requirement for multiple hits to put someone down, plinking at range with an assault rifle only revealed your position to no effect (the target would go to ground and heal and come back up knowing where you were).
The game play was pretty disappointing to me. I actually found figuring out what was going on to be quite difficult. I was apparently in a squad but could rarely find them, and most of the time that was when someone spawned on me and then ran off on their own. The weapon upgrade path was a bit addictive, (just a few more kills and I'll get a new x) but having someone run around the corner, put a couple of rounds into them and have them return fire with their upgraded weapon leaving me dead and them on 5% health, then watching them heal back up to full with my death cam got old really quickly. Many of the environments seemed designed to have no front line, combined with spawn on team-member meant that you generally needed to assume that the bad-guys would be behind you.
Yeah, maybe I suck at FPS. I also haven't bothered with BF3 since two weeks after launch. I went back and played another 50 hours of Red Orchestra 2 until :skyrim: destroyed all other game-play (including eve...)
-
The simple fact is that Battlefield 3 is a terrible game.
In your opinion.
Individuals may not "like" the game, you might not like the design for example, but you can't turn down harder points like how the game currently holds the graphics king for 2011-12 (Witcher 2 comes close) as well as audio. As a piece of technology, it is unmatched.
-
Individuals may not "like" the game, you might not like the design for example, but you can't turn down harder points like how the game currently holds the graphics king for 2011-12 (Witcher 2 comes close) as well as audio. As a piece of technology, it is unmatched.
I don't really disagree. That was much of the reason I pre-ordered it (and bought a new computer to run it).
Which, as you can imagine, made not wanting to play it two weeks later a bit of a disappointment.
-
The game play was pretty disappointing to me. I actually found figuring out what was going on to be quite difficult. I was apparently in a squad but could rarely find them, and most of the time that was when someone spawned on me and then ran off on their own. The weapon upgrade path was a bit addictive, (just a few more kills and I'll get a new x) but having someone run around the corner, put a couple of rounds into them and have them return fire with their upgraded weapon leaving me dead and them on 5% health, then watching them heal back up to full with my death cam got old really quickly. Many of the environments seemed designed to have no front line, combined with spawn on team-member meant that you generally needed to assume that the bad-guys would be behind you.
There's actually two reasons for that.
1. This is, like most FPSs of the same nature, a squad-based game. I play solo, still looking for a clan I can agree with, but yes, the basic assumption you make while waiting for a game is that your team will be comprised of mouth-breathing failures who don't understand the basic functions of the game. This, of course, leads to immediate frustration for most everyone, but if you start with that expectation, any amount of success your randomized team manages is a pleasant surprise.
2. There isn't supposed to be a front line. Modern combat rarely sees a "front line." You'll notice the maps are, primarily, either urban landscapes or isolated outposts surrounded by foliage. These are battlefields where traditional tactics lose their purpose exactly because enemies can just "go around."
-
The simple fact is that Battlefield 3 is a terrible game.
In your opinion.
Individuals may not "like" the game, you might not like the design for example, but you can't turn down harder points like how the game currently holds the graphics king for 2011-12 (Witcher 2 comes close) as well as audio. As a piece of technology, it is unmatched.
Fair point. Post edited to relfect this.
-
There aren't any "damage" upgrades for guns FWIW. The only guns that can actually pick different ammo types are shotguns, and those change the behavior of the guns (most are damage downgrades for utility, especially at close range). Weapon unlocks largely just give options for sights and shit like silencers. It isn't like BFBC2 with the magnum ammo upgrade, there is no equivalent for that here. There aren't even specializations that reduce damage taken (aside from explosive damage via flak jacket).
If you really don't want people taking 4-5 shots or more on some guns to kill just play hardcore. That should fix most of the complaints about the feel of combat. I imagine the whole point of having the two modes was to cater to those "CoD" type of players who preferred a more arcade feel to it, while hardcore is more realistic and more challenging (a lot of the spotting features are disabled).
-
As soon as Red Faction: Guerilla was mentioned I realized this was a troll post. Seriously, that game has about as much to do with shooter games as Pokemon does. Not even going to dignify that horrifying piece of crap with further reviewing beyond noting that it'll never return to my 'installed games' list.
As far as multiplayer FPS games go, BF3 has easily taken the top spot as far as I'm concerned and there is another thread discussing that.
Mizzy, in order for a troll post to be a successful troll, it must have someone shout "troll post" on the thread.
If I was trolling, I'd be feeling pretty good right now about my successful troll.
However there is this thing call the difference of opinions. This post was me expressing an opinion and intending to spark debate, not collect player tears.
On a sidenote, RFG isnt a shooter, its an action RPG so you earn 10 points for Gryffindor there. But I judge games on how much I enjoy playing them, not on what genre it happens to be.
-
Your opinion has been noted, and ignored in favor of my own.
I do hope you find yourself another game to play that is more rewarding to you. I'll stick with BF3 when I want an online FPS to play.
-
So, what you're saying is that every part of BF3 that is inventive or original, was taken directly from the Project Reality mod for BF2.
And the rest is the usual fappery, yes?
-
Only played Battlefield 1942, mostly in the original version or with the Star Wars or Pirates mod, but never liked those modern warfare mods. Ditched the series when EA pursued in that direction. From the supportive comments regarding BF3 I read here I will probably not enjoy that game either as "realistic warfare" is not a selling point for me.
Next FPS will likely be Serious Sam 3 when it goes on sale.