Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Battlefield 3 out Fall 2011


YoungPanthers89

Recommended Posts

i can communicate fine

hmm..is there a button you have to push to initiate the mic or something? Cause on the Cod's you just plug the s7it in and it works...i wasn't sure what to do.

Also, if I want to team up with friends and be in the same squad how do I do that? Cause me and my brother were in the same squad at the menu..launched the game and ended up in different squads..not sure how that worked either..

I am a battlefield noob..any help would be appreciated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hmm..is there a button you have to push to initiate the mic or something? Cause on the Cod's you just plug the s7it in and it works...i wasn't sure what to do.

Also, if I want to team up with friends and be in the same squad how do I do that? Cause me and my brother were in the same squad at the menu..launched the game and ended up in different squads..not sure how that worked either..

I am a battlefield noob..any help would be appreciated.

In battlefield you can only talk to and hear who is in your squad so maybe thats what you are doing, i know in bad company 2 you can just invite someone into the squad but bf3 seems a little more complicated and yes when you invite someone at the menu if the game isnt balanced it will split you up into diffrent teams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In battlefield you can only talk to and hear who is in your squad so maybe thats what you are doing, i know in bad company 2 you can just invite someone into the squad but bf3 seems a little more complicated and yes when you invite someone at the menu if the game isnt balanced it will split you up into diffrent teams.

The devs said that in BF3 you will be able to talk to the whole team, not just your squad. HUGE for peeps like me that have 12 clan members playing on a side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fun, although I've only played on Metro.

My only two issues being: the glint on a sniper scope makes snipers pointless and the obvious lag I get (i.e. I'll shoot someone at close range, get hit markers showing, then get one shot killed).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fun, although I've only played on Metro.

My only two issues being: the glint on a sniper scope makes snipers pointless and the obvious lag I get (i.e. I'll shoot someone at close range, get hit markers showing, then get one shot killed).

Glints are huge, but they're almost necessary to make snipers not so overpowered. With the maps so huge, and the ability to go prone, they'd never be found.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EEK!

Coming from a huge BFBC2 fan, downloaded and played it for a bit on PS3 today. I must say, after all the hype, it's not quite what I was hoping for.

IMO, the ability to go prone is kind of shitty. I know it's all about DICE wanting "realism" in the game, but fug, half the other team just fuging crawls around the map. When you finally do catch someone in the act, it takes a second to figure out if its a dead body or someone actually crawling around... by that time, they locked on to you and the next thing you see is them crawling around in the kill-cam. I've died countless times to that poo.

Another is the game speed/control. I remember BFBC2 taking a while to get used to the "slowness" of the action (compared to COD)... but the controls just seem "clunky" and unresponsive. When ever you throw out a medkit/ammo/etc. it takes for fuging ever to pull your gun back out. Jumping over a fence seems to take ages, and spinning around is about the same. I'd say it'll just take some getting used to.

And for the graphics, I know it's a PS3, and it's not impressive at all. Almost like they tried too hard, and the end result was a hot mess. In the underground of the metro map, everything blends in so much I cant tell what's what.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vehicles will solve the prone issue. The slowness of actions is realistic and forces you to make every second count. A lot of 'skill' games are often the slowest ones where time management, staying on schedule, and making good decisions over the long haul take into effect.

Secondly, Metro is a pretty pooty map. I'm like lvl 3, picked a sniper kit for the underground metro part, placed my beacon in a corner inside one of those rooms that a lot of poo goes down in. I'd just spawn behind them, rape people with close range sniper without them even knowing. They'd kill me, and I'd spawn to it and repeat the process. It's about the dumbest thing ever that I can see being exploited on small tight maps like metro. I'd say for something like conquest on those giant maps, It'll almost be a necessity, so I can't really reason to take that out of the game. I'll expect a lot of people to avoid these sort of maps like people usually do with Atacama Desert conquest on BC2.

Another thing is that the M249, aka the SAW, is overpowered as hell. I've hit markered a guy who was using it so many times, and he just points and kills me. Maybe it's because I don't have any of the unlockable weapons yet to balance that poo out, but it's really annoying to get killed by it over and over.

Lastly, I'm not really seeing much of the Frostbite 2 engine in the works here. Sure a tree falls over and you can hear it. Maybe a wall blows up, but there haven't really been a lot of times where we've gotten far enough in Metro where we get to exploit it. I know if you're attacking and you get to the end of the MAP, there's some buildings and fighting in a street, but you hardly ever have a team good enough to get there as of right now. Just like BC2 at first when rush mode was introduced and typically the defense usually won.

I do like some of the things they've implemented in regards to customization of weapons. As soon as you unlock something, you can setup your loadout with the newly acquired accessory or gun right away. No preset classes. This means that the battlefield is everchanging and you won't be in one of those positions where you can't think of a counter to the enemy strategy because no one on your team has the proper loadouts. This game is meant to be a struggle. A chess game if you will. Customization like that sort of adds a metagame to the atmosphere; which is really good.

The game is also very pretty and the lighting works wonders. Which is also a double-edged sword with the flashlight attachment. I can't imagine how many times i've been blinded by it. While I hate it, I'd use that poo ALL THE TIME so I really can't complain. I'd rather have things like that in a game that are there to force people to play out of their niche and as I've said above, that factors into the metagame and strategy aspect of it.

All in all, I'm not really all that impressed with what they've given us to work with(not much really). Some people have tried the Caspian map and hail it's way better. (I, sadly, haven't had the opportunity). I do like the animations, the ability to spot(which is the best thing that battlefield has stuck with), and the required teamwork. However, these are just trademarks of the battlefield franchise, and I have yet to see something that really puts it apart from the other Battlefield Games. (I put BF2 on a pretty high pedestal).

PS: If you're a traditional COD player and are just trying out this game and don't like it. I can understand completely(see all complaints above). Also, take into account that this game is played so differently than COD that it's hard to adjust to, but I'll tell you that if you stick with it. Bear with it. Get better at it. You'll get addicted and realize why Battlefield nutsuckers are so high up on their horse. But hey, if it's not the game for you, oh well. GL HF. or gg noobz

tl;dr

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I played it two different times since I've downloaded it, and no offense to the BF fans here, but I thought it was horrible. From all the trailers I saw from E3 and previews, I expected so much more... Part of me is hoping they just held back a lot because it's the beta and they didn't want to overdo things and have connection issues for users...

But, the graphics are lacking big time compared to COD. It felt like SOCOM on PS2 to me. Players look cube-like or polygonal, very unrealistic. When you use the ADS, the details on the gun look super shitty. The gun looks fake and there are a lot of irregularities visible.

Also, had tons of problems with people camping - for instance, when you leave the ground level to go underground, some dick bag was laying down behind a rock at the entrance with a direct line to the entrance and just kept picking me off. I even snuck up from a different side and went to kill him and when I aimed on him and started shooting, I hit him, yet he turns towards me and kills me with what seemed like one shot.

This did not live up to the hype at all and I may just stick with MW3 as my only FPS purchase in the next few months. I had totally planned on buying BF3 and MW3 from all I had seen of both, but this was a big let down. I'm not interested if this is all to expect from it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I played it two different times since I've downloaded it, and no offense to the BF fans here, but I thought it was horrible. From all the trailers I saw from E3 and previews, I expected so much more... Part of me is hoping they just held back a lot because it's the beta and they didn't want to overdo things and have connection issues for users...

But, the graphics are lacking big time compared to COD. It felt like SOCOM on PS2 to me. Players look cube-like or polygonal, very unrealistic. When you use the ADS, the details on the gun look super pooty. The gun looks fake and there are a lot of irregularities visible.

Also, had tons of problems with people camping - for instance, when you leave the ground level to go underground, some dick bag was laying down behind a rock at the entrance with a direct line to the entrance and just kept picking me off. I even snuck up from a different side and went to kill him and when I aimed on him and started shooting, I hit him, yet he turns towards me and kills me with what seemed like one shot.

This did not live up to the hype at all and I may just stick with MW3 as my only FPS purchase in the next few months. I had totally planned on buying BF3 and MW3 from all I had seen of both, but this was a big let down. I'm not interested if this is all to expect from it.

Yeah I really really hate that poo when u got the jump somehow they get you in one shot or some poo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Coming from COD (which is all I have ever played) it takes a lot of getting used to. If you keep playing though you learn that it is very team based and there is a lot more strategy that has to happen or you will just keep dying and your team will lose. So far I like it and it blows away all COD's up to this point.

Also keep in mind it is a beta so there will be bugs and glitches here and there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Super raw, not sure he is worth a top 10 pick.  Primary a pass rusher.  A bit like Burns, very fast athletic but doesnt always follow the play.  His highlights look good but when you watch him play you can see he is just raw and needs to develop
    • Personally, I am not sold on Bryce yet--and I do not think anyone is saying they are, but I don't think Ward is on table when we draft anyway.  Not even sure if I would rather have him than one of the later QBs.  I see a lot of potential in Allar, Nussmeire, Rourke, and even Hamilton from Ohio State--Milroe is intriguing, but I am not sure he is an NFL QB.  Ewers is that sleeper who falls and becomes a solid starter. I think that we sign a veteran who has played and we draft one of these project QBs. To your point:  With that in mind, I think you have to take QB off the table in round 1, and if Bryce can string 4-5 games like KC together, we still need to draft a QB in round three or so---I really think Rourke is a great fit for this offense--he is accurate and gets the ball out quickly---he impressed me vs OSU.   Reason?  I think we may have a tough decision to make about Bryce in 2 years--will he be worth $60m?  That decision is a lot easier if you have been grooming a backup for 2 years who can play. In round 1: I am hoping for PSU's edge Abdul Carter In round 2:  I would like to see us grab a DT who can rush the passer.  Walter Nolen of Ole Miss is versatile and a bit raw. I think he could be an excellent complement to Brown. In round 3:  I would love ILB Danny Stutsman from Oklahoma.  He is a beast. With 11 picks, I would package our 4th rounders to move up into the third round and take a QB.  At the moment, I think Rourke is trending upward and he has the skills Canales seems to want in a QB.  Quick processor, quick release. I would use the fifth rounders on OL.  I know that I left out WR--however, we are getting Thielen back, XL will be improved, Coker will be improved, and Moore has been surprisingly good.  Sanders (TE) has been more than expected in the passing game.  I think we need D more than WR, and maybe we can get a veteran WR to sign or find a hidden gem late.  
    • Wouldn't be surprised if he starts a couple Jets games this year with the way the Rodgers thing is going. Giants fans are pissed they didn't keep him lol. He might actually have a little bit of a market. 
×
×
  • Create New...