Anyone else disappointed with BF3?

[JamesV]

I've been looking forward to BF3 for ages, and even built a new rig for it. Played all but 2142 religiously, and now that BF3 is out, I don't really even want to play.

I'm totally disappointed with the game that feels like a mix of CoD with a touch of Battlefield thrown in. Rat-maze maps where players bunch up and do nothing but camp chokepoints for kills (screw the flags, kills are now king). Conquest maps with bunched flags. Terrible items/class setup (Recon gadgets suck, you get banned for using Support items like mortars, etc). Stupid gimmicky things like flashlights that burn with the brightness of a star from a mile away. Etc.

It just doesn't feel like Battlefield. It doesn't even feel like Bad Company. It feels like deathmatch, even with the team trappings.

Anyone else disappointed?

 

[maniacalpha1-1]

Agreed. It has become slightly more fun after playing a few days, but I can already tell there is a, shall we say, "fun cap" that cannot be exceeded due to the game design.

 

[imaheadcase]

Yah, i have hopes that after a major patch it will be good. But it seems the direction towards consoles ruined lots of core features of the game that could of been great.

Its very frustrating to see a game missing PC features that should of been in game day 1.

I hope it gets better, but as it is so many bugs its not funny. Let alone i can't play for 15min without getting disconnected.

I simply find myself doing other things.

 

[Maximilian]

Nah its a great game, all the important stuff is geared towards the PC, engine, graphics, core gameplay etc. The other stuff like the kinda rubbish UI and the maps can all be fixed in time, new maps will come as well.

If a games engine or the core gameplay are fubared then no patch will fix that.

Overall its less of a mess than BF2 when it launched.

 

[Anteaus]

I don't know but as someone that has played every Battlefield release the gameplay feels like it always has, which is a good thing. I think there are balance issues and some of the maps are too small and conjested but overall it plays great. However I'm not in love with the reliance on a web browser to play the game and I think its obvious that decisions were made that were meant to benefit console players, but overall it's more or less what I expected.

That being said, not all Battlefield releases are the same and some are better than others. IMO they peaked with 1942/DC mod and BF2, with BFV (M60 anyone? ) and 2142 feeling more like side releases, but in all they have a certain feel that no other game has, and that includes BF3.

If they wanted to truly make me happy, they should redo all the BF2 maps with all the bells and whistles of the new engine as an addon pack. OMG that would be awesome.

 

[Mandres]

I've surprised myself with how little I'm playing it. I was as excited as anybody; upgraded my computer and everything, and I've put maybe 3-4 hours into it since it came out.

I was a huge fan of bf1942 and especially Desert Combat but most of my bf3 time so far has been spent in anger and frustration:

I have no idea where I'm going because the in-game map sucks and you cannot easily view the entire playfield at a glance. There is no way to launch or play on an empty server to learn the ins and outs of the maps or practice using the vehicles.

I cannot fly jets or helis because everyone else has already unlocked flares and missiles and I get instantly killed.

I get killed constantly by people I cannot see hiding in corners and bushes who have no problem seeing me because they've unlocked the IR scope.

There is no voice chat, so it's very hard to coordinate with your squad. 90% of the time everyone just runs off and does their own thing instead of trying to work together.

I'll probably try to play again after a patch or two comes down the pipe, but right now it's just frustrating and I already feel way behind the experience curve.l

-edit- No doubt I still think it's an amazing game, and a big step forward for the series. I'm just frustrated with a few of the minor flaws and with how bad I am at the game. Maybe I'm just getting old.

 

[Stringjam]

I'm really liking it so far - - moreso than BC2.

I actually really like the maps....it seems like there is an increase in cover and vertical structure that kind of keeps the snipers under more control.

I do think the IR scope is a bit too much....I probably would have left that out in favor of everybody having normal optics.

Overall I'm loving it....it certainly feels like Battlefield to me, and this game has to have some of the absolute best sound engineering of any FPS to date. Great job on that. (except that there is some voice actor that sounds exactly like Will Ferrell....cracks me up every time I hear it)

 

[spacelord]

I am getting into BF3 more and more. Still not sure if I like it better than BC2 yet though.

 

[Childs]

I was mainly disappointed that BF3 turned out to be more BFBC3 than a true successor to BF2. I would have preferred BFBC2 everything, and these maps as a map pack, to what we have in BF3. Its still fun, but seems like a step back from BFBC2, and therefor BF2 as well.

 

[akahoovy]

I'm somewhat disappointed. To me, BC2 was the funnest online shooter I've played in a long time. There are many, many things about BF3 that are niggling and detract from my playing experience. Honestly, I've been more upset with the quality of my internet connection than anything, but BF3 isn't nearly as polished as I had hoped it would be.

One thing is that all the maps seem to be filled to the brim with obstructions, objects. There are a lot fewer high up spaces where you can survey large areas and fewer open fields in general. One of my favorite conquest maps from BC2 was Laguna Presa. Somewhat small, high places to spot, few obstructions... I wish there was one map that reminded me of that or Arica Harbor conquest.

 

[pontifex]

I don't know but as someone that has played every Battlefield release the gameplay feels like it always has, which is a good thing. I think there are balance issues and some of the maps are too small and conjested but overall it plays great. However I'm not in love with the reliance on a web browser to play the game and I think its obvious that decisions were made that were meant to benefit console players, but overall it's more or less what I expected.

That being said, not all Battlefield releases are the same and some are better than others. IMO they peaked with 1942/DC mod and BF2, with BFV (M60 anyone? ) and 2142 feeling more like side releases, but in all they have a certain feel that no other game has, and that includes BF3.

If they wanted to truly make me happy, they should redo all the BF2 maps with all the bells and whistles of the new engine as an addon pack. OMG that would be awesome.

stuff like this makes me lmao. you guys all say that the BF series changes so much and whatever and you all want the games to be like the previous games, even so much as wanting the same levels.

But when CoD does it, it's sooo horrible and terrible.

 

[goobernoodles]

But when CoD does it, it's sooo horrible and terrible.

The engine stays the same. If CoD did it, it'd be the same game over and over.

...oh wait.

 

[taserbro]

The mini map is terrible, but perhaps it was for balance purposes.
Some conquest maps are very unfun; operation metro and damavand peak both suffer from narrow tunnel syndrome where there's little room for teamplay and where it's just a bunch of people with rockets or IR scopes fishing for 15 minutes of stalemate in a choke where whichever team has less idiots running in to die wins eventually.
Rush mode heavily unfavors the attacking side unless it's vastly stacked in their favor to begin with both equipment and skill wise.
Lastly, hacks are already out and there seems to be little I could do to deal with it aside from swapping servers and that's only going to work until more people start cheating.

All of that said, the game is still incredibly fun. I would have liked the same bot mode like in BF2 for people trying to practice flying without having to screw over teammates giving you the benefit of the doubt as a pilot... I don't think I could even get a single point towards unlocking flares now that everyone and their pet turtles have shoulder heat seeking missiles and AA weapons on their jets and could instantly murder me, take my wallet and sleep with my wife as soon as I take off.

 

[Anteaus]

stuff like this makes me lmao. you guys all say that the BF series changes so much and whatever and you all want the games to be like the previous games, even so much as wanting the same levels.

But when CoD does it, it's sooo horrible and terrible.

The sport and the arena are two different things. There are two components to these games; the gameplay and the environment in which to do it. I don't want BF3 to be like BF2. I'm simply saying that the new gameplay elements combined with the greatly more vast 64 player maps of BF2 would be a good combination. BF3 doesn't really offer anything to compete. There are some reasonable large maps, but the majority of them area smallish highly concentrated meat grinders. From what I've seen, Battlefield players prefer evolution over revolution.

Change too much and you alienate your base. As a player who put hundreds of hours into Tribes 1 only to dismiss Tribes 2 readily with only a couple hours in game, I myself am sensitive to too much tweaking of the formula....but that's me.

 

[scooterlibby]

I'm the video game lover who never is very good at video games, so maybe take my opinion with a grain of salt, but I love the game. I think I look at it with less of a critical eye than a lot of people, but I have fun playing BF3 and COD MP has sucked for years IMHO, so this is my game. Hell, I was even a fan of the reviled 2142 hehe.


Main complaint - the VOIP situation.

 

[maniacalpha1-1]

stuff like this makes me lmao. you guys all say that the BF series changes so much and whatever and you all want the games to be like the previous games, even so much as wanting the same levels.

But when CoD does it, it's sooo horrible and terrible.

I've come to realize that CoD staying the same is an asset, not a liability. They found a formula that their fanbase likes and they stick with it, instead of completely changing it to god knows what every release. Rock solid stability, in other words. Therefore, while retaining the same gameplay is good, they do not update the graphics, which is bad.

Of course, this begs the question - do different engines force gameplay changes? If so, maybe that's why they haven't done a new graphics engine.

BF2 changed the gameplay greatly from BF1942 although in that case it wasn't so much the mechanics, but the addition of squads, commander, etc. 2142 stayed mostly the same as BF2, but then BC2 was a big step away from BF2's mechanics, and then BF3 was another big step away from BC2's mechanics, leaving it light years away from BF2/1942.

I really believe they innovated for innovation's sake rather than that it was necessary. When you like the gameplay, what you want most is new maps, new weapons, new vehicles and other toys to play with, but not new gameplay on a full-scale basis.

 

[Arsinek]

The interwebz wouldnt be interwebz without nerds complaining about sh!t that doesnt matter.

 

[pontifex]

I've come to realize that CoD staying the same is an asset, not a liability. They found a formula that their fanbase likes and they stick with it, instead of completely changing it to god knows what every release. Rock solid stability, in other words. Therefore, while retaining the same gameplay is good, they do not update the graphics, which is bad.

Of course, this begs the question - do different engines force gameplay changes? If so, maybe that's why they haven't done a new graphics engine.

BF2 changed the gameplay greatly from BF1942 although in that case it wasn't so much the mechanics, but the addition of squads, commander, etc. 2142 stayed mostly the same as BF2, but then BC2 was a big step away from BF2's mechanics, and then BF3 was another big step away from BC2's mechanics, leaving it light years away from BF2/1942.

I really believe they innovated for innovation's sake rather than that it was necessary. When you like the gameplay, what you want most is new maps, new weapons, new vehicles and other toys to play with, but not new gameplay on a full-scale basis.

I agree with the CoD statements. Give me new guns, maps, toys to play with, etc and I don't care about the rest. Sure, graphics updates are nice but it doesn't really add all that much to the game when it's already pretty good. It's also nice that you don't have to go out and spend hundreds of dollars on new PC parts either. And it if the new engines screws up the amazing and tried and true gameplay, then you get the BF series (haha, never liked any of the BF series at all).

 

[goobernoodles]

(haha, never liked any of the BF series at all).

We know.

You haven't even played BF3 minus the beta.

Yet you post incessantly in every BF3 thread.

Shoo.

 

[gorcorps]

stuff like this makes me lmao. you guys all say that the BF series changes so much and whatever and you all want the games to be like the previous games, even so much as wanting the same levels.

But when CoD does it, it's sooo horrible and terrible.

Agreed 1000000000000%

Damned fanboys and their double standards. I for one am having plenty of fun with BF3. I don't know if anybody just got their hopes raised too much or what but I like it. It's worlds better than BC2 which is what I wanted. My biggest issue now is that I'm working my ass off this week so I just don't have the time to play it.

 

[Childs]

The mini map is terrible, but perhaps it was for balance purposes.
Some conquest maps are very unfun; operation metro and damavand peak both suffer from narrow tunnel syndrome where there's little room for teamplay and where it's just a bunch of people with rockets or IR scopes fishing for 15 minutes of stalemate in a choke where whichever team has less idiots running in to die wins eventually.

Unlike Metro, you can flank on Damavand using helicopters. When everyone gets caught up holding C and pushing B/D, you typically will get flanked and lose A/E, then B/D, then C.

 

[RiDE]

Played 1942, Vietnam, and BF2... then BF3, nothing in between. I love the game. Wish I had a slightly faster system for it though. I can't wait for MW3 so the bandwagoners move on to the new FotM. :awe:

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Though I haven't played much, I like what I see so far. I wish that they'd redo BF1942, however -- those maps were epic and it is still my favorite BF of all time.

 

[pontifex]

We know.

You haven't even played BF3 minus the beta.

Yet you post incessantly in every BF3 thread.

Shoo.

no i don't. there are plenty of BF3 threads that I haven't even opened.

 

[coldmeat]

Yes. I'm disappointed that I don't have it yet.