635 Hours Later - Colonel 100

Posted by Seppli (10251 posts) -

Well - that's been a rage fueled romp. It's been roughly 635 hours since I started my journey into the Battlefields of BF3, and now I've joined the ranks of the truely insane. I've been promoted to Colonel 100.

That it's taken me roughly one and a half years to get this far despite my unending love for Battlefield at its core? I blame it on the way too rigid rock-paper-scissors balance. I blame it on indirect gadgets and weaponry that kills without ever engaging in a proper fight. I blame lock-on warfare. I blame it on the overexposed look of its lighting and shadows, and its desaturated colors. I blame it on screen obscuring post effects overkill, like screen filling sunglares and lens flares. I blame it on lacking visual feedback, and generally lacking gunfire rapport. I blame it on stealthy weapon loadouts for all kits. I blame it on suppression blur and deviation increase (as well as the concept of bullet deviation to begin with). I blame too high movement speeds, and not far enough traveling soundeffects. I lay so much blame on BF3's design choices, I've picked up the habit of sucking on Ricola herbal sugarcubes, to keep my throat from getting sore.

I coined a term for Battlefield 3 - a subtitle if you will - which accurately captures my impressions of what's wrong with Battlefield 3. Impersonal Warfare.

On a lighter note, enjoy this little youtube skit in regards of playing with a Colonel 100...

#1 Posted by OfficeGamer (1087 posts) -

The people who complained about lack of teamwork and all that jazz about spotting on these forums when that stuff raged online back in 2011, actually had proper and meaningful concerns and, from my impression, wanted to better the game and forbid the lack of teamwork and all the Rambo-ing that came with it. I loved BFBC2 on the Xbox360 but I still have to admit, when I compare it to watching Battlefield 2 and 2142 videos online, those games have a fantastic sense of t.e.a.m, it was a battlefield, not a big playing ground for automated knives and nothing to scare players from jumping into action other than nearby tanks.

You on the other hand seem to be complaining about.. not being able to be Superman? Stop blaming it on crap and stop playing it then, because clearly you want it to be personal and all about you, while the game is meant to be impersonal and team-focused.

Hell I haven't even played Battlefield 3 and Youtube has shown me enough teamwork in that game to appreciate it for what it is. Thinking of hopping on that Battlefield 4 train..

#2 Posted by Hitchenson (4682 posts) -

If I had a ton of problems with a game, I don't think I'd play it for 600 hours.

#3 Edited by Seppli (10251 posts) -

@officegamer:

I'm contesting that teamwork is about being reliant on others, and being helpless without them. Teamwork is about cooperation. In a rigid rock-paper-scissors balance, more often than not, you cannot contribute, because there's simply nothing you can do. Inaction sucks.

Then there's all the factual shortcomings. From horrible and shoddily scaled UI to obstructive and superimposing HUD giving misinformation to missing functionalities like the lack of a rearview in vehicles. Or the finicky and unreliable gadgets.

Most of my complaints are about preferences. I prefer to see unnaturally well, rather than lose my virtual 20/20 vision to some kind of cinematic ultra realism. Playability over immersion. Clarity over obstruction. Skill-driven direct gameplay versus boring indirect dependencies making a mockery of playerskill. Just a cheap mechanical ploy putting up the facade of teamplay.

Pretty much everybody I know who got into Battlefield during the Bad Company era does not love BF3, and I think it's because of how much less personal combat feels. It's not about me, it's about the relationship I have with my would-be killers.

If the fight never happens, either because of circumstances like the graphical art design or because of mechanics like suppression or because there was no fight to be had to begin with due to the rigid nature of its balance, then that's simply a whole lot less fun than otherwise.

As far as I'm concerned, there was much better teamplay evident in the Bad Company games, where it was much more about fontline cooperation, rather than spawning the right loadouts to exploit upon dependency mechanics.

@hitchenson said:

If I had a ton of problems with a game, I don't think I'd play it for 600 hours.

Pretty simple. I love Battlefield. I dislike Battlefield 3. It's a conflicted relationship of course, but there is love lost.

#4 Edited by Seppli (10251 posts) -

@officegamer:

Check out this random TV missile montage. Yeah - it's kinda cool, and pulling it off is rewarding. Taking it to its natural extreme? Two attack choppers hovering on opposing sides of the map. Gunner-centric gameplay. Sniping at each other with TV missiles. And inbetween cooldowns potshots spraying onto the Battlefield from a mile away, randomly killing dudes every now and then.

A prime example of *the fight that isn't*. Impersonal warfare. Lame. Lame. Lame.

#5 Edited by bitcloud (646 posts) -

What system are you guys on, and post your stats?

bitcloudrzr

#6 Posted by Vinny_Says (5714 posts) -

Going into the next generation I am super excited to see what Battlefield has to offer on next gen consoles. Disregarding an extremely lame campaign trailer I'm curious as to what BF4 and future releases will have to offer. Rumors of submarines has me really excited. Made up rumors of Bad company 3 that only exist in my head has me even more excited.

I still remember putting hours and hours into that port Valdez demo for BC2. And then the full game came out and all my friends had it and we were teaming up and destroying fools left and right....good times.

Then BF3 came out and felt....different.....but I still sunk hundreds of hours into it, getting super excited whenever I unlocked a new gun (there were so many guns to unlock in BF3) and then reaching colonel 3 while enjoying the DLC support. It felt less like a team game but it was still fun.

Yeah I hope DICE can put out some great games and if they can intergate that Origin stat tracking into the game itself that would be tops.

#7 Posted by Seppli (10251 posts) -

@bitcloud said:

What system are you guys on, and post your stats?

bitcloudrzr

Platform is PC.

Here you go. Nothing too spectacular. Objective driven lone wulf, with an *equal opportunity* attitude in regards to kit and loadout use. Playing 64 player CQ large mostly. For some reason, I can't stand Rush (my Bad Company 1&2 favorite) in BF3.

Dunno why I never bothered to team-up with folks, had my group of regulars on PS3, but even then, I friend players for their general competence, not for heavy teamplay.

#8 Edited by bitcloud (646 posts) -

Not bad. I think the problem is Rush sucks for a lot of the maps, especially default ones. My favourite set is Aftermath, Endgame, B2K and then a few of the default maps. Rush on those maps is pretty good.

BC2 maps had a lot of bad spots like chokepoints, like on Port Valdez. BF3 had just some poor map design from the start.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.