Link

The main problem with the Battlefield 3 beta – the one that's out right this moment – is that it doesn't play like Battlefield 3 does now, how I assume the final game will play.

Also sounds like it takes more shots to take people down.

Well that's good at least. Getting killed by 1 bullet from an SMG from miles away kinda blows.

@Azteck: The only time that would happen was when the sprinting bug occured.

getting killed by 1 bullet is lag issues from either player. and not the damage models.

also i think the damage was fine in beta ? i don't know if it really needed increasing.

but i do agree that the battlefield beta might have done more harm then good especially with the people that were not sure of getting battlefield 3.

that said some of my friends actually ordered battlefield after the beta.

so i am guessing there taking a hit on console sales maybe but probably not on pc ?

I really don't like the idea of having to pump someone full of bullets to put them down. I loved the idea of having to be smart and stay in cover when roaming the map. Eh, hope it isn't too bad.

Sniper rifles were bugged as well, even on stationary targets they would instagib.

I'll stick to jihad jeeps, as long as they make it so that people you run over actually die and not just get pushed out of the way. Overall these news are good, because even on non-HC servers in BC2 people would die quickly to the hands of myself and other experienced players who did their job well - talking bullets and not tubes or rockets!

just now from twitter, " Keep in mind that Operation Metro is our smallest and tightest map."

fuck parchment v2, let me use longer spaces between paragraphs when I want to, what the fuck

I like Arthur Gies, but I couldn't disagree with him more when it comes to what his expectations for a BETA are. It's not a demo, it's a beta, and it seems the majority of games writers out there are completely lost on what that means. Stress testing servers on what could be possibly be EA's highest selling game across all 3 platforms is VITAL and it needed to be put through the meat grinder in order to ensure a smooth launch. He also mentions that BC2 didn't have any issues at launch or with it's beta... Um, what planet was he living on? I find it very hard to believe he played BC2 in it's first few months. BC2 was a mess and took multiple patches to get to the level we have come accustomed to. Don't take my word for it, just read Patrick Bach's (DICE Lead Dev) comments on the BC2 launch and how it compares with BF3. (http://kotaku.com/5848155/battlefield-3s-executive-producer-talks-beta-reactions-certification-delays-and-post+release-support)

It's nice to hear that DICE fixed a lot of the bugs, but umm was any one really expecting them not to? Why is it such a surprise? Unless of course you are one of those people that are rooting for this game to fail.

Here are some headlines that go nicely with: DICE FIXES BUGS PREVALENT IN BETA; GAME IS ACTUALLY REALLY GOOD UNLIKE BETA

DOG BITES MAN

PEOPLE GET OLD AND EVENTUALLY DIE

SUN RISES IN EAST SETS IN WEST

SCIENTISTS SAY SMOKING IS BAD FOR YOU

Releasing the BETA was the BEST thing DICE could have done, not the worst. I'd rather play through a buggy (but fun) BETA than sitting around on launch day wondering why every server is laggy or down.

@thornie: Ye, but most people also see that the game launches in less then a month.

People expect to be able to at least feel close to what they are getting.

and at this point it will change peoples minds.

and that stuff that it's a month old build cause of playstation network en xbox live... average consumer wouldn't give a dam i think.

@thornie: Yup. Arthur lost me completely when he said BC2 didn't have those problems. I've played every single Battlefield game pre and post launch and BC2 was a giant nightmare especially on consoles at launch. These journalists are turning into total drama queens. It's like they have to stir up their audiences to get lots of comments flowing and get hits on the site. Every MP game out there has issues during beta and launch. What you think is a big problem with a release is not at all the biggest problem to someone else. It's all perspective. Arthur has none and his memory sucks too.

fuck parchment v2, let me use longer spaces between paragraphs when I want to, what the fuck

@mosdl:

Good good good. I had already read that the hit boxes and lag had messed things up in the beta. But I have come to love the give and take that is BC2. I think there is plenty of room for strategy when the game demands a few extra round from your gun. Like the author said, if you engage someone, you have to consider that your weapon might need to be reloaded/changed for the next baddie around the corner.

@mosdl said:

Also sounds like it takes more shots to take people down.

They tried to make the damage model more like BF2 but the thing was that every gun had its own nasty recoil and spread, which made the shooting fun and intense, therefore required skill to play.

''The version of Battlefield 3 that I spent hours playing last week has weapons and damage that feel like Battlefield Bad Company 2.''

Thanks, shooting in MP was fucking unbearably awful. Good to know.

man i liked how easy it was to kill people. Hate having to dump about half a clip into people.

I liked the shooting in BC2 .... so thats good I guess.

OMFG he said damage and weapons are going to be like Bad Company 2...Bad Company 2's damage was FUCKED

@thornie: I think what Gies is getting at is that it may have been a mistake from a marketing perspective. Your average person who doesn't follow video games closely probably doesn't know what a beta is supposed to be and doesn't care what it is either. They're just going to play it a bit, find that it's glitchy as hell, and decide not to buy it. DICE can say it's a beta all they want, but when you advertise it as heavily as they have (the spotlight channel on the 360 dashboard, their Facebook and Twitter, etc.) it effectively becomes a demo.

I think Operation Metro was a poor choice for a map as well. It's just not like your average Battlefield map, which may or may not backfire on them. Considering how many people on video game websites were bitching about the beta being glitchy and more like CoD than Battlefield, I don't think it's a stretch to imagine less savvy people could have a similar reaction (it's glitchy and similar enough to CoD that they'll just go with the more well-known quantity).

I'm glad to hear that the damage is being tweaked a bit. It seemed like a lot of the guns in the beta were almost instant kills. While this did lead to pretty intense situations where you're too afraid to go out into the open and must stay behind cover and be careful, it did get frustrating when it became difficult to make any sort of progress because campers would decimate you before you could even react in any way.

@Hexogen: I don't think that your average person who doesn't pay attention to video games closely played the beta at all. Some dudes that I work with who played the hell out of BC2 didn't even play the beta. If the final version is good, news will spread and the game will sell well beyond BC2.

I agree with that entire article.

@Hexogen said:

@thornie: I think what Gies is getting at is that it may have been a mistake from a marketing perspective. Your average person who doesn't follow video games closely probably doesn't know what a beta is supposed to be and doesn't care what it is either. They're just going to play it a bit, find that it's glitchy as hell, and decide not to buy it. DICE can say it's a beta all they want, but when you advertise it as heavily as they have (the spotlight channel on the 360 dashboard, their Facebook and Twitter, etc.) it effectively becomes a demo.

I think Operation Metro was a poor choice for a map as well. It's just not like your average Battlefield map, which may or may not backfire on them. Considering how many people on video game websites were bitching about the beta being glitchy and more like CoD than Battlefield, I don't think it's a stretch to imagine less savvy people could have a similar reaction (it's glitchy and similar enough to CoD that they'll just go with the more well-known quantity).

And IMO therein lies the tragedy in this whole BF3 BETA situation. Game developers can no longer release BETAs without adhering to unrealistic expectations that had never been applied to BETAs in the past nor in the long history of PC gaming. It's indicative of DICE being a longtime PC developer that they underestimated the impact of this console generations unrealistic expectations that anything released to them be polished and 100% perfect. BETAs are a relatively new concept for console games, and it's sad that the majority of console gamers fail to grasp their importance or their place in game development, and instead view them as glorified demos which they are most certainly not, nor ever have been.

@ericdrum: Yeah, my prediction might be a little rash. When I think about it more, if they're promoting it on their Facebook and Twitter pages, all the people that follow those pages already know what Battlefield is. The spotlight section on the 360 dashboard is the only place where some "regular" dudes might have found it. I'm just thinking those people might be turned off by its glitchiness. But admittedly, that's probably a small number, and it will end up selling great.

BC2 damage model? I just died inside ..

@Hexogen: I think the GB guys on last weeks podcast hit on something important with regards to marketing. Us hardcore followers are in tune with the industry and game. EA really needs to sell to the average Joe gamer (and unfortunately the obnoxious teenager CoD player) to ever cut into the CoD pie. So they need to bridge the gap with similarities and analogues. That's why we get a Jay Z commercial and stupid tag lines like "Above the Call". It's lame to me, but I get what they are trying to do. We are a fraction of the market that will get the game if it's good enough in the end. We'll see threads about it, see high review scores, see our friends playing it and we will purchase it. So that leaves EA to use lame ass marketing tactics to get those sheep that wouldn't know anything otherwise. And in the end, as long as I don't have to listen to those people or squad up with them, I'll have a grand time playing against them on the battlefield. Of course most of the time they will be on my team sniping as attackers from our first base at the first set of M-Com stations. ;-)

BC2 damage ...... I cryed a little and died a little

Loved that you could actually get a long range kill with one or two nice assault bursts on Caspian and atleast scare a sniper into backing up / moving. Now it will be like BC2 with snipers camping the endless hills and every other class rushing in jeeps to get into fighting range.

But atleast Hardcore mode seems to make sense again.

DICE have said on Twitter that they haven't changed the damage just fixed bugs relating to damage like the sprinting 1 hit kill thing and bolt action 1 hit kills

@Extreme_Popcorn: wait bolt action snipers are not suppose to kill with 1 hit ?

is any weapon suppose to? i mean my shotgun was pretty effective at it... even with slugs..

I really don't like the idea of having to pump someone full of bullets to put them down. I loved the idea of having to be smart and stay in cover when roaming the map. 

man i liked how easy it was to kill people. Hate having to dump about half a clip into people.

OMFG he said damage and weapons are going to be like Bad Company 2...Bad Company 2's damage was FUCKED  

I liked the beta.. I found popping four guys with an assault rifle not odd at all. I hope to god this game isnt like Black Ops. BC2 was fine. In the end as long as its realistic I dont care. Thing is most of the body armour in Iraq isnt even kevlar its a bulletproof vest. So, switching the damage to allow people to live longer kinda sucks. All those tactics from BC2 work in BF3 you just have to be a little more careful. And, if you dont knife from the back its seriously, seriously broken

@AhmadMetallic: I don't think you're quite understanding what I was getting at. BC2's hit detection, damage modeling etc. was all fucked to hell. Half the bullets don't register or detect properly. I don't want that shit. Dial down the damage sure, but don't implement the same fucked up hit detection.

@AhmadMetallic: but hardcore mode atleast in bc2 brought so much more weird stuff with it.. like no spotting/minimap no health indicator in your tank..

i didn't really like those things

@Shikon: Bolt action rifle aren't meant for 1 hit kills, I imagine it's to restrict quick scoping and such. Shotguns need to be one hit kills, especially pump action ones otherwise there would be no point in using them.

@AhmadMetallic: I don't think you're quite understanding what I was getting at. BC2's hit detection, damage modeling etc. was all fucked to hell. Half the bullets don't register or detect properly. I don't want that shit. Dial down the damage sure, but don't implement the same fucked up hit detection.

Its good to hear the final game will play better then the Beta, but i was kind of expecting as much. I agree with Arthur though that the Beta may have coste Dice/EA more then it has gained them, which is unfortunate.

@Shikon said:

getting killed by 1 bullet is lag issues from either player. and not the damage models.

also i think the damage was fine in beta ? i don't know if it really needed increasing.

but i do agree that the battlefield beta might have done more harm then good especially with the people that were not sure of getting battlefield 3.

that said some of my friends actually ordered battlefield after the beta.

so i am guessing there taking a hit on console sales maybe but probably not on pc ?

Steam says more people are buying MW3. I'm kinda wondering. Either way all the good hardcore players are grabbing BF3.

DICE have said on Twitter that they haven't changed the damage just fixed bugs relating to damage like the sprinting 1 hit kill thing and bolt action 1 hit kills

@awe_stuck said:

@Shikon said:

getting killed by 1 bullet is lag issues from either player. and not the damage models.

also i think the damage was fine in beta ? i don't know if it really needed increasing.

but i do agree that the battlefield beta might have done more harm then good especially with the people that were not sure of getting battlefield 3.

that said some of my friends actually ordered battlefield after the beta.

so i am guessing there taking a hit on console sales maybe but probably not on pc ?

Steam says more people are buying MW3. I'm kinda wondering. Either way all the good hardcore players are grabbing BF3.

Do you have origin sales numbers so you can compare it to bf3 on origin?

@mosdl said:

@awe_stuck said:

@Shikon said:

getting killed by 1 bullet is lag issues from either player. and not the damage models.

also i think the damage was fine in beta ? i don't know if it really needed increasing.

but i do agree that the battlefield beta might have done more harm then good especially with the people that were not sure of getting battlefield 3.

that said some of my friends actually ordered battlefield after the beta.

so i am guessing there taking a hit on console sales maybe but probably not on pc ?

Steam says more people are buying MW3. I'm kinda wondering. Either way all the good hardcore players are grabbing BF3.

Do you have origin sales numbers so you can compare it to bf3 on origin?

No. I just clicked on popular titles on steam. Says MW3 like 1.5 million. BF3 wasnt even shown

@awe_stuck said:

@mosdl said:

@awe_stuck said:

@Shikon said:

getting killed by 1 bullet is lag issues from either player. and not the damage models.

also i think the damage was fine in beta ? i don't know if it really needed increasing.

but i do agree that the battlefield beta might have done more harm then good especially with the people that were not sure of getting battlefield 3.

that said some of my friends actually ordered battlefield after the beta.

so i am guessing there taking a hit on console sales maybe but probably not on pc ?

Steam says more people are buying MW3. I'm kinda wondering. Either way all the good hardcore players are grabbing BF3.

Do you have origin sales numbers so you can compare it to bf3 on origin?

No. I just clicked on popular titles on steam. Says MW3 like 1.5 million. BF3 wasnt even shown

It wasn't shown because it is not on Steam, do you not remember?

BF3 pc sales are all on Origin right? Steam doesn't have it at all I thought.

Anyway, I have no doubt the very late and bugged beta will cause lost sales. I have several friends who wanted to get something else this year, other than CoD and were very turned off by the beta and the lvl they chose didn't differentiate the game enough from its comp. Also, I will be shocked if BF3 runs smoothly on launch. EA's never pulled that off, and yes, it took BC2 over a month to get the horrible lag and other connectivity stuff sorted. They are never ready imo, regardless of their betas and their 'stress tests'.

It seemed like it didn't take a lot of bullets to bring an enemy down but try to remember that:

A) Battlefield is taking a realistic approach when it comes to guns and damage models

B) Operation Metro is a close-range map.

Imagine playing on a map like Operation Firestorm or Caspian Border, I'm sure the more open terrain will make it so that it takes more bullets to bring an enemy down. Therefore, I really hope DICE doesn't change the damage model too much.

I sure hope this turns out to be true

It's great to hear that the game is much improved over the beta, but EA really shot themselves in the foot when they released this buggy mess.

Awee, I liked the damage model in the Beta. Guess I will just play the Hardcore mode, or I might as well be playing Bad Company 3.

As for all the technical buggy issues, of course they were going to fix all that, it was just a Beta.

I Hope they're right.

@AhmadMetallic: I hope so. The Joystiq article wasn't really clear on what they meant by their reference to BC2...

@chilibean_3 said:

I really don't like the idea of having to pump someone full of bullets to put them down. I loved the idea of having to be smart and stay in cover when roaming the map. Eh, hope it isn't too bad.

Pretty sure I noticed in the BF3 PC Beta server filter that there is a hardcore game mode.

I think they forgot that today "Beta" actually mean "demo". People go in expecting polished demo and get an unpolished old build.

ok, that articale is bollocks, i've read from numerous sources now that the damage model has not been changed from the beta, although some guns dmage has been minorly tweaked, such as here: http://mp1st.com/2011/10/13/semi-auto-snipers-tweaked-reason-for-hd-texture-pack-installation-and-more/

@mr_ace said:

ok, that articale is bollocks, i've read from numerous sources now that the damage model has not been changed from the beta, although some guns dmage has been minorly tweaked, such as here: http://mp1st.com/2011/10/13/semi-auto-snipers-tweaked-reason-for-hd-texture-pack-installation-and-more/

Yeah, I think there's a better chance that that unknown blogger's three paragraphs of a retreaded old news is actually closer to bollock territory, more to towards the back of the body to be specific.

@SeriouslyNow: or perhaps the fact that that article directly links to twitter comments from Alan Kertz the gameplay designer at DICE stating exactly that makes it firmly in fact territory?

Direct quote in response to someone asking "So just to clarify, the damage model is the same as the beta (aside from any weapon balance changes)?" to which Kertz replied: "yes, base damage is the same, some weapon balance tweaks, and some bug fixes." There are other similar quotes from him about weapon damage. I suggest you read them...