Is there going to be a new option in the menus to enable this or are all resolutions receiving better textures? Also wonder what sort of hit on performance this will have. Either way, I'm stoked.

Cutter wrote on Jan 6, 2012, 13:20:
People are definitely getting excited about this game and I'm one of them. Pew pew pew!

Me too. I really dig the art direction and hope they can pull off a solid fps feel with this scale.

This looks incredibly fun and depending how much they add to it has a ton of potential. Putting this on the radar!

Hellbinder wrote on Dec 13, 2011, 12:14:
Is this the release that lets me actually play the game for more than 30-45 seconds before it app crashes?

man im glad i spent all that money on a game i cant play, many others cant play, and no one at the dev or pub seems to care.

If you're running a 32bit OS, give this a try. Fixed it for me: http://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf3/forum/threadview/2832654489420350764/

Verno wrote on Dec 12, 2011, 13:41:

Bludd wrote on Dec 12, 2011, 10:37:
Who are buying all these games? I don't know anyone who has bought this game.

I've been kinda wondering the same thing, even most of my friends who were really into the CoD series didn't buy MW3. I guess maybe its been passed onto the newer generation again? I checked my friends lists XBL and Steam the other day, no one playing it or had in recent history. I guess it could just be the sample size but it seems weird because a few of them are diehards.

I'm just as puzzled as you guys. This should be a good lesson for all of us (or me at least). Just when I think I'm "tapped" in to the industry this would go to show that the small sample I see isn't the big picture after all. Common sense, I know, but it's just a good example. Verno's gotta be right, it has to be a younger generation thing.

Verno wrote on Dec 2, 2011, 11:17:

The game is pretty well balanced imo, except that OP USAS shotgun with the frag rounds that is crazy.

Eh I don't know, the game feels very poorly balanced right now between some overpowered attachments/unlocks and some glaring map design issues. They really need to take another balance pass at both the maps and attachments. Some of the unlocks are really unfair too, I have guided shell in the tank and its basically a win button versus any tank driver who lacks it unless he has 2 pocket engineers. Damavand Peak CQ needs a revisit, Firestorm needs its points spread out and so on. The Recon kit in general is so situational and the gadgets so limited that it's almost useless. It's all fixable stuff for sure but Dice needs to actually start doing something about it.

BtK will bring back a lot of players but they'll just be gone again afterward if they don't start addressing issues.

I generally agree most of what you're talking about, but even with some of the issues I still find myself going back night after night. It's a shame though, if they would just tighten up the game, it would elevate it even further, but that's DICE. Generally fun games with great visuals, but with balance and quality issues. I'm really looking forward to the remade maps though.

Verno wrote on Nov 30, 2011, 11:36:
I saw a video on youtube of the IRNV nerf (PS3 somehow got it early), it looks useless now and I've never been so happy about a nerf.

Also here's some patch notes they said are coming:

Thanks dude, I was looking all over for those when I heard a patch came down today. I'm glad about the IRNV nerf. A little bummed about the RPG nerfs, but it will make the game better and less Quakey with rockets killing everyone. I'm very disappointed not to see a nerf to the frag rounds. How they can nerf the RPGs (which take several seconds between shots) and not address what is essentially a handheld automatic rocket launcher is beyond me.

Side note regarding weapon damage. Did anyone look at the damage chart pulled from the game data? What I don't understand is nearly all the weapons in a particular category have the same damage stats. The only thing that differentiates them is recoil/spread for the most part, in which case why wouldn't you just use the one that has the least of both? You're not trading damage apparently.

Damage Chart (scroll down to see it)

This comment was edited on Nov 30, 2011, 15:45.

Drezden wrote on Nov 30, 2011, 10:09:
Every single one of you who bought this game on 360 or PS3 instead of the PC should be hung, honestly.

64 Player, Max Graphics on PC > Sitting in front of a TV

If you bought it on a console you're missing half the experience.

Agreed. There are some games that are better suited for console, BF3 is definitely not one of them. I'd be ashamed to even admit I got it for a console on these forums if I were you.

Verno wrote on Nov 28, 2011, 12:16:
Agreed. IRNV, taclights and frag shells need to be nerfed into oblivion. I don't even care about making it fair, IRNV literally defeats the purpose of playing a Battlefield game by seeing through smoke/debris, cover and etc. Nerf it into the ground, it's an absurd attachment. Likewise frag shells should not be a portable LAV cannon, it's ridiculous that some dude with a shotgun can kill an entire squad at ~50 yards and even do so by firing into/around cover. Taclights are just annoying, no one likes them. I don't care if its realistic or not, it sucks so lose it.

Truer words were never spoken. Portable LAV cannon is a perfect description and the fact that it can even be compared to a vehicles main weapon is absurd. It's like shooting a damn RPG, quickly, repeatedly and with little to no skill as it doesn't require much aiming. I can't believe none of what you mentioned was addressed in the latest patch. DICE is an enigma. They develop this beautiful game yet can't seem to make a UI or balance glaring OP weapons. It's like they stop making an awesome top tier game at 90% and just release it.

Tumbler wrote on Nov 28, 2011, 10:53:
I think dice was foolish to hold these maps back. There are only 3 maps that feel like a battlefield game. (Firestorm, caspian, kharg) and hopefully a few more once these maps are released. Haven't played this game in a few weeks now... Not sure these maps will be enough to change that.

Funny enough, I enjoy those 3 maps you listed the least. Mainly because they're way to vehicle-centric. Can't tell you how many times I've been stranded at a base with no vehicle to get around, having to hoof it 300-500 meters to the next base only to get sniped or asploded when I get to the destination. Getting killed is part of the game, but if you can get back into the action relatively quick, it's more fun. Going for 3-4 min jogs is not.

Slashman wrote on Nov 16, 2011, 07:24:
I think I prefer OMD over Dungeon Defenders because even though DD has a huge checklist of features, the combat just isn't as visceral and smooth as OMD.

Totally agree. I just wish it had coop, would make it even better. But yeah, the combat is so much tighter in OMD.

LittleMe wrote on Nov 3, 2011, 22:21:

fujiJuice wrote on Nov 3, 2011, 21:50:
The lag and rubber-banding is pretty ridiculous most of the time, it is rare that I find a server with none. It seems to be the worst on Tehran Highway.

Yeah there's the rubber banding and then there's the equally bad lag deaths when I'm already around the corner but taking hits anyway because the person shooting me is lagged. It means the client is dominant, not the server. It's a way to hide lag and it sacrifices gameplay for those of us with low pings. BF3 is much worse than BF2 in this regard. IIRC even BC2 didn't behave like this.

I HATE this. There's nothing worse than thinking you made it to cover only to fall to the ground dead because the client wasn't synced with the server. It's only happened a few times, but when it does, it's annoying. BF3 is largely lag free for me otherwise.

This thread wins the "Most Posts Unrelated to the Article" award.

Jerykk wrote on Nov 2, 2011, 17:54:

Ridiculous. Either don't include them in the game or make time for an integral part of most games, boss fights. To chalk it up as a compromise is a huge cop out.

The realities of game development make compromise inevitable. They likely realized that the boss fights were a bad idea post-alpha and by that point, they didn't have enough time to redo them. Cutting them completely wasn't really an option either, as that would have left significant holes in the story.

I'm not questioning that compromises have to be made, but you compromise some features that may not be missed or as noticeable, not a major part of the game. If they noticed it too late, that's their misstep and poor evaluation. I just think they botched it and calling it a compromise is a cop-out. They just need to own up on this imo.

Ridiculous. Either don't include them in the game or make time for an integral part of most games, boss fights. To chalk it up as a compromise is a huge cop out.

I suppose most games have a level of repetition, it's just a matter of subtle variety that makes it noticeable or not. Take a simple platformer like Mario for example. The mechanics are largely the same throughout the whole game, but the levels get harder and new enemies are introduced later on. So as long as a game becomes more challenging while using the same mechanics, I think that's okay. Not to mention more complex games that introduce new weapons/spells/abilities to the gameplay.

Anyway, I'm glad you're liking it Darks, I plan to give it a look at some point.

BF3 plays a lot like BC2, but there are some noticeable differences. Some for the better (improved sound/graphics, better animation, better shooting mechanics)... some for the worse (not as much destruction or free standing buildings). Either way, I'd say the differences in the BF series a quite are bit more noticeable than the COD series.

That said, the new game modes demonstrated in the video alone intrigue me a bit. I'll probably end up just playing both games, because they both offer such difference experiences from one and other.

They could do themselves, and everyone else, a favor if they simply didn't name a lead platform. They developed the game for all three, period. There's no need to pick this apart and draw lines. Any game that's multiplatform anymore, is going to have influence from each patform, which should go without saying. If it performs well on each, great. If they patch and fine tune the game for each platform, even better.

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Oct 31, 2011, 16:19:

xXBatmanXx wrote on Oct 31, 2011, 15:40:
heh. Will still have to use Origin....so doesn't really matter....

It makes a difference to me. I hate having to manage different installers / clients, etc. Steam auto-configures everything, so it doesn't matter whether it uses GFWL, Origin or Impulse, though I'd rather it didn't use any of them. I keep meaning to play Starcraft II again but every time I reinstall Windows I have to manually set it up and I keep forgetting, so I don't play it much any more.

I've already got all the EA games I bought on Steam registered in Origin (the ones that allow it), so if Origin becomes better in the future I at least have a choice to bypass Steam. That's what I'd like to see. Buy it on Steam but make it OPTIONAL to use Origin and then throw shit loads of effort into developing the client - make it MORE appealing. I only use Steam because it is more convenient and reliable. EA are never going to win by forcing people to use Origin.

So good news. I just hope the price is sensible, they include the DLC and do it properly. I will not buy BF3 or Mass Effect 3 if I have to buy them on Origin. I will happily buy them if they are released on Steam and require Origin, though I'd prefer it be optional. I just figure that Steam is more likely to survive.

What he's saying is, regardless if they release it on Steam, when you run it, it will more than likely launch Origin anyway. So in a way, buying it through Steam would just be like buying digital space to download BF3 install files. So it doesn't matter where you buy it from because you'll have to play it through Origin regardless. In fact, it might be worse if both Steam and Origin are required to launch it.

Dmitri_M wrote on Oct 31, 2011, 13:32:
I struggled with graphics driver timeouts for..years..in certain games. There are endless threads about this issue with 100s of "solutions". Eventually I fixed it by setting the power management in the Nvidia driver panel from "performance" (the default) to "maximum".

The graphics card was going into a low power mode while playing games causing the timeout.

A system at my work came down with the same issue and in that instance this fix also worked.

Nice. I will try this.