Prez wrote on Oct 18, 2011, 22:17:
That's me too. Everyone says "Keep playing - we all started out at the bottom!" But after 5 solid months of trying to get better at BF Bad Company 2 multiplayer, I would still consistently finish with a 1:5 Kill:Death ratio (at BEST) and be at or near the bottom of my server for points even though I was sincerely trying my best to coordinate with my team and perform my role. I was never really good even in my youth, but now I'm just terrible at mp games. There's just not much fun in dying repeatedly. And that's not even counting the low tolerance I have for the many asshats and griefers you're bound to run into during the coarse of the game. No, I just don't find any enjoyment in mp anymore. My favorite way to play BF 2 and 2142 is singleplayer with bots or in coop (the "HER" mods are wonderful in this regard).

You only need to die repeatedly for about an hour before things start to click unless you're handicapped and I know a few handicapped players who aren't that bad so you probably just need to suck it up and practice a bit. It doesn't take long to get decent and the bots present no challenge at all so you might as well get your moneys worth.

Prez wrote on Oct 18, 2011, 22:17:

As much as I hate to admit it, SP might be the only reason I get BF3. I don't have the reflexes to keep up with these kids anymore. I generally get my ass handed to me in mp more than I like to admit.

That's me too. Everyone says "Keep playing - we all started out at the bottom!" But after 5 solid months of trying to get better at BF Bad Company 2 multiplayer, I would still consistently finish with a 1:5 Kill:Death ratio (at BEST) and be at or near the bottom of my server for points even though I was sincerely trying my best to coordinate with my team and perform my role. I was never really good even in my youth, but now I'm just terrible at mp games. There's just not much fun in dying repeatedly. And that's not even counting the low tolerance I have for the many asshats and griefers you're bound to run into during the coarse of the game. No, I just don't find any enjoyment in mp anymore. My favorite way to play BF 2 and 2142 is singleplayer with bots or in coop (the "HER" mods are wonderful in this regard).

This is the saddest thing I've ever read.

As much as I hate to admit it, SP might be the only reason I get BF3. I don't have the reflexes to keep up with these kids anymore. I generally get my ass handed to me in mp more than I like to admit.

That's me too. Everyone says "Keep playing - we all started out at the bottom!" But after 5 solid months of trying to get better at BF Bad Company 2 multiplayer, I would still consistently finish with a 1:5 Kill:Death ratio (at BEST) and be at or near the bottom of my server for points even though I was sincerely trying my best to coordinate with my team and perform my role. I was never really good even in my youth, but now I'm just terrible at mp games. There's just not much fun in dying repeatedly. And that's not even counting the low tolerance I have for the many asshats and griefers you're bound to run into during the coarse of the game. No, I just don't find any enjoyment in mp anymore. My favorite way to play BF 2 and 2142 is singleplayer with bots or in coop (the "HER" mods are wonderful in this regard).

Kotaku considers the SP campaign very dull.

RollinThundr wrote on Oct 17, 2011, 18:04:

Yifes wrote on Oct 17, 2011, 17:05:

Verno wrote on Oct 17, 2011, 14:39:
The Battlefield series isn't known for its wonderful singleplayer campaigns, the people who are paying $60 for a cinematic FPS experience will likely buy a Call of Duty game. Hell even the Call of Duty games get their mileage out of the MP.

It's pretty clear that DICE is heavily going after the singleplayer FPS market, and from the extensive gameplay demos, BF3 is going a damn good job standing up to the Call of Duty franchise. It's probably the first military themed FPS campaign that I've looked forward to playing since the original Call of Duty.

As much as I hate to admit it, SP might be the only reason I get BF3. I don't have the reflexes to keep up with these kids anymore. I generally get my ass handed to me in mp more than I like to admit.

same here.

Smooth Gravy wrote on Oct 17, 2011, 13:00:
I'm also looking forward to release. I thought the beta went relatively well and look forward to seeing all the maps and playing with my clan mates. To me, battlelog is a pretty smart idea. Social networking is obviously huge right now and they are trying to appeal to the masses. I would also assume that it will be a matter of time before someone comes up with a way to implement a shortcut on your desktop that takes you right into a favorite server, bypassing the need to mess around in battlelog.

You mean like we had in Quakeworld back in the 90s?

Back when PC FPS games went from having long single player campaigns plus multiplayer(Duke Nukem, Quake, Unreal)to multiplayer only for the same price (Quake 3, Unreal Tournament) I thought it was a rip off. The Battlefield series was the only exception where the multiplayer content seemed so extensive that it justified the cost.

I didn't feel that way at all. Quake 3, UT and Tribes all had very comprehensive multiplayer, far more than the MP components included with previous SP iterations (if any). As such, I've never really been compelled by multiplayer that was included with a single-player game. It's always felt tacked on and lacking in depth.

Or for a more recent example, look at the failure of Unreal Tournament 3 on consoles compared to the success of Gears of War. Certainly the lack of a true single player component in the former had a lot to do with that.

That's not really a good example at all. UT3 was a failure in all regards. It didn't please fans of UT2004 and it didn't please anyone else. The lack of a proper single-player campaign had nothing to do with it. As for GoW, it's a much more casual game than UT. It's also much more playable with gamepads. It's not surprising that the series has done so well on consoles.

A better example of how SP components don't really matter in multiplayer games is Tribes: Vengeance. Irrational put a lot of effort into the SP campaign and it was actually half-decent. Unfortunately, it was not representative of multiplayer gameplay at all and the multiplayer itself felt somewhat half-assed, no doubt a result of the split focus between MP and SP. Unsurprisingly, T:V was the worst-selling game in the series.

It's probably the first military themed FPS campaign that I've looked forward to playing since the original Call of Duty.

Wait, what? The BF3 SP campaign looks just as derivative and uninspired as all the CoD campaigns made in the past 6 years. Completely linear, completely scripted, follow NPCs and wait for them to open doors, formulaic sniping/stealth/rail segments, etc. Literally nothing unique or ambitious about it whatsoever. Hell, the last Operation Flashpoint SP campaign was more interesting.

That is a nice post. Not the typical FLAME post i lean towards but well thought out. Go figure....

Anyone else read someones overly positive post, not recognize their name and then see that they have less than 20 posts and immediately discredit them?
I see about 5 in this thread.. and I can't help but believe they are plants.

Also...
Any smart FPS veteran (such as you'll find here) will tell you that we've all been burned more than once after buying a game on release day and finding the same bugs that existed in beta that we were promised were fixed before the game went gold.

So having reservations about the launch product is not without merit.

Yeah, I think console gamers simply will not accept a full price online-only FPS. For that price, they expect a single-player campaign as well. And I pretty much agree with them.

Exactly. It's as much a bullet point as anything else. When that CoD producer revealed most people don't even finish the short to average length of most their games it wasn't exactly a revelation. Will BF3 be a better effort than their few previous attempts? We'll see but I really doubt "most people" are doing it for that alone.

For the love of god... please people stop trying to speak for other people. YOU don't give a shit about the SP game, that's fine. You are not remotely qualified to decide what "most" people care about.

Doesn't make it any less true

Yeah, I think console gamers simply will not accept a full price online-only FPS. For that price, they expect a single-player campaign as well. And I pretty much agree with them.

Back when PC FPS games went from having long single player campaigns plus multiplayer(Duke Nukem, Quake, Unreal)to multiplayer only for the same price (Quake 3, Unreal Tournament) I thought it was a rip off. The Battlefield series was the only exception where the multiplayer content seemed so extensive that it justified the cost. But I doubt I'd feel that way if I was playing on an xbox with smaller maps, fewer players, and a monthly online fee.

Or for a more recent example, look at the failure of Unreal Tournament 3 on consoles compared to the success of Gears of War. Certainly the lack of a true single player component in the former had a lot to do with that.

Yifes wrote on Oct 17, 2011, 17:05:

Verno wrote on Oct 17, 2011, 14:39:
The Battlefield series isn't known for its wonderful singleplayer campaigns, the people who are paying $60 for a cinematic FPS experience will likely buy a Call of Duty game. Hell even the Call of Duty games get their mileage out of the MP.

It's pretty clear that DICE is heavily going after the singleplayer FPS market, and from the extensive gameplay demos, BF3 is going a damn good job standing up to the Call of Duty franchise. It's probably the first military themed FPS campaign that I've looked forward to playing since the original Call of Duty.

As much as I hate to admit it, SP might be the only reason I get BF3. I don't have the reflexes to keep up with these kids anymore. I generally get my ass handed to me in mp more than I like to admit.

http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/1285/30ibq.jpg

proof that buying cd-keys from these online outlet places are legit, well some of them are anyway.

Verno wrote on Oct 17, 2011, 14:39:
The Battlefield series isn't known for its wonderful singleplayer campaigns, the people who are paying $60 for a cinematic FPS experience will likely buy a Call of Duty game. Hell even the Call of Duty games get their mileage out of the MP.

It's pretty clear that DICE is heavily going after the singleplayer FPS market, and from the extensive gameplay demos, BF3 is going a damn good job standing up to the Call of Duty franchise. It's probably the first military themed FPS campaign that I've looked forward to playing since the original Call of Duty.

This comment was edited on Oct 17, 2011, 17:11.

Teddy wrote on Oct 17, 2011, 16:17:

Verno wrote on Oct 17, 2011, 12:59:

i[Second, most people don't give a shit about the SP game so obviously they would base their decision on how the multiplayer

For the love of god... please people stop trying to speak for other people. YOU don't give a shit about the SP game, that's fine. You are not remotely qualified to decide what "most" people care about.

BF has a single player game?

Verno wrote on Oct 17, 2011, 12:59:

i[Second, most people don't give a shit about the SP game so obviously they would base their decision on how the multiplayer

For the love of god... please people stop trying to speak for other people. YOU don't give a shit about the SP game, that's fine. You are not remotely qualified to decide what "most" people care about.

Was their mission to get me to not buy the game?

Because that is all the beta really accomplished for me.

I'm amazed by the ammount of posts complaining about aspects of the game other than the gameplay itself. BF2 had a crappy bad in game server browser. I wasn't thrilled about getting origin to play BF3, but it worked well and did so quickly. Game play was good and seemed fresh, the rush game mode was a lot of fun. I can't tell you how excited I am to have a real shooter to play again. No more Black Ops sillyness. Be glad that we all got a chance to check the game out at all without having to shell out 59.99.

Verno wrote on Oct 17, 2011, 14:39:
Agreed with this though, people make really dumb generalizations about AMD and Nvidia. I own an Nvidia card and had problems with Rage until I had newer drivers and Bethesda patched it. Yes AMD isn't known for their wonderful OpenGL drivers but some Nvidia owners had problems too. People see typically more issues with AMD cards because developers don't test against them as often, there are a multitude of reasons why that happens but that's for a different thread.

Indeed. The updated drivers from AMD and the patch from id Software addressed the majority of issues with RAGE. The first patch had to disable UBOs, because they caused issues with AMD cards - this is after months of testing and the game having been gold for a month before release. And id Software spent additional time supporting nVidia cards, adding GPU transcoding, etc. It's a bit hard to compete with that sort of bias. To blame this all on AMD is simply wrong, though they share much of the blame. But nVidia has just as much trouble, as my brother was complaining about nVidia's new drivers for BF3 being unstable in other games.

Do I think that AMD needs to improve their drivers? Definitely. They need a huge overhaul, if only to prove that they are supported. Do I think that nVidia has better options available in their drivers? Definitely. But I have a Crossfire card, which you'd expect to throw up more issues, yet I've had a very good experience over the two years I've had it.

Agent.X7 wrote on Oct 17, 2011, 14:56:
Hah, I wasn't the only one that caught that. People on the internet are always tired of new releases, apparently. I myself look forward to new releases, but sometimes I am cautious of them. Or, you know, wary.

Posting before coffee leads to these things sadly, my bad