How bout fixing a simple thing like keybinds? That Dice seems to have an issue with simple config keybindings EVERY single release is telling imo.

It was definitely useful to me, I decided to skip the game based on the beta, at least at launch until its cheaper. They did some new things very well with the game like finally tightening up the movement but I'm pretty weary about the rest and all of the EA bullshit surrounding this game was what pushed me towards other games.

This game had a funny history since announcement, I was totally convinced I would buy it day one no matter what and every subsequent announcement since then was bungled until I had almost the opposite attitude. EA needs better PR and CMs.

who needs keybinds on a KonTrolleR!?!!

I for one can't wait until the release, I had a blast on Caspain Border. I'm not particularly happy with Origin, but I do think the web-based browsing/launching system is a good idea, and could really be good if they tighten it up a bit more.

Now I just need to learn how to fly.

Nearly every major DICE release on PC has had major problems at launch, beta or no beta. They simply release games before they're done. I expect this one to be no different.

Bucky wrote on Oct 17, 2011, 11:15:
but I do think the web-based browsing/launching system is a good idea, and could really be good if they tighten it up a bit more.

Just out of curiosity, why do you think it's a good idea? It seems needlessly cumbersome to me.

Creston

the in game browser for BF2 was a joke esp when it first came out as I remember, and was always clunky. I liked the web based one too after I figured out how to use it, as long as its accurate I dont care what they use though, make it quick and easy to launch games Im happy.

BF3 game browser is kinda fun, reminds me of the days of Quakespy. I gotta say its a good move too considering how clunky most DICE game browsers have been in the past. I play alot of Bad Co 2 and the browser is pretty decent now, but it took a long time to get there.

I've noticed the tendancy to make inaccurate conclusions about aspects of the browsers. The BC2 browser was notably bad. The BF3 browser is relatively good. But the BC2 browser was not bad because it was in-game, and the BF3 browser isn't good because it's via the web. Functionally speaking, there is absolutely nothing about the BF3 server browser that couldn't have been accomplished identically with an in-game system.

So rather than argue about whether the browser is better or not - I think most would agree it is - why not stick to the argument about whether it was necessary to move the browser to a web setting? I've yet to see anyone put forth a good argument for why that is a good thing.

Bhruic wrote on Oct 17, 2011, 11:38:
I've noticed the tendancy to make inaccurate conclusions about aspects of the browsers. The BC2 browser was notably bad. The BF3 browser is relatively good. But the BC2 browser was not bad because it was in-game, and the BF3 browser isn't good because it's via the web. Functionally speaking, there is absolutely nothing about the BF3 server browser that couldn't have been accomplished identically with an in-game system.

So rather than argue about whether the browser is better or not - I think most would agree it is - why not stick to the argument about whether it was necessary to move the browser to a web setting? I've yet to see anyone put forth a good argument for why that is a good thing.

Indeed, totally agreed. Putting it in a browser introduces a number of problems related to privacy, compatibility and configuration amongst other things to boot. There is no compelling reason to use a web browser, in fact a number of users have commented that they feel it fragments the feel of the game swapping between interfaces.

Not buying this at launch. Maybe they wanted to make sure only fanboys played it for the first month? If you're willing to buy this at launch I cringe at the turd they'll try and push out next. Maybe they should sell bf4 a few months from now. You don't get anything but a box...I wonder if the folks buying bf3 will pick that up as well.

Verno wrote on Oct 17, 2011, 10:59:
I'm pretty weary about the rest

Like what?

Hopefully the hoople heads over at id Software will take note, as RAGE may have not been (and still is) such a cluster &#$@ on the PC if they would have conducted a Beta period.

Even ID admitted console was their primary skew were they not the last bastion of PC FPS makers..lol oh gawd..

I didn't like the web based server browser because it just didn't work very well for me, I couldn't use any of the filters for a start, if I checked a box it would immediately un-check itself.

You have to wonder why game makers just can't seem to get server browsers right by now, games made in the late 90's like UT had much better browsers than most games get nowadays!

Verno wrote on Oct 17, 2011, 10:59:
It was definitely useful to me, I decided to skip the game based on the beta

I'll just leave this here...

After playing the beta I can safely say I won't be getting the game at release. I just didn't enjoy it as much as BF2 or BC2. And it's illogical to have Battlelog only accessible out-of-game. At the very least it should use an overlay in Origin, like Steam, to access it. It's great to have a server browser accessible out of the game but it NEEDS to be accessible in-game. But not being on Steam and requiring Origin is the killer for me. I find I don't play games like Starcraft II as often as I would normally because it uses a different service.

Don't get me wrong. I would really LOVE to see Origin be a truly competitive platform to rival Steam, as it could be really good competition. But it needs to do so based upon its merits, not upon exclusive deals. And yes, while Steamworks games offer good benefits I'd rather not see games tied to Steam but rather ALSO available on Steam, as well as taking advantage of the platform (achievements, matchmaking, etc). EA is the underdog here and they need to do more than withhold access to Steam - they need to offer exclusive extras not available elsewhere to make people want to use it. I appreciate that HL2 forced Steam upon people but nothing else was offering the same service at the time. That's different now.

Creston wrote on Oct 17, 2011, 11:17:

Bucky wrote on Oct 17, 2011, 11:15:
but I do think the web-based browsing/launching system is a good idea, and could really be good if they tighten it up a bit more.

Just out of curiosity, why do you think it's a good idea? It seems needlessly cumbersome to me.

Creston

For me personally, I liked it far better than any server browser that DICE has ever produced. The length of time between clicking a server and getting in game wasn't longer, and before looking at servers, I didn't need to sit through an array of splash screens either. Nor did I need to go through some weird hack or tweak of deleting splash screen videos or modifying my launch script to circumvent splash screens.

It was even faster for me than getting into a game of Team Fortress 2. I saved a favorite place on my browser to Battlelog, so whenever I wanted to play BF3, I'd click that favorite place, and seconds later be joining a server. Without needing to load the game first, the entire process was much faster.

And finally, the simple fact that they can update Battlelog without releasing a full Client patch means that whatever issues that do exist will be fixed much quicker. Throughout the first few days of the beta, they released 5-6 updates that fixed most of the issues people were encountering.

The one thing I learned from the beta was to cancel my pre-order. Yes, it was beta code, I understand that. But the game itself did absolutely nothing for me. After playing the beta for roughly 5 hours I had no desire to play the game at all. I even used the passwords that were floating around at the time to play the Caspian Border map, still nothing. I also didn't particularly care for the who Origin thing either. When I click a game icon on my desktop I want it to launch the game, not a browser... I'm not trying to play farmville, I'm trying to play Battlefield for fucks sake.

qsto wrote on Oct 17, 2011, 12:16:

Verno wrote on Oct 17, 2011, 10:59:
It was definitely useful to me, I decided to skip the game based on the beta

I'll just leave this here...

If that is true why did Dice leave the testers with a hideously old code base causing people to think the game is a unpolished turd? It just defies logic to me.