Battlefield 3 PC Version won't have in-game server browser - Polidicks

I read it as web browser and wondered why everyone was complaining. I read it again and... just wow. Oh my god. That's a horrific idea. Why would anyone remove the server browser? Ace of Spades has an excuse because the game has no menus at all.

[QUOTE=SoaringScout;31818224]I read it as web browser and wondered why everyone was complaining. I read it again and... just wow. Oh my god. That's a horrific idea. Why would anyone remove the server browser? Ace of Spades has an excuse because the game has no menus at all.[/QUOTE] you are just gonna have to wait and see. personally i think it's gonna work out just fine. better even.

[QUOTE=SoaringScout;31818224]I read it as web browser and wondered why everyone was complaining. I read it again and... just wow. Oh my god. That's a horrific idea. Why would anyone remove the server browser? Ace of Spades has an excuse because the game has no menus at all.[/QUOTE] One could argue that the game was made so that it wouldn't make a difference whether or not you used battlelog, so they wanted to intergrate it further. I like being in game all the time though because I like having a seamless experience, so I hope they've succeeded

Does BF3 even have a menu? The way it sounds with Battlelog, everything will be done through a browser. I'm not sure, I wasn't in the alpha. I think it's just daunting for people because we haven't done it before. I'm scared it'll ruin the game, but the people who have played it say that it works well, so I guess I'll still buy it. I mean, I really want it, and it looks amazing. I don't want it to be ruined by all this EA shit though. Every time I hear something new about this game, it makes me want it less and less. Not the game itself, which I'm sure will still be amazing (Commo Rose, fuckyeah) but the way it's being handled. Hopefully it'll work. If it doesn't, and they ruin the game? Fuck you EA, I will boycott everything and you will never excite me ever again.

I would be fine with this shit if you didn't have to exit the fucking game every time you want to switch to another server, that's just idiotic and a waste of bandwidth/time/resources. [editline]19th August 2011[/editline] Unless I am wrong?

[QUOTE=Mooe94;31818380]I would be fine with this shit if you didn't have to exit the fucking game every time you want to switch to another server, that's just idiotic and a waste of bandwidth/time/resources.[/QUOTE] In BF2 and 2142 you had to unload the game resources before you could change servers anyway. I don't know if it's the same with BC2

[QUOTE=wewt!;31818428]In BF2 and 2142 you had to unload the game resources before you could change servers anyway. I don't know if it's the same with BC2[/QUOTE] That's true, but in some sense it just "looks" like it would be a waste in a way, kind of.

Heh DICE. 1 step forward, 2 steps back.

Some of you people are acting like fucking children. Here, I made a diagram to make this as simple as some of you folk. [IMG]http://i52.tinypic.com/f00o7b.jpg[/IMG] You can go from deciding to play BF3 to being in a server within 30 seconds. Its really not an inconvenience at all.

Y'all are forgetting about the open beta. If you have doubts about the system, just try it out then and see for yourself if it works. It worked just fine for pretty much everyone in the Alpha.

[QUOTE=teslacoil;31818548]diagram[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure I saw in the Battlelog screenies that there's a "Play Singleplayer" section. Which, you know, sounds like we'll have to play SP that way. I highly doubt they wouldn't include a SP .exe though, that would be stupid. (Saying that, some other stupid things have been done with this whole program...) It's just something new. I agree, it won't be an inconvenience once we get used to it and see how amazing the game itself will be, but at the moment the whole idea of "no in-game server browser" just sounds fucking ridiculous, as I'm sure you'll agree if you haven't played the game. Hopefully it'll work fine though, exiting and going into games.

[QUOTE=teslacoil;31818548]Some of you people are acting like fucking children. Here, I made a diagram to make this as simple as some of you folk. [IMG]http://i52.tinypic.com/f00o7b.jpg[/IMG] You can go from deciding to play BF3 to being in a server within 30 seconds. Its really not an inconvenience at all.[/QUOTE] Now what if you want to switch servers Close game Find new server Hit play Wait for game to load again ooops server is full Close game Find new server Hit play Wait for game to load again

Um. Why? That's my only question. Why? This is pointless and idiotic and will only make PC gamers not want to buy the game.

So you have to restart the game to change the server. That would be OK if it was 1994.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;31818789]Now what if you want to switch servers Close game Find new server Hit play Wait for game to load again ooops server is full Close game Find new server Hit play Wait for game to load again[/QUOTE] If a server is full, the game wouldn't start loading the map, would it?

Why do people want both? DICE's ingame offerings have always been extremly buggy at release, and Battlelog was working amazingly well during Alpha. It's really not a big deal. Plus if they remove menu, we don't have to watch intro movies, we don't have to use a buggy server browser and selecting a server would be quicker than doing it ingame. People are making a big deal out of nothing.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;31818789]Now what if you want to switch servers Close game Find new server Hit play Wait for game to load again ooops server is full Close game Find new server Hit play Wait for game to load again[/QUOTE] You will not connect to a full server, it won't even start the game. Exiting and finding another server takes about 30 seconds. As it has been said before, when you join a server, it immediately starts the game and begins connecting to the server, which takes 20 seconds at most. Its no big deal. Seriously. On an unrelated note, I'm glad all of you idiots are cancelling your pre-orders because of this. It just means less full 64 player servers.

Can EA just fucking disintegrate already.

[QUOTE=xeonmuffin;31813319]Open origin > Open bf3 > Opens a browser > Play bf3 > Don't like server > Close game and open browser > Repeat until find decent game[/QUOTE] sorry I thought you were not interested in Battlefield 3 what are you even doing here

[QUOTE=Singo;31819205]Can EA just fucking disintegrate already.[/QUOTE] So companies like DICE can get their funding from Activation instead and conform to their design policies? No thanks.

[QUOTE=Singo;31819205]Can EA just fucking disintegrate already.[/QUOTE] In my opinion EA is bad but not that bad yet, at least not at Activision's level and a couple others

[QUOTE=teslacoil;31819199]You will not connect to a full server, it won't even start the game. Exiting and finding another server takes about 30 seconds. As it has been said before, when you join a server, it immediately starts the game and begins connecting to the server, which takes 20 seconds at most. Its no big deal. Seriously. On an unrelated note, I'm glad all of you idiots are cancelling your pre-orders because of this. It just means less full 64 player servers.[/QUOTE] Good points Also another thing is that it's there because it works? Obviously they wouldn't sell something that is outrightly cumbersome and/or broken Especially considering that they took the time to make server browsers for consoles. They probably decided to go this way, because it's efficient (probably) [Editline]fifty[/editline] Also a question to beta/alpha testers: I heard some people in this thread talking about some sort of in-game browser. Does origin have one? If so, can you switch servers without alt-tabbing or exiting?

Well there are dedicated servers, and there is a server browser, but this is quite a silly thing, not enough to make me not want it any more, I'll get it if I get enough money unless something incredibly stupid pops up

when BF3 comes out firefox will finally stop collecting digital dust :downs:

[QUOTE=DogGunn;31819175]Why do people want both? [/QUOTE] Because having options isn't a bad thing. My vista freezes a lot when I alt tap so I'm going to hate this. It wouldn't be hard at all to give it an ingame browser too but they want to force us to use there battlelog every time I want to play. Its a new trend in EA it seems to make people have to use there products. [editline]18th August 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=teslacoil;31819199]I'm glad all of you idiots are cancelling your pre-orders because of this. It just means less full 64 player servers.[/QUOTE] Whats with all the battlefield fanboys saying this? If they believe strongly enough that what EA is doing is bad for gaming then we should be proud they are willing to boycott this game.

[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;31819576]Because having options isn't a bad thing. My vista freezes a lot when I alt tap so I'm going to hate this. It wouldn't be hard at all to give it an ingame browser too but they want to force us to use there battlelog every time I want to play. Its a new trend in EA it seems to make people have to use there products.[/QUOTE] Having options is always going to be a good thing, but people forget that DICE and EA don't have unlimited capital (resources). Get one thing working and everything is good (and server browsers isn't something they've done well in the past). [QUOTE=imasillypiggy;31819576]If they believe strongly enough that what EA is doing is bad for gaming then we should be proud they are willing to boycott this game. [/quote] Nah, you should just feel sorry for them. They're missing out on a quality game. Instead of complaining about something important, such as rising costs of living or any other shit like that, it's Battlefield... and all because the game wasn't made to their perfection.

[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;31819576]Because having options isn't a bad thing. My vista freezes a lot when I alt tap so I'm going to hate this. It wouldn't be hard at all to give it an ingame browser too but they want to force us to use there battlelog every time I want to play. Its a new trend in EA it seems to make people have to use there products.[/QUOTE] If Battlelog is anything like Autolog in their NFS games it'll work out great also you make it sound so bad with "forcing us to log in every time we play" but really, steam forces you to log in, so does Battlefield 2 - actually, virtually every single online service 'forces' you to log in to use their services - what's new?

Why can't we have valid opinions? Not everyone has to buy BF3 stop whining about us skipping this title and buying another fps.

[QUOTE=DogGunn;31819617]Having options is always going to be a good thing, but people forget that DICE and EA don't have unlimited capital (resources). Get one thing working and everything is good (and server browsers isn't something they've done well in the past).[/quote] Yea but they already did it for console so it wouldn't be hard to do it for pc. I'm not saying it has top be perfect but there would be nothing wrong with giving us the option. [quote] Nah, you should just feel sorry for them. They're missing out on a quality game. Instead of complaining about something important, such as rising costs of living or any other shit like that, it's Battlefield... and all because the game wasn't made to their perfection.[/QUOTE] You know complaining is the best thing about pc gaming right? Its what keeps it healthy and helps stop corruption. If EA sees that its losing money because of origins guess what? It wont force origins and if they get enough complains about battlelog then they won't make people need battlelog.

[QUOTE=The Baconator;31819645]Why can't we have valid opinions? Not everyone has to buy BF3 stop whining about us skipping this title and buying another fps.[/QUOTE] and stop telling us you're not buying it