Battlefield 3 lead platform 'switched to consoles' mid-development - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Spooter;33073968]That's my point. There shouldn't have to be patches after release. The release should be as flawless as possible.[/QUOTE] I can assure you, there have not been a single game the last 10 years that haven't had bugs on release.

[QUOTE=MasterFen007;33072580]A delayed game is good, but worth the wait. A rushed game is bad forever.[/QUOTE] Personally, I haven't had any major issues with BF3, Battlelog, or Origin. A disconnect from time to time, a crash when starting maybe twice. The only real issue I've had is Battlelog's party system, which is unstable at best. It's not like RO2 where the release was full of bugs, both minor and major. Also, I don't understand what's with all the hate in regards to Battlelog? Sure, there's issues, but chances are if there was an ingame server browser there would be issues with it too; not to mention, it would take longer for those to be fixed because a patch would have to be released rather than just the Battlelog website being updated. Personally, I love Battlelog; if I want to play a game of MP, I just load up my web browser, click on the bookmarked link to Battlelog, and find a server and hit join. No loading up the game, waiting through splash screens, waiting to login, selecting a soldier, waiting for stats to load, and finally being at about the same point as I was just loading a webpage. Moreover, if say there's maintenance, I don't need to load the game to find out.

Did anyone ever prove Origin was monitoring and sending data back to EA on all your other processes and what not? I've heard spyware allegations but never seen anything substantial.

[QUOTE=bull3tmagn3t;33072726]-Gabe Newell It's true! He said something very similiar. He said suck instead of bad :P Edit: On the comment of Origin and Battlelog, I think they're both ok, I just hate running Steam and Origin at the same time. It's not too, too bad. But I would still prefer an in-game browser. I just dont like the idea of constantly opening and closing a game if I want to switch servers.[/QUOTE] You mean Shigeru Miyamoto? "A delayed game is eventually good, a bad game is bad forever."

[QUOTE=Spooter;33073596]Yeah, but Steam analyzes just your hardware, and that's after your prior approval. Origin does it to a shitload of stuff before you sign the ToS. [url]http://www.facepunch.com/threads/1136552[/url] Check that thread. In there, it's shown that Amazon has lost 90,000 Euros on returned copies. That's somewhere in the neighborhood of 2000 copies. It's on the fast track to getting banned in Germany because of this, and I don't think I've ever heard of Steam getting banned anywhere. As for people having trouble with Battlelog... what's the source? How about the eyewitness accounts in [I]this fucking thread.[/I] Just because you've had few issues doesn't mean that that applies to everyone. Also, for the whole "it just got released" argument... is anyone else kinda fuckin' sick of this logic? If a movie came out, and had a terrible actor in a minor role that soured the experience no one would say "well it just came out, it'll be better on the DVD." They'd criticize it for that flaw. Just because a game can now be updated via the internet for free doesn't excuse the fact that it comes out with bugs intact. The ludicrous idea that frequent bugs are something to be [I]expected[/I] in release builds is [I]bullshit.[/I] Trust me, if a game is good a game is good, bugs or not, they're not that big an issue if they're minor ones like BF3 is experiencing. But isn't it kind of bad that we gamers have come to expect lower quality standards because titles are getting rushed?[/QUOTE] You seem to forget that movies don't have to cater to millions of different hardware combinations, so you can't really compare making a movie to making a game. You can be a nitpicky cynical gamer or you can sit back and enjoy a game that is incredibly fun to play. Stop hating Origin because you hate the company, it can barely be noticed and I've had zero problems with it. "[B]Unverified reports[/B] talk [B]about[/B] 90,000€ loss on Amazon alone by now from returned games.". There have been 2-3 people complaining about Battlelog, but as I said earlier, It has almost been a week since it was released, and I don't give a damn what you think about that argument or how you want to compare it to making movies (terrible analogy). "Origin does it to a shitload of stuff before you sign the ToS" When you install Origin you agree to a ToS. What are you talking about? Every newly released games has bugs. Doesn't matter if they have alphas and betas, it will have bugs. Skyrim will have bugs, GTA V will have bugs. And they will eventually get patched, just like BF3.

[QUOTE=SwissArmyKnife;33074113]Did anyone ever prove Origin was monitoring and sending data back to EA on all your other processes and what not? I've heard spyware allegations but never seen anything substantial.[/QUOTE] It scans your harddrive but doesn't network any of that data. In other words, its more of a nuisance than a threat.

[QUOTE=simkas;33073933] Now, did you have any of those issues with BC2's or BF2's server browsers? I definitely did, battlelog has been working for me far better than BF2's or BC2's server browsers did. It's a big step forward if we're talking about server browsers in Battlefield.[/QUOTE] In Battlefield being the operative phrase. As someone who has been playing the game since 1942, I know how bad the networking side of Battlefield games is. Battlelog is at best a slight upgrade or a sidestep from previous attempts while still being pretty damn inferior to its contemporaries.

Yet consoles still got the "Short End Of The Stick" Who cares. The game is still utterly dazzling on PC and I heard it's good fun on consoles as well I like Battlelog, what I don't like is Origin. I wish Battle log was all there was- its own program and stuff so I could get updates from it on my taskbar and quickly reply. But that is a "nit picky" statement to make I guess

And they still have failed to at least give us 32 players on consoles. Killzone 2 has more shit going on at one time than any Battlefield game since Bad Company, and still runs at a solid 30FPS. Dice can do better.

[QUOTE=Kopimi;33074209]It scans your harddrive but doesn't network any of that data. In other words, its more of a nuisance than a threat.[/QUOTE] It's not even a nuisance. The type of scan it performs take milliseconds to complete, and it doesn't scan that much from the logs that I have read over so far. Only certain folders in ProgramData and Windows. You won't even notice this happening, let alone feel it.

Some are going to say it's great we got a server browser, and it is. But a server browser is simply NOT ENOUGH.

[QUOTE=certified;33074965]And they still have failed to at least give us 32 players on consoles. Killzone 2 has more shit going on at one time than any Battlefield game since Bad Company, and still runs at a solid 30FPS. Dice can do better.[/QUOTE] Killzone 2 didn't have relatively accurate destruction physics, vehicles, and massively huge maps now, did it?

Funny, as soon as I started reading that the BF3 TV slot showed.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;33074991]Killzone 2 didn't have relatively accurate destruction physics, vehicles, and massively huge maps now, did it?[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure Bad Company 1 and 2 destruction was just smoke and mirrors though, and the map sizes of BC1/2 were barely the size of Pyrrus Rise. Only thing that is really true of the console versions of Battlefield games having more than Killzone is vehicles*. *Battlefield 3 has actual destruction this time, but still, if you could get 32 players running at the minimum Bad Company 2 specs, then I believe you should be able to get 32 on a better optimized engine (Frostbite 2) running on at least a PS3.

[QUOTE=certified;33075049]I'm pretty sure Bad Company 1 and 2 destruction was just smoke and mirrors though, and the map sizes of BC1/2 were barely the size of Pyrrus Rise. Only thing that is really true of the console versions of Battlefield games having more than Killzone is vehicles.[/QUOTE]We are not talking about BC, we are talking about BF3, no?

[QUOTE=MR-X;33072712]Still a port none the less when BF was a PC game to begin with. I got bf3, i enjoy it to a degree. But I will not let go how dice butchered the battlefield name. How hard was it to give us the same game play mechanics, maps, squads, commanders with the updated engine? Apparently it was to hard. A lot of people call themselves fans of BF but a real fan wouldn't let them get away with fucking up Squads, making the maps a clusterfuck, taking out the commander role, etc. Battlelog is a cluster, how hard is it to just use a normal ingame browser, and origin. All that program is a regular download manager they have had and it got re-branded and added other functions that hardly work.[/QUOTE] I've played and owned every single battlefield since 1942 (which i got like a month after its release) and i really enjoy battlefield 3. The only problems i've encountered is the fact i have to join a server 3 or 4 times before it finally lets me in without disconnecting or crashing but hey if EA aren't as shit as i presume they'll fix that

the game feels too clunky and sluggish. I think they overdid the weapon inertia and wobblyness of your character. Compared to BF2, it feels like I'm a jellyman running around with a gun. Still a wonderful game though.

It didn't feel like a "battlefield" game any more. There's almost no teamplay in it at all.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;33075590]It didn't feel like a "battlefield" game any more. There's almost no teamplay in it at all.[/QUOTE] There wasn't exactly much teamplay in BF2 on public servers without there being incentive such as points. But you can blame EA and their aggressive as all fuck advertising for the slightly larger pool of Rambo nut jobs.

[quote]EA previously said it lead development on PC because that audience "has been the one complaining."[/quote] Birds fly, sun shines, water's wet and PC gamers complain.

Dice hasn't made anything that can even compare to BF2 since 2006.

i haven't experienced any problems so far with it and it has been a phenomenal game and i think people should stop bitching

Origin is meh, it doesn't bother me that much. Turn it off in game, and only use it to launch battle log. Yes, the fact you have to run it is irritating, but its manageable. WHY isn't the bloody server browser in the effing game?! WHY? Switching a server is no longer a speedy process. Once you decide to switch, you quit BF3, causing everything in RAM to be ditched in favour of reloading Windows, then you have to reload the facking game. BLKAHRSGARHRAHARJ!!!! The consoles have an in game browser! Anyway, the game is sexual and developing for a console is fine so long as the PC version is a rehashed awful port. BF3 passes on this front.

[QUOTE=deggie;33074155]You seem to forget that movies don't have to cater to millions of different hardware combinations, so you can't really compare making a movie to making a game. You can be a nitpicky cynical gamer or you can sit back and enjoy a game that is incredibly fun to play. Stop hating Origin because you hate the company, it can barely be noticed and I've had zero problems with it. "[B]Unverified reports[/B] talk [B]about[/B] 90,000€ loss on Amazon alone by now from returned games.". There have been 2-3 people complaining about Battlelog, but as I said earlier, It has almost been a week since it was released, and I don't give a damn what you think about that argument or how you want to compare it to making movies (terrible analogy). "Origin does it to a shitload of stuff before you sign the ToS" When you install Origin you agree to a ToS. What are you talking about? Every newly released games has bugs. Doesn't matter if they have alphas and betas, it will have bugs. Skyrim will have bugs, GTA V will have bugs. And they will eventually get patched, just like BF3.[/QUOTE] Well, I'm comparing games to movies on release times and polish. Yes, PC's can have huge variations in configuration, but when significant enough portions of players have issues, that's when it feels like it wasn't QA tested or like it was rushed. My point is that we shouldn't expect or excuse [I]this many[/I] bugs, I'm not trying to be cynical, I'm trying to be optimistic. I'm saying that wouldn't it be nice if games didn't have bugs on release? And I'm not asking for anything that's 100% bug free, if there's a minor sound glitch at this one milisecond at this one time of day I'm not going to care and no one should, but bugs that cause game crashes, buggy AI in campaign, people not being able to connect to games, and numerous other issues that are quite major show that the game is rushed. One thing that distinguishes the COD series on PC, despite Activision's poor treatment of the platform and the overall stink of the series, is the sheer level of polish that they come with. MW2 was like an AK-47, you could alt-tab out and jump around back and forth and it ran butter smooth and next to never crashed. BF3 clearly has a plethora of issues, and you're kind of being an ass saying that everyone else's problems are irrelevant because the game is fun and works for you. As for the Origin ToS thing, I found that in the thread I linked earlier. Also, while those reports remain unverified, several German newspapers, large ones, have reported on this issue and it's becoming quite substantial. I don't hate Origin, I hate the company and don't want to give them my money. I don't want to support a business I disagree with.

[QUOTE=Kopimi;33072642] I was going to be angry[/QUOTE] why?

[QUOTE=Spooter;33081145]Well, I'm comparing games to movies on release times and polish. Yes, PC's can have huge variations in configuration, but when significant enough portions of players have issues, that's when it feels like it wasn't QA tested or like it was rushed. My point is that we shouldn't expect or excuse [I]this many[/I] bugs, I'm not trying to be cynical, I'm trying to be optimistic. I'm saying that wouldn't it be nice if games didn't have bugs on release? And I'm not asking for anything that's 100% bug free, if there's a minor sound glitch at this one milisecond at this one time of day I'm not going to care and no one should, but bugs that cause game crashes, buggy AI in campaign, people not being able to connect to games, and numerous other issues that are quite major show that the game is rushed. One thing that distinguishes the COD series on PC, despite Activision's poor treatment of the platform and the overall stink of the series, is the sheer level of polish that they come with. MW2 was like an AK-47, you could alt-tab out and jump around back and forth and it ran butter smooth and next to never crashed. BF3 clearly has a plethora of issues, and you're kind of being an ass saying that everyone else's problems are irrelevant because the game is fun and works for you. As for the Origin ToS thing, I found that in the thread I linked earlier. Also, while those reports remain unverified, several German newspapers, large ones, have reported on this issue and it's becoming quite substantial. I don't hate Origin, I hate the company and don't want to give them my money. I don't want to support a business I disagree with.[/QUOTE] >says CoD is polished >fails to mention the awesome stutterfuck that is BLOPS, javelin glitch on MW2, choosing that one host located in god-knows-where while everyone else gets 1-bar

Every time a AAA game comes out, people on Facepunch blindly lament having bought it. If you think every AAA game isn't worth buying, why on [I]earth[/I] did you buy it in the first place?

[QUOTE=DarkendSky;33081728]Every time a AAA game comes out, people on Facepunch blindly lament having bought it. If you think every AAA game isn't worth buying, why on [I]earth[/I] did you buy it in the first place?[/QUOTE] On Facepunch people do things then later have opinions then post their opinions in message board style format.

[QUOTE=MR-X;33072712]Still a port none the less when BF was a PC game to begin with. I got bf3, i enjoy it to a degree. But I will not let go how dice butchered the battlefield name. How hard was it to give us the same game play mechanics, maps, squads, commanders with the updated engine? Apparently it was to hard. A lot of people call themselves fans of BF but a real fan wouldn't let them get away with fucking up Squads, making the maps a clusterfuck, taking out the commander role, etc. Battlelog is a cluster, how hard is it to just use a normal ingame browser, and origin. All that program is a regular download manager they have had and it got re-branded and added other functions that hardly work.[/QUOTE] stop a port is when you take a game developed for one system and PORT IT so that it works on another platform theres a difference between a port and a CROSS PLATFORM title [editline]2nd November 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=thisispain;33081453]why?[/QUOTE] Because usually this kind of story means that the game is a console port, but with BF3 that's obviously not the case

As long as they patch the PC version to get it running well, I can't say I disagree with what they did.