I have a lot of complaints with BF3. It's a well made game, just not the game for me.
In summary, my main complaints can be summed up with a few bullet points:
-Bad weapon balance (like I mentioned in the earlier post, the starter rifle is by far the best gun in the game.) If you're playing solely to win then there literally not a single reason to use any other weapon. In fact, the only reason you shouldn't use the Assault class is if you're playing on a large vehicle map in which there would be a reason to use the Engineer class, but Recon and Support are really not necessary (The m249 was OP for a while also but it got nerfed rightfully.)
-The suppression system is stupid for competitive play, in my opinion. The game basically rewards you for missing shots because if somebody shoots in your general direction, you'll not only get the blur effect, but the game will purposely alter your ability to fight back. Even if you accurately aim down the sights at somebody while suppressed and shoot them, the bullets will fly in some random direction.
I think suppression systems can be a great mechanic, but it wasn't executed too well in BF3. I love the suppression in games like Ghost Recon Future Soldier and Insurgency, they are almost entirely visual and the only effect on gameplay is that they'll make your character shake their arms a bit, but if you take the time to aim you will still be able to put somebody down.
-Another complaint I had with BF3 was related to the maps. Traditionally, Battlefield has always been about having giant vehicle driven maps, but this can only be found in a handful of BF3 maps. Instead, many maps seemed to have been designed with Team Deathmatch in mind as they are smaller and more focused on CQC. Combine this with the fact that many servers allowed 64 players on these maps and you basically end up with an endless clusterfuck.
-A less major complaint is the fact that RBS shooting mechanics take away the skill ceiling of modern shooters, but this is becoming the norm so there's no real point in fighting it.
-Commo rose was basically useless in BF3 other than spamming Q to spot people.
-No in-game mic chat on PC (have to invite random people on your team/squad to a party with Battlelog)
-Parkour system in place was very inconsistent and a lot of the time when you wanted to jump over things, you'd do the animation but wouldn't actually jump over. This led to getting stuck on cover when trying to flee from a fire fight which meant some pretty frustrating deaths. This might be related to the "true FPS" camera setup but I'm not entirely sure to be honest.
-The sun is too damn bright, scope glint shouldn't exist or should be less bright at least, and the blue color filter took away from the beauty of a lot of the maps in my opinion.
Not all of these complaints are really major, but I've been playing BF games for many years now. I was hoping that BF3 would be the continuation to the franchise I was hoping for, but it was more like BFBC2 combined with some new ideas that weren't too great in my opinion.
There's nothing wrong with liking the game, like I said, I think the devs did a great job with the game, it just wasn't the game for me. I still got my money's worth of playtime out of it though. Battlefield as a whole seems to be changing. The older titles like BF2 were less accessible, you had to sit down and learn how to play the game which is a turnoff for a lot of people, but now it's the type of game that anybody can pick up and learn how to play after a few minutes/hours.
There are plenty of great team based games out there at least so I'm not upset with the direction BF is going. It would be cool if the franchise was forked like CoD and we saw multiple developers working on different types of installments to the franchise. If you look at CoD, you'll see that Treyarch focuses on competitive, team oriented gameplay, whereas IW focuses on experimenting with new mechanics/map styles/weapon types/etc. in order to evolve the core gameplay. It works well because people who are fine with playing a "less exciting" game in favor of teamwork can pick up Treyarch titles, and people who want exciting changes can play IW titles.
The older titles like BF2 were less accessible, you had to sit down and learn how to play the game which is a turnoff for a lot of people, but now it's the type of game that anybody can pick up and learn how to play after a few minutes/hours.
Not sure I agree with that, I haven't played a BF game in ages but recently tried out BF3 and Hardline. Both times I couldn't make heads or tails out of what I'm supposed to do exactly, and am being shredded by 'veteran' players that I can't even see every minute. And I'm coming from master guardian in CS GO.
For me these games have been a joyless experience due to the learning curve and just how long you have to wait between rounds/deaths. /honest opinion
np, you made some really valid points, that I think many others shared. I was mainly curious if you were the type that didn't like the elements, that were meant to re-enforce gameplay, or if you had more valid reasons (which you do). I've seen many glory bitches, who hate the teambased elements.
Some of the things you mentioned, were actually fixed, later in BF3. I believe they added chat, via battlelog, but WAY late in the game. I never used it, but saw that the option had been added. I played on the PS3 95% of the time.
The parkour stuff was improved a lot, though there were still times that you couldn't get over a 4 foot barrier.
And yes, the weapon balance was one of my ongoing complaints. I was so tired of seeing the M16A3, when I died. I'm the type to master every weapon, and it irritates me when people won't challenge themselves, by using non-easymode weapons.
But, overall, it sounds like BF4 would have been exactly what you were looking for (if it wasn't a netcode mess). The sun glare was reduced greatly, and I honestly rarely notice it anymore (and I had the same issue you did).
Vehicles have become almost too much in BF4.
And the suppression was reduced greatly (and about to be reduced more). They took out the 'blurring' completely, and the weapons sway was reduced greatly. In my opinion, too far, because I can start shooting a recon, and close range, and he'll still be able to pop me in one shot. The rumor is, they are about to reduce the scope sway further.
The weapon balance is worse, though, in BF4. Most of the weapons have become easymode weapons, where you can kill in a couple shots. They removed the M16A3, but replaced it with the AK 5C (the new overused weapon).
I should also point out, if you didn't try the beta, then you may not know... the M16A3 has returned, and it's just as OP as ever. Again, it's the starting gun, and I doubt people will stray away from it much, other than to use the shotguns, since they are a one hit kill weapon.
Not sure I agree with that, I haven't played a BF game in ages but recently tried out BF3 and Hardline. Both times I couldn't make heads or tails out of what I'm supposed to do exactly, and am being shredded by 'veteran' players that I can't even see every minute. And I'm coming from master guardian in CS GO.
Yeah, I'm a veteran player (still playing BF4), and I had no idea what was going on during Hardline. I recently saw a video, claiming they are addressing the confusing, during the 'heist' gamemode, but I don't know that it will help. Even blood money would be confusing, if I hadn't already seen videos about it.
I don't think BF3 is hard to understand, since it's basic 'capture the objective' type modes. I did, however, find it very hard to start playing, with the start up loadouts, against veterans. I had been playing BF3, on the PS3, for a few months, before I ended up getting it for the PC too. By then, everyone on the PC had all the weapons, including weapons from DLCs, that I did not have on the PC. It was very frustrating.
Looks like it could be fun, but man that FOV is crazy low, i hope that's adjustable.
FOV was adjustable in the beta so I think it's safe to assume it'll be in the finished game as well.
Both trailers were great, and the campaign actually looks very promising. I love the dynamic design of the singleplayer, seems like it is the one thing many modern shooters seem to be lacking. I'm not sure how long the campaign will be but it seems like that alone would justify a purchase in my opinion.
Replies
In summary, my main complaints can be summed up with a few bullet points:
-Bad weapon balance (like I mentioned in the earlier post, the starter rifle is by far the best gun in the game.) If you're playing solely to win then there literally not a single reason to use any other weapon. In fact, the only reason you shouldn't use the Assault class is if you're playing on a large vehicle map in which there would be a reason to use the Engineer class, but Recon and Support are really not necessary (The m249 was OP for a while also but it got nerfed rightfully.)
-The suppression system is stupid for competitive play, in my opinion. The game basically rewards you for missing shots because if somebody shoots in your general direction, you'll not only get the blur effect, but the game will purposely alter your ability to fight back. Even if you accurately aim down the sights at somebody while suppressed and shoot them, the bullets will fly in some random direction.
I think suppression systems can be a great mechanic, but it wasn't executed too well in BF3. I love the suppression in games like Ghost Recon Future Soldier and Insurgency, they are almost entirely visual and the only effect on gameplay is that they'll make your character shake their arms a bit, but if you take the time to aim you will still be able to put somebody down.
-Another complaint I had with BF3 was related to the maps. Traditionally, Battlefield has always been about having giant vehicle driven maps, but this can only be found in a handful of BF3 maps. Instead, many maps seemed to have been designed with Team Deathmatch in mind as they are smaller and more focused on CQC. Combine this with the fact that many servers allowed 64 players on these maps and you basically end up with an endless clusterfuck.
-A less major complaint is the fact that RBS shooting mechanics take away the skill ceiling of modern shooters, but this is becoming the norm so there's no real point in fighting it.
-Commo rose was basically useless in BF3 other than spamming Q to spot people.
-No in-game mic chat on PC (have to invite random people on your team/squad to a party with Battlelog)
-Parkour system in place was very inconsistent and a lot of the time when you wanted to jump over things, you'd do the animation but wouldn't actually jump over. This led to getting stuck on cover when trying to flee from a fire fight which meant some pretty frustrating deaths. This might be related to the "true FPS" camera setup but I'm not entirely sure to be honest.
-The sun is too damn bright, scope glint shouldn't exist or should be less bright at least, and the blue color filter took away from the beauty of a lot of the maps in my opinion.
Not all of these complaints are really major, but I've been playing BF games for many years now. I was hoping that BF3 would be the continuation to the franchise I was hoping for, but it was more like BFBC2 combined with some new ideas that weren't too great in my opinion.
There's nothing wrong with liking the game, like I said, I think the devs did a great job with the game, it just wasn't the game for me. I still got my money's worth of playtime out of it though. Battlefield as a whole seems to be changing. The older titles like BF2 were less accessible, you had to sit down and learn how to play the game which is a turnoff for a lot of people, but now it's the type of game that anybody can pick up and learn how to play after a few minutes/hours.
There are plenty of great team based games out there at least so I'm not upset with the direction BF is going. It would be cool if the franchise was forked like CoD and we saw multiple developers working on different types of installments to the franchise. If you look at CoD, you'll see that Treyarch focuses on competitive, team oriented gameplay, whereas IW focuses on experimenting with new mechanics/map styles/weapon types/etc. in order to evolve the core gameplay. It works well because people who are fine with playing a "less exciting" game in favor of teamwork can pick up Treyarch titles, and people who want exciting changes can play IW titles.
Not sure I agree with that, I haven't played a BF game in ages but recently tried out BF3 and Hardline. Both times I couldn't make heads or tails out of what I'm supposed to do exactly, and am being shredded by 'veteran' players that I can't even see every minute. And I'm coming from master guardian in CS GO.
For me these games have been a joyless experience due to the learning curve and just how long you have to wait between rounds/deaths. /honest opinion
Some of the things you mentioned, were actually fixed, later in BF3. I believe they added chat, via battlelog, but WAY late in the game. I never used it, but saw that the option had been added. I played on the PS3 95% of the time.
The parkour stuff was improved a lot, though there were still times that you couldn't get over a 4 foot barrier.
And yes, the weapon balance was one of my ongoing complaints. I was so tired of seeing the M16A3, when I died. I'm the type to master every weapon, and it irritates me when people won't challenge themselves, by using non-easymode weapons.
But, overall, it sounds like BF4 would have been exactly what you were looking for (if it wasn't a netcode mess). The sun glare was reduced greatly, and I honestly rarely notice it anymore (and I had the same issue you did).
Vehicles have become almost too much in BF4.
And the suppression was reduced greatly (and about to be reduced more). They took out the 'blurring' completely, and the weapons sway was reduced greatly. In my opinion, too far, because I can start shooting a recon, and close range, and he'll still be able to pop me in one shot. The rumor is, they are about to reduce the scope sway further.
The weapon balance is worse, though, in BF4. Most of the weapons have become easymode weapons, where you can kill in a couple shots. They removed the M16A3, but replaced it with the AK 5C (the new overused weapon).
I should also point out, if you didn't try the beta, then you may not know... the M16A3 has returned, and it's just as OP as ever. Again, it's the starting gun, and I doubt people will stray away from it much, other than to use the shotguns, since they are a one hit kill weapon.
Yeah, I'm a veteran player (still playing BF4), and I had no idea what was going on during Hardline. I recently saw a video, claiming they are addressing the confusing, during the 'heist' gamemode, but I don't know that it will help. Even blood money would be confusing, if I hadn't already seen videos about it.
I don't think BF3 is hard to understand, since it's basic 'capture the objective' type modes. I did, however, find it very hard to start playing, with the start up loadouts, against veterans. I had been playing BF3, on the PS3, for a few months, before I ended up getting it for the PC too. By then, everyone on the PC had all the weapons, including weapons from DLCs, that I did not have on the PC. It was very frustrating.
[ame="
And our new Rescue game mode in multiplayer
[ame="
Both trailers were great, and the campaign actually looks very promising. I love the dynamic design of the singleplayer, seems like it is the one thing many modern shooters seem to be lacking. I'm not sure how long the campaign will be but it seems like that alone would justify a purchase in my opinion.