Battlefield 3

[Schwimmwagen]

DICE has stated that the Ultra graphics setting isn't implemented in the beta, which I assume means that the highest resolution textures aren't installed.

But that kind of defeats the point of beta testing, does it not? One of the key things in a beta test is seeing how well the game performs on different settings on different systems.

 

[Sarcastic Coffeecup]

But that kind of defeats the point of beta testing, does it not? One of the key things in a beta test is seeing how well the game performs on different settings on different systems.

Hey, it's DICE we're talking about. They're getting so cocky they don't even test properly anymore

 

[FF_CCSa1F]

But that kind of defeats the point of beta testing, does it not? One of the key things in a beta test is seeing how well the game performs on different settings on different systems.

I must disagree with that. The point of a large-scale open beta (although I still hesitate calling this game a beta in its current stage) is not to test the performance of the clients, it is intended to test the stability of the servers and other background systems.

Hey, it's DICE we're talking about. They're getting so cocky they don't even test properly anymore

Have they ever?

EDIT: It seems as if I'm not the only one who doesn't like the graphics, after all!

 

[Schwimmwagen]

I must disagree with that. The point of a large-scale open beta (although I still hesitate calling this game a beta in its current stage) is not to test the performance of the clients, it is intended to test the stability of the servers and other background systems.

Both alpha and beta tests are there to test EVERYTHING, not just graphics, not just general gameplay bugs, not just servers, EVERYTHING. When you're about to release a product, EVERYTHING must be tested and examined to make sure it's in absolute full working order, otherwise you get a shitty product. There is absolutely no excuse for leaving ANYTHING out of the testing process, especially when the game is in its final testing stages and is so close to release. The purpose of a large scale test is to get all different kinds of systems involved, and different kinds of playstyles of individuals to see what bugs they may run into. Being locked in an office and playing the game over LAN will never, ever get the same results. Red Orchestra 2 had tons of issues with the general gameplay during the large-scale external beta phase when the folks at the Tripwire Interactive offices were pretty sure that there weren't many issues to be found as far as their LAN connection and extremely similar office systems could tell them. When they introduced thousands of other users, surprise! Bugs out the ass. The RO2 external beta was there to check every nook and cranny. All software does the same thing, especially games, when it comes to an external beta. There is absolutely no reason as to why DICE should be doing anything differently with BF3. Still disagree with me? This is the kind of thing I study in college, this is not my opinion of how it works, it is fact and I am telling you how it works.

As Coffee just said, DICE are getting real cocky, they're not even testing their shit properly anymore. It seems as if they believe that as long as it has their brand name on it, it will sell. Fuck quality.

 

[Armaetus]

Looks like CoD, plays like CoD, must be like CoD. Nothing special or unique to me.

 

[Onnes]

...
As Coffee just said, DICE are getting real cocky, they're not even testing their shit properly anymore. It seems as if they believe that as long as it has their brand name on it, it will sell. Fuck quality.

You seem to be implying that every developer should release a fully featured beta to the public prior to release. Seriously, how many developers actually do this? To put it another way, you are claiming you know better about production, marketing, and development than the majority of actual developers.

 

[Delta]

Its already been stated plenty of times that the main reason for the beta was to test the clients and servers. Im not sure where all this gas bagging about ultra settings not being implemented and whether or not DICE is "testing correctly" comes from. First off how many of you are game developers who have tested multiple award winning games, most of which, despite being 5 years old, are still played today? Anyone? Yeah, didn't think so. Maybe we should drop the insinuation that we know the "correct way" to test a game. Secondly, its obvious DICE wasn't sure they wanted to make a beta or a demo - they convinced themselves there was middle ground and went for it. Not the smartest choice from our end, but apparently they got the feedback, technical results and pre-orders they wanted so in a way, they did it entirely correct from their standpoint.

 

[FF_CCSa1F]

Both alpha and beta tests are there to test EVERYTHING, not just graphics, not just general gameplay bugs, not just servers, EVERYTHING. When you're about to release a product, EVERYTHING must be tested and examined to make sure it's in absolute full working order, otherwise you get a shitty product.

Of course everything needs to be tested, that is a given. My point is that not everything needs to be tested in a large-scale public setting. For instance, the performance across different systems doesn't require such testing, as the number of systems different (and popular) enough to justify special testing are so few that they'll be able to set up a local test for them, in a much more controlled environment. While there's nothing inherently wrong with also doing a graphics engine test in a large-scale, public setting, it sounds to me as the least important aspect of such a test.

Still disagree with me? This is the kind of thing I study in college, this is not my opinion of how it works, it is fact and I am telling you how it works.

I'm sorry, but your theory regarding what factors to prioritise in front of others in a massive, public test sounds rather flawed; DICE have simply chosen to prioritise some tests in front of others. I fail to see how that is such improper procedure.

 

[Schwimmwagen]

You seem to be implying that every developer should release a fully featured beta to the public prior to release. Seriously, how many developers actually do this? To put it another way, you are claiming you know better about production, marketing, and development than the majority of actual developers.

I'm not claiming that I know more than actual developers about those things, not once. A lot of developers who don't do huge external public tests do friends/family tests instead. Those who don't are developers who have created something very damn simple that doesn't need external testing, or it's built for console, where every single console of that brand is identical. I'm talking about the purpose of said tests.

I'm sorry, but your theory regarding what factors to prioritise in front of others in a massive, public test sounds rather flawed; DICE have simply chosen to prioritise some tests in front of others. I fail to see how that is such improper procedure.

Prioritising certain things is one thing, completely and fully ignoring certain things is a different thing.

 

[FF_CCSa1F]

Prioritising certain things is one thing, completely and fully ignoring certain things is a different thing.

I doubt that DICE are completely ignoring testing the different graphics settings; choosing not to include them in the beta doesn't by any means imply that. The different systems that are going to run this game are so few that I can't see why external testing of the different graphics settings would be very critical. Testing them in-house is far easier. Considering how the additional information required for running ultra high-end graphics settings might make the game download considerably larger, there's probably a decent decrease in server load associated to it as well.

 

[Fernin]

All I car about is that one bullet to the brain bucket on hardcore drops a man whose within reasonable range. This double tap headshot BS in the 'normal' modes of ever shooter these days is sooo fucking annoying.

 

[Schwimmwagen]

I doubt that DICE are completely ignoring testing the different graphics settings; choosing not to include them in the beta doesn't by any means imply that. The different systems that are going to run this game are so few that I can't see why external testing of the different graphics settings would be very critical. Testing them in-house is far easier. Considering how the additional information required for running ultra high-end graphics settings might make the game download considerably larger, there's probably a decent decrease in server load associated to it as well.

You should take a peek at the Red Orchestra 2 forums, then. That's a new game and during the beta, there's been sooo many performance issues for users with different systems, despite being way over the recommended PC specs, testing the servers was only a small part of it all. There is little reason why any game won't bump into some issues like this. Everything needs testing, and performance testing is the one that is pretty important to include in an external beta. If anybody ever releases a game that has 100% perfect code with no needed testing, it's called plagarism.

 

[Unsilenced]

All I car about is that one bullet to the brain bucket on hardcore drops a man whose within reasonable range. This double tap headshot BS in the 'normal' modes of ever shooter these days is sooo fucking annoying.

...

I'm fairly certain that a headshot is a one hit kill with just about anything in any C.o.D game, though admittedly I haven't played Black Ops that much.

Personally the other way annoys me more, where a single 5.56 to the toe is an instant kill.

 

[Fernin]

...

I'm fairly certain that a headshot is a one hit kill with just about anything in any C.o.D game, though admittedly I haven't played Black Ops that much.

Personally the other way annoys me more, where a single 5.56 to the toe is an instant kill.

In "normal" modes it takes two bullets from anything but a sniper to the brain-pan to put someone in the dirt in every CoD, and most recently battlefield BC and BC2, this also often holds true in the 'hardcore" modes. It's been a source of GREAT irritation to me for a long time.

 

[Unsilenced]

In "normal" modes it takes two bullets from anything but a sniper to the brain-pan to put someone in the dirt in every CoD, and most recently battlefield BC and BC2, this also often holds true in the 'hardcore" modes. It's been a source of GREAT irritation to me for a long time.

Wait what? No.

In Cod2 the bolt-action rifles were all one-hits in anywhere but the arms basically.

 

[Fernin]

Wait what? No.

In Cod2 the bolt-action rifles were all one-hits in anywhere but the arms basically.

Thats because the bolt actions were done that way for balance issues. Otherwise they would have been entirely useless. Load up CoD2 or any one after it and shoot a full heath player in the head with anything other than a single shot rifle, even from 2 feet away it will take 2 shots to kill. The first shot with drop them to red health and make a 'tunk' noise, the second shot will have the loud headshot 'pling' sound and kill them.

Read the wiki article, a single shot even with the head shot multiplyer will not kill in 'normal' mode in most of the game with anything but a long rifle which have 1.5x to 2x damage multipuls for head shots instead of 1.4 or lower, which is not enough to kill a full health player instantly.

Example: AK47 in MW2 at point blank range does 40 damage on a body shot, with the 1.4 multiplier it does 60 with a head shot, or 40 short of killing a player. Some other guns do more, some do less, but nothing other than single shot rifles will have a multiplyer that allows 100+ damage on a single shot.

 

[Schwimmwagen]

Wait what? No.

In Cod2 the bolt-action rifles were all one-hits in anywhere but the arms basically.

Heh, Cod2. I used to love the old, old CoD games and 4 was very deserving of its success, but I struggle to call the new games "CoD" nowadays. :/

 

[FF_CCSa1F]

You should take a peek at the Red Orchestra 2 forums, then. That's a new game and during the beta, there's been sooo many performance issues for users with different systems, despite being way over the recommended PC specs, testing the servers was only a small part of it all.

And that is the part that the BF3 beta is aiming to test.

Everything needs testing, and performance testing is the one that is pretty important to include in an external beta.

It is a very important thing to get right, but testing it can very well be solved by other means as well, far easier than server stress testing can. If DICE do it properly, it will be fine.

 

[Schwimmwagen]

And that is the part that the BF3 beta is aiming to test.

But IMO, it really shouldn't be. But if they want to risk overlooking something that is actually pretty damn important that was never tested in the beta, fine by me. It's just a silly practise. :/

 

[Term_the_Schmuck]

But IMO, it really shouldn't be. But if they want to risk overlooking something that is actually pretty damn important that was never tested in the beta, fine by me. It's just a silly practise. :/

You're also not taking into account that this is more of a publicity move than anything else. Sure it's nice that we as the players of the Beta can let DICE know that some textures are loading slow, the slug glitch is absolutely hilarious, and that people literally fall through the ground at times, but this also existed to try and expose people to Battlefield who never bothered to play BC or BC2, like myself. A large part of Metro was the close-quarters nature of it, playing a lot like what many people expect out of a CoD game. So it's accomplishing a lot of different things DICE wants, even if they have to deal with a bunch of people who don't realize that the Beta isn't the final product.

 

[Schwimmwagen]

You're also not taking into account that this is more of a publicity move than anything else. Sure it's nice that we as the players of the Beta can let DICE know that some textures are loading slow, the slug glitch is absolutely hilarious, and that people literally fall through the ground at times, but this also existed to try and expose people to Battlefield who never bothered to play BC or BC2, like myself. A large part of Metro was the close-quarters nature of it, playing a lot like what many people expect out of a CoD game. So it's accomplishing a lot of different things DICE wants, even if they have to deal with a bunch of people who don't realize that the Beta isn't the final product.

Oh, I am aware it's a bit more of a publicity move than anything else, and a publicity move is a good thing, and so is a large external beta, but my problem with it is that the end result is something wierd that can't really decide what it wants to be (beta or demo), and it has quite a likelihood of affecting the quality of the final product due to the locking of certain features and people not understanding the difference between beta and demo. If this game gets out of this "beta" phase and is absolutely perfect in what it aims to deliver, then great! But I find it a silly move to label it as a "beta." People seem a lot more understanding of the term "demo" and how it doesn't fully reflect the quality of the final product, unlike beta, and with the locking out of certain things, it sort of defeats the point of making a beta in the first place. BF3 may pull out just fine, but I'm not talking about BF3 only, I'm using it as an example of dodgy practise that game developers sometimes make, and how it sucks to see a game end up not being as good/popular as it tried to be due to taking an odd direction like this one.

 

[Term_the_Schmuck]

Oh, I am aware it's a bit more of a publicity move than anything else, and a publicity move is a good thing, and so is a large external beta, but my problem with it is that the end result is something wierd that can't really decide what it wants to be (beta or demo), and it has quite a likelihood of affecting the quality of the final product due to the locking of certain features and people not understanding the difference between beta and demo. If this game gets out of this "beta" phase and is absolutely perfect in what it aims to deliver, then great! But I find it a silly move to label it as a "beta." People seem a lot more understanding of the term "demo" and how it doesn't fully reflect the quality of the final product, unlike beta, and with the locking out of certain things, it sort of defeats the point of making a beta in the first place. BF3 may pull out just fine, but I'm not talking about BF3 only, I'm using it as an example of dodgy practise that game developers sometimes make, and how it sucks to see a game end up not being as good/popular as it tried to be due to taking an odd direction like this one.

Well unlike other "Betas" like the Uncharted 3 Multiplayer Beta, I saw an interview with a DICE employee on Kotaku I believe where he basically said "This is a REAL Beta in the sense that we have some issues with code that we're going to release it and hope to get feedback on actual gameplay and not just testing the servers."

Like I mentioned, the issues with people falling through the ground, which happened to me, and some hit detection issues have already been among the most reported issues. Anybody who has half a brain played the Beta and realized that it was, in fact, a Beta based on these issues and others. Meanwhile the Uncharted 3 "Beta" was much more complete with very few gameplay issues. That was more true to a demo than it was a Beta, IMHO.

So I get what you mean that some companies release "demos" that they name "betas" and many people treated this BF3 Beta as a "demo" based on how some kids were like "I'M GUNNA FUCKIN' KILL U FOR NOT CODING THIS RITE!!!!111!!!". But I think that just speaks to the fact that the BF3 Beta was in fact a true Beta and not just an advertising measure to make people think they were actually testing an unfinished product. Beta just sounds more important than Demo afterall.

EDIT: Also going to bring up a couple other issues with the Beta I reported: That headset communication didn't work for many people, including myself which is extremely important in a team objective-based shooter like BF3 and that pre-made squads would often get split up either to other squads or entirely different teams.

 

[Alstor]

Gibby, why did you bash BF3 for a lack of innovation while, at an earlier time, you loved Dead Island, which basically took the contents of Borderlands, Left 4 Dead, and Dead Rising, combined them, and packaged it as a new game?

 

[Unsilenced]

Thats because the bolt actions were done that way for balance issues. Otherwise they would have been entirely useless. Load up CoD2 or any one after it and shoot a full heath player in the head with anything other than a single shot rifle, even from 2 feet away it will take 2 shots to kill. The first shot with drop them to red health and make a 'tunk' noise, the second shot will have the loud headshot 'pling' sound and kill them.

Read the wiki article, a single shot even with the head shot multiplyer will not kill in 'normal' mode in most of the game with anything but a long rifle which have 1.5x to 2x damage multipuls for head shots instead of 1.4 or lower, which is not enough to kill a full health player instantly.

Example: AK47 in MW2 at point blank range does 40 damage on a body shot, with the 1.4 multiplier it does 60 with a head shot, or 40 short of killing a player. Some other guns do more, some do less, but nothing other than single shot rifles will have a multiplyer that allows 100+ damage on a single shot.

Huh. That's actually really surprising, mostly because I never noticed it. I guess I've shot a few people with pistols at point blank to little effect in CoD4, but in CoD2 I was pretty sure it was a 1-shot. Then again my favorite severs in CoD2 were always the all-bolt ones, so there's that.

...

I've wasted so much time trying to get headshots on people. This is sad.

 

[Schwimmwagen]

Gibby, why did you bash BF3 for a lack of innovation while, at an earlier time, you loved Dead Island, which basically took the contents of Borderlands, Left 4 Dead, and Dead Rising, combined them, and packaged it as a new game?

I never said I loved Dead Island. :/ I even said before many times that it does what you described. I said it was a good game, but since it played like a Borderlands mod, it was nowhere near truly worth the price it was asking for. At first, I didn't even want to get it at all until a few friends of mine really wanted me to. I did have fun with it, but if it lived up to the original gritty zombie survival game as it was once planned to be several years ago instead of being a relatively colourful Borderlands clone, I would have actually loved it then. Keep up, yo.