Battlefield 3 beta blows

adding higher resolution textures.... or full physics... would probably increase the file size a hell of a lot more than 700mb. the features are a package, and adding them probably would increase it beyond the size limit. you cant add 90% of a texture file and have it display properly/at all....or have 90% of a physics engine. its all or nothing. your conclusion is wrong.

AWolfoftheCalla

And, again, this demo is smaller than the last two EA demos and signiificantly smaller then the NCAA demo. It's 200mb smallter then the original BC demo that came out three years ago.

Lol okay, don't buy it, you're missing out. Pretty sure half the people in this thread will have a change of heart when this game is praised by critics and everyone is raving about the MP. I feel bad for the people who are basing their purchase on a 6 month old build of the game with tons of stuff toned down, and a map that barely represents what BF is about. Go play Caspian Border on PC.

Proof that the current beta is an old build and that the retail release will be far ahead of it (from Daniel Matros' twitter):

"A lot of what you are seeing in the BETA doesn't exist in the main game already. 1st Party submissions mean we couldn't give a version of the latest code in the BETA but the retail game is well ahead of what you are seeing now with a lot more bug fixes already in place."

Also, this beta clearly does not have the destruction, graphics settings, etc... of the retail game if the XBL download was 1.3 Gigs lol. Was it a good move by DICE to lower that download size and take stuff out? Maybe not, but people need stop acting like the destruction, graphics, etc in the beta = what they will be in the retail product. I don't think DICE put their best foot forward with this, but it is CLEAR that the retail game will be much better with the game mechanics and technicals surpassing what is in the beta.

Too many people here are overreacting to this beta, and some are just saying things that are not true (hit detection being bad? lulz fix your interwebz...).If you're having doubts because of the beta, try a friend's game or rent it when it's out and see if you like the retail version better, as it will be much better. From playing Caspian on PC, I can tell you that the this beta does not show off half of how amazing this game is.

Thread title says it all, the beta blows and I hope they're going to fix it before gold, else I'll be pissed!

[QUOTE="AWolfoftheCalla"]

adding higher resolution textures.... or full physics... would probably increase the file size a hell of a lot more than 700mb. the features are a package, and adding them probably would increase it beyond the size limit. you cant add 90% of a texture file and have it display properly/at all....or have 90% of a physics engine. its all or nothing. your conclusion is wrong.

KC_Hokie

And, again, this demo is smaller than the last two EA demos and signiificantly smaller then the NCAA demo. It's 200mb smallter then the original BC demo that came out three years ago.

First of all i'm a game design major so let me say I KNOW what i'm talking about even if you don't.

Second you obviously didn't read this guys post because he does KNOW what he's talking about and you don't. Just because a game put out a demo that was 700 megabites (a small amount of data in the gaming world) Doesn't mean that Battlefield could have used that amount of data. The physics are jack down 2 fold because the full engine would be way too big. You DO KNOW that the gold edition of the game will be released on TWO DVDS. Take the amount of a dvd then double it and you'll quickly see why a single beta had to be so compressed.

[QUOTE="bessy67"]

[QUOTE="Matthew-first"]


I was reading all the comments... but w8... what yoiu said?
You don't care about the graphics? Then GO PLAY NINTENDO LOL.

ITS ALL ABOUT the graphics... I thought its gonna be like on the trailers... but its not... same with CRYSIS 2...
Its a CRAP... Not goin to buy this... coz it looks like BF BC 2...

PICKING MW3 looks 10 times better now (And I thought its gonna be otherwise...) you can kiss my ... white horse xD

AWolfoftheCalla

You just made my point for me. Nintendo is dominating this console generation, and the graphics on the wii suck. Graphics in Dragon Age Origins were not great at best, but it's still one of my all-time favorite games. I also just recently replayed Zelda: OoT and didn't care that the graphics were utter crap because the game itself was amazing. So no, I really don't care about graphics. And everyone who says that the graphics of this or Crysis 2 are crap are either trying to start flame wars or just plain blind. Sure, Battlefield 3 on console may not look as good as the pc counterpart, but it still looks good and I don't have to dump $500+ into upgrading my pc just to play it.

[QUOTE="bessy67"]

[QUOTE="Matthew-first"]


I was reading all the comments... but w8... what yoiu said?
You don't care about the graphics? Then GO PLAY NINTENDO LOL.

ITS ALL ABOUT the graphics... I thought its gonna be like on the trailers... but its not... same with CRYSIS 2...
Its a CRAP... Not goin to buy this... coz it looks like BF BC 2...

PICKING MW3 looks 10 times better now (And I thought its gonna be otherwise...) you can kiss my ... white horse xD

AWolfoftheCalla

You just made my point for me. Nintendo is dominating this console generation, and the graphics on the wii suck. Graphics in Dragon Age Origins were not great at best, but it's still one of my all-time favorite games. I also just recently replayed Zelda: OoT and didn't care that the graphics were utter crap because the game itself was amazing. So no, I really don't care about graphics. And everyone who says that the graphics of this or Crysis 2 are crap are either trying to start flame wars or just plain blind. Sure, Battlefield 3 on console may not look as good as the pc counterpart, but it still looks good and I don't have to dump $500+ into upgrading my pc just to play it.

not to mention new super mario, smash bros,mario kart, and mario galaxy wii has sold more software..

anyway this is for system wars..forget what i said :P

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="AWolfoftheCalla"]

adding higher resolution textures.... or full physics... would probably increase the file size a hell of a lot more than 700mb. the features are a package, and adding them probably would increase it beyond the size limit. you cant add 90% of a texture file and have it display properly/at all....or have 90% of a physics engine. its all or nothing. your conclusion is wrong.

Gamefreak1296

And, again, this demo is smaller than the last two EA demos and signiificantly smaller then the NCAA demo. It's 200mb smallter then the original BC demo that came out three years ago.

First of all i'm a game design major so let me say I KNOW what i'm talking about even if you don't.

Second you obviously didn't read this guys post because he does KNOW what he's talking about and you don't. Just because a game put out a demo that was 700 megabites (a small amount of data in the gaming world) Doesn't mean that Battlefield could have used that amount of data. The physics are jack down 2 fold because the full engine would be way too big. You DO KNOW that the gold edition of the game will be released on TWO DVDS. Take the amount of a dvd then double it and you'll quickly see why a single beta had to be so compressed.

[QUOTE="Gamefreak1296"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Are you seriously suggesting the graphics couldn't have improved had they released a demo with 700mb more of content? Are you kidding? Some Xbox 360 demos are 700mb!

And, again, this demo is smaller than the last two EA demos and signiificantly smaller then the NCAA demo. It's 200mb smallter then the original BC demo that came out three years ago.

KC_Hokie

First of all i'm a game design major so let me say I KNOW what i'm talking about even if you don't.

Second you obviously didn't read this guys post because he does KNOW what he's talking about and you don't. Just because a game put out a demo that was 700 megabites (a small amount of data in the gaming world) Doesn't mean that Battlefield could have used that amount of data. The physics are jack down 2 fold because the full engine would be way too big. You DO KNOW that the gold edition of the game will be released on TWO DVDS. Take the amount of a dvd then double it and you'll quickly see why a single beta had to be so compressed.

Don't you mean "wouldn't" to further increase YOUR point mr. "horse ****"?

[QUOTE="ComBaTsOuL"]Im canceling my pre-order because of this beta, i cant believe they hyped the graphics engine and mocked MW then release this beta that looks no better than bad company 2, if anyone is going to buy this game its got to be on PC because thats were dice put all the love....bessy67

Who cares about the graphics? The game plays awesome. And remember, you're basing your opinions on a single map that has no vehicles at all so the other maps will play completely differently.

He's basing his oppinion on a product released to show what the game is capable of and try to gain more adepts.

And you imagine it will play differently on others maps given that no one played them yet...

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="Gamefreak1296"]

First of all i'm a game design major so let me say I KNOW what i'm talking about even if you don't.

Second you obviously didn't read this guys post because he does KNOW what he's talking about and you don't. Just because a game put out a demo that was 700 megabites (a small amount of data in the gaming world) Doesn't mean that Battlefield could have used that amount of data. The physics are jack down 2 fold because the full engine would be way too big. You DO KNOW that the gold edition of the game will be released on TWO DVDS. Take the amount of a dvd then double it and you'll quickly see why a single beta had to be so compressed.

Gamefreak1296

Don't you mean "wouldn't" to further increase YOUR point mr. "horse ****"?

I agree, the BETA was crappy. But then again it was a beta not a demo so it wasn't set out to impress.

I popped in BC2 just to remember what a real game is like.

[QUOTE="Gamefreak1296"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]I don't buy that a 1.3 GB demo would look the same as a 2 GB demo. I know enough about computers to know that's total horse ****

KC_Hokie

Don't you mean "wouldn't" to further increase YOUR point mr. "horse ****"?

Then you sir don't understnad what i'm saying. As I was saying, the 2.2 gig PC beta looks much better then the 1.3 gig beta on the Xbox.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="Gamefreak1296"]

Don't you mean "wouldn't" to further increase YOUR point mr. "horse ****"?

Then you sir don't understnad what i'm saying. As I was saying, the 2.2 gig PC beta looks much better then the 1.3 gig beta on the Xbox.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="Gamefreak1296"]

Don't you mean "wouldn't" to further increase YOUR point mr. "horse ****"?

Gamefreak1296

Then you sir don't understnad what i'm saying. As I was saying, the 2.2 gig PC beta looks much better then the 1.3 gig beta on the Xbox.

[QUOTE="Gamefreak1296"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]No I meant what I said. Read carefully.

KC_Hokie

Then you sir don't understnad what i'm saying. As I was saying, the 2.2 gig PC beta looks much better then the 1.3 gig beta on the Xbox.

EA released a statement saying that the beta code is from earlier, so it's not representative of the final game. I'm sure it'll be good.

EA released a statement saying that the beta code is from earlier, so it's not representative of the final game. I'm sure it'll be good.

MathMattS

[QUOTE="MathMattS"]

EA released a statement saying that the beta code is from earlier, so it's not representative of the final game. I'm sure it'll be good.

Ghost_702

The thread title isn't "Battlefield 3 beta is bad, therefore BF3 is going to be terrible". The title is what it is. The beta, regardless of technical variables that can be argued ad nosium, leaves much to be desired. Given the knowledge that this beta is set out to increase consumer satisfaction (leading to more sales), I think we can say that some poor choices were made by DICE.

I also wanted to add something else. I think that this beta discussion shows that, beyond anything else, transparency is key. I think that these companies, like DICE, should state their intent clearly. Nobody in their right mind would be offended if EA made a public statement before the beta saying:

"This beta is meant to convert players who traditionally play CoD. It's an old build that our offices thought could raise our market share."

Something along those lines would end this entire discussion and put me at ease with the game. They didn't do that though, so everyone is assuming the worst (which is competely understandable). I think that video game companies need to take a course is consumerism...

I also wanted to add something else. I think that this beta discussion shows that, beyond anything else, transparency is key. I think that these companies, like DICE, should state their intent clearly. Nobody in their right mind would be offended if EA made a public statement before the beta saying:

"This beta is meant to convert players who traditionally play CoD. It's an old build that our offices thought could raise our market share."

Something along those lines would end this entire discussion and put me at ease with the game. They didn't do that though, so everyone is assuming the worst (which is competely understandable). I think that video game companies need to take a course is consumerism...

SenorPickle

Yeah but that's too arrogant. A lot more people than you'd thinkn would have a problem with that. "Hey guys, we're just doing this for sales. Not to try and make the game better or to test our servers. Haha COD sucks."

Im canceling my pre-order because of this beta, i cant believe they hyped the graphics engine and mocked MW then release this beta that looks no better than bad company 2, if anyone is going to buy this game its got to be on PC because thats were dice put all the love....ComBaTsOuL