Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Melissia wrote:

illuknisaa wrote:Battlefield's customization focuses on things that are useful to achieve your goal and having pink uniform while hiding in a bush isn't all that useful.

So? Let them.. Not my problem that they picked an anti-camo, makes 'em easier to snipe for me so I'm fine with that.

illuknisaa wrote:And battlefield isn't suppose to an rpg.

And that matters why oh wait no it doesn't. Many RPGs also don't have much choice or customization (almost invariably to their detriment).

illuknisaa wrote:And battlefield doesn't really focus on skill or weapon customization rather on teamplay.

... context, dude. I was talking about its customization.

Duh.

Look she is a girl and enjoys playing dress up in her games. It really is that simple. And that's ok.

If the rest of us here at Dakka don't understand that, or prefer that developers focus on the gameplay and mechanics that are relevent to the genre, settings and over arching theme of the game that is fine also. But she is entitled to her opinion and there is no need to try and change it. The rest of us can go and enjoy BF3 for what it is (btw, the FUNCTIONAL customization of the weapons in this game is great). A great game, that looks great, plays great and has huge 64 player battles being waged over land, sea, and air. Environmental destruction that serves a purpose and is more realistic (no more knife vs concrete equals rubble). A melee system that is rewarding but not cheap. Anti-"vehicle camping" mechanics that work, without needing a currency system that unbalances the map as the game progresses. And a ton of other REFINEMENTS that were happily accepted by the community that enjoys this type of game and aren't looking for a new genre defining game that isn't BF.

Heh. I wouldn't call it "dress-up", so much as I simply like to make my characters my own rather than play someone else's idealized version.

As for your amusing all-caps emphasis, that's what all the fanboys say, but fanboys always exaggerate to make their game look better than it is, especially battlefield fanboys. Even so I have to ask-- why wouldn't it be BF if the game allowed you to change the soldier you played a bit-- make the soldier black or hispanic, change their gender, choose between some reasonable camo schemes (I never asked for pink, that was some other guy's idea), or different styles of body armor, or had perks/upgrades/etc represented as subtle visual equipment differences on the soldier's model, etc?

Unless of course you want to say that battlefield is defined by how limited and unimaginative it is.

Melissia wrote:
Then agan, we're unlikely to get something like R6V2's customization for a modern warfare type shooter any time soon...
.

Rainbow Six was always about customization, maybe not skin color at first but definitely for equipment. I have yet to see another game that gave you choices between types of ammo for a weapon, in the original PC version you could choose hollow point or FMJ for most weapons and for shotguns you had the choice of shot, slugs, or rubber batons.

I wish there was more armor choices similar to what Halo Reach had, but being able to change the overall camo color is a decent start... but MAG had more customization options than any BF game, hell Resistance had more choices in regards to customization that was just cosmetic.

Melissia wrote:Heh. I wouldn't call it "dress-up", so much as I simply like to make my characters my own rather than play someone else's idealized version.

As for your amusing all-caps emphasis, that's what all the fanboys say, but fanboys always exaggerate to make their game look better than it is, especially battlefield fanboys. Even so I have to ask-- why wouldn't it be BF if the game allowed you to change the soldier you played a bit-- make the soldier black or hispanic, change their gender, choose between some reasonable camo schemes (I never asked for pink, that was some other guy's idea), or different styles of body armor, or had perks/upgrades/etc represented as subtle visual equipment differences on the soldier's model, etc?

Unless of course you want to say that battlefield is defined by how limited and unimaginative it is.

I never said you wanted pink, but R6V gave you the ability to make your character any color and that is what happened. I'm sure the developers wouldn't have a problem with adding that much customization to the game, but you have to think about what they have already been including in the game and working on, and where there priorities are at. Since you rarely even see yourself in game, it doesn't surprise me that they didn't work hard and put a lot of effort into making many customization options for the game, especially when they probably had their hands full designing a fantastic engine for the game, massive, detailed maps and everything else that is packed into the game. I'm not trying to belittle your opinion on customization being important, but try to see it from the dev's point of view.

Okay, but when you customize your character you feel more identification with it because your avatar is now wearing what you would want to wear in that situation. Then you have everyone else seeing you as you fill them with lead, and knowing that the last thing they see in their virtual life is your special character makes it feel oh so much better.

halonachos wrote:Okay, but when you customize your character you feel more identification with it because your avatar is now wearing what you would want to wear in that situation. Then you have everyone else seeing you as you fill them with lead, and knowing that the last thing they see in their virtual life is your special character makes it feel oh so much better.

Precisely. when I kill them, it'll be ME killing them, not just nameless faceless douche #201797 who looks exactly the same as all the other nameless faceless douches. Even if I rarely see myself (which is false in a sense; I see the character's hairy man-hands all the time, and hear the character's grunty sweaty man-voice all the time-- sure you don't notice, but that's because you're a man so it's made for you specifically) in game, others will.

Melissia wrote:

halonachos wrote:Okay, but when you customize your character you feel more identification with it because your avatar is now wearing what you would want to wear in that situation. Then you have everyone else seeing you as you fill them with lead, and knowing that the last thing they see in their virtual life is your special character makes it feel oh so much better.

Precisely. when I kill them, it'll be ME killing them, not just nameless faceless douche #201797 who looks exactly the same as all the other nameless faceless douches. Even if I rarely see myself (which is false in a sense; I see the character's hairy man-hands all the time, and hear the character's grunty sweaty man-voice all the time-- sure you don't notice, but that's because you're a man so it's made for you specifically) in game, others will.

Hey, I happen to grunt a lot less than most men in videogames. I know Resistance 2 had female skins as DLC later on and SOCOM 4 had female characters, but much less in terms of customization. Zipper Interactive(the people who made MAG and SOCOM 4) said that they didn't have females in MAG because they would need to create a new body structure(wanted to make it so that females and males would have different animations because they have different musculature and overall body structure and really do the difference justice) that would slow down the game(256 players at most so it would slow it down). But in games like CoD and Battlefield it should be easier to have customization and different character models.

Unfortunately, Battlefield's target audience is (probably) predominately male, so like I said, probably not a huge priority to them.

Halo's target audience is predominately male and they made it a priority to have female skins.

In reality, it can be waved away for modern games simply because women operating within combat infantry is not a common thing. Most Special Operations units(which inevitably are the ones chosen for these kinds of games) also do not recruit women, so there's no precedent for them.

Kanluwen wrote:Halo's target audience is predominately male and they made it a priority to have female skins.

In reality, it can be waved away for modern games simply because women operating within combat infantry is not a common thing. Most Special Operations units(which inevitably are the ones chosen for these kinds of games) also do not recruit women, so there's no precedent for them.

Which is changing as time goes on.

More importantly, feth reality, video games are made to escape it, not reinforce it. Made so you can play the hero, not continue to be just another civilian. How many other facts does the game ignore for the sake of a good game?

Why not this one?

Because, like Female Space Marines, Female Commandos are breaking the law!



In reality, I don't know why. Maybe they just feel it'd be silly to do or that womenfolk don't play shooters, but instead play happy fun kitten games.

Melissia wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Halo's target audience is predominately male and they made it a priority to have female skins.

In reality, it can be waved away for modern games simply because women operating within combat infantry is not a common thing. Most Special Operations units(which inevitably are the ones chosen for these kinds of games) also do not recruit women, so there's no precedent for them.

Which is changing as time goes on.

More importantly, feth reality, video games are made to escape it, not reinforce it. Made so you can play the hero, not continue to be just another civilian. How many other facts does the game ignore for the sake of a good game?

Why not this one?

Because T-Bagging a girl will get feminists' panties even more bunched.

Chowderhead wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Halo's target audience is predominately male and they made it a priority to have female skins.

In reality, it can be waved away for modern games simply because women operating within combat infantry is not a common thing. Most Special Operations units(which inevitably are the ones chosen for these kinds of games) also do not recruit women, so there's no precedent for them.

Which is changing as time goes on.

More importantly, feth reality, video games are made to escape it, not reinforce it. Made so you can play the hero, not continue to be just another civilian. How many other facts does the game ignore for the sake of a good game?

Why not this one?

Because T-Bagging a girl will get feminists' panties even more bunched.

If you ignore them they'll go away...

Chowderhead wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Halo's target audience is predominately male and they made it a priority to have female skins.

In reality, it can be waved away for modern games simply because women operating within combat infantry is not a common thing. Most Special Operations units(which inevitably are the ones chosen for these kinds of games) also do not recruit women, so there's no precedent for them.

Which is changing as time goes on.

More importantly, feth reality, video games are made to escape it, not reinforce it. Made so you can play the hero, not continue to be just another civilian. How many other facts does the game ignore for the sake of a good game?

Why not this one?

Because T-Bagging a girl will get feminists' panties even more bunched.

Please, it's not like this is something that's never happened before. Your feminist "strawman" (Strawwoman?) didn't get in an uproar when Combat Arms did it. Or R6V2. Or the Quake and Unreal series-- multiple games over both modern and sci-fi settings.

Bah at people who don't know what feminism even is.

Melissia wrote:

Chowderhead wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Halo's target audience is predominately male and they made it a priority to have female skins.

In reality, it can be waved away for modern games simply because women operating within combat infantry is not a common thing. Most Special Operations units(which inevitably are the ones chosen for these kinds of games) also do not recruit women, so there's no precedent for them.

Which is changing as time goes on.

More importantly, feth reality, video games are made to escape it, not reinforce it. Made so you can play the hero, not continue to be just another civilian. How many other facts does the game ignore for the sake of a good game?

Why not this one?

Because T-Bagging a girl will get feminists' panties even more bunched.

Please, it's not like this is something that's never happened before. Your feminist "strawman" (Strawwoman?) didn't get in an uproar when Combat Arms did it. Or R6V2. Or the Quake and Unreal series-- multiple games over both modern and sci-fi settings.

Bah at people who don't know what feminism even is.

Reach had Playable females. Don't remember anyone freaking out over teabagging then.

Melissia wrote:
More importantly, feth reality, video games are made to escape it, not reinforce it. Made so you can play the hero, not continue to be just another civilian. How many other facts does the game ignore for the sake of a good game?

Why not this one?

That is your definition of a good game, not everyone's...I love how battlefield makes you feel like you're actually there, whereas Halo is too far fetched for that (I LOVE Halo, but I like BF a lot too). I'm not trying to be BF fanboy and say you're wrong, but you can't write this game off as a bad game because you prefer something less realistic.

For those on PC who want to play the awesomeness:

Game is realeased on the 25th -- its already the 25th in korea. The EA Origin date checker will think you are on the 25th via asia using VPN / IP proxy.

Control Panel -> Internet Options -> Connections -> LAN Settings -> Tick "Use a proxy for your LAN" -> Address: 210.107.100.251 Port: 8080

Then run origin and run the game -- it'll authenticate then simply go back and untick the proxy to get back to USA or wherever you are connecting from normally and enjoy the game.

imark789 wrote:I love how battlefield makes you feel like you're actually there

No it doesn't. You're not feeling the bullets ripping through your body. You're not feeling the heat of a desert sun as the dry air sucks the moisture out of your body. You don't feel the exhaustion after running around the map all day. You don't feel the weight of all your equipment and weapons and armor on your body you do so either. When you die you don't feel your life slipping away by the mililiter of blood. And death is merely a temporary annoyance. You don't feel the gun in your hands, you don't feel the kick of the recoil mash the stock against your shoulder, and even the motions the game goes through to provide some pale replica of recoil isn't really too accurate. Gunshot audio is not quite right, physics in general isn't quite right. Almost all of its players don't have months of harsh training and discipline instilled in them just to qualify as a basic grunt, nevermind a vehicle driver or a pilot. They don't have to physically struggle against a heavy machinegun on its mount to keep it on target, or feel the heat of an anti-tank rocket's exhaust against their face as it whizzes by their head.

The game doesn't care about realism. Battlefield 3 is an arcade shooter just like most of the other modern shooters. I'm sure you'll think I'm overreacting or defining "realistic" too specifically, but frankly if you think Battlefield 3 is "realistic" then you have low standards. But I'm fine with it not being realistic. It's okay. Realism is boring anyway.


And for the record, because you didn't bother to read my posts (as usual for BF3 fanboys), I never said it'd be a bad game. Only that it could have, and should have, been better.

Melissia wrote:Heh. I wouldn't call it "dress-up", so much as I simply like to make my characters my own rather than play someone else's idealized version.

As for your amusing all-caps emphasis, that's what all the fanboys say, but fanboys always exaggerate to make their game look better than it is, especially battlefield fanboys. Even so I have to ask-- why wouldn't it be BF if the game allowed you to change the soldier you played a bit-- make the soldier black or hispanic, change their gender, choose between some reasonable camo schemes (I never asked for pink, that was some other guy's idea), or different styles of body armor, or had perks/upgrades/etc represented as subtle visual equipment differences on the soldier's model, etc?

Unless of course you want to say that battlefield is defined by how limited and unimaginative it is.

http://battlefield.play4free.com/en/createSoldier

BF play 4 free allows customizations. Unsure why they didn't transport that over to the Bf3 game, which i do agree could have easily happened.

But there has to be a Battlefield 4 right? or even better yet -- the next Medal of Honor reboot for next year haha.
*jokes*

Kanluwen wrote:Because, like Female Space Marines, Female Commandos are breaking the law!



In reality, I don't know why. Maybe they just feel it'd be silly to do or that womenfolk don't play shooters, but instead play happy fun kitten games.

Actually, females tend to be excluded from various combat roles, including special ops for several reasons. Upper body strength is one of them, however, the biggest reason believe it or not is the fact that during the menstrual cycle women tend to be at a higher risk of dehydration than their male counterparts and a dehydrated field operative is not a good field operative.

That being said, I can't see why sci-fi games don't have female skins or options and I can understand why they aren't there in simulators, but then again Battlefield and CoD aren't simulators.

That sounds like a justification rather than the 'real' reason which the Israelis put forward several years back for them withdrawing female troops from combat.

Namely, their male counterparts would take stupid risks when they saw females injured to get the females clear of danger. They even saw it during training exercises.

Melissia wrote:

imark789 wrote:I love how battlefield makes you feel like you're actually there

No it doesn't. You're not feeling the bullets ripping through your body. You're not feeling the heat of a desert sun as the dry air sucks the moisture out of your body. You don't feel the exhaustion after running around the map all day. You don't feel the weight of all your equipment and weapons and armor on your body you do so either. When you die you don't feel your life slipping away by the mililiter of blood. And death is merely a temporary annoyance. You don't feel the gun in your hands, you don't feel the kick of the recoil mash the stock against your shoulder, and even the motions the game goes through to provide some pale replica of recoil isn't really too accurate. Gunshot audio is not quite right, physics in general isn't quite right. Almost all of its players don't have months of harsh training and discipline instilled in them just to qualify as a basic grunt, nevermind a vehicle driver or a pilot. They don't have to physically struggle against a heavy machinegun on its mount to keep it on target, or feel the heat of an anti-tank rocket's exhaust against their face as it whizzes by their head.

The game doesn't care about realism. Battlefield 3 is an arcade shooter just like most of the other modern shooters. I'm sure you'll think I'm overreacting or defining "realistic" too specifically, but frankly if you think Battlefield 3 is "realistic" then you have low standards. But I'm fine with it not being realistic. It's okay. Realism is boring anyway.


And for the record, because you didn't bother to read my posts (as usual for BF3 fanboys), I never said it'd be a bad game. Only that it could have, and should have, been better.

I did read your posts, you saying it was missing everything that makes it a good game implies that you think it is a bad game. And sure, it doesn't feel 100% real, but it's nice to have a game that is more grounded in reality than games like Halo and Gears of War. There is only so much realism you can put into a game and keep it playable. I'm sorry that some of us enjoy a game in a modern world with current weapons and technology. I don't see why you have to be rude because I have a differing opinion.

So wait, it feels real because it's based upon modern timeframe.

By that logic, Rainbow Six should be the most realistic game ever.

Kanluwen wrote:That sounds like a justification rather than the 'real' reason which the Israelis put forward several years back for them withdrawing female troops from combat.

Namely, their male counterparts would take stupid risks when they saw females injured to get the females clear of danger. They even saw it during training exercises.

Actually its a reason why women can't be in most American Special Forces. If a person is in a special forces group then the chance of finding potable water decreases and if a woman is at a higher risk of dehydration then that means they're at a higher risk of becoming weaker during the mission and then failing the mission. Besides, the military has a lot of reasons for excluding people for psychological or physical reasons... according to my friend in the USAF you can't be a fighter pilot if you have a mutilated male appendage.

Rainbow Six is closer to being one of the most realistic games, different weapons do different damage as well as being hit doing different damage. If you get hit in the leg with a pistol while wearing a medium to heavy armor kit then you'll either be incapacitated or just wounded.

imark789 wrote:I did read your posts, you saying it was missing everything that makes it a good game

I didn't say that, which is why I said you need to actually read my posts. I only listed one feature I thought it was missing, not "everything that makes a good game".

Melissia wrote:How many other facts does the game ignore for the sake of a good game?

I'm sorry, I guess I misinterpreted this

I was actually saying the game was better because it ignored cries for ultrarealism.

Yes that's what I'm saying I sincerely apologize

I took me awhile to find this but here it is (interesting stuff strats at 0:30):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrdFTX6u7c4&feature=player_embedded