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.

darkPrince010 wrote:I I guess my question now is what guarantee will I have that BF3 will close/boot "instantly," outside from the speculations based off of the Alpha? True, while it might close/open fast for your computer, a slightly slower one like mine might eat a couple minutes at least closing and opening, which would be slower than dis/connecting using a server browser within a running game.

My PC is over 3 years old and it was instant for me, that's all I can tell you. Personally I wouldn't suggest trying to play BF3 on a PC older than mine anyway, unless you're one of these people that can't tell the difference between 30 and 60fps.

MrH wrote:

daedalus-templarius wrote:Seems like a mountain is being made out of a molehill.

What's annoying is people condemning it before they've even tried it.

The reason as to why people are condemning it is because there was no reason to change what wasnt broken, its a fair reason.

johnscott10 wrote:

MrH wrote:

daedalus-templarius wrote:Seems like a mountain is being made out of a molehill.

What's annoying is people condemning it before they've even tried it.

The reason as to why people are condemning it is because there was no reason to change what wasnt broken, its a fair reason.

VHS wasn't broken, but aren't you glad we have DVD/Blu-ray now?

MrH wrote:VHS wasn't broken, but aren't you glad we have DVD/Blu-ray now?

It was after about five viewings.

But I digress...

htj wrote:

MrH wrote:VHS wasn't broken, but aren't you glad we have DVD/Blu-ray now?

It was after about five viewings.

But I digress...

My body goes cold and numb just thinking about watching something on VHS, not that I have a VHS player any more!

Truly, it was a dark time for us all.

MrH wrote:VHS wasn't broken, but aren't you glad we have DVD/Blu-ray now?

Bad analogy. The reason we switched from VHS to newer formats is because they allowed much better audio and video quality. It was a definite jump. However, this battlelog crap doesn't seem like a jump at all. It just sounds like a different way of doing something, and some people feel that it's completely unneeded.

daedalus wrote:What was their rationale for removing it? Typically, when it comes to UI design, the best and yet least followed rule is, "Unless you have a damn good reason to, leave it alone."

They're doing it as a DRM. Not that it'll work but that's their reason.

MrH wrote:VHS wasn't broken, but aren't you glad we have DVD/Blu-ray now?

DVD/Blu-ray are obvious improvements over the VHS and previous formats. The battlelog offers no so benefits. It can only be as good as an in-game browser. It can't be superior and I highly doubt it will be as good in EA's hands.

Skepticism about a weird idea while throwing away a tried and proven one with no problems is perfectly reasonable.

Necroshea wrote:

MrH wrote:VHS wasn't broken, but aren't you glad we have DVD/Blu-ray now?

Bad analogy. The reason we switched from VHS to newer formats is because they allowed much better audio and video quality. It was a definite jump. However, this battlelog crap doesn't seem like a jump at all. It just sounds like a different way of doing something, and some people feel that it's completely unneeded.

If you try it and hate it for a real, actual reason then fine, but to complain and say you hate it without even trying it is ignorant and stupid. Even in such an early stage it was looking great, I can't wait to see it in a year from now, maybe then there will be a clear "jump" that even the most casual player can see clearly.

MrH wrote:

johnscott10 wrote:

MrH wrote:

daedalus-templarius wrote:Seems like a mountain is being made out of a molehill.

What's annoying is people condemning it before they've even tried it.

The reason as to why people are condemning it is because there was no reason to change what wasnt broken, its a fair reason.

VHS wasn't broken, but aren't you glad we have DVD/Blu-ray now?

Maybe so, but DVD had so many more advatages over VHS, and dont have a go at me as i dont want to be dragged into it. I was only pointing out a reason as to why people dont like it.

LordofHats wrote:The battlelog offers no so benefits. It can only be as good as an in-game browser. It can't be superior and I highly doubt it will be as good in EA's hands.

According to whom, exactly? It already does server finding and sorting better than an in-game browser, plus it has additional features such as stat tracking and it has many social elements already implemented. If anything I'd say it's already superior.

MrH wrote:According to whom, exactly? It already does server finding and sorting better than an in-game browser, plus it has additional features such as stat tracking and it has many social elements already implemented. If anything I'd say it's already superior.

All of which can be implemented through an in game browser (and have been). Oddly, EA tried and failed in BFBC2 and Activision failed in BLOPS both because they underestimated the support they needed for the back end servers. EA has committed such a failure numerous times. I suspect the same problem will plague battlelog, heck I'm going to be waiting patiently for a DOS attack on it

Battlelog offers nothing. It takes away the fluidity of an in-game interface and forces players to use an online webpage. That's not efficient and I highly doubt it's "all that and a bag of hats." At best, it will only be as good as an in-game browser with more hassle. It's a completely unnecessary design that offers nothing to the user. It's only advantage is being slightly less extreme than Ubisoft's Uplay DRM idea (which failed in the course of two weeks) If anything I see higher potential for error because of unnecessary increased complexity of the network which now has to handle people accessing the webpage and using it for everything while simultaneously having to manage the server load.

EA is doing this to combat piracy. Lets see how long it takes the pirates the crack it. My guess is that it will take less time than it took to crack Assassin's Creed 2. Then, the pirates will have an exe, their own server network, and we'll be stuck with battlelog. The pirates will have a more fluid version of the game than we the actually buyers will.

LordofHats wrote:

MrH wrote:According to whom, exactly? It already does server finding and sorting better than an in-game browser, plus it has additional features such as stat tracking and it has many social elements already implemented. If anything I'd say it's already superior.

All of which can be implemented through an in game browser (and have been). Oddly, EA tried and failed in BFBC2 and Activision failed in BLOPS both because they underestimated the support they needed for the back end servers. EA has committed such a failure numerous times. I suspect the same problem will plague battlelog, heck I'm going to be waiting patiently for a DOS attack on it

Battlelog offers nothing. It takes away the fluidity of an in-game interface and forces players to use an online webpage. That's not efficient and I highly doubt it's "all that and a bag of hats." At best, it will only be as good as an in-game browser with more hassle. It's a completely unnecessary design that offers nothing to the user. It's only advantage is being slightly less extreme than Ubisoft's Uplay DRM idea (which failed in the course of two weeks) If anything I see higher potential for error because of unnecessary increased complexity of the network which now has to handle people accessing the webpage and using it for everything while simultaneously having to manage the server load.

EA is doing this to combat piracy. Lets see how long it takes the pirates the crack it. My guess is that it will take less time than it took to crack Assassin's Creed 2.

Whatever, you've already decided you hate it (without even trying it) and nothing will change your mind, it could deposit £5 to your Paypal account every time you click join server and you'd still find something to complain about.

MrH wrote:Whatever, you've already decided you hate it (without even trying it) and nothing will change your mind, it could deposit £5 to your Paypal account every time you click join server and you'd still find something to complain about.

The same could be said of you in the reverse. You've tried it and nothing I say will make you dislike it. You've offered no reason for its superiority to in-game browsers. All you've said is that it's better.

EDIT: Granted, if they paid me I'd play just about any game Too bad I don't get paid and instead have to pay them $60. Forgive me for wondering why on earth I'd want to.

LordofHats wrote:

MrH wrote:Whatever, you've already decided you hate it (without even trying it) and nothing will change your mind, it could deposit £5 to your Paypal account every time you click join server and you'd still find something to complain about.

The same could be said of you in the reverse. You've tried it and nothing I say will make you dislike it. You've offered no reason for its superiority to in-game browsers. All you've said is that it's better.

The big difference is I'VE TRIED IT, my opinion is based off of first hand experience, yours is based off.... well, nothing. And I've given several reasons why it's better, that's a pretty severe case of selective reading you have.

MrH wrote:And I've given several reasons why it's better, that's a pretty severe case of selective reading you have.

No you haven't. You've claimed it does things that a server browser can't in spite of the fact server browsers and in-game systems have done them. The difference is that I know what a alpha is. That it worked in alpha is evidence of nothing but proper code execution.

LordofHats wrote:

MrH wrote:And I've given several reasons why it's better, that's a pretty severe case of selective reading you have.

No you haven't

So you're saying I haven't said it's "faster" once (or 50 times) in this thread? Seriously? And I love how you skip past my first comment, I would too if I was posting nonsense.

MrH wrote:So you're saying I haven't said it's "faster" once (or 50 times) in this thread? Seriously?

Define faster. Server browsers are fast. Not EA's browsers because somehow they have a hard time doing a simple task, but others. I've never had to wait more than a second to actually get the server list in CoD4, Unreal 2k4, or numerous other games. How is their system "faster?" EDIT: It's nonsense because reality disagrees with your fantasy of battlelog awesomeness? They do say ignorance is bliss.

Again, I never said it can't work. I'm skeptical it will.

LordofHats wrote:

MrH wrote:So you're saying I haven't said it's "faster" once (or 50 times) in this thread? Seriously?

Define faster. Server browsers are fast. Not EA's browsers because somehow they have a hard time doing a simple task, but others. I've never had to wait more than a second to actually get the server list. How is their system "faster?"

It's like you haven't even read half the posts in this thread, I refuse to keep going over it. I have a new found respect for teachers, I really do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordofHats wrote:It's nonsense because reality disagrees with your fantasy of battlelog awesomeness? They do say ignorance is bliss.

That's funny coming from a guy who's scared of change.

Sigh, PC games.

daedalus-templarius wrote:Sigh, PC games.

daedalus-templarius wrote:Sigh, PC gamers.

Lol, FTFY

That picture needs a tiny print saying:

How PC gamers see themselves.

MrH wrote:It's like you haven't even read half the posts in this thread, I refuse to keep going over it. I have a new found respect for teachers, I really do.

I've read them. That you would rather keep your fingers in your ears and go "no no no no" is your problem not mine.

And my teachers love me. I actually pay attention and don't text in class (I have the benefit of not being a cell phone person)

That's funny coming from a guy who's scared of change.

So change is always a good thing? Was Uplay a good idea? Obviously it wasn't because Ubisoft significantly revamped it over the summer and no longer uses the DRM elements in the way they originally were. You have yet to define how this change is good. You're reasons make no sense because I have yet to see or read about battlelog offering anything new or better.

How about having to log into the internet even to play single player. Is that an improvement?

I'm not scared of change. I welcome improvement. I see no room for improvement in Battlelog. Maybe that'll change at release but I'm always skeptical with these things. I dislike publishers and their stupid design decisions.

Battlelog is not for your or my sake. It's so EA can say "we're combating piracy" and then cry when the pirates crack it like they've always done in the past and will continue to do in the future. Meanwhile we have to deal with whatever failures and flaws come with some new concept implemented by a company that couldn't even get the old tried and proven perfected a decade ago concept to work.

Necroshea wrote:

daedalus-templarius wrote:Sigh, PC gamers.

Lol, FTFY

Yea, pretty much.

I'm amazed anyone can argue about this sort of thing this much, I mean, maybe you should save your bile for after the game comes out and you've tried it.

Soladrin wrote:That picture needs a tiny print saying:

How PC gamers see themselves.

Not really, it's just how it is now. PC gaming is so far ahead of console gaming right now it's just silly, mostly due to the ancient hardware, the last year or so has been really bad for console gaming IMO. More and more games struggle to maintain 30fps, with some of the biggest titles dropping to under 20fps and turning into a slideshow. Not to mention most games are running sub HD resolutions. And before you go all "nerd rage" on me, I have owned pretty much every major console you can name, and I currently own both the PS3 and X360. When new consoles are released I will be first in line to buy them, but until then I will stick with PC gaming.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

daedalus-templarius wrote:I mean, maybe you should save your bile for after the game comes out and you've tried it.

I could kiss you. That's all I'm asking for.

MrH wrote:

Soladrin wrote:That picture needs a tiny print saying:

How PC gamers see themselves.

Not really, it's just how it is now. PC gaming is so far ahead of console gaming right now it's just silly, mostly due to the ancient hardware, the last year or so has been really bad for console gaming IMO. More and more games struggle to maintain 30fps, with some of the biggest titles dropping to under 20fps and turning into a slideshow. Not to mention most games are running sub HD resolutions. And before you go all "nerd rage" on me, I have owned pretty much every major console you can name, and I currently own both the PS3 and X360. When new consoles are released I will be first in line to buy them, but until then I will stick with PC gaming.

John Carmack does not totally agree; and I trust him more than the internets.

daedalus-templarius wrote:

MrH wrote:

Soladrin wrote:That picture needs a tiny print saying:

How PC gamers see themselves.

Not really, it's just how it is now. PC gaming is so far ahead of console gaming right now it's just silly, mostly due to the ancient hardware, the last year or so has been really bad for console gaming IMO. More and more games struggle to maintain 30fps, with some of the biggest titles dropping to under 20fps and turning into a slideshow. Not to mention most games are running sub HD resolutions. And before you go all "nerd rage" on me, I have owned pretty much every major console you can name, and I currently own both the PS3 and X360. When new consoles are released I will be first in line to buy them, but until then I will stick with PC gaming.

John Carmack does not totally agree; and I trust him more than the internets.

It wouldn't really be a good idea for him to say "yeah look, the hardware sucks but we're doing the best we can, you'll just have to put up with poor frame rate, low quality textures and sub HD resolutions for a couple more years".

Oh, I'm pretty sure he would say that in his keynote at quakecon, he more lamented the fact that PCs have so much bs overhead and API issues that they need all that brute force to push the framerates they have now, while they have Rage running at 60fps on 5 year old consoles.

Oh, and art direction really matters to me a lot more than 1080p 60fps native.

I game on both PC and Console, and on both, I couldn't give less of a crap about FPS and the like unless it actually start impeding with my fun.

Exactly the same.

MrH wrote:

Soladrin wrote:That picture needs a tiny print saying:

How PC gamers see themselves.

Not really, it's just how it is now. PC gaming is so far ahead of console gaming right now it's just silly, mostly due to the ancient hardware, the last year or so has been really bad for console gaming IMO. More and more games struggle to maintain 30fps, with some of the biggest titles dropping to under 20fps and turning into a slideshow. Not to mention most games are running sub HD resolutions. And before you go all "nerd rage" on me, I have owned pretty much every major console you can name, and I currently own both the PS3 and X360. When new consoles are released I will be first in line to buy them, but until then I will stick with PC gaming.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

daedalus-templarius wrote:I mean, maybe you should save your bile for after the game comes out and you've tried it.

I could kiss you. That's all I'm asking for.

You missed my point by a mile, I'm not talking about the tech, I'm talking about the people.

I game on both PC and Console, and on both, I couldn't give less of a crap about FPS and the like unless it actually start impeding with my fun.