Off Topic: The Flood
This topic has moved here: Subject: Battlefield 3 - A Dumb Door's early perspective
  • Subject: Battlefield 3 - A Dumb Door's early perspective
Subject: Battlefield 3 - A Dumb Door's early perspective

A competitive players main goal is to win.
A casuals main goal is to have fun regardless of whether that results in a win or loss.
It has nothing to do with individual skill or knowledge, it has to do with the reason you play.

Bla bla bla, play the multiplayer, that's what people bought the game for.

I hope BF4 doesn't even have campaign, and they spend the time they'd create a mediocre campaign, to improving the multiplayer.

[Edited on 12.25.2012 12:27 AM PST]

  • 12.25.2012 12:26 AM PDT

Posted by: Xvise66
Posted by: A Dumb Door
If you can't figure out that you're trying to use an ad hominem argument in a roundabout manner, I'm going to have to throw you into a debate class so that you can learn it.

Also, yeah, sure, that stuff COULD be learned... If the campaign were conducive for learning it. Every single minute is full of conflict. Every moment has quicktime events, orders being thrown at you, linear missions, etc. If the game had a quiet moment after that first mission for you to goof around during, my complaints against controls and some explanation would not be as valid. You'd have the time to figure out what does what. However, the campaign is not done in such a way that it makes learning like this an easy option.

Also, no, I don't mean fire EVERY weapon, but at least a little mention that there's bullet drop would be nice.

As for equipment, my first experience with it was multiplayer. That might be partially my fault, but at least knowing that the directional buttons each corresponded to something different would have been nice.

Oh, and the irony behind ammo boxes:
My first experience with them was in multiplayer. I played it at a friend's house. I found an ammo drop that some guy had placed, and refilled my ammo. Did the same with health. That's what I thought ammo packs looked like. Therefore, when I was in campaign, it said to refill my ammo. So I checked my teammates for an ammo drop, no luck. Looked around outside thinking it might have been airdropped. No such luck. Backtracked, looked through the building, and then finally noticed that the massive dumpster-looking thing was the ammo box. You can understand my confusion at that, thinking that it looked differently.
Read that wiki page again. Your entire argument rests on that you are not capable of figuring this stuff out(or that the game would be much better if it did spoonfeed it to you),ad hominem would be if I called your mother a slut or something, but the fact that you are incapable of figuring out extremely basic things about a game whose mechanics have been used for the past 5 or 6 years is very relevant to the argument. I'm not saying battlefield is perfect in the way it tells you how to do things, but geez, come on.

And no need to use hyperbole, the first five minutes of the campaign have absolutely no conflict(as well as no QTE's), or orders being thrown at you for that matter. When the indicator comes up on your squad leader to follow, you could just toss a grenade, aim down your sights and pump off a few rounds, do whatever you want really. After the firefight your told too go to another place and move across the street. That would have been another great time to pump off some rounds and check out ammo drop and press buttons if the controls were still evading you.

There's no excuse for not finding the ammo box. Its a giant sign on your hud, I can't believe you even brought it up. And I know i'm not the only one in this thread who seriously questions how you had trouble with this game.
No, my argument is that the game does not properly instruct the player. You don't call a Kindergartner an idiot because they don't know calculus. They haven't had the opportunity to learn it yet. You're basically combining a straw man argument with an ad hominem, implying that I'm just too stupid to understand it and trying to make my argument seem silly and trying to make me admit to "stupidity" which does not exist on my end. I was never incompetent at the game, I just ran into a bunch of obstacles which should not have existed as they did. They were not a proper challenge, they were a challenge based on a mechanic that was not properly introduced nor taught.

Also, that argument that I should know a game since the mechanic has been around for a long time is fallacious anyway. Each game has its own spin on bullet lag and mechanics, slight variations in control, variations in how they want the player to play through it, variations in speed of movement and strength of the player, variations in taking cover, variations in aiming and accuracy, etc. A tutorial adapts you to the waters rather than forcing you into the water and making the learning experience painful rather than just a simple systems check that lets you know what to do.

If I recall, the first five minutes of real gameplay were on a train killing people. Then you're with a squad that's constantly on the move with you being instructed to follow lest you be left behind. Not a conducive training environment.

As for the ammo box, it didn't appear as a sign at first. It takes a few minutes before that happens, leaving the player confused if they don't already know what it looks like.

Once again, I wasn't incompetent. I wasn't terrible. There were many points that I breezed right through with no trouble. However, my point is that the game does not do a very good job of acclimating new players to the experience. Stop trying to assume that I'm bashing my face into the controller and actually address the problems, or lack thereof, in the game itself. My execution was a single gameplay experience which pointed out several flaws. Maybe I was just unlucky and HAPPENED to get a ton of problems in my playthrough, but they happened nonetheless, and it was no fault of mine.

  • 12.25.2012 12:30 AM PDT

Door is just trolling.





There is no way he couldn't figure out such basic FPS concepts considering how many games he plays. Even a mentally challenged badger could figure out how to play BF3 in seconds.

[Edited on 12.25.2012 12:48 AM PST]

  • 12.25.2012 12:47 AM PDT

Posted by: JustAnotherName
Door is just trolling.

There is no way he couldn't figure out such basic FPS concepts considering how many games he plays. Even a mentally challenged badger could figure out how to play BF3 in seconds.
It's not that I wasn't able to figure them out, it's that the developers did a very poor job of teaching them to the player. Each problem I had I solved on my own in some way shape or form. However, it wasn't until I'd died in several cases that I finally learned what it was the game was trying to get me to do.

  • 12.25.2012 12:50 AM PDT


Posted by: A Dumb Door


8/10

[Edited on 12.25.2012 12:53 AM PST]

  • 12.25.2012 12:53 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Legendary Member

STOP ASSAULT 2012

Who is Assault? Assault is a mod in the Bungie.net brony group. And what started out with good intentions, viciously spiraled down into a power hungry tyrant locking thread after thread after thread to quell all opposition to his tyrannical rule. Did I mention he is a tyrant?

To donate to the STOP ASSAULT 2012 movement, message me with your credit card info, full name, social security, full adress, and mothers maiden name.


Posted by: A Dumb Door
No, my argument is that the game does not properly instruct the player. You don't call a Kindergartner an idiot because they don't know calculus. They haven't had the opportunity to learn it yet. You're basically combining a straw man argument with an ad hominem, implying that I'm just too stupid to understand it and trying to make my argument seem silly and trying to make me admit to "stupidity" which does not exist on my end. I was never incompetent at the game, I just ran into a bunch of obstacles which should not have existed as they did. They were not a proper challenge, they were a challenge based on a mechanic that was not properly introduced nor taught.

Also, that argument that I should know a game since the mechanic has been around for a long time is fallacious anyway. Each game has its own spin on bullet lag and mechanics, slight variations in control, variations in how they want the player to play through it, variations in speed of movement and strength of the player, variations in taking cover, variations in aiming and accuracy, etc. A tutorial adapts you to the waters rather than forcing you into the water and making the learning experience painful rather than just a simple systems check that lets you know what to do.

If I recall, the first five minutes of real gameplay were on a train killing people. Then you're with a squad that's constantly on the move with you being instructed to follow lest you be left behind. Not a conducive training environment.

As for the ammo box, it didn't appear as a sign at first. It takes a few minutes before that happens, leaving the player confused if they don't already know what it looks like.

Once again, I wasn't incompetent. I wasn't terrible. There were many points that I breezed right through with no trouble. However, my point is that the game does not do a very good job of acclimating new players to the experience. Stop trying to assume that I'm bashing my face into the controller and actually address the problems, or lack thereof, in the game itself. My execution was a single gameplay experience which pointed out several flaws. Maybe I was just unlucky and HAPPENED to get a ton of problems in my playthrough, but they happened nonetheless, and it was no fault of mine.
You're right, I wouldn't call a kindergartner stupid for not knowing calculus, but your case is more of a high school student not knowing algebra. I mean, you complained that you found out to crouch by accident.(which you should have known to do from the subway mission which tells you how to crouch). But almost all your issues do stem from a lack of very basic knowledge of how games work, or issues that you should be able to figure out in no time(ie. how do grenades work), and instead demand the game spoonfeed how it works exactly before hand. By the way, your argument is silly. You are arguing that battlefield 3 is too hard to learn. Let that sink in.

I never said you should already know how the physics work, but instead referring to how your average FPS plays(ie how to crouch, aim etc), once again, its not rocket science. A minute is all that is needed to press every button and figure it out, or if that's too hard, opening up the options to have the game literally tell you what the buttons do.

I concede the first five minutes were on the train, I totally forgot about that. But, now that you bring that up, I remember(and youtube videos show) how that was a pseudo-tutorial, which told you right off the bat how to aim, and gave you a couple different basic weapons to get the gist of it. That really is all that is needed to understand battlefield. Once again, we're not talking about Dota or some old RPG that are hard to learn. We're talking about a modern day fps. And you don't get left behind by your squad. Its obvious you didn't try and most people who have played games know that the game doesn't progress unless you continue on. You're picking at straws here.

"I wasn't incompetent", your posts certainly give off that impression. And maybe you were unlucky in how that rat killed you, but from a personal experience, I know that if a quick time event is happening, I know that I won't have control of the character so pushing what feels right is void, and when I do fail quick time events(and I have), I don't get mad at the game and say its a problem in the game because I pushed a button that I thought would be the QTE, I get mad at my self(though honestly not very mad at all) for jumping to conclusions on what button to push. You pushed the wrong button in that instance.

  • 12.25.2012 12:56 AM PDT

Remember, grammar is the difference between; "I helped my uncle Jack off a horse." And "I helped my uncle jack off a horse."
Hyperlinks, you know you want to click 'em

Meh, I had the game up until the first dlc was released, made me enjoy it a little bit more, but then it when back to being -blam!- imo. All in all I regret defending it so much.

  • 12.25.2012 1:00 AM PDT

Posted by: Xvise66
You're right, I wouldn't call a kindergartner stupid for not knowing calculus, but your case is more of a high school student not knowing algebra. I mean, you complained that you found out to crouch by accident.(which you should have known to do from the subway mission which tells you how to crouch). But almost all your issues do stem from a lack of very basic knowledge of how games work, or issues that you should be able to figure out in no time(ie. how do grenades work), and instead demand the game spoonfeed how it works exactly before hand. By the way, your argument is silly. You are arguing that battlefield 3 is too hard to learn. Let that sink in.

I never said you should already know how the physics work, but instead referring to how your average FPS plays(ie how to crouch, aim etc), once again, its not rocket science. A minute is all that is needed to press every button and figure it out, or if that's too hard, opening up the options to have the game literally tell you what the buttons do.

I concede the first five minutes were on the train, I totally forgot about that. But, now that you bring that up, I remember(and youtube videos show) how that was a pseudo-tutorial, which told you right off the bat how to aim, and gave you a couple different basic weapons to get the gist of it. That really is all that is needed to understand battlefield. Once again, we're not talking about Dota or some old RPG that are hard to learn. We're talking about a modern day fps. And you don't get left behind by your squad. Its obvious you didn't try and most people who have played games know that the game doesn't progress unless you continue on. You're picking at straws here.

"I wasn't incompetent", your posts certainly give off that impression. And maybe you were unlucky in how that rat killed you, but from a personal experience, I know that if a quick time event is happening, I know that I won't have control of the character so pushing what feels right is void, and when I do fail quick time events(and I have), I don't get mad at the game and say its a problem in the game because I pushed a button that I thought would be the QTE, I get mad at my self(though honestly not very mad at all) for jumping to conclusions on what button to push. You pushed the wrong button in that instance.
how many times must I say this? I did figure out how to play, but I had to do it of my own volition. The game itself is a poor teacher. If the game truly is only good for the multiplayer, the campaign should reflect that by being a big introduction to the grand spectacle. It should show the best parts in such a way that the player is not buggered down by not having fully mastered the mechanics of the game yet. The game isn't too hard to learn, it's just poorly taught. It's like learning the alphabet in English from someone who doesn't speak English. The alphabet isn't hard, but if you've got a bad teacher, you're going to take a minute longer than you should to figure it out.

Let's just be honest here, yes, the game uses many mechanics present in other games. However, what if I, as the player, don't play many FPS games? What if I haven't played for a long time? This game would be TERRIBLE for me. That's my point. It's a terrible teacher of mechanics. Yes, even I had some trouble with it despite being a seasoned gamer, but my point is far more that it's a terrible teacher of its own gameplay.

Also, while the train does give you basic aim/shoot, and at the very beginning a crouch feature, that's it. That's three buttons. Jump and climbing over obstacles was not included. Sprinting wasn't revealed until a later level, and a train is not a good way to introduce your player to the concept of bullet penetration, environment destruction, and bullet physics. No, those didn't NEED to all be introduced right then and there, but the lack of them means they should be taught somewhere.

The rat story was a specific silly instance because in the sequence, I'd shaken off the rat. Having a knife equipped, I figured, "Oh, time to kill this thing, then." Thus I pressed the button, and just HAPPENED to hit it at the same time as the QTE demanded that I do a different button, but that wasn't my main argument.

I'm well aware that the campaign isn't spectacular on its own anyway, but having played through the beginning, I still say that this game should have had more work introducing the game to new players.

  • 12.25.2012 1:11 AM PDT

Multiplayer is terrible.

  • 12.25.2012 1:19 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Legendary Member

STOP ASSAULT 2012

Who is Assault? Assault is a mod in the Bungie.net brony group. And what started out with good intentions, viciously spiraled down into a power hungry tyrant locking thread after thread after thread to quell all opposition to his tyrannical rule. Did I mention he is a tyrant?

To donate to the STOP ASSAULT 2012 movement, message me with your credit card info, full name, social security, full adress, and mothers maiden name.


Posted by: A Dumb Door
how many times must I say this? I did figure out how to play, but I had to do it of my own volition. The game itself is a poor teacher. If the game truly is only good for the multiplayer, the campaign should reflect that by being a big introduction to the grand spectacle. It should show the best parts in such a way that the player is not buggered down by not having fully mastered the mechanics of the game yet. The game isn't too hard to learn, it's just poorly taught. It's like learning the alphabet in English from someone who doesn't speak English. The alphabet isn't hard, but if you've got a bad teacher, you're going to take a minute longer than you should to figure it out.

Let's just be honest here, yes, the game uses many mechanics present in other games. However, what if I, as the player, don't play many FPS games? What if I haven't played for a long time? This game would be TERRIBLE for me. That's my point. It's a terrible teacher of mechanics. Yes, even I had some trouble with it despite being a seasoned gamer, but my point is far more that it's a terrible teacher of its own gameplay.

Also, while the train does give you basic aim/shoot, and at the very beginning a crouch feature, that's it. That's three buttons. Jump and climbing over obstacles was not included. Sprinting wasn't revealed until a later level, and a train is not a good way to introduce your player to the concept of bullet penetration, environment destruction, and bullet physics. No, those didn't NEED to all be introduced right then and there, but the lack of them means they should be taught somewhere.

The rat story was a specific silly instance because in the sequence, I'd shaken off the rat. Having a knife equipped, I figured, "Oh, time to kill this thing, then." Thus I pressed the button, and just HAPPENED to hit it at the same time as the QTE demanded that I do a different button, but that wasn't my main argument.

I'm well aware that the campaign isn't spectacular on its own anyway, but having played through the beginning, I still say that this game should have had more work introducing the game to new players.
As has been said multiple times in this thread before. Why would dice waste time and resources, in trying too explain to an overwhelming majority of people who have touched a game in their lifetime? And even if this is the first ever game you have ever touched. Is it really that difficult that you can't just push buttons and figure it out? This is truly something you don't even need a teacher for, for christs sakes this is a fps, not some rts or anything, a freaking fps.

Of course they don't tell you how to sprint on a train, but why isn't the train a good way to introduce bullet penetration and physics? Theres doors between you and players on the train and if you try shooting, well you just learned if it'll penetrate. Amazing how its that simple. And it's not like you will be totally blindsided by the bullet physics anyways. I mean, if you have ever touched a shooter game before, or even know how a gun is in real life, you can have a pretty good estimate how the gun will shoot bullets(hint: In a straight line)

Let's agree the rat story was an isolated incident.

I never claimed the campaign was spectacular, but it should be patently obvious, that the game is easily comprehensible to new players.

  • 12.25.2012 1:27 AM PDT

Posted by: Xvise66
Posted by: A Dumb Door
how many times must I say this? I did figure out how to play, but I had to do it of my own volition. The game itself is a poor teacher. If the game truly is only good for the multiplayer, the campaign should reflect that by being a big introduction to the grand spectacle. It should show the best parts in such a way that the player is not buggered down by not having fully mastered the mechanics of the game yet. The game isn't too hard to learn, it's just poorly taught. It's like learning the alphabet in English from someone who doesn't speak English. The alphabet isn't hard, but if you've got a bad teacher, you're going to take a minute longer than you should to figure it out.

Let's just be honest here, yes, the game uses many mechanics present in other games. However, what if I, as the player, don't play many FPS games? What if I haven't played for a long time? This game would be TERRIBLE for me. That's my point. It's a terrible teacher of mechanics. Yes, even I had some trouble with it despite being a seasoned gamer, but my point is far more that it's a terrible teacher of its own gameplay.

Also, while the train does give you basic aim/shoot, and at the very beginning a crouch feature, that's it. That's three buttons. Jump and climbing over obstacles was not included. Sprinting wasn't revealed until a later level, and a train is not a good way to introduce your player to the concept of bullet penetration, environment destruction, and bullet physics. No, those didn't NEED to all be introduced right then and there, but the lack of them means they should be taught somewhere.

The rat story was a specific silly instance because in the sequence, I'd shaken off the rat. Having a knife equipped, I figured, "Oh, time to kill this thing, then." Thus I pressed the button, and just HAPPENED to hit it at the same time as the QTE demanded that I do a different button, but that wasn't my main argument.

I'm well aware that the campaign isn't spectacular on its own anyway, but having played through the beginning, I still say that this game should have had more work introducing the game to new players.
As has been said multiple times in this thread before. Why would dice waste time and resources, in trying too explain to an overwhelming majority of people who have touched a game in their lifetime? And even if this is the first ever game you have ever touched. Is it really that difficult that you can't just push buttons and figure it out? This is truly something you don't even need a teacher for, for christs sakes this is a fps, not some rts or anything, a freaking fps.

Of course they don't tell you how to sprint on a train, but why isn't the train a good way to introduce bullet penetration and physics? Theres doors between you and players on the train and if you try shooting, well you just learned if it'll penetrate. Amazing how its that simple. And it's not like you will be totally blindsided by the bullet physics anyways. I mean, if you have ever touched a shooter game before, or even know how a gun is in real life, you can have a pretty good estimate how the gun will shoot bullets(hint: In a straight line)

Let's agree the rat story was an isolated incident.

I never claimed the campaign was spectacular, but it should be patently obvious, that the game is easily comprehensible to new players.
If they take that time to make the game more approachable, more people will play it longer and they will have more returning customers. Every customer lost is a sale lost, and every poor opinion is several sales lost. It's not like a tutorial takes up half the budget, it just needs to be there to teach the player what they're doing.

It's a concept that's quite a bit like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyke for the NES. It's just a basic sidescroller, even more simple than an FPS! However, it has no explanation of how to play. Its mechanics are not explained in the slightest. While BF3 isn't nearly that bad, even a sidescroller needs some way to learn. Super Mario took time to teach the player. That first level is FULL of teaching tools for the player.

I'm not saying that the developers needed to dump their entire budget into a tutorial. Heck, if they'd made their campaign into a basic tutorial instead of an entire campaign, they'd have far larger of a budget for multiplayer. Heck, they probably could have put even more into the multiplayer than they released in the expansion packs even BEFORE the expansions.

I don't care if you think that an FPS doesn't need a tutorial because you're already used to them, BF3 is a game that should have one. It may be an FPS, but it has mechanics that deserve a tutorial to introduce the character to.

  • 12.25.2012 1:39 AM PDT

Battlefield 3

early perspective


Doing it wrong.

  • 12.25.2012 1:49 AM PDT

I've been wanting to get Battlefield 3, but my hard drive wouldn't be able to handle the updates and content :/

  • 12.25.2012 1:51 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Legendary Member

STOP ASSAULT 2012

Who is Assault? Assault is a mod in the Bungie.net brony group. And what started out with good intentions, viciously spiraled down into a power hungry tyrant locking thread after thread after thread to quell all opposition to his tyrannical rule. Did I mention he is a tyrant?

To donate to the STOP ASSAULT 2012 movement, message me with your credit card info, full name, social security, full adress, and mothers maiden name.


Posted by: A Dumb Door
If they take that time to make the game more approachable, more people will play it longer and they will have more returning customers. Every customer lost is a sale lost, and every poor opinion is several sales lost. It's not like a tutorial takes up half the budget, it just needs to be there to teach the player what they're doing.

It's a concept that's quite a bit like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyke for the NES. It's just a basic sidescroller, even more simple than an FPS! However, it has no explanation of how to play. Its mechanics are not explained in the slightest. While BF3 isn't nearly that bad, even a sidescroller needs some way to learn. Super Mario took time to teach the player. That first level is FULL of teaching tools for the player.

I'm not saying that the developers needed to dump their entire budget into a tutorial. Heck, if they'd made their campaign into a basic tutorial instead of an entire campaign, they'd have far larger of a budget for multiplayer. Heck, they probably could have put even more into the multiplayer than they released in the expansion packs even BEFORE the expansions.

I don't care if you think that an FPS doesn't need a tutorial because you're already used to them, BF3 is a game that should have one. It may be an FPS, but it has mechanics that deserve a tutorial to introduce the character to.
BF3 already is approachable. If anything, people should be complaining that they made the game TOO approachable(some people actually have complained about this) but if you're willing to spend 5 minutes and learn the mechanics of the game, then it's not difficult by any stretch of the imagination. Theres a difference between making a game approachable and just spoonfeeding absolutely everything. There will always be people who get thrown under the bus because a game is too hard for them, but there is obviously some point too which you just have to cut it off and screw over those people, and hope they're an extreme minority, and there seems to be a consensus(besides you) in this thread that the game is perfectly approachable.

I'm not sure what you mean by super Mario taking the time to teach the player, it doesn't tell you anything at all. At least battlefield tells you what button to press too shoot. And the same argument can be held that the first level of battlefield is full of teaching tools as well.

You have yet to show why battlefield needs more of a tutorial then the pseudo-tutorial it has where it tells you very basic things like shooting and crouching. The mechanics are learned through out the games. Using your Mario analogy, should the first level have used all the enemies you might come across so the player can know what to do? Or is learning along the way the ideal choice?

  • 12.25.2012 2:03 AM PDT

Posted by: Xvise66
Posted by: A Dumb Door
If they take that time to make the game more approachable, more people will play it longer and they will have more returning customers. Every customer lost is a sale lost, and every poor opinion is several sales lost. It's not like a tutorial takes up half the budget, it just needs to be there to teach the player what they're doing.

It's a concept that's quite a bit like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyke for the NES. It's just a basic sidescroller, even more simple than an FPS! However, it has no explanation of how to play. Its mechanics are not explained in the slightest. While BF3 isn't nearly that bad, even a sidescroller needs some way to learn. Super Mario took time to teach the player. That first level is FULL of teaching tools for the player.

I'm not saying that the developers needed to dump their entire budget into a tutorial. Heck, if they'd made their campaign into a basic tutorial instead of an entire campaign, they'd have far larger of a budget for multiplayer. Heck, they probably could have put even more into the multiplayer than they released in the expansion packs even BEFORE the expansions.

I don't care if you think that an FPS doesn't need a tutorial because you're already used to them, BF3 is a game that should have one. It may be an FPS, but it has mechanics that deserve a tutorial to introduce the character to.
BF3 already is approachable. If anything, people should be complaining that they made the game TOO approachable(some people actually have complained about this) but if you're willing to spend 5 minutes and learn the mechanics of the game, then it's not difficult by any stretch of the imagination. Theres a difference between making a game approachable and just spoonfeeding absolutely everything. There will always be people who get thrown under the bus because a game is too hard for them, but there is obviously some point too which you just have to cut it off and screw over those people, and hope they're an extreme minority, and there seems to be a consensus(besides you) in this thread that the game is perfectly approachable.

I'm not sure what you mean by super Mario taking the time to teach the player, it doesn't tell you anything at all. At least battlefield tells you what button to press too shoot. And the same argument can be held that the first level of battlefield is full of teaching tools as well.

You have yet to show why battlefield needs more of a tutorial then the pseudo-tutorial it has where it tells you very basic things like shooting and crouching. The mechanics are learned through out the games. Using your Mario analogy, should the first level have used all the enemies you might come across so the player can know what to do? Or is learning along the way the ideal choice?
If it taught the mechanics over time in a far superior fashion, I wouldn't mind. That's a good tactic. However, since Battlefield 3 is not a game with that in mind, it should have something to help the player along at the very beginning to get us into the world. That five minute scene at the beginning is not bad, it just needs to be backed up with more teaching later than it has there.

As for Super Mario, think about that first level. There's a goomba that you jump over, or even on, and those blocks that you hit. That produces a mushroom to make you grow. Already that's a very quick lesson: Enemies = avoid, blocks = hit to receive rewards. That's the most basic of what you'll be doing that game. You eventually get the fire flower by naturally investigating all the blocks, and then you learn of an even better power-up. It just continues from there. It's very simple, but even Super Mario has a very simple first level conducive for learning. BF3 has a constant visual and auditory overload. Not very good for learning, since some of what is said/seen is actually important.

So while BF3 tries a little bit of teaching, it's not enough in my opinion. It should have a better explanation of mechanics. It's not "spoonfeeding" as you so perpetually call it in an attempt to insult gamers who are not of your prototype, it's a basic way to get players who don't know the way the game works entirely up to speed. Of course there's a consensus now, but I'm making this argument late into the game's release. Everyone who looks into the game a lot, or has played a previous version of this game, etc. already knows most of this stuff. This is the first Battlefield game I've played, and I've had very little knowledge on it up until now.

Teaching the gameplay through mechanics is a completely legitimate method of teaching how the game is played. That's what Mario does. However, since BF3 has more to it than Mario, a little more information helps out a lot.

The reason it needs more of a tutorial is because:
1. It is a constant visual/auditory overload. Instructions are constantly being shouted at you, you're being shot at all the time, environments are foreign and you have to focus on being able to see through the dust and mist to see people who are just tiny dots on your screen, guns are firing everywhere, etc.
2. While it is a run and gun, it also has a lot of varieties in the gun aspect. Different sights, bullet physics, what bullets can pierce and what they can not, etc.
3. Nothing in the game meant to teach the player that they have implemented was introduced in such a way that the player can actually learn and experiment with it. You're taught to crouch as something is hurtling toward you, and then you are thrown into a completely different scenario almost immediately after. That's not a good place to learn a skill. It was practiced once, and then left alone.

I will concede that the game could potentially have its tutorial spread out throughout the entire game, but that would require putting a lot more effort into the singleplayer, which the game is not meant for singleplayer. I already know that, which is why I suggest a small tutorial that simply introduces the gameplay mechanics in a far more controlled setting where the player is able to pick up and master the mechanics without getting their rear kicked around for taking too long to play around with them.

[Edited on 12.25.2012 2:18 AM PST]

  • 12.25.2012 2:15 AM PDT
  • gamertag: ossku
  • user homepage:

''Misanthropes have some admirable if paradoxical virtues. It is no exaggeration to say that we are among the nicest people you are likely to meet. Because good manners build sturdy walls, our distaste for intimacy makes us exceedingly cordial "ships that pass in the night." As long as you remain a stranger we will be your friend forever.''

''I want people to be sincere; a man of honor shouldn't speak a single word that doesn't come straight from his heart. ''


Posted by: juniorbandit96
The game has the best audio ever.

no.

  • 12.25.2012 3:04 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: A Dumb Door
However, the thing that Battlefield 3 lacks? A learning curve, a sense of agency, and information. Battlefield 3 needs a tutorial, it needs to allow for some flexibility in objectives, and it needs to supply the player with information.

Battlefield 3 lacks a learning curve? You have to learn alot and while it is difficult to learn all instantly, you eventually get it all and are used to it. Isnt this a shallow but existent learnng curve?

It gives you tons of reminders on basic controls, but if you must:
1. Press start
2. Open Options
3. Take a look at the controls setup

The talk from the characters during especially the first mission gives you some indication of what the PLR is and consists of, and its motives. Like when he says that they are exporting all star insurgent tallent out of iran, and how montez says if its the PLR they should be in Iran not Iraq.


OR YOU COULD just GOOGLE IT?
Posted by: A Dumb Door
Also, I was given an objective early on in the game. I was to defend a few people with a LMG at the top of a "wall" as they called it. I sat back and sniped people, then got it, and died immediately. I crept toward it killing all hostiles until I got there, then died immediately as I grabbed it. I rushed it, grabbed it, died immediately. Finally, I just refused to use it and sat back and sniped, completed the objective, and had to literally go, "What the heck, game? Why did you want me to do this if it only leads to my own self-destruction? This isn't the frikkin' Kobayashi Maru! Losing isn't the objective here, as I am forced to go back and try again each time!
This is the only part i agree the mission designers really screwed up. Just Prone leap along and pray you dont get hit by an RPG. Just like real life.
Posted by: A Dumb Door
I was also crawling through a dark tunnel with PLR troops searching out my fellow soldiers to kill. I encountered a rat. My first instinct? I pressed the melee button. No response. I hit the fire button. No response. The rat starts biting my finger, I sit there as a little scripted action goes on. Finally, I shake the rat off of my finger, I press the melee button, but just HAPPENED to hit it at the same time as I was supposed to press the fire button in a quick time event out of nowhere. Killed because of a -blam!-ing rat... Never had that problem in Dishonored (despite an infestation of plague rats). Every time I died in that game it's because I did something stupid, or just royally butt-blam!-ed myself through sheer incompetence.
If you can see that the screen and your movement goes scripted, you just wait till it gives you the quick time indication.
Posted by: A Dumb Door

Also, is it just me, or does this game have an obsession with obscuring my view with crap? Everything from too stark and unrealistic contrast to ridiculous levels of bloom to blurring so much I have to stop and wonder if I'm not watching a French New Wave era film. There is so much crap like dust, or maybe dirt, or who knows what constantly on my visor preventing me from seeing clearly, scratches on my jet obscuring more of my vision, dust in the air making it hard to see, darkness with no flashlights or anything of any kind preventing me from seeing, and need I go on? The game is just a mass of "NOPE! You're not seeing what's going on! Enjoy this amazing amount of detail put into the dust and lens flare instead!"
Welcome to the authentic experience of war, but in real war theres much more smoke and dirt and cr@p and before you say 'But its a game!', Battlefield aims to give a gritty authentic experience of war.

Just learn how to play, maybe watch some youtube tutorials, and complete the game first before you critique it.

I will leave on the note that some tutorials and guidance, along with some backstory prolougue or something would have been a good thing. But its a good game, no? Like you said. Just ride it out and mke a good effort to get into it. But i dont think these 'issues' were enough for a thread.

[Edited on 12.25.2012 4:17 AM PST]

  • 12.25.2012 4:17 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

It is a constant visual/auditory overload. Instructions are constantly being shouted at you, you're being shot at all the time, environments are foreign and you have to focus on being able to see through the dust and mist to see people who are just tiny dots on your screen, guns are firing everywhere, etc.

You just explained the effect DICE intended when they wanted authenticty of war.

  • 12.25.2012 4:20 AM PDT