Rock, Paper, Shotgun

The Fate Of BF3′s In-Game Server Browser

By Lewie Procter on August 19th, 2011 at 10:25 am.


This story is a little surprising. BF3 Blog have done the legwork on this: first they spotted that Battlefield 3 on the PS3 and 360 is going to have an in-game server browser for multiplayer game-finding. Good for them. However, where this story turns sour is the news that the PC version will not have any in-game server browser, and to find a multiplayer game you have to exit the game or Alt-Tab out of it, and use the “Battlelog” application to launch games. Senior Gameplay Designer Alan Kertz has been assuring everyone that the process is relatively smooth, but why? And, if it has to be in another app, why isn’t there a server browser in Origin’s overlay? Why is there another system to complicate things? Ah, of course, because Battelog wants to be the free equivalent of Activision’s Elite thingum, with all that social and achievement stuff that you play games for.

[Edit - oops, we got that last bit slightly wrong. Those elements of Elite will, in fact, also be free, as will most of its core features. The exact nature of Elite's paid extra bits has yet to be announced, but from the relatively scant information we have so far would appear to be bonus content-based rather than related to social kinda stuff like this.]

Tune in next week for: mouse controls only on the PS3?!

Cheers R-F for flagging this one up in the forums.

__________________

« | »

, , .

309 Comments »

  1. 19/08/2011 at 10:27 skinlo says:

    This is entirely politically related, and won’t help Origins cause at all.

    I wish publishers would just fuck off when it comes to things like this.

    • 19/08/2011 at 10:33 Njordsk says:

      It’s not related to origin in anyway, it’s just a site.

      Though origin should be mandatory to play BF3, but that’s an other problem

    • 19/08/2011 at 10:34 skinlo says:

      Ah my bad =/

      Still politically motivated to the detriment of the consumer though.

    • 19/08/2011 at 10:38 Njordsk says:

      being a customer and having tried it, I can tell you a big “no”.

      It’s really a big plus for customer. People just have to quit whining about every damn little thing.

    • 19/08/2011 at 10:42 skinlo says:

      It seems the majority of customers disagree with you.

    • 19/08/2011 at 10:42 GenBanks says:

      With most games I usually just pick one server and play until I get bored, so I don’t think it’ll be a huge inconvenience… an inconvenience nonetheless.

      @skinlo you forget that njordsk unlike most customers has actually tried the system…

      People are forgetting though, that Battlefield server browsers have a long track record of being absolutely terrible. It would have been awesome if they’d just gone with Steamworks and used the steam server browser but oh well. Perhaps it’s better them doing this way if it’ll mean we have 100% server browsing functionality right off the bat.

    • 19/08/2011 at 10:46 Njordsk says:

      you forgot many people talk out of the butt just to rant.

      It’s VERY fast, quite nice to look at, you can make group with friend by drag-droping them in the group, group join servers, you have more filters than BC2, you can keep browsing while the game is loading in the background and THEN it pops up.

      No splash screen, ALT F4 takes 1 second or 2 at max, alt tabbing is very efficient.

      I’m sorry, but this system is way better than any I’ve tryied.

    • 19/08/2011 at 10:52 HisMastersVoice says:

      @ Njordsk – So which part of the external server browser could not have been implemented within the game? Because it just looks like DICE is being lazy with their coding.

      Anyway, I have yet to try Origin, but doesn’t it have an overlay like Steam?

    • 19/08/2011 at 10:57 skinlo says:

      If its so good, they must be great at coding, so why can’t they do it in game or with an overlay?

    • 19/08/2011 at 11:01 Njordsk says:

      As I said, origin is in NO WAY related to battlelog.

      BL is just a site with a plugin. Origin a required to launch BF3, but i’ve no idea why other than trying to impose their software.

    • 19/08/2011 at 11:17 Tams80 says:

      I don’t know about other people, but alt-tabbing when in a game never goes well for me.

    • 19/08/2011 at 11:22 sneetch says:

      Well, why not provide an in-game browser to the same site? There’s no need for this to be a second, seperate app. I distrust alt-tabbing too.

    • 19/08/2011 at 11:32 neems says:

      During the Alpha test they were saying that the browser functionality would be available from ingame as well in the final release (in response to the thousands of people moaning about it on the forums). I guess that fell by the way side.

      I’ll have to take Njordsk’s word for it as far as the friends / grouping goes, because it never worked for me, not once. I had to manually search for whichever server people were playing on. To be fair though, the search function actually worked, which is a plus.

    • 19/08/2011 at 11:51 Dirtyboy says:

      I’ve used it and don’t like it. It’s not natural or fluid and Bad Things tend to happen when you alt-tab programs frequently.

    • 19/08/2011 at 12:27 Bastimoo says:

      Until now I had problems with alt-tabbing into/out of games of the battlefield series EVERY time,y besides 1942/vietnam. In BF2/2142 it needed waaay too long to load up again and BC2 randomly crashed/had graphic bugs when i tabbed in again, so the necessarity of alt-tabbing in BF3 is a very bad idea in my eyes. And no, my Hardware always was quite fine and up to date.

    • 19/08/2011 at 13:23 RedNick says:

      I hope I can use the Steam Overlay to access it.

    • 19/08/2011 at 14:05 Magnetude says:

      Hmm, I’m not terribly bothered by this. As long as this browser is as simple as possible (HTML is your friend, makers of unnecessarily complicated menu systems) I don’t see a problem with having to alt-tab away from one menu to another. The game itself won’t be running when this switch happens, so it’s not going to cause the kind of nightmares that tabbing out of Source games does.

    • 19/08/2011 at 14:24 Vagrant says:

      A few things people don’t seem to be considering:
      1) DICE always (ALWAYS!) releases a completely broken server browser inside their games. This will solve that problem. This could turn out to be the first time people don’t complain about the server browser.

      2) Everyone is complaining about alt-tab, but the recommended method I’m reading is alt-F4. If the game launches fast enough, this isn’t a real issue. The best method should be to quit at the end of a round. If DICE was smart, they’d not allow you to join a server after just alt-tabbing.

      3) Isn’t this the exact same as many other games nowadays? iRacing uses this method to great effect, as does other games like The Hunter and many other FTP games. Until you’ve actually used it, don’t automatically hate everything new.

      DISCLAIMER: I haven’t played the beta, so I have no clue how bad / good this works. I’m just able to think logically. On the internet. Shocking, I know!

    • 19/08/2011 at 15:06 Paool says:

      not deal breaking but an inconvenience all the same.
      my biggest problem is if you have a less than reliable internet connection having to cycle back and forth between a browser and the game repetively. I have cable internet that is fast and reliable, but I still have nights where I just get dropped repeatedly. It seems in these instances this out-of-game browser might become a bit agitating, but then again I don’t know how well it works so maybe we are just blowing steam for nothing. (lawl i said blowing steam….oh gawds….)

    • 19/08/2011 at 15:39 Magnetude says:

      This is the model all server browsers should build on. It’s simple, fast and can be easily changed and enhanced without the team having to dick around updating the actual game. Plus, if it offends you visually, you can skin it yourself with CSS.

      If the BF3 browser is like this, then yes please. If it’s the horribly involved, flash and javascript heavy mess that it may well turn out to be, then no thank you.

    • 19/08/2011 at 17:51 Commisar says:

      Njordsk is right, if you have played the Alpha like me and him, you should know that the Battlelog server browser is the best that DICE has ever made, Plus, origin has a web browser, so you can link it to that and not have to open a new tab/window :)

  2. 19/08/2011 at 10:28 saladin says:

    Sheer madness. Sheer, undiluted madness.

    This is what happens when you develop games to further your publisher’s agendas.

  3. 19/08/2011 at 10:29 Velvetmeds says:

    In game server browsers are so last gen

    Right?

    • 19/08/2011 at 10:36 Psico_Payaso says:

      So let me get this straight.. Everytime you want to change server, you’ll need to exit the game..?

      edit: ok, apparently you can alt-tab out.

    • 19/08/2011 at 10:40 Velvetmeds says:

      Just alt+tab. And it’s as fast as your browsing is, therefore it’s faster than the usual game server browser

      Unless your browsing is really slow.

    • 19/08/2011 at 22:37 BlankFlag says:

      You mean it’s faster than the usual DICE game server browser not including exiting the game and loading the browser

    • 19/08/2011 at 23:47 Froibo says:

      Are we sure that alt-tabbing is quick and painless? I have absolutely no knowledge with how smooth the game and its engine are but there are plenty of online games that don’t appreciate it (source engine). I would hope that they designed it based around that in mind otherwise they are trying very hard for me to not purchase this game. I’m still really confused why they didn’t implement something through Origin instead, seems how this is their big debut.

  4. 19/08/2011 at 10:31 RF says:

    Wooh, I got mentioned in an article. :D

  5. 19/08/2011 at 10:32 Snack says:

    gotta have nerves of steel these days to coupe with this utter garbage treatment.

  6. 19/08/2011 at 10:33 Njordsk says:

    I love battlelog and I’m glad DICE stayed straight in the idea.

    It’s fast, nice, usefull, easy to use. I loved it during alpha.

    No more loading, just browse internet during that time, no more splash screen, just play. It was really good.

    And it’s just like the all seeing eye back during my CS days.

    • 19/08/2011 at 10:45 Monkey says:

      While i havent tried it, i’m inclined to say lets try and THEN get the pitchforks. If its all integrated nicely with Battlelog i dont really see the problem

    • 19/08/2011 at 10:48 Njordsk says:

      Yeah.

      My only fear is the initial load. As usual EA might just shit themselves by only having one P4 server for the whole planet.

      But in the alpha state is was a gem

    • 19/08/2011 at 11:35 El_MUERkO says:

      After using BattleLog in the Alpha I wouldn’t want to go back to an in-game browser, it is superior to any in-game browser I’ve used in the past.

    • 19/08/2011 at 11:45 killmachine says:

      so, its not like, open browser, find server, start game, wait for dice/ea/frostbite splash screens… quit game, origin ad opens up, find new server, start game again, wait for dice/ea/frostbite splash screens … quit, another origin ad…?

      if its like quakelive i would like it very much, too. it all depends on loading times though.

    • 19/08/2011 at 11:51 El_MUERkO says:

      you’re using it wrong

    • 19/08/2011 at 11:53 Alastayr says:

      @killmachine

      The server browser is excellent. You find a nice server, easily, press join, the executable starts up and in about 10 seconds you’re on the server. No logos, shorter load times compared to BC2 and once you press “join” the Battlelog even reserves a slot for you.

      I don’t even know how Origin will fit into this, in the Alpha all you used it for was opening the Battlelog.

    • 19/08/2011 at 11:57 HybridHalo says:

      Just chiming in to agree with njordsk,

      The in-browser server browser was very smooth during alpha. More responsive than, and preferable to any in-game server browser I’ve used to date. I could also log in to it from work and add colleagues to my friends list instead of having to send an email of their usernames.

      Am interested in seeing how this works out when the full version is released – though my initial experiences have been wholly positive.

    • 19/08/2011 at 13:08 Eggy says:

      Exactly! Finally a like minded gamer. It’s just like All Seeing Eye. I loved All Seeing Eye. A universal server browser where you could search for your favourite game, server with all the filters you liked and connect instantly. You could track friends across multiple games as well. One of the biggest crimes was Yahoo taking over ASE and than abandoning it. I’ve never forgiven them for it.

      Battlelog will take some getting used to but I’m sure it will be far superior to the ingame browsers we’ve had in BF games. In general they were slow, unresponsive, offered little filter functionality and had friends lists that didn’t even work half the time.

  7. 19/08/2011 at 10:33 Baboonanza says:

    I assume you mean ‘alt-tab out of the game’ rather than exit the game and then have to restart it?

    • 19/08/2011 at 10:35 Njordsk says:

      Don’t blame before trying.

      I was very VERY skeptical at first, but loved it after 2 plays.

      You can alt tab according to demize99′s tweet or just quit and launch a new server, which takes something like 3 seconds, time to press alt F4 and “join”.

      It’s in fact faster than BC2 browser. Not talking about BF2′s which was… you know.

    • 19/08/2011 at 10:37 Lewie Procter says:

      I had thought I’d seen Alan Kertz say Alt-tabbing wouldn’t work, but I just double checked, and alt tabbing does indeed work, I shall update the post.

    • 19/08/2011 at 10:49 Theory says:

      It’s not hard to be better than Bad Company 2′s browser.

      What I really don’t get is why the page has to be open in a web browser on your desktop. Surely it would be better for everyone if it was embedded into the game?

    • 19/08/2011 at 11:14 Kaira- says:

      Initially I thought this external server browser is a moronic thing, and I still do think that a bit, but if it really is that fast and convenient as Njordsk says… well, it’s a minor complaint then. At least to me, should I buy the game.

    • 19/08/2011 at 15:47 BarerRudeROC says:

      @Kaira- I wouldn’t trust anyone yet until you try it out yourself.
      There seems to be a lot of viral going on if you know what I’m hinting at.

      Judge it when you try it yourself, don’t go off the opinions of others.
      From my own personal experience I found it atrocious and the sheer thought of it in future PC titles is more worrying to me than the apparent lack of a Homeworld 3 by Relic.

  8. 19/08/2011 at 10:34 atticus says:

    Oh man…

    I feel there should be a warning on all sites posting news related to PC gaming these days.

    “Contents will make you angry and/or depressed.”

    Guess we’re all suckers for hating on news regarding our favourite hobby, but really, who’s making me a miserable PC-gamer? Us or them?

    • 19/08/2011 at 11:15 Tomm says:

      Then every page on the internet would need a tag. This is the internet, there’s always someone who will get upset about something.

    • 19/08/2011 at 11:23 atticus says:

      I guess. But it does feel like things concerning PC gaming have been extraordinarily bad lately. Might be my own perception though…. “publisher-hate” > “brilliant new indie game” when it comes to remembering what I’ve read through the day.

    • 19/08/2011 at 11:26 PoulWrist says:

      More like “content will make you grossly overreact on the slightest rumor”. Read some of the other comments, apparently it works a charm.
      Having it be a requirement makes it seem like the game will properly handle tabbing. Which is great, since so many don’t.

    • 19/08/2011 at 11:48 atticus says:

      Well put PoulWrist :) But it seems like mr. Procter was more critical to the fact that we are being treated differently than the consoles and not so much as to how Battlelog works.

      They could have done an in-game browser for us too if it wasn’t for all the “social” aspects of gaming which everyone tries to force on us these days. I for one am pretty fed up about this.

      Social hub/facebook-integration etc. as an element of the game you can use if you want to? Yes. Compulsory? No.

  9. 19/08/2011 at 10:34 The Dark One says:

    If only there was some sort of popular, free API that developers could use to integrate in-game (and out-game) server browsing along with friend notifications and invites. :(

  10. 19/08/2011 at 10:35 arrjayjee says:

    What happened to designing a game to be an amazing game? Instead we get games that are just full of these little political stunts as if the entire gaming industry is engaged in some kind of cold-war, digital distribution service & social networking arms race. FFS, enough already. Everything a game needs should be in the game, not in a social application that runs along side it or a storefront that uses special EA Fancy Pennies to buy DLC that is, in the words of the publisher, both “entirely optional” and “necessary to enjoy the full adventure”. None of this makes me want the game more, it makes me want it less. Dear god, I’m not supposed to *lose interest* in your game as I learn about it! Fucking OPINION, AWAY!

  11. 19/08/2011 at 10:36 Keroton says:

    Worst experience of alpha testing was the battlelog, especialy when i have 4gb of ram and browser alone uses 1.5 – 2gb per play session. Game kept crashing all the time and was runing out of memory.

    • 19/08/2011 at 10:40 Njordsk says:

      1.5gb for a firefox/chrome tab?

      Your PC have a problem

    • 19/08/2011 at 10:49 Monkey says:

      As i write this chrome is using about 3 MB…..

    • 19/08/2011 at 10:51 Milky1985 says:

      “1.5gb for a firefox/chrome tab?

      Your PC have a problem”

      No i can say at least firefox has some major memory leaks, if you don’t close firefox for a few hours its memory usage creeps upwards.

      II use browsers at work and tend to leave them open when i go home, its not unusual for firefox to be using 500 MB of ram to display a simple text webpage after a couple of days (and about 1 – 1.5 Gigs of VM) .

      There are some major memory leaks in the codes of these browsers that have never been fixed. Sod all to do with the PC.

    • 19/08/2011 at 12:10 KenTWOu says:

      I guess, that’s why recommended system requirements for Battlefield 3 is 4 GB of RAM.

    • 19/08/2011 at 14:43 mickygor says:

      It’s not too hard to close Fx and then restore your tabs once a day. That’s all it takes to flush the memory.

    • 19/08/2011 at 16:44 Milky1985 says:

      @mickygor

      “It’s not too hard to close Fx and then restore your tabs once a day. That’s all it takes to flush the memory.”

      Thats not the point, yes i could easily do that (and then lose all my open tabs etc , unless I force close it let it restore itself….) but why should i have to do that? Woudl you say the same if someone had your hand in a vice? “its ok that we are crushing your hand slowly, you can always remove it from the vice for a bit then put it back in”. You would say “no why can;t you just turning the vice”.

      The software memory leaks to hell and has done for a while but its never been fixed, this is an issue with some browsers over extended periodsand oddly stuff eating away at your ram slowly impacts your gaming performance!

    • 19/08/2011 at 18:31 gamma says:

      @ Milky1985

      Just a hint re Firefox, you don’t need to “force close” (you on a mac? still applies if memory serves) to get the tabs back:
      if v3.6 > Tools > Options > General > and choose show my windows and tabs from last time from the first dropdown instead of show my homepage
      more recent versions that handy option is also hidden in the same way
      Stupid thing for mozilla to change from the previous method.

    • 19/08/2011 at 19:06 gwathdring says:

      Yeah, I’ve been doing that for years. Firefox just remembers all of my previously open tabs as long as they’re in a single window. And if something goes all wiggy, then Firefox will usually have a backup list of the tabs I had open and offer to restore them. Then I can shut down my computer to save power and not have to worry about doing anything fiddly to save my browsing session.

      Windows isn’t an especially stable operating system, though it’s not any less stable than Mac OS and Linux–depends on which versions you’re comparing. Most versions of all three systems require periodic shut-downs and restarts as opposed to hibernations and sleeps to function properly. Things start to go wrong after a while otherwise. Similarly you have to restart the OS after certain types of installations to avoid errors and registry corruptions. It’s not quite fair to blame Firefox for this because similar problems are inherent in the way the three major consumer operating system families function.

      I forget what it’s called but one of my friends who works with high level servers was telling me about an operating system that never requires a shutdown, and can accept hardware being added and removed as well as software and firmware upgrades and installations without blinking. A beautiful thing …. but it costs far too much for consumers and small businesses, if I recall correctly.

    • 19/08/2011 at 23:30 Mommenaizer says:

      if you use the tab reminder thingy dont forget to close all naughty tabs when you shut down your machine.. otherwise you’ll sit at work/ in front of your kids/wife booting your laptop…. BOOOM supriiiise

  12. 19/08/2011 at 10:39 Bilbo says:

    AHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAA

  13. 19/08/2011 at 10:41 Basic says:

    Well I’m not sure I remember a Battlefield that had a good server browser.

  14. 19/08/2011 at 10:43 BooleanBob says:

    Wh.. what??

  15. 19/08/2011 at 10:43 Ovno says:

    It seems EA and Ubi have got tired of saying ‘PC Gaming is dead” in the hope people would believe them so instead there going to actively try and kill it, nice1 guys….

    Though yeah if alt tab works its only a small inconvenience not a complete game breaker….

  16. 19/08/2011 at 10:43 iains says:

    Why do EA do what they do?

  17. 19/08/2011 at 10:44 testman3 says:

    What. A. Shame.

  18. 19/08/2011 at 10:44 LuNatic says:

    Oh great, another thing to break and go wrong.

    • 19/08/2011 at 11:38 El_MUERkO says:

      If an in-game browser is broken the game requires a patch, if BattleLog is broken or they want to add a new feature to it they just update the website. In my opinion it’s a better system than an in-game browser.

    • 19/08/2011 at 16:18 YourMessageHere says:

      Because steam updates are difficult for consumers, whereas every webpage run by a large company is frequently overhauled and functions flawlessly. EA have a proven track record of efficient, well designed and intuitive customer interfaces, after all.

      No, wait a second…

    • 19/08/2011 at 19:19 gwathdring says:

      But given that BF3 is not going to be on steam, and that if it was on Steam it would be using it’s own proprietary server browser, in game or otherwise, instead of something provided by Steam (which is what I think EA would do if BF3 were on Steam) … we would still have to deal with poor server maintenance and cludgy interfaces. It’s not just EA. DICE specifically has made some poor interfaces. Mirror’s Edge had resource-heavy menu that reacted slowly to user input even on a machine that ran the game like a dream (pretty animations between menu button clicks are not worth sacrificing slick response times). Battlefield 2 had a rather messy interface with a horrible server browser.

      Even for games designed by DICE and other EA supsidiaries, we can certainly blame EA proper for not putting on their editing boots and kicking all of these terrible interfaces out the door until their creators shine them up properly. And whoever designed the Origin interface could use a bit of a kick as well. It needs a lot of polishing up. But so did Steam when it came out, so I’ll give it a year or so.

  19. 19/08/2011 at 10:44 Inarborat says:

    Is it too much to ask for this and TOR to fail spectacularly resulting in the death of EA?

  20. 19/08/2011 at 10:45 Prime says:

    Is this really a problem? I thought ALT-TABing in Windows was one of the things we wanted games to be able to handle?

  21. 19/08/2011 at 10:48 Milky1985 says:

    Alt-Tabbing a game can be a dangerous thign due to game design and the way graphics drivers work. Hopefully they are being careful with how they make the game but i can see issus happening with this way of chanign servers/

  22. 19/08/2011 at 10:49 KBoogle says:

    I am so glad I’ve given up “mainstream” gaming a long time ago. There are enough indie games to fill every kind of game I ever want to play.

  23. 19/08/2011 at 10:51 D3xter says:

    Eh… it’s just their “Battlelog” feature being used as a Server Browser instead, it’s kind of a Steam-alike tool where you can click to Join other peoples games and whatnot, start voicechats or normally chat and browse servers quicker than the usual Refresh/Quick Refresh stuff ingame (cause it eliminates wait), if you click to join a server it opens a Magnet Link for BF3 and starts the game directly connecting to the server. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upWXvKYKaY0&hd=1

    Not sure how exactly it’s gonna be implemented in the finished version of the game yet, but it’s probably going to replace all the IG clutter and a few of the problems Bad Company 2 had, especially with its server browser.
    For instance: http://forums.electronicarts.co.uk/battlefield-bad-company-2-pc/932284-cant-find-any-server.html

  24. 19/08/2011 at 10:52 Nemon says:

    It’s like a drive in where you have to park your car, get out and walk up to the microphone and order. Or close at least. A little.

    • 19/08/2011 at 11:20 Renfield says:

      I have the feeling that everyone’s reflexes for knee-jerk outbursts have been so sharpened by the rather more insulting stuff we’ve heard from other publishers this week, that people may be over-reacting a little bit more over this one. Alt-tabbing to find servers is not great, and it does sound a little daft to me, but it’s not like you have to bring up the (figurative) DOS Prompt, or pay them. Not yet!

      Edit: Point being, it is – like the drive-through example – an inconvenience.

    • 19/08/2011 at 14:07 MisterT says:

      Actually, more like this
      Normally, you go in, wait in line (splash screens, select MP, log in), order (select server) then wait, and then play, whereas this system you just call in your order and it’s brought to you while you wach pornography, not worrying about performance because you have 8GB of RAM and 4 cores of sandy vag

  25. 19/08/2011 at 11:00 Aemony says:

    So… I’m forced to launch my web browser to play the game…? You know… there’s a reason as to why I don’t even bother with games forcing me to click a Play Now! button on a website.

    No, the more I hear about Battlefield 3 the less I’m eager to buy it. Day 1 buy? Hardly, after the latest news. Week 1? Probably not… Month 1? Doubt it. Year 1? Myeah, it’s fifty-fifty.

  26. 19/08/2011 at 11:02 shellyc says:

    in-game server browsers are generally pretty dreadful anyway. Not sure this is a bad thing!

    • 19/08/2011 at 11:08 Tuco says:

      Yeah, cause web browser based server browsers (ehr…) are SO much better.

      Sorry DICE and EA, Battlelog as only way to run #BF3 on PC is an abomination.
      You forced Origin down to our throat, at least make good use of it, dammit.

      And then people wonder why some of us whine when forced to leave Steam to buy a game.

  27. 19/08/2011 at 11:04 aircool says:

    Alt-tabbing out of a DICE game? I don’t think there’s an easier way to crash your PC without chucking a bucket of piss all over your motherboard.

    However, not having an in-built server brower or server browsing via Origin is just criminal. As our conduit to the developers and publishers, PC game journalists must rip this idea apart.

    Save us RPS; you’re our only hope…

    • 19/08/2011 at 11:10 Tuco says:

      I agree, gaming press should eat their hearts for this abomination.

    • 19/08/2011 at 12:30 ankh says:

      Ive alt-tabbed BC2 about one million times (if not more) and its never crashed. NOT EVEN ONCE

    • 19/08/2011 at 18:46 gamma says:

      @ ankh
      I mostly confirm your experience, but it is definitely one of those things you want to avoid, and leave it as a last resource for when the app (whichever) hangs. One thing is alt-tabbing 2d apps, another is 3d apps.
      Afterall it is a OS level resource, DICE is forcing it as a feature for no reason…
      SAD

  28. 19/08/2011 at 11:05 MrMud says:

    The brower for bfbc2 is pretty terrible but this is not a good idea. Why should I have to wait for the game to start every time i want to see if the server is something I want to play on.

  29. 19/08/2011 at 11:06 jacobvandy says:

    Argh! Change? I hate change!

    … Seriously, of the things you should be upset with EA about lately, this is not really one of them. I used it in the Alpha test, and while it was kind of weird using a web browser to find and join servers, it was a hell of a lot faster than navigating the menus in Bad Company 2. Plus, there are no loading screens to sit through, the game is actually minimized until it’s ready to play, so you can be reading RPS or whatever while you wait.

    • 19/08/2011 at 11:12 Tuco says:

      I used it, too. And I *hated* every single minute of it.
      Also, forcing me tu run a web browser with the game client it’s an annoying way to waste RAM on my already-not-so-performing PC.

    • 19/08/2011 at 15:06 kibayasu says:

      If running a web browser is taking that much of your memory, you may want to look at what you’re doing wrong.

    • 19/08/2011 at 16:53 Milky1985 says:

      “If running a web browser is taking that much of your memory, you may want to look at what you’re doing wrong.”

      I’ve said it before and i’ll say it again, its not the PC its the web browser that can be the issue here.

      Some web browsers (a certain one that has somethign to do with the thing the posh gits in this country liked to “hunt” before we told them they were idiots and its not actually hunting) have memory leaking issues so even just leaving them idle or loading a simple new page increases there resource usage. Smoe other browsers have issues liek this too because really they were never design for this sort of thing.

      Oddly its alos a MASSSIVE security risk as web browsers are a primary attack point for lots of computer exploits nowerdays.And once you got one you got them all.

  30. 19/08/2011 at 11:06 ran93r says:

    The battlelog was great in the alpha, not sure why all the salty tears.

  31. 19/08/2011 at 11:08 Jnx says:

    Heh, well you better hope that this isn’t one of those games that crashes or refuses to recover from alt+tab then. Anyway I won’t be getting it with all the origin mumbojumbo. 2 digital store applications are enough for me and one game won’t change that.

  32. 19/08/2011 at 11:12 Soram00 says:

    The Battlelog in alpha was good. I don’t mind using it at all, quick and easy system.

  33. 19/08/2011 at 11:13 Phinor says:

    Battlelog itself was decent enough but having to go the following route to join a server was not: Browse to Battlelog website, log in, select server page, wait for the server list to load, find a server and join, wait for Origin to start, log in to Origin, wait for the game to start and load and finally end up on the server. Not really something you want to do for a quick 5-10min gaming experience.

    It’s the Origin part that takes it over the limit. It’s one step too much to simply join a server. Sadly unless they drop Origin requirement, joining a server is now about as optimized as it will ever get.

    • 19/08/2011 at 15:11 kibayasu says:

      Here’s a tip. Before you open your browser, open Origin. This time, turn on auto-login when you do. Now, you can either run Origin when Windows starts or you can open Origin and battlelog at the same time. Try a desktop shortcut to the browser of your choice.

    • 19/08/2011 at 23:53 Ultra-Humanite says:

      I really like the block function on this website.

  34. 19/08/2011 at 11:20 MuscleHorse says:

    This seems like a pretty monumental cockup on someone’s end, as if they forgot to put it into their schedule. I can’t think of a single AAA game, shooter or otherwise, that asks me to launch a web-browser to find a server.

    • 19/08/2011 at 11:50 domowoj says:

      or maybe (shock! horror!) it was an intentional design decision?

    • 19/08/2011 at 11:56 Kaira- says:

      Which would make it a bit odd, since when doing design, you usually strive to minimalize the things the user has to do before getting access to what he wants to do (if program supports that), so an external server browser seems a bit odd decision. Unless it proves to be superior to in-game browsers.

  35. 19/08/2011 at 11:21 Corrupt_Tiki says:

    I won’t lie, and say I will be ‘boycotting’ the game, but, I mean, please Dice, EA, for the love of god it doesn’t need more fluff and bells and whistles seriously, the game, that works good, and gets patched regularly will be fine, also, dedicated servers still win big time.- nuff said

    **Note; I have not tried the game/systems it might be really good, but, I doubt it will be better than dedicated servers, and also, there is a thin line between, functional, and detrimental.

  36. 19/08/2011 at 11:26 deadstoned says:

    But I like in-game server browsers :*(

  37. 19/08/2011 at 11:28 PoulWrist says:

    In this thread, loads of people overreacting to something they don’t know jack about, making total fools of themselves.

    • 19/08/2011 at 20:01 Spider Jerusalem says:

      Or maybe they just want a fucking server browser and not a fucking facebook-clone thing.

      I cancelled my bookingface account for a reason.

    • 20/08/2011 at 00:17 bigblack says:

      I see a lot of people wondering aloud why EA & DICE are asking gamers to do a bunch of unusually stupid shit outside the application they created in order to join servers and play the fucking game.

  38. 19/08/2011 at 11:31 vodka and cookies says:

    [quote]mouse controls only on the PS3?![/quote]

    PS3 actually supports that but it rarely ever gets supported by games.

  39. 19/08/2011 at 11:35 Tei says:

    This Battlelog thing seems a Social Media site, with Facebook-like interface. With all, even “Status messages”.

    If we visit this site to search a server, I bet 99% of the status will be “Searching a server”, woot!.

  40. 19/08/2011 at 11:35 MaliciousH says:

    I haven’t tried anything BF3 so I don’t know first hand but what I feel why people are getting hissy about this news is that its yet another thing that could be or should be done via in-game means or through Origin. Origin, being something that seems wanting to challenge Steam, its currently looking like its not stacking up to be a competent competitor. Hell, its driving home the point of Origin just being a download service.

    /rambling of a dead tired dude

  41. 19/08/2011 at 11:45 JustOneWay says:

    It seems an odd decision to me but I am happy to wait and see how it turns out. No use hating the unknown.

    I guess one advantage of this approach is that they have the ability to roll our constant upgrades and improvements without going through a cycle of patch distribution and all that entails. This could lead to more regular incremental improvements to the Battlelog. It might allow them to be more responsive to the communities desires on that front. Not a bad idea when getting into something so novel.

  42. 19/08/2011 at 11:46 Koozer says:

    I’ll just buy it on Steam and use the overlay’s brows…oh, yeah. Right.

  43. 19/08/2011 at 11:51 Antilogic says:

    I’ve used it, I think it works really rather well. The server browser is actually decent unlike say BC2 and it launches the game and right into the server quite nicely.

  44. 19/08/2011 at 11:55 necrozim says:

    I wonder if other websites can have links to their BF3 server, meaning that for example, somewhere on RPS there could be a link to server awesome and rather than hunting through in game or going to favourites, I can simply click that link, then my game will boot up and pop me into the server. Now that, would be pretty wicked.

    • 19/08/2011 at 12:00 jon_hill987 says:

      Quakeworld offered that, as did HL1 based games, all you hat do do was associate the protocol with the games executable.

    • 19/08/2011 at 13:57 mondomau says:

      Several posters in the Reddit thread seem to imply this is the case and that they found it to be a very positive experience: instead of firing up the game, logging in, then checking who’s on, they could open the browser and click a buddy’s game – BF3 would then reserve their slot while it booted up and dropped them straight into the map.

    • 19/08/2011 at 14:01 CMaster says:

      It’s also possible with Source games. In fact, the Steam:// protocol for web browsers is pretty nifty all around.

      Examples: Join the RPS TF2 server
      Play Frozen Synapse

      Edit: hmm, the RPS comments thing doesn’t parse them properly. Perhaps this should be fixed?

      They should look like this steam://connect/85.236.100.200:27015 and steam://run/98200

  45. 19/08/2011 at 11:58 jon_hill987 says:

    So not only is the server browser external to the game, but it is also a website rather than an executable?

  46. 19/08/2011 at 12:07 yhalothar says:

    For me, this game has gone from “Preorder” to “first week purchase” to “I’m not buying it” in about three to four months.

  47. 19/08/2011 at 12:10 Lemming says:

    Why are people so apologetic of this?

    “Oh but it’s really easy because..” Lemme stop you there.

    It’s clunky as fuck. End of.

    • 19/08/2011 at 15:14 kibayasu says:

      Actually, it’s not.

      See? I can make completely useless statements too!

    • 19/08/2011 at 15:46 Lemming says:

      It’s not a useless statement (but thanks for contributing your own). ALT-TABing out of anything to do something else is always clunky, and that goes double for having to ALT-TAB to do something required to continue using the original task.

      It’s not even an issue that would affect me (dual-monitors), but I can call a spade a spade. I don’t have to live in some kind of perpetual denial where I convince myself everything is fine. but again, THANKS FOR CONTRIBUTING! ;-)

    • 19/08/2011 at 18:57 gamma says:

      How does the saying go?

      “If you only have a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail”

  48. 19/08/2011 at 12:13 thesonglessbird says:

    I played the alpha and at first I was like “WTF?????????????????”, but it actually is a nice, smooth process. Works very well. Requires a browser plugin though, which is a bit gash (not the plugin…the needing it). I thought it was a nice convergence of the game and the social functions. I’d like to see it more often.

  49. 19/08/2011 at 12:14 Benjamin L. says:

    Given that previous server browsers in BF games were terrible, and given that it really isn’t necessary to use it a lot, and given that a lot of other things like MMOs use this technique, and given that this likely means BF3 will alt-tab like a dream, I honestly don’t see this as the horrible betrayal everyone is making it out to be.

    But then EA isn’t Valve so I guess I should expect this.

  50. 19/08/2011 at 12:24 Tomhai says:

    I smell a conspiracy here. You do know how people in order to draw your attention away from the big problems, create small ones. So that the media and public can chew on them and forget about the serious issues. That’s a classical example right here. We go crazy over something that’s probably a minor inconvenience and forget where the true evil of BF3 lies in – no real dedicated servers. That’s what we should go crazy about. That’s why you should either boycot the game or if you really want to play it (like I do:) ) go to a Russian cd-key site to get you key for the minimum legal price possible.

    • 19/08/2011 at 12:29 Matt says:

      Keep sniffing. DICE already confirmed dedicated servers a while ago.

    • 19/08/2011 at 12:39 ankh says:

      You say “no real dedicated servers” but you dont tell us what your definition of real is thus rendering your comment useless. Mines also useless then I guess…. you bastard.

    • 19/08/2011 at 19:06 gamma says:

      @ ankh & Matt
      5-10 years ago mainstream games (developers and publishers) provided an executable which you called a “dedicated server” which you could install (in a Linux box with no graphics card) and run a LAN only server, no internet required by no client running the game, and ENJOY a latency of 5-10 miliseconds
      That is the definition a “dedicated server” not a dumbed down one which you have to rent and ask for a license to run. Since the later is being refered with no distinction the “REAL” was appended for clarity.
      Too bad you didn’t get it. Too bad you apparently see no diference, if infact you remember those times.

  51. 19/08/2011 at 12:29 Xtinction says:

    So if I add BF3 as a non-steam game, can I use the steam overlay to browse for my server? That would be awesome and sooo wrong :D

  52. 19/08/2011 at 12:34 Nick says:

    Anyone saying this isn’t an issue/you don’t need to change servers often has never tried getting a bunch of friends on the same non empty server.

    • 19/08/2011 at 12:41 ankh says:

      It’s a problem for me because I’m very prone to ragequiting. Anything pisses me off, I ragequit.

    • 19/08/2011 at 13:48 Tomm says:

      How does this system make it harder for friends to join the same server exactly?

      In my experience with BC2, I tell my friends I’ve found a server and by the time they’ve loaded the game, signed in and opened the friends list, the server has filled up.

      The new system seems to offer an improvement to this case. You send your friends a link to a non-full game server you’ve found, and when they click on it, it reserves a slot while they load the game. Not to mention they won’t have to faff around going thro’ game menus/intros, they’ll just get straight into the game.

      I can see why people might be hesitant towards a new system, but non need to complain about problems that don’t exist.

    • 19/08/2011 at 14:18 MisterT says:

      Alpha tester here,
      you can drag and drop friends to invite them to a server, and it’ll even reserve space for them.

    • 19/08/2011 at 19:11 gamma says:

      @ MisterT
      What?!??! Drag-n-Drop… really?!?

      I am totally sold now!

    • 20/08/2011 at 00:29 ShineDog says:

      It’s the fact it reserves a space that’s significant.

    • 20/08/2011 at 03:57 gamma says:

      How’s that supposed to be an advantage, BC2 did the same with the in-game browser, it is only solving a problem that itself creates (ie. having to wait to load before getting in, otherwise exacerbating the issue if the feature wasn’t there)
      Well at least it is there, better than not… I was trying to exagerate for expressiveness sake.

  53. 19/08/2011 at 12:36 kyrieee says:

    Fucking stop whining about everything
    Everyone used an external serverbrowser for Quake 3 and it worked just fine. People actually used it for tons of games because it works better.

  54. 19/08/2011 at 12:48 Unaco says:

    Let’s just assume, for a moment, that Alt-Tabbing will not be a perfect solution for everyone who buys the game. It isn’t… there are difficulties with it, discrepancies between resolutions, stability issues. Hell, some people don’t even know that Alt-Tab is a feature.

    So, assuming that, that Alt-Tab will not be the perfect solution for everyone…. here is why this is terrible. An In-Game server browser is called that for two reasons. Firstly, because it runs ‘In the Game’, from within the program itself. Secondly, because you can browse for servers, while you are in a game, and connected to a server. Say I am on Server X, and I’m having a reasonably good time, but it’s not perfect, and there’s a map I don’t like coming up next. The server is full though, and I don’t want to leave it unless I know I’m going to a better server. In a game with In Game browsing, I can check for other servers, see if there’s one better and join it… or, if I don’t see any better servers, I can stick with the one I’m currently on. With this, I’ll have to give up my slot on the server just to check if there’s a better server… and if there isn’t, I’ve just lost my slot on the server.

    Having to quit out to browse for servers… not just to join one once you’ve spotted one… to not be able to even look at the servers from in game, is a major step backwards, and a terrific inconvenience for gamers.

    And, that’s assuming that the game loads in ’2 seconds’ as Njordsk says above… and there aren’t any EA/DICE/NVidia/Whatever-else Splash screens to sit through.

    • 19/08/2011 at 14:21 MisterT says:

      there aren’t any splash screens, and alt+tab only really has issues in DX9, which the game doesn’t support anyway.

    • 19/08/2011 at 15:18 kibayasu says:

      I’d like to know what games you play, besides Valve titles, that have a server browser that you can look at while you are in a server. I can’t think of any.

    • 19/08/2011 at 16:30 Tomm says:

      Yeah, none of the battlefield games have ever had a server browser you can actually browse whilst connected to another server. To my knowledge only Valve has done this, and even theirs can be flaky at times.

    • 19/08/2011 at 19:14 gamma says:

      Unreal Tournament did this

  55. 19/08/2011 at 13:03 murdoch says:

    To be honest these types of arguments are just really boring now. To be honest the alpha was really enjoyable and recent multiplayer footage is making me want to play this even more.

    I thought battle log was a good addition, server browsers nower days are become all but obsolete for the casual gamer. I would prefer to see a quick start button and as long as it has a decent enough set of filters to allow me to tailor what I want, and allows me to get in games with my mates and perhaps bookmark favorite servers or show me a history of servers that’s all I need, and from what I saw of battlelog it had all of these things. To be honest I would play this game even if I had to send my server request via carrier pigeon each time.

  56. 19/08/2011 at 13:09 jackflash says:

    The more I hear about this game the less interested I am in buying it. And I have sunk hundreds of hours into its predecessors.

  57. 19/08/2011 at 13:17 Glycerine says:

    I’m not necessarily against this (although prior experience with ALT-TAB / ALT-F4 in games has been pretty poor, and even when it’s worked it’s never been the instant experience they seem to be suggesting, and does it really take just 10 seconds to get you into a map from your browser?), but i’m missing something…

    What on earth is Origin for in this equation?

  58. 19/08/2011 at 13:28 Frapple says:

    Wow, so much EA hate, guess it’s cool now? Oooo can we use £A instead of EA!?

    Any way, some clarification is required here.

    Battlelog is the Main Menu, BF3.exe doesn’t have one. At all.

    Obviously the browser/OS relationship doesn’t exist on consoles, so they will need a separate server browser.

    • 19/08/2011 at 19:19 gamma says:

      “Battlelog is the Main Menu, BF3.exe doesn’t have one. At all.”

      What about video/audio/keyboard settings, done in the Battlelog (launcher?)

      This is how far EA/DICE is taking us… well not me! I am definitely not being pushed over like this!

  59. 19/08/2011 at 13:30 Bantros says:

    Love how most of the people who have tried it are saying it’s great whilst the rest are outraged at such “political stunts” to promote “publisher agendas”.

    I haven’t used it yet. I’ll save my opinion until that time. It can’t be much worse than ay BF server browser in the past

    • 19/08/2011 at 13:32 Nick says:

      I love how you ignore the posts by people who have used it and don’t like it.

    • 19/08/2011 at 14:25 MisterT says:

      @Nick
      all two of them, likely with 2-4GB of RAM, and using firefox with too many addons

    • 19/08/2011 at 15:09 Lemming says:

      Can I point out yet again that it doesn’t matter if ‘its a simple case of…’ or ‘you just have to’..it’s still an extra hoop that could have been avoided by good design. It wasn’t.

    • 19/08/2011 at 15:19 kibayasu says:

      It’s not an extra hoop. It’s the exact same hoop as an in-game server browser.

    • 19/08/2011 at 15:47 Lemming says:

      You have to minimise the game to see that server browser. That’s an extra hoop. So it’s not exactly the same as an in-game browser, because it’s not in-game

    • 19/08/2011 at 19:37 Goronmon says:

      @Lemming

      Actually, there is no need to alt-tab. Just close the game, browse for a new server and join it.

      Works just like Bad Company 2.

      “I love how you ignore the posts by people who have used it and don’t like it.”

      Well, the people who don’t like it seem to hate change, or like to pretend that a browser running in the background of a system capable of running Battlefield 3 is going to bring the system to it’s knees.

  60. 19/08/2011 at 13:32 JKjoker says:

    this happens most likely because two different teams are working on the game and origin and when they put the two together they were not playing nice with each other so they went ahead with the quick improvised solution instead of delaying and doing it right, like every time this happens i would expect the whole thing to be bugged to hell

    • 19/08/2011 at 15:21 kibayasu says:

      I’m sorry, what? BF3 has been designed from the start with the Battlelog in mind. This much was obvious from the alpha.

  61. 19/08/2011 at 13:39 Shooop says:

    Personally I’d try it first. But the fact that there’s only 9 maps on the disk and everything else is going to be pay-for DLC makes this another reason to tell EA/DICE to fuck off.

    Rage and Serious Sam are the only hopes left for this year in FPSs.

    • 19/08/2011 at 16:40 Tomm says:

      OMG only 9 maps!? Thats more than BF2s base game had and more than BC2 started with, which got a load added after the release for free. What’s stopping the same happening with BF3? Oh yeh, the people who are convinced that one expansion pack announced before the release means that any other extra content will also cost money.

    • 19/08/2011 at 17:26 Shooop says:

      Remember this game EA/DICE worked on before BF3 Tomm? It was called Medal of Honor. And all extra maps for that game cost money.

      It’s splitting up people who do buy the game into those who don’t mind buying more crap for it and those who don’t and that’s a very stupid thing for a multiplayer game to do. So fuck ‘em I say. Everything else was acceptable, if irritating but pay-for map packs is not.

  62. 19/08/2011 at 13:48 clownst0pper says:

    DICE are doing a good job of killing their own hype and the chance to topple MW.

    Is a good server browser and steam support too much to ask?

  63. 19/08/2011 at 14:08 Reapy says:

    The videos keep making me want to buy this game, followed by the text which keeps making me not want to buy it. In the end, I don’t think I’ll be bothered with it.

  64. 19/08/2011 at 14:11 mondomau says:

    I really think we should wait until release before making any judgement calls on this – the alpha testers’ opinions seem to range from it being a useful tool to being horribly broken, but their experiences, by definition, won’t be entirely representative of the final product.

    Personally, I am more intrigued / unsettled by the fact that EA are pushing Origin as a content service and using BF3 as a wedge to foist it onto people, but apparently not making any effort to integrate something like this web-based server browser into the overlay (a la steam) – it would surely make more sense?

  65. 19/08/2011 at 14:15 Stupoider says:

    Why not just make a decent in game browser/menu?

    I can jump to another server in 2 seconds when I’m playing TF2. Hit escape, browser is usually already there because it doesn’t shut when you leave the menu, double click server, bang.

    I could always alt tab, right click the Steam icon, open up servers and click one of my favourites, but having it in the game is just convenient and pain free.

    • 19/08/2011 at 20:07 Goronmon says:

      Why is an in-game menu any better than a browser based one?

    • 19/08/2011 at 20:14 Unaco says:

      Because it allows you to browse servers for the game, from within the game environment, while connected to a server, or not. It means you don’t have to leave the game to browse servers.

      Your question is like asking “Why is an indoor toilet any better than an outdoor one?” Because it’s inside, it’s more convenient, it’s easier to get to and to use. And it means that when I go to take a sh*t (play a game, look for servers), I can leave the door open and still hear my music or BBCNews 24 while I do so (I can browse for servers, while connected to a server, I don’t need to leave that server, and risk losing my slot and not finding a decent server to join).

  66. 19/08/2011 at 14:20 jobias says:

    So having actually used this system in the alpha, it’s actually pretty slick. The best analog I could come up with for their system is Quake Live. I guess if you really hated Quake Live you might not like this either, but if you were fine with it you should be perfectly happy with this.

  67. 19/08/2011 at 14:28 Juiceman says:

    Used the browser in the Alpha and it works just fine. It’s actually easier because you don’t need to start the game up to find available servers.

  68. 19/08/2011 at 14:37 AMonkey says:

    Oh FFS. What is with companies this year and retarded changes. Can somebody explain to me how this is better than an in game server browser, ya know the PC standard for the last decade?!

    • 19/08/2011 at 19:41 Goronmon says:

      It is faster than any in-game browser I’ve seen in a Battlefield game.

      Maybe you should try giving a good reason why an in-game menu is better than a browser based one? And I really mean a ‘good’ reason. Not just “I hate change.”

  69. 19/08/2011 at 14:43 Joe Duck says:

    How time passes. At the time of EA’s E3 presentation, this game was for me a day one purchase if not a preorder. I have had wonderful moments in BFBC2 and was hyped for more. Also, the “COD’s Nemesis” image compelled me strongly.
    Now, I have gone from there to “wait and see” to “will buy it on sale” to “will not buy it” and now to “refuse to install it even if gifted”.
    Time does strange things to oneself…

  70. 19/08/2011 at 14:51 Respen says:

    I’ve used it in beta and I disliked it, for several reasons.

    This feels like 10 steps backwards, to the first days of quake and multiplayer shooters where you had to use a browser to look up the game servers. Aren’t games supposed to get more convienient as time progresses? Why on earth would they take the browser out of the game? I’ll give up any “social experience” to not have to tab out. I can understand with all of the free to play junk out there… but a AAA title? Give me a break!

    I feel sorry for anyone with a low end system because you are going to have to have both your web browser and origin open to get into your game, and that could also be a problem if you already have limited resources. WHY? I’m seriously thinking of canceling my preorder. It didn’t even work with internet explorer, I had to use firefox. With firefox I had issues with it loading as well, we’re talking missing textures etc etc and if you want to try again you have to go through the whole process again.

    If I want facebook, I’ll go to facebook. I want to load a game, and have the ability to access any information I need from that game right inside the game itself. Is that too much to ask for in 2011?

    • 19/08/2011 at 15:10 Juiceman says:

      HAH! You lost all credibility when you let everyone know your default browser is IE.

    • 19/08/2011 at 15:30 kibayasu says:

      In case you havne’t noticed, BF3 is a high end game. How low end can your computer be considering that you need a DX10 card to even run it? Go buy a $50 stick of RAM, you probably need it for everything else you try to run anyways.

    • 19/08/2011 at 15:30 Respen says:

      Actually, I use Chrome for browsing and fire up explorer for things like this where Chrome simply does not work. Sorry I didn’t hop on the firefox bandwagon?

    • 19/08/2011 at 15:36 Juiceman says:

      Should hop on the “my computer blows” bandwagon because I used chrome to find servers in the Alpha and it worked fine

    • 19/08/2011 at 15:36 Respen says:

      Note, I have a high end pc. For starters I’m running an i7 2600k, 8gb of ram, and a 580 gtx superclocked.

      All I was saying is that those pushing lower end “minimum recomended” specs and fighting for every clock cycle are going to be hurting because of the extra overhead of running 3 programs to get their game up. I could be wrong, maybe removing them from the game helps to lesson the overhead overall, not sure. Personally, I don’t see how having to have 3 completley seperate programs running at one time to play a game is a good thing. More things to go wrong, less streamlined, etc..

    • 19/08/2011 at 15:46 Tei says:

      Please, don’t use IE. Is a broken browser full of bugs. Webmasters need to make esentially two versions of every website, one for all browsers, and another one to cope with all the bugs of IE. This make creating webpages very expensive, time consuming, and make so daily millions of webmasters must tear up one’s hair in frustration. Its also bad for you since there are floating around multiple security problems. If you browse with IE, you will get hacked. Friends don’t let friends use IE.

    • 19/08/2011 at 15:50 Snuffy the Evil says:

      @Juiceman

      You lose all credibility when you attack someone for their choice of web browser instead of offering a thought-out, rational argument or counterpoint.

    • 19/08/2011 at 15:55 Respen says:

      Way to stay on track. FFS, one mention of IE and I get nerd raged by firefox fanboys. I’m sorry?

      Since there is no way to remove IE, I have always used it for quake live, battlefield heroes, and battlefield free2play along with other plugin heavy websites. This way I can avoid excess plugins on Chrome, which again, is my primary browser. Regardless, of it’s reputation, IE is the most popular web browser (again, this does not mean it’s my favorite) and should probably be able to run bf.

    • 19/08/2011 at 18:46 Juiceman says:

      @ Snuffy the Evil

      IE being a luck luster program is pretty standard stuff. It shouldn’t have to be explained to this audience, but I guess you’re the exception… Would you like me to explain why drinking water as opposed to motor oil is a good idea, too?

    • 19/08/2011 at 19:29 gamma says:

      @ Juiceman
      You have read one too many tabloid article which have been proven has an hoax.

  71. 19/08/2011 at 14:55 Valvarexart says:

    It’s not gamebreaking or anything for me, it’s just feels like another unnecessary thing that you have to do. Ah, whatever, we’ll see about Battlefield 3 after release. I’ll be playing Red Orchestra 2 until then :)

  72. 19/08/2011 at 15:15 Juiceman says:

    Everyone who intends to not buy this game because of a feature you’ve never used, and therefore have no basis for judgement, please keep your promise. The game will be a lot better off without all the whiny steam fanboys. Stick to TF2 and paying money for in game hats

    • 19/08/2011 at 15:46 Respen says:

      How about those of us who have tried it and think it makes the game feel like free to play garbage? What about those of us who like steam and don’t want to be forced into using a similar but much less intuitive interface and have no interest in TF2?

    • 19/08/2011 at 16:02 Joe Duck says:

      @Juiceman: Don’t worry, we will.

    • 19/08/2011 at 16:11 Snuffy the Evil says:

      It’s not that I’m absolutely smitten with Steam, it’s that Origin has not shown me any viable reason to support it. If it was still just a EADM reskin, then fine, but what I’ve been hearing is that BF3 also requires it to run in the background like Steam.

      1. I don’t like having extraneous programs running on my computer.

      2. Steam has its own problems, but at least it has a community, and features to benefit it. My IRL friends do all of our voice chats, game invites, etc through Steam. None of them have an Origin account. What incentive is there for me to make the switch?

      Please don’t turn RPS into an that kind of site with that kind of comment . I don’t come here to see people spewing vitriol at each other. I read RPS because of the (mostly) intelligent and respectful discussion.

    • 19/08/2011 at 17:31 Shooop says:

      You’ll enjoy buying map packs instead – which fundamentally decide who can play with who instead of just being stupid little atheistics.

      EA can eat a box of dicks right now. That is the one thing that pisses me the fuck off.

    • 19/08/2011 at 19:02 Juiceman says:

      @Respen
      You’re clearly lying about being in the Alpha if you claim it plays like free to play games. Say what you will about the problems with 3D spotting and the other issues, but the game is more polished in terms of game play and graphics than almost any thing on the market. Pro tip, we got forced into Steam in order to play Valve games, yet now you cry about EA’s carbon copy of that program. Fan boy more please.

      @Snuffy the Evil
      Why do you have to switch at all, is it really that hard to have both programs installed on your computer? You won’t be giving up one for the other. And if your friends intend to play BF3 they’ll have an Origin account, so it won’t be like you can’t invite them to games.

      For a group of people who pride themselves on being a cut above the “dumbed down” console market, you sure do wet the bed when it comes to the notion of having to use two library systems to play games.

    • 19/08/2011 at 19:37 gamma says:

      @ Juiceman
      There actually exists basis for judgement, the “out-game” browser experience exists, and its use has been deprecated for in-game browsers. EA/DICE for some unknown reason is trying to solve something which is not broken*

      *not quite right, regarding their own in-game browsers where indeed broken (initial releases) later to be updated to the industry standard.

      This is almost the very admission on inability to raise their standard.

    • 20/08/2011 at 00:02 ShineDog says:

      It’s as fast a browser as I have ever used, They haven’t fucked it up. Time from hitting load to being in game is less than in a normal game because you skip the entire menu procedure in a very light browser window.

      Literally none of the Alpha players on the forums I frequent (And it’s Something Awful, who hate everything) had a problem with this. It’s good, and you need to give it a chance.

    • 20/08/2011 at 00:16 Respen says:

      @Juiceman So I’m a liar now, because I didn’t like the web based server browser? I must have been pretending to record this short play session to show a few close friends, because how could I when I wasn’t in beta. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzqvK6_LV8w

      @ShineDog If you didn’t see any alpha players in the official forums complainiing about the server browser, you didn’t spend much time there. Although most queries about the lack of in game server browser were met with the response from other players (and I am paraphraising) “It’s only alpha, of course there will be an in game server browser at launch”

    • 20/08/2011 at 00:27 ShineDog says:

      I’ll be honest, I discussed it it with the Something Awful goons (miserable about everything), because official forums are always an angry toilet. Yeah, there were problems, that didn’t stop the response being overwhelmingly positive.

  73. 19/08/2011 at 15:43 PersianImm0rtal says:

    If you care about PC gaming, please I beg you to not buy this game! Boycott BF3, and join this steam group in protest: http://steamcommunity.com/groups/bf3boycott

  74. 19/08/2011 at 15:48 Tei says:

    I wonder if DICE is going to include the requirements of having Firefox and Origin open to the game requirements. Firefox alone may need 512 MB. Origin seems around 20 MB, maybe more.

  75. 19/08/2011 at 15:58 The Sombrero Kid says:

    LOL FAIL!

  76. 19/08/2011 at 16:01 Snuffy the Evil says:

    I really don’t know what to think of this right now. On on hand, it would be nice to see if there are any open/full/good servers without having to boot up the game- it takes a long time for me to boot into Project Reality on my online profile, and it’s annoying to wait ten minutes only to find that all of the good servers have been filled up and all the rest only have a few people on them.

    On the other hand, I don’t like the idea of having to quit the game to switch servers- maybe someone from the Alpha/Beta/Whatever can tell me otherwise, but it seems like a hastle. I wouldn’t mind as much if I could use something like the Steam overlay web browser, but I wouldn’t be surprised if BF3 was using Punkbuster again, which (at least in Battlefield 2) kicked you if you had it activated.

    To be honest, I would’ve perferred the return of Battlerecorder, the utility from Battlefield 2 that recorded a match for playback later. Especially in PR, it’s phenomenally useful for watching a particularly awful match and learning what you did wrong and the other team did right. Also, cool pictures.

  77. 19/08/2011 at 16:27 jay35 says:

    Hahah, this about sums it up.

  78. 19/08/2011 at 16:30 Delusibeta says:

    It sounds like something out of 1996, quite frankly.

  79. 19/08/2011 at 16:35 Acosta says:

    Alt Tabbing for server options? What the hell is this?

    Use Steamworks for god’s sake.

  80. 19/08/2011 at 16:46 Shortwave says:

    I really don’t like EA at all anymore and I’m not going to be buying their game till’ it’s on a decent sale.
    I want to play it yes.. I do however do not wish to feel like a tool.

    Don’t want Origin, don’t want to have anything running but BF3 if I’m gunna’ play BF3.
    Don’t want my browser open, don’t want some separate programs.
    (They should have it incorporated right into the game.. O.o)
    I do not want DLC maps which do nothing but split communities and force people into buying them just to play with friends, when they’ve already bought the freakin’ game! Nevermind that the first maps they are releasing (and which you have to pay for) or like a freakin’ decade old.. Wtf?
    Oh but that’s just their way of saying THANKS PC GAMERS.

    Guh, must stop the rage.. I really wanted to to be excited for this release.

    NO MODS Shfdasdfahsjkfdharufieproui!

    /me vomits

    • 19/08/2011 at 17:33 Shooop says:

      “I do not want DLC maps which do nothing but split communities and force people into buying them just to play with friends, when they’ve already bought the freakin’ game! ”

      Fucking THIS.

    • 19/08/2011 at 19:49 gamma says:

      These are exacly the very type of reasons that made me finaly ignore MW2 (I had initially fallen for their viral)
      They keep pushing it… they will get what they deserve.

  81. 19/08/2011 at 16:58 Milky1985 says:

    So when EA decide to shut down teh BF3 servers (and you know they will) all they have to do is take down a central website and you can;t use your game again if this is behaving as i think.

    No other brwosers, no local connect as it all goes through a server.

    I’m also gonna wait for the inevitable DNS poisening that causes everyones battlelog to go to a porn site.

  82. 19/08/2011 at 17:53 kickme22 says:

    Battlelog is crap I was hoping they were going to integrate it. I was in the alpha and here is what you do

    1. Start BF3 from Steam as non-Steam game
    2. This launches Origin
    3. Hit play BF3 from Origin
    4. That launches your webbrowser
    5. Sign in to Battlelog
    6. Select a match (or quickgame)
    7. Hope Battlelog doesnt crash (if it does go back to step 3 it crashes alot)
    8.BF3 is launched and you enter a game

    Now to you people saying to shut up and put up with it. Let me see you do that every single time you want to join ANY server (not just when you launch BF3 you have to do that when you changer servers!)

    • 19/08/2011 at 19:12 Juiceman says:

      Here was the steps I took to play the Alpha
      1. Click BF3 icon in Origin library
      2. Sign into Battlelog, Ooo auto-fill features, NO WAI!
      3. Select server you wish to play in and watch BF3 auto launch from Origin as Origin game
      4. Not repeat steps 1-3 because Battlelog never crashed on me

    • 20/08/2011 at 00:12 ShineDog says:

      It never crashed for me once, and even if it did, this was an Alpha, designed to test battlelog under load.

  84. 19/08/2011 at 18:30 Leo says:

    My personal experience with the web-based server browser was totally positive. I exited after (or during) every game and getting back in took only as long as finding a server to play on. The application actually booted very quickly. Granted the alpha client was surely simplified as compared to full release, which may account for that speed.

    Aside from the constant crashing of the game, which I hear was an nvidia driver issue, I had no problems. Hell, even if the crashing was unexplained at all I’d not get my panties twisted in a knot – an alpha is just that…alpha…early build.

    An absolutely !VAST! advantage of the Battlelog browser is that it eliminates the need for the game client to download and refresh your stats/medals/awards/etc. every damn time you’re back in the main menu. It is all web-based and naturally smoother to navigate than a game menu.

  85. 19/08/2011 at 19:14 DOLBYdigital says:

    Sigh… I don’t want to jump to conclusions since I haven’t tested it or even seen it yet. But 1 commenter above mentioned that you can open this battlelog browser inside of Origin… Is that correct?

    Since Origin needs to be running for some unknown reason, I would atleast like to open the battlelog browser inside of Origin so I only have 2 things running… the game and origin….

    Still seems so odd but if its quick, I guess its ok…. still leaves a salty taste in my mouth :(

  86. 19/08/2011 at 19:47 gwathdring says:

    I feel like some people have been reacting a bit fast. First off, you don’t have to Alt-Tab. When you want to leave the server, you can close out of it, browse for a new server, and then connect. The issue that I see here is more to do with how quickly all of this works on machines with the minimum system requirements. I also don’t like the idea of needing to log in twice once to the bowser and once to Origin; this would get extremely taxing for anyone who has a multi-user computer and doesn’t want to auto-login to anything. I would also like to know why they didn’t create an overlay application, sort of like Steam’s, that contains a little mini-web browser specifically optimized for their Battlelog website.

    I’ve liked some OOG server browsers I’ve used in the past and have yet to find an IG server browser that really did everything I want to outside of the one used for Valve games–and even that only sort of. They tend to be very slow and have terrible search functions. I’m all for any solution that gets me a better server browser.

    Personally, I often play games multiplayer games like BF2 and Team Fortress while waiting for friends to come onto Skype when we agreed to talk at some vague two or so hour span. I am often disappointed at how terribly these games respond to Alt-Tab, though I recognize it’s not necessarily an easy thing to code properly. I’ll think I heard a Skype message, tab out to check it, find it’s a false alarm, and then spend the next five minutes waiting for the game to come back. Some games with similarly decent graphics engines work just fine in these situations. I can Alt-Tab in and out of my Unreal Engine games pretty well. If they design Frostbite 2 to Alt -Tab efficiently … then I’ll be enormously happy whether or not the OOG server browser works. I want to be able to minimize my games quickly and efficiently and greatly appreciate games that give me this functionality. I’m guessing Alec Meer would agree.

  87. 19/08/2011 at 20:03 XM says:

    Sorry but I’m too sold on this game if I have to cart wheel and handstand before I can get to the server browser so be it.

    • 19/08/2011 at 20:26 gamma says:

      I sincerely hope you are able to enjoy what you can from it, and for that matter anyone that happens to buy into it.
      HST, for me and all those that know better* this is a terrible omen for the future of PC gaming, having all/most triple AAA games coming to this.
      *in the sense of having had a more pleasant gaming experience (subjective)

    • 20/08/2011 at 00:07 ShineDog says:

      It’s one of the best browsers I have used. If this is an omen for the future of PC gaming then let it roll.

    • 20/08/2011 at 04:32 gamma says:

      @ ShineDog

      I souldn’t be too wrong to say that most people here voicing their concerns, would also love to come to play the game, given all the trailers/alpha videos/etc., it is indeed very appealing. Personally, it is terribily contradictory, wanting to play it so much but having, at the same time, to put up with some bellow par standards. I hope ultimately people will voice their discontent with their wallet.
      Obviously, when a say a “terrible omen” I mean where it lacks… NOT where it apparently excels.
      I totaly remember the antecipation I felt for MW2 at the time before launch (trying to relive some awsomeness I had with Delta Force Series > LAN Parties of 8 people, if you haven’t tried something like that you really have to), when it become official dedis were taken away from the release, they nailed the last coffin for me, in fact it was about that time that I heard about BC2 as an alternative. EA/DICE will not benefit from better treatment from me. I will happily find something else.

      Those people, unable to see that we, as gamers, are getting less and less, as soon as Publishers step in on the projects, in comparison to what we had some years ago, will never know better, and will pay more.
      Before we had Modding/Dedis(LANs)/Official and Community maps/Endless games life cycle/Tight Clans (despite International also)/Even BOTS AI contests/…
      This is too much to loose for higher priced games that can simply switched off in not too distant future (a Publishers’ discretion), this is the “terrible omen” I mean.

      Those who have a console background never experienced this, it makes too little difference to them. Fine! Don’t expect those experienced in PC gamming to follow hapily.

    • 21/08/2011 at 16:11 XM says:

      If it was old EA I would be worried and DICE will not let their game down I’m sure. BF3 main focus is on PC and what PC players wanted. That is why they are making a lot of fuss about prone, jets, 64 players and high end detail.

      They didn’t even bring a 360 version to Gamescom so us PC gamers should be happy this is not a copy past game from the 360.

      Plus gamers from the Alpha love the interface and the devs say it will work.

      “Battlelog is the PC main menu,” stressed senior gameplay designer Alan Kertz on Twitter. “You go straight from Battlelog to playing. No splash screens, no menus. Just straight to the playing.”

  88. 19/08/2011 at 20:54 dsi1 says:

    Boy I can’t wait until one of the major browsers updates and breaks BF3 for millions of people! Great work EA!

  89. 19/08/2011 at 20:57 Reikon says:

    This is completely sensationalist and a non-issue. There’s really no functional difference between hitting exit and returning to an in-game browser and hitting exit and returning to a website server browser. You’ll immediately find the list of servers on both, and upon joining you will hit the loading screen directly on both.

  90. 19/08/2011 at 21:24 Etherealsteel says:

    It just doesn’t make sense to have to alt+tab out of the game to change servers or quit the game to do it. Explain to me how that makes any sense? Battlefield has had the in game server browser on PC ever since BF1942. I sometimes have to change servers b/c of lag, hackers, people being asshats, or the server crashes. It’s an inconvience and what’s worse is console actually gets an in-game server browser, that’s ass backwards EA/Dice.

    • 19/08/2011 at 22:17 Reikon says:

      It doesn’t make sense just because it’s been historically done in-game. Like I posted just above, functionally there is no difference. In both cases, you press esc, click exit game, and you are basically instantly brought back to the server browser, whether in-game or in a web browser. In both cases, you find a new server, click join, and you’re already loading into that new server. There is absolutely no functional difference. There are no logos or main menus to go through with the web browser method because the website IS the main menu.

      In fact, compared to BC2, it’s faster since it’s in a web browser. All the stat syncing is done server-side so there’s no ridiculously slow stat syncing when you log in or quit a game.

  91. 19/08/2011 at 23:01 trollfacejpg says:

    Pretty obvious to everyone who has played Alpha that the author of this story hasn’t. No logos, no intro cinematic, etc… It is functionally the same as BF:BC2 and probably even faster since it doesn’t have to sync stats after every session.

    I would appreciate the authors research what they are crapping on before they crap on it.

    • 20/08/2011 at 00:06 ShineDog says:

      Absolutely. This is causing people to explode with rage and it’s annoying because the browser is REALLY GOOD. closing the game takes no time at all and loads are stupidly fast.

  92. 20/08/2011 at 00:12 matrices says:

    You’d think by now that some of the more intelligent game devs would get together and just standardize one of these server-finding and matchmaking systems. That way no one has to reinvent the fucking wheel every single time.

  93. 20/08/2011 at 00:13 stupid_mcgee says:

    Yeah, just alt-tab or alt-f4 the game down and then load up your browser, browse to the page, select the game, wait for it to load back up or alt-tab back in! How simple! So much more simple than browsing and loading a game in-game, right!?!?

    Seriously, are we reverting to some fucking dark age here? We’ve only had server browsers in-game since, oh… what, just over a decade now? Hell, you may have needed to know the IP addy, but even the first Quake and Doom could connect in-game.

    Also, to everyone saying that in-game browsers typically don’t work; I have NO idea what you’re talking about. Maybe Battlefield is notorious for having crappy browsers, but the vast majority of games that I’ve played over the years have had perfectly fine in-game server browsers. Seriously, if DICE’s brand new game can’t meet up to Quake 3′s implementation standards, then something is going very, very wrong at that studio.

    (still, if it can be done reliably and efficiently on console, why not on PC?)

    • 20/08/2011 at 00:22 ShineDog says:

      You don’t know what you are talking about.

      The browser functions as the main menu for the game.

      You choose your server from the browser, the map loads. (in the background so you can fart around on the game forums or with your stats). You skip the loading of the main menu, splash screens, anything like that. From you picking a server to being ingame take less time that picking a server in BC2 and being ingame.

      When you quit, the game unloads faster than it took BC2 to go from ingame to the main menu. You are deposited looking at Battlelog.

      People are complaining because it is different, ignoring the fact that it works, really, really well. Alpha players have used it, and pretty much everyone I know who was in the Alpha loved it. You’re flailing angrily without realising it’s a really good, fast way to do it.

      (Also, group joining of the servers works fantastically. Form a Battlelog group, pick a server, and have reserved spots while everyone loads in. Every game should have that feature.)

    • 20/08/2011 at 00:44 Respen says:

      @ShineDog I think he makes great points. You are right, the browser does function as the main menu for the game… and that is exactly the point. There is no reason that the GAME shouldn’t be the front end for the GAME. We’ve evolved past this, there is no point in going back, none.

      While load times were shorter than most, mostly because of the lack of splash screens, they were not as quick as going from the BC2 server browser to the game. Not for me anyway. Not to mention closing the game, relaunching and having 3 programs open. Really? There is no logical reason for this, it’s just sloppy and lazy.

      I love change, when it is better. When steam came out and forced me to register to play… I didn’t mind at all.. it ment I could throw away my disks and download DoD eazy peazy, I was also happy when windows 7 launched because it was a change that involved foreward momentum. This is regressive change, and while the game runs fine, the launcher really does it an injustice.

      Remember UT3? The UI for that was “too consolized”, the core game was pretty damn good if you ask me, but people couldn’t get over the crap UI and the game did terribly… and at least UT3 had a UI. BF3′s new innovative idea is to take it out of the game whilst requiring 3 executables to be running in order to play? Seriously? I couldn’t have made this shit up.

    • 20/08/2011 at 01:01 ShineDog says:

      Sorry, you can’t ignore the speed of skipping the menu load just because you decide it doesn’t count. (Also, you’re ignoring the fact that the engine is more intensive than the BC2 engine and you would expect longer loads regardless.)

      Sure, 3 programs open. As opposed to 2 with steam. This just isn’t an issue though, if you’re worrying about the ram for a browser window you’ve got bigger worries trying to get BF3 running, and I can’t reasonably dismiss the fact that this was a very, very fast server browser, which loaded my game very quickly while allowing me to use the browsers other features while the game loaded in the background. It was simply as fast a browser as I’ve used, and for those reason I’d call it a step forward, not a step back.

      I’d also wager the main reason for going for this is a QA one. You can tweak and make changes to the browser without needing a whole

      ALso – you mentioned relaunching as an issue. I don’t get this, its just doing it’s very quick map loading again. Closing the game functions basically identically to exiting a map, except no time loading the games menus.

    • 20/08/2011 at 01:52 Spider Jerusalem says:

      Maybe he’s worried about launching his fucking game through facebook.

    • 20/08/2011 at 08:39 kibayasu says:

      Maybe you’re more worried about making stupid hyperbolic statements than dealing with actual facts.

  94. 20/08/2011 at 02:00 RabidOyster says:

    I thought the web browser was super slick in the beta. I liked it a lot.

  95. 20/08/2011 at 02:21 Indigowd says:

    Being part of the Battlelog dev-team, I find this discussion very interesting. I am glad to see that the vast majority of the people who tried the alpha liked the experience.

    My apologies to those who had issues during testing, but the feedback we got was very valuable. Both when it comes to bug reports, feature requests and user experience. Some would say the very reason to have an alpha trial!

    To those who haven’t yet tried the Battlelog server browser, I hope you get the chance in beta to make up your own mind.

    It’s actually really simple: We’ve set out to make the best server browser in the history of online gaming. If we didn’t think this would be a web based server browser, we wouldn’t have put it on the web.

    • 20/08/2011 at 05:06 gamma says:

      @ Indigowd
      Respect for having showed up officially, conspiracists have a field day here with so many apologetic comments for such a debatable issue.

      “We’ve set out to make the best server browser in the history of online gaming.”
      By all means, DO make the best! But why have you come up with an external one to the game executable?

      “Whenever I am in a 3D fullscreen application, in terms of Graphics User Interface, what I want the most is to ALT-Tab switch”

      “Whenever I am in a 3D fullscreen application, in terms of Graphics User Interface, in order to change some application settings/whatever the most smooth/elegant way to do it is to exit from it first, apply changes in some external application, and launch it again. Much smoother that way, and inovative”

      Instead of me speculating, are you free to clarify the reason why isn’t the Server Browser integrated within the Game? Technical reasons? Project design constraints? Business Model? Publishers’ requirement?

      Quoting Alan Kertz Twitter:
      “@nforceSC Don’t alt tab, just shut it down. It starts up REAL fast.”

      Even Alan seams to prefer a “shut it down” than a “alt tab”:
      “if I am having a hiccup, I rather have a fast one, wait… a slower than the other but still “REAL fast” one.”

      Makes you wonder alright.

    • 20/08/2011 at 11:08 ShineDog says:

      If you want to make changes to the settings you’re either doing it in game or in the main menu. People keep saying like something is different here, but it’s not. If you’re making a change in the main menu you’ve got to reload the renderer anyway to see the effects, if you can make them ingame then great. But you can still do that here.

      As for the whys, The simple fact of it having the fastest loads I’ve seen would be enough for me, (You never close the main menu, never have to reload it, because it’s a resource light browser, so it’s fast.) Theres also a clear QA benefit with being able to change elements of the browser on their end without pushing a patch to the userbase, which also means no difficult rollback if something goes wrong.

      And why does shutting it down instead of alt tabbing make you wonder? This is literally as fast as going from your game to the usual ingame menu, probably faster. You’re getting excited over it being 2 seperate apps comlpletely ignoring the fact that it works fantastically.

    • 20/08/2011 at 13:15 Indigowd says:

      @gamma
      “Instead of me speculating, are you free to clarify the reason why isn’t the Server Browser integrated within the Game? Technical reasons? Project design constraints? Business Model? Publishers’ requirement?”

      Sadly I am not free to clarify, and I am not the right person to do so either. It isn’t the case of someone forgetting to add an in game server browser to the roadmap though, as a poster suggested in an earlier comment :)

    • 20/08/2011 at 13:47 Respen says:

      “the vast majority of the people who tried the alpha liked the experience.”

      While the overall experience was decent, there was deffinatley a few snags. The nvidia driver causing constant crashing until it was updated the day before the alpha was over being one. The lack of in game browser being another. It was easy to ignore these issues because, the game being in alpha, it was easy to write them off as issues that would not be in release.

      I’d like to see a poll of the userbase as to who on earth would actually prefer to launch their $60 game from a web browser just like some free 2 play junk. I’m sure it wouldn’t be many. I’m so dissapointed about this, I Battlefield 3 was literally the game that inspired me to finally get some computer upgrades going… and today I’m going to gamestop to cancel my preorder. I’m floored.

    • 20/08/2011 at 15:13 gamma says:

      @ ShineDog
      There was a time in gaming when you used to change video settings from a external launcher application, we didn’t know better. Then the time came where you could do that from the game menu, improvement. Then games began to allow for those changes from a running map, yet another improvement. Lately most of the video settings don’t require a renderer reload and you do it on-the-fly, as smooth as it can be experience.
      Note the trend, now for each and every server access and/or browsing you simply have to reload the game, something which is network related and not graphics. This does not agree with the trend.

      You might have a point in regards to QA and updates deployment, but still it ammounts to a “kill switch” which, I, as a consumer, am not welcoming either.

      I will try open beta and ultimately, form my opinion regarding this, and stop wondering then. But no matter how simple it is possible to state the problem, it is still there and also adds up to the other issues. As some commenter observed this could simply be a fait divers in order to distract from other significant problems.

      @ Indigowd
      I didn’t expect otherwise, it would even be more ridicule. Curiosly DICE is getting the most flak where criticism is shown in regards to the browser, from people not knowing ESN developed Battlelog. Anyway, thanks again for what it’s worth.

      I speculate this came as a business decision from the higher echelons of EA, following the Software as a Service model or a subset of it. If this makes sense for some applications where both the provider and the costumer win, it does not for games where only the provider does. A Gamer is not some Corporation you can keep milking with termed maintenance contracts, despite EA’s whishes.

    • 20/08/2011 at 23:47 ShineDog says:

      The trend is very much still for games to require a restart to change graphics options, Sure, some games don’t. (There are still a small but significant number of games that force major options changes through the launcher. Fallout, for example.)

      Something you are missing. You could change the graphical options in game in BF3 without a reload. The options were limited, but they’ve stated you’ll have more control in the full game. You’ll also have control.

      Anyway, it’s the browser that’s getting everyones goat, not the graphical options, and yes, it doesn’t agree with the trend, but it’s doing things a completely different way. Most games use a frontend that takes a bizarrely long time to load, before you even look at launching the game engine. That’s a trend, but browsers are really fast and pretty light. Moving it over to the browser makes things faster, not slower. The loading time to actually start the map (which again happens in the background) is shorter, and that’s despite the game loading fresh. Similarly, the time to shut the game down and be back in the browser is no longer than the time to leave the game and go back to the main menu in BC2.

      You’re assuming that the general trend is inherently better, and there is no reason this is the case, and most people who have actually tried it are very happy.

      http://forums.electronicarts.co.uk/battlefield-3/poll-29774-what-your-opinion-using-battlelog-server-browser-bf3.html This seems to tie in nicely with what I’ve seen from Alpha users, and most of the ones who disliked it were very much in the “I don’t like it because it’s a browser” camp, seemingly ignoring the fact that it goes faster.

      @Respen – Case in point. He literally says “it was decent” and then says he’s cancelling his game because of it. Boggled.

    • 21/08/2011 at 00:04 gamma says:

      @ ShineDog
      I reserve my ultimate “like”/”silent dislike” (already very facebooky here lol) for when I am able try the beta out. At least we can still try before we buy in this instance.

    • 21/08/2011 at 00:16 ShineDog says:

      Are you? You said below you think we are all losing out because of this.

    • 21/08/2011 at 00:55 gamma says:

      I am curious to exacly know how wide my throath is, if in fact I am able to swallow such hindrance in exchange for the awesome actual game that seams to be brewing.

      Will I chase the carrot enough to taste it’s orange, and for how many stick hits.

    • 21/08/2011 at 01:51 ShineDog says:

      WHAT hindrance? It’s fast! It’s easy! You’re just assuming that it’s somehow slow and clanky and crashes all the time and shits all over your performance and it’s crap and terrible and even though most people who played the Alpha thought it was pretty fuckin good you just ignore that.

    • 21/08/2011 at 03:42 gamma says:

      I didn’t realize I was assuming that much. Do I want to know more?
      You have more than buzzwords elsewhere, where I try to make a proper argument.

    • 21/08/2011 at 10:43 ShineDog says:

      Do you hell, you’re making wild assumptions about how bad it is. I’ve used it. I know it’s good.

  96. 20/08/2011 at 03:41 haihaiq says:

    i love this game,i hope we can supply for our
    shoping…..
    http://bit.ly/n6SVQy

  97. 20/08/2011 at 05:52 wazups2x says:

    I won’t be buying for this reason. I have Red Orchestra 2, which has an in-game server browser, so I’ll be fine.

  98. 20/08/2011 at 11:45 My2CENTS says:

    Come on, everyone that think browser addon is positive feature think is an idiot.

    Cons:
    - Why would i need a 100MB more RAM for something that should be in the game anyway?
    - Why should i compromise my privacy and security and install an EA addon – for all i know it could track my website visits.
    - As in the alpha the server-browser reported incorrect pings, time-outed on most servers and generally was an awfully slow to find a good server.
    - Why do i need Origin to just sit in the background and take resources,when its only purpose is to open a web-page?

    Pros:
    - None (BFBC2 have all this in-game and its not good,but far better).

    Reason: DICE did it, because even if someone crack their beloved game they have to collocate a data-center just to have more than 100 people online. No one can convince me that piracy is not the main reason behind this stupidity.

    Actually the idiots though hmmm… lets see how can we destroy this game… i got it lets add the most useless yet uncomfortable for legit players anti-piracy measures known to man.

    Things like this shows how pathetic DICE are, they have a good project, but they cripple them self with idiotic maneuvers like this one. I HATE browser-based games i don’t see why i should give 50 bucks to have the same shitty experience as Battlefield: Heroes… so i won’t.

    DICE can never make a proper PC based shooter, doesn’t matter what arguments you might bring to the table, they just shoot them-self in the foot when try to “re-invent’ the wheel. The second they started to make console titles, they forgot what PC is all about – its about the freedom to do what you want, to be unrestricted by anti-piracy measures and flawed architecture.

    • 20/08/2011 at 15:22 gamma says:

      I wouldn’t be so sure DICE is the culprit here…

    • 20/08/2011 at 22:10 kibayasu says:

      I love how you make sure to note that absolutely anybody who likes Battlelog clearly couldn’t be a “legit” player.

    • 20/08/2011 at 23:37 ShineDog says:

      The RAM complaint is the only valid one I can think of, and 100mb of RAM is complete peanuts for a machine capable of running BF3. I’ll grant that it’s an issue, but not a major one.

      Compromising security with an EA plugin is a non argument. You’re installing the game and all of the services it requires regardless.

      As for the game reporting incorrect pings? No more than any browser, and saying it was slow is just an outright falsehood, it was far faster than the BFBC2, CODBO, and TF2 browsers. This may well be down to a smaller pool of Alpha servers, but you’re talking in pure falsehoods here

      You say “none” in terms of pro’s, ignoring the fact that it’s far, far faster than BFBC2s browser. It’s just out and out superior, whether it’s in time to load a map or time to return a search.

    • 21/08/2011 at 00:39 gamma says:

      How much bloatware we have to put up with… Realy?
      Origin, Battlelog, Browser of choice, Plugin (unavoidable in order to have proper pings from a web browser)…
      If only all this functionality was integrated in the same executable, I could simply ignore all those features EA/Whoever wants us to believe are mandatory to play a game. There is a high chance that the patching will be orders of magnitude worse due to interaction between all these apps, despite the fact that some of these are centrally accessible with easier deployment.

    • 21/08/2011 at 01:49 ShineDog says:

      This way they can patch the browser without patching the game. It’s going to be easier to patch, not harder.

      And yes, the system overheads are the only issue I can possibly raise with this, and being honest they are small. Again, if you can run BF3 you can spare 70 or so meg for Chrome or IE or whatever. We don’t live in the Dos era where every MB of RAM is crucial. I can’t bring myself to cry about bloatware when the system as a whole ran far quicker than BC2.

    • 21/08/2011 at 03:59 gamma says:

      I say harder in the sense that there is more to cope with.
      3 Development Teams to coordinate with:

      DICE > Game > Server Data
      ESN > Battlelog > Server Data and Friends (web application + plugin versions for each supported browser API)
      EA? > Origin > Authentication

      I stand by my statement, it is more prone to error than not, despite part of it being centrally deployed. And you will not magically subtract from the equation those bugs and subsequent patches required by the game alone which are not related with the server browser.

      Those are 3 vectors for error, 2 more than usual, with an added layer of complexity/functionality due to added features (social) that, since is not optional, has to be integrated, between all apps.

    • 21/08/2011 at 19:38 My2CENTS says:

      I have no problem with the ~100MB that it can take, the problem is that it can go without it. Also how can you bluntly pass over EA’s plugin. Why should i compromise my system’s security for a server-browser, and that it requires is no excuse for this plugin. And what if there is a bug in the plugin and some sites use it for hijack your browser? Also the browser IS reporting incorrect ping, probably it was a plugin bug or something JS related, but don’t fool yourself this bugs will happen from time-to-time.

      What PROS you get with web-based server-browser – NONE. They could’ve just fixed the server-browser from BC2 and create the same “Battlelog” experience with the player data they collect. Anyway i won’t waste my time with this piece of shit, it maybe a good game but all the bullshit around its too much for me. Plus all the bugs and no patch saga would eventually drive me away from it.

      To summarize: Web-based server-browser is NOT a good idea, its in fact a very stupid one.

    • 21/08/2011 at 20:37 ShineDog says:

      The fact that it’s far faster to get into a game is a pretty solid Pro, sorry if you don’t agree. There is a reason that most people who used the browser in the Alpha liked it. It is a good browser, which ultimately is all that matters.

  100. 20/08/2011 at 18:51 gamma says:

    For those who remember, but specially for those who never experienced better (I assume younger gamers, people who started playing on PC more recently and could not know better)

    BF2 Server Browser – Joining New Servers
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxtNLMwgr1g
    (really go see it 2:12 mins long, and first few secs will drive the point home)

    We, gamers, are all loosing with Battlelog being forced down on our throaths. Every social features that Battlelog adds we could already have by having access to a web Browser and an apt official community website, as an added and integrated feature with the industry standard (instead of as an exclusive). Please don’t try and convince me that by loosing we are “gaining”. This is the all famous carrot-stick metaphor, and way too many people are falling.

    Overall, EA wins (more business and old school gamers hate), ESN wins (more business), DICE looses (reputation and eventually busines also), gamers loose (user functionality as a trade for dubious added features).

    I would note the fact that ESN is making business is no issue to me, I am certain their products are worthwhile given a fit project. I tend to relay the fault for this one on EA.

    I hate this trend where intermediaries and middleware have a higher vote then developers and costumers.

    • 20/08/2011 at 23:59 ShineDog says:

      How are we “loosing?” (Nice job bolding the spelling mistake for us) You have the community features? Sure, and you can ignore them completely. The web browser is, as most people who played in Alpha will tell you, faster and slicker than any server browser in the BF series so far, which really good group join features on top of that.

      Look at the poll linked above, the vast majority of people who used Battlelog found it to be an improvement. It was a very solid browser, returned server responses quickly, and launched the game quickly on my old shitty machine. It works well, the fact that it’s in a browser which you see as somewhat backwards doesn’t alter the fact that it’s a damn good browser.

    • 21/08/2011 at 00:29 gamma says:

      yeah… sry for that mispelling, you did catch the point, yes? Have you traced my main language yet? nvm

      What we are losing is a 15 yo tried and tested method of which an example is provided, for all of those oblivious to it, therefore easier to addere to whatever method is presented no matter how better/worse. I think scepticism totally applies here, specially since the method requires the use of a technique which is known to be unstable (ALT-TAB from 3D app), which you reach out as a last resort being introduced “by design”. Technical insuficiency from DICE? Not likely (despite the track record).

      And by some blue sky coincidence this happens to allow a seamless usage of a social framewerk which can only be related to gaming as an EXTRA, not the main course. I prefer to socialize in person… and sometimes I just want to play the stress out in a game. Business decision, another milking tit which I am not interested in, which could be there as an option for those who dig it.

      I had seen the poll before, and the positive side is growing, point taken. To clarify, the browser being good is obviously NOT the problem, the fact it is EXTERNAL is, you have a seamless social network experience, but not a seamless server browser/game experience, how can someone have them seperated?!

      The issue stands still. My judgement will be final through the beta, I’ll keep my scepticism till then.

    • 21/08/2011 at 01:45 ShineDog says:

      If youve already decided that we’re losing out, that isn’t just scepticism. Your minds made up.

      We aren’t losing a tried and tested method. It works exactly the same in practise. Exactly. 100%. You’re worried about having to Alt Tab? They’ve already said you don’t need to alt tab. Just quit the server, exactly like you would do in BFBC2, exactly like you would do in MW2. Quit the server and be back at the browser in seconds, because that’s how fast it is. How are you losing out here? How is this, in practise, any different to BC2? It isn’t. It fulfils exactly the same function, and actually does it better.

      You’re assuming that it isn’t seamless when it is. It isn’t a technological deficiency on the part of DICE, they’ve chosen it this way because it makes things fast and easy and actually cuts down on loading times. (Skipping the menu load, makes a biiiig difference.)

    • 21/08/2011 at 02:52 gamma says:

      No ShineDog, I haven’t decided anything, beyond keeping my scepticism. The legitimate deciding party here is EA/DICE/ESN, decision brings about responsability, I have none in the state of the affairs.

      “It works exactly the same in practise. Exactly. 100%.”
      That is just mythology, pure dogma. And since you mentioned speed, which is not my main issue with it…

      Again, please, check the video:
      Bring Menu / Updating Server List (filtered) – 10secs
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxtNLMwgr1g&t=10

      Update Server List Only (filtered – total of 475 hits) – 3 secs
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxtNLMwgr1g&t=29

      Update Server List Only (all servers – total of 1108 hits) – 9 secs
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxtNLMwgr1g&t=45

      (continues)

    • 21/08/2011 at 02:52 gamma says:

      (continued)

      Instant return to the running game after checking – <1 sec
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxtNLMwgr1g&t=80

      Total server browser load from running game – 3 secs
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxtNLMwgr1g&t=88

      Join another server minus map loading – 6 secs
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxtNLMwgr1g&t=120

      Beat that Battlelog! Repeat this many times, but having to Exit/Alt-Tab out the game. You will see were frustration might begin to mount. Qualify this “seamless” as many times you want.

      And for the sake of it: try making a video tutorial of the procedure to all these tasks… you would find a problem because, that I know of, any capturing application needs a fixed video setting running. This very video could not be redone for BF3 in one go as it was. You would need a 2D video capture for the browser interactivity and subsequently a 3D capture for the in-game, multiple times for every task involved and then edit it, etc etc…

      This is a very fringe usage, but goes to show how fundamentaly the new method changes the current state of the art. This is a techtonic change not a mere aesthetics one. A techtonic change is justified when there is something fundamentaly wrong, not when you intend to implement a new feature (which is what social features boil down to, and specially if there is objectionable use for them). Unless of course there is very important issue which so far as not been disclosed by the interested party which is, ultimately EA's Battlelog platform.

      Still on the speed issue.
      "Skipping the menu load, makes a biiiig difference"

      That just is NOT an honest argument, DICE can obviously, mantaining the system as it is, cut down load screens, as you can expect without me having to point it out.

      If there is none, there is a strong chance, that in Microsoft's Windows (Win32 API) implementation guidelines, somewhere, you will find something along the lines of "Do not implement your application functionality relying on ALT-TAB Operating System's resource alone, it's usage is to be avoided for routined tasks."
      Not to mention the User Interface Academia that have all the reasons to be ridiculing a triple A Company.

    • 21/08/2011 at 11:12 ShineDog says:

      Well hey, a 6 year old game has good response times on modern hardware. BF3 comes close to these times, but I cant check because, well, the alpha is finished.

      It’s woth pointing out that very few games these days let you even browse servers while in game. BC2 didn’t let you do it, the CoD games don’t let you do it, the only ones I can think of are Valves games.

      But saying that it is fast and seamless is not myth, not dogma. I’ve used it. You clearly have not. I do not care, for a second, if I cannot capture the process, you are right. This is a fringe issue, and thus utterly unimportant. End user experience is all that matters.

      As for Alt Tab being something you should avoid? Given that the ingame options are “quit server” like most other modern browsers, The alt tab method should probably not be seen as a feature. So yeah, somewhere it loses out over BF2.

      This doesn’t make the browser bad. People didn’t explode with rage over BC2s browser because they couldn’t browse it in game, they complained because it was slow and crap and didnt work.BF3s browser is quick to access and works well. I am sure there are faster browsers. That doesn’t make the one you have here bad.

      And I’m sorry. BF3 skipping loads is a dishonest arguement? Fuck off. This is a BIG part of why it is so fast. You can’t just dismiss it because no one else is doing it.

    • 21/08/2011 at 14:21 gamma says:

      And then people wonder why some topics turn into flamewars.
      What I mean, ShineDog, is that cutting load times by removing the intro/credits videos is not something you gain by introducing a web based server browser, it is a possibility in any circumstance. It is not a honest argument because this should be obvious to anyone, apparently I was wrong, some people DO need that to be pointed out.
      Actually many games allow to configure its settings (usually a settings.ini of some sort) where Video Intros can be turned off as an OPTION – ie Arma series, and many many more.

    • 21/08/2011 at 15:52 ShineDog says:

      Except it’s not just the intro movies. It’s the menu. When was the last time a games menu, even with movies disabled, loaded as fast as a web browser? Because I can’t think of any. They haven’t done this for no reason, they’ve done this because it’s a very convenient way to do things.

      And again, end user experience is the only thing that matters. During my first run with the Alpha I was initially hesitant. I wondered what was going on. Once I was actually in game I literally said “wow that was fast” to my buddy who was watching. Ultimately the technical side of why things were faster doesn’t matter a jot, only that the system is fast and convenient.

  101. 20/08/2011 at 23:25 snv says:

    All the Battlefield game browsers i remember sucked. From BF2 i hardly remember much more than how much that thing sucked. Almost all of them do.
    Quake 3 and Half-Life were good, they were fast AND you could specify very detailed filters.
    So, the news of an external application might actually be good news. For such a popular game as this will probably turn out to be, there might appear good third party launchers using the API – one can hope.

  102. 21/08/2011 at 02:49 gamma says:

    No ShineDog, I haven’t decided anything, beyond keeping my scepticism. The legitimate deciding party here is EA/DICE/ESN, decision brings about responsability, I have none in the state of the affairs.

    “It works exactly the same in practise. Exactly. 100%.”
    That is just mythology, pure dogma. And since you mentioned speed, which is not my main issue with it…

    Again, please, check the video:
    Bring Menu / Updating Server List (filtered) – 10secs
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxtNLMwgr1g&t=10

    Update Server List Only (filtered – total of 475 hits) – 3 secs
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxtNLMwgr1g&t=29

    Update Server List Only (all servers – total of 1108 hits) – 9 secs
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxtNLMwgr1g&t=45

    Instant return to the running game after checking – <1 sec
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxtNLMwgr1g&t=80

    Total server browser load from running game – 3 secs
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxtNLMwgr1g&t=88

    Join another server minus map loading – 6 secs
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxtNLMwgr1g&t=120

    Beat that Battlelog! Repeat this many times, but having to Exit/Alt-Tab out the game. You will see were frustration might begin to mount. Call this seamless as many times you want.

    And for the sake of it: try making a video tutorial of the procedure to all these tasks… you would find a problem because, that I know of, any capturing application needs a fixed video setting running. This very video could not be redone for BF3 in one go as it was. You would need a 2D video capture for the browser interactivity and subsequently a 3D capture for the in-game, multiple times for every task involved and then edit it, etc etc…

    This is a very fringe usage, but goes to show how fundamentaly the new method changes the current state of the art. This is a techtonic change not a mere aesthetics one. A techtonic change is justified when there is something fundamentaly wrong, not when you intend to implement a new feature (which is what social features boil down to, and specially if there is objectionable use for them). Unless of course there is very important issue which so far as not been disclosed by the interested party which is, ultimately EA's Battlelog platform.

    Still on the speed issue.
    "Skipping the menu load, makes a biiiig difference"

    That just is NOT an honest argument, DICE can obviously, mantaining the system as it is, cut down load screens, as you can expect without me having to point it out.

    If there is none, there is a strong chance, that in Microsoft's Windows (Win32 API) implementation guidelines, somewhere, you will find something along the lines of "Do not implement your application functionality relying on ALT-TAB Operating System's resource alone, it's usage is to be avoided for routined tasks."
    Not to mention the User Interface Academia that have all the reasons to be ridiculing a triple A Corporation.

    • 21/08/2011 at 17:07 gamma says:

      Since my stance is mostly principled, not hands on, here’s a good summation to check against an External means to access the Server Browser of any Game. Specifically the use of EXIT/ALT-TAB out of BF3.

      Principles of User Interface Design (a summation)

      The structure principle
      “consistent models (…) putting related things together and separating unrelated things”
      How come a server browser is unrelated to the game itself?

      The simplicity principle
      “simple, common tasks easy, communicating clearly and simply”
      I want to change server, NOT Exit (or ALT-TAB workaround) the game!

      The visibility principle
      “should make all needed options and materials for a given task visible without distracting the user with extraneous or redundant information”
      I am looking for a server to get into, NOT cybersocialize!

      The feedback principle
      “should keep users informed of actions or interpretations, changes of state or condition, and errors or exceptions that are relevant and of interest to the user through clear, concise, and unambiguous language familiar to users.”
      I was used to be able to just pick the server, now I have to EXIT the game altogether?!

      The tolerance principle
      “should be flexible and tolerant, reducing the cost of mistakes and misuse by allowing undoing and redoing”
      Damn I hit the EXIT button! I will just have to relaunch it instead of joining back.

      The reuse principle
      “should reuse internal and external components and behaviors, maintaining consistency with purpose rather than merely arbitrary consistency, thus reducing the need for users to rethink and remember”
      What was that faster workaround again? Command+Tab? Ctrl+Esc? ALT+TAB? ALT+CTRL+DEL?

      Almost in everyway the principles are violated. BAD DESIGN CHOICE!

      Regarding the inovation argument (perhaps this design will change the way we understand UIs!… ?), I really have try out and see. All the mostly good feedback is perhaps conforting… but dubiously by violating so many rules.

  103. 21/08/2011 at 07:49 barules says:

    I don’t know why people hate Origin so much.It works over here in Asia,unlike Steam and Gamestop and all that stuff,therefore it rocks.

  104. 21/08/2011 at 08:13 barules says:

    Can somebody please tell me how well Battlefield 3 alpha seems to run? I have an okay PC with an ATI 5670 1 GB DDR5,3 GB RAM,and a dual core 3.0 Ghz.Can I run it? Don’t care about high resolutions and all that,just want it to be playable.

  105. 21/08/2011 at 17:10 gamma says:

    Finally, since my stance is mostly principled, not hands on, here’s a good summation to check against an External means to access the Server Browser of any Game. Specifically the use of EXIT/ALT-TAB out of BF3.

    Principles of User Interface Design (a summation)

    The structure principle
    “consistent models (…) putting related things together and separating unrelated things”
    How come a server browser is unrelated to the game itself?

    The simplicity principle
    “simple, common tasks easy, communicating clearly and simply”
    I want to change server, NOT Exit (or ALT-TAB workaround) the game!

    The visibility principle
    “should make all needed options and materials for a given task visible without distracting the user with extraneous or redundant information”
    I am looking for a server to get into, NOT cybersocialize!

    The feedback principle
    “should keep users informed of actions or interpretations, changes of state or condition, and errors or exceptions that are relevant and of interest to the user through clear, concise, and unambiguous language familiar to users.”
    I was used to be able to just pick the server, now I have to EXIT the game altogether?!

    The tolerance principle
    “should be flexible and tolerant, reducing the cost of mistakes and misuse by allowing undoing and redoing”
    Damn I hit the EXIT button! I will just have to relaunch it instead of joining back.

    The reuse principle
    “should reuse internal and external components and behaviors, maintaining consistency with purpose rather than merely arbitrary consistency, thus reducing the need for users to rethink and remember”
    What was that faster workaround again? Command+Tab? ALT+CTRL+DEL? Ctrl+Esc? ALT+TAB?

    Almost in everyway the principles are violated. BAD DESIGN CHOICE!

    Regarding the inovation argument (perhaps this design will change the way we understand UIs!… ?), I really have try out and see. All the mostly good feedback is perhaps conforting… but dubiously by violating so many rules!

  106. 22/08/2011 at 13:43 majestyk says:

    OK, I now got origin and battlelog, what’s the next application I need to install in order to play the game?

  107. 22/08/2011 at 18:51 Pootie says:

    Woot they doin? Server browser not ingame? Oh dear lord, no. I see so much trouble with this battlelog thingy comin. Mark my words!

Comment on this story

XHTML: Allowed code: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Respond to our gibber

Read our finest words

Making It With Science: A TUG Interview

Search for clues

Play indie, mods, demos

Browse the archive