Recommended Posts

I'm afraid Metro will leave many BF fans with a sour taste in their mouths after this beta.

Those that didn't get to play a second of Caspian Border, without a doubt will be left with doubt as to what direction this series has taken.

Seems the ones that are really enjoying Metro are the CoD types. Most of the time is spend in CQ combat underground. Like rats in a maze.

This isn't BF.

I feel they've done more harm than good by electing to have this beta at all.

Limiting the fan-base to Metro and not allowing the majority to experience a true "bf experience" found in CB is a huge mistake.

I could see alot of fans completely turned off by it.

For those true ol'skool BF fans in doubt that didn't get to play CB;

All I can say is BF3 is the real deal. Trust me, you haven't had a BF experience like this yet.

Video gameplay alone will not do it any justice. There's nothing like the experiences you'll find within the game.

Most of my awe moments weren't even in the heat of battle! The game will truly make a spectator out of you!

Played the beta for a while. Definitely better than BC2.

Some things I noticed:

No zoom toggle

Can't exit chat box by pressing ESC, you must press enter which sucks if you have something typed in it (seriously, haven't they learned yet?)

If you're at the deployment screen, your chat message doesn't go through.

Different types of chatting (All, Team, Squad) don't have an indicator over the chat box, sucks if you forget your binds

Hard to see enemies at a distance with the glowy and super HDR lighting system

Grenade throwing is awkward and you can't cook grenades

The arm/disarm bar on MCOM stations resets randomly (very frustrating)

Can't bind mouse3, mouse4, mouse5 (really??)

Still debating if I'm going to get this...

It's a beta damn it ... Most of these issues have been already fixed. The beta we're playing right now is an build from Gamescon.

And BTW, there is a zoom togle. Look in the options.

I'm afraid Metro will leave many BF fans with a sour taste in their mouths after this beta.

Those that didn't get to play a second of Caspian Border, without a doubt will be left with doubt as to what direction this series has taken.

Seems the ones that are really enjoying Metro are the CoD types. Most of the time is spend in CQ combat underground. Like rats in a maze.

This isn't BF.

I feel they've done more harm than good by electing to have this beta at all.

Limiting the fan-base to Metro and not allowing the majority to experience a true "bf experience" found in CB is a huge mistake.

I could see alot of fans completely turned off by it.

For those true ol'skool BF fans in doubt that didn't get to play CB;

All I can say is BF3 is the real deal. Trust me, you haven't had a BF experience like this yet.

Video gameplay alone will not do it any justice. There's nothing like the experiences you'll find within the game.

Most of my awe moments weren't even in the heat of battle! The game will truly make a spectator out of you!

Very well said!

It's a beta damn it ... Most of these issues have been already fixed. The beta we're playing right now is an build from Gamescon.

And BTW, there is a zoom togle. Look in the options.

well people are using this beta has a demo of the game, so EA should have given out a better beta client then... cause this is doing nothing but hurt them.

It makes me really, really happy to hear that the game shouldn't be judged on Metro. Having played that map a few times I felt like the game wasn't for me even though I enjoyed every other Battlefield experience I've had. Hopefully, Caspian Border isn't as bad. Metro feels like it's dominated by snipers, and the map feels way too like something from Call of Duty for my tastes. Don't get me wrong - I love Call of Duty, but it doesn't flow with Battlefield.

well people are using this beta has a demo of the game, so EA should have given out a better beta client then... cause this is doing nothing but hurt them.

Well I completly agree with you. They should have included caspian border for everyone. I saw videos of people playing it, and it looks freaking amazing.

713832725t.jpg

:D <3 UMP

Just so you know I don't think you have to screenshot either you can link to games battle reports like one I just played in for example

http://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf3/battlereport/show/247188/1/244017148/

Just so you know I don't think you have to screenshot either you can link to games battle reports like one I just played in for example

http://battlelog.bat...88/1/244017148/

Ahhh, I see. But can you only access recent Battle Reports? Or all of them - I can only access the most recent ones.

I think that Metro is a nice addition, its shows there not only making massive maps, that there appealing to the gamers which enjoy closer spaced games. You need to have a good strategy as attacking, as always with battlefield games, an initial rush and squad spawning at Point A and B can take them in the first minute.

Ahhh, I see. But can you only access recent Battle Reports? Or all of them - I can only access the most recent ones.

I believe they stick around around but only links to them in global report thing down bottom left shows newest ones i don't think there's any other logs of matches.

http://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf3/battlereport/show/251972/1/244017148/ :D

All I can say so far from the PS3 beta is.... **** All Snipers. :laugh:

O hell yeah lol, I think I went 0-9 against one guy who just always had the shot on me. To my shock I enjoyed playing it on the PS3 and might pick it up instead of waiting for a better PC.

First of all to everybody thinking of canceling their pre-orders, honestly wait for Caspian Border/Conquest! I know I know but honestly, as someone who played every BF so far, Caspian Border feels like a completely different game compared to Metro. And secondly, I wouldn't write Caspian Border off for the rest of the beta. They said that the testing is over, this could very well mean that they wanted to test if CB is ready for an Open Beta and release it later now^^ Yes, Metro is kinda bland and boring but if CB is any indication for the rest of the Conquest maps this game will be worth it's money, I'm sure! (and no I'm not a DICE/EA employee :p)

Extremely, extremely disappointed with the Xbox 360 beta.

The graphics are just... bad. Whoever said this would be a graphical triumph on consoles was dead wrong. There's an insane amount of pop-in, tearing, and extremely poor texture work. It doesn't hold a candle to something like Crysis 2 (to give a multiplatform example). It really does detract from the game because it's so muddy that players can sometime blur with the bad texture work, if that makes any sense. There's a lot of aliasing as well.

The gameplay is decent, but I hated both maps. Completely hated them. They're both ruled by snipers, and they're just poorly designed for player flow throughout the maps. There's no real consistent paths -- it's almost a maze in both, unlike previous Battlefield games. Hell, Battlefield 1943 was better than this. The controls really need to be tweaked, because there's some odd mapping choices. I didn't look to see if they can be remapped, but I doubt it. The best part of the beta were the sounds (truly amazing, to put it bluntly) and a top-notch display/interface appearance. There's a bit too many button presses for simple tasks like seeing the scoreboard, however.

I'm glad I didn't pre-order at this point. I know it's a beta, but it didn't leave me wanting to play the finished version.

Extremely, extremely disappointed with the Xbox 360 beta.

The graphics are just... bad. Whoever said this would be a graphical triumph on consoles was dead wrong. There's an insane amount of pop-in, tearing, and extremely poor texture work. It doesn't hold a candle to something like Crysis 2 (to give a multiplatform example). It really does detract from the game because it's so muddy that players can sometime blur with the bad texture work, if that makes any sense. There's a lot of aliasing as well.

The gameplay is decent, but I hated both maps. Completely hated them. They're both ruled by snipers, and they're just poorly designed for player flow throughout the maps. There's no real consistent paths -- it's almost a maze in both, unlike previous Battlefield games. Hell, Battlefield 1943 was better than this. The controls really need to be tweaked, because there's some odd mapping choices. I didn't look to see if they can be remapped, but I doubt it. The best part of the beta were the sounds (truly amazing, to put it bluntly) and a top-notch display/interface appearance. There's a bit too many button presses for simple tasks like seeing the scoreboard, however.

I'm glad I didn't pre-order at this point. I know it's a beta, but it didn't leave me wanting to play the finished version.

How did you play both maps on the 360?

Also, I personally did not see any of the graphic issues you mention on the 360 version, like pop in or tearing. Literally not at all. So I am thinking maybe it has something to do with one has their 360 set to as far as resolution?

Also, just one button press to see the scoreboard. Just press select once and either hold it for a second or do it fast, I forget which one TBH, but that one press will bring it up.

Extremely, extremely disappointed with the Xbox 360 beta.

The graphics are just... bad. Whoever said this would be a graphical triumph on consoles was dead wrong. There's an insane amount of pop-in, tearing, and extremely poor texture work. It doesn't hold a candle to something like Crysis 2 (to give a multiplatform example). It really does detract from the game because it's so muddy that players can sometime blur with the bad texture work, if that makes any sense. There's a lot of aliasing as well.

The gameplay is decent, but I hated both maps. Completely hated them. They're both ruled by snipers, and they're just poorly designed for player flow throughout the maps. There's no real consistent paths -- it's almost a maze in both, unlike previous Battlefield games. Hell, Battlefield 1943 was better than this. The controls really need to be tweaked, because there's some odd mapping choices. I didn't look to see if they can be remapped, but I doubt it. The best part of the beta were the sounds (truly amazing, to put it bluntly) and a top-notch display/interface appearance. There's a bit too many button presses for simple tasks like seeing the scoreboard, however.

I'm glad I didn't pre-order at this point. I know it's a beta, but it didn't leave me wanting to play the finished version.

I rarely saw snipers in caspian border, and its certainly not a map they could rule. When I played on pc it was mostly engineers. Metro is a crap map though.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • I think there will be a 27H1 for actual users of 26H1 The 25h2 supports ARM too : Snapdragon X, Snapdragon X Plus and Snapdragon X Elite
    • Poll: Grand Theft Auto VI price predictions, cast your vote by Pulasthi Ariyasinghe After years of waiting, Rockstar will be solidifying the launch date of Grand Theft Auto VI with the launch of pre-orders next week. While the studio has confirmed a date for this occasion, it is yet to attach a price to the highly anticipated game. So let's see what our readers think it will cost at launch. The Grand Theft Auto VI pre-orders will kick off on June 25 for digital and physical editions. Unless some last-minute changes happen, the release date will be November 19, 2026, across Xbox Series X|S and PlayStation 5. Unfortunately, there's still no information about a PC version from the developer or the publisher Take-Two. Now the question becomes, how much will Grand Theft Auto VI cost at launch? The game is predicted by some analysts to be the biggest launch of an entertainment product ever. With the amount of hype that has been built behind it and with ballooning development costs, Take-Two may price this Grand Theft Auto entry differently from other AAA titles. The current price of a AAA game is $69.99. That norm almost rose to $79.99 before calming down. But with such a massive release, Grand Theft Auto VI may be the game that pushes the boundary again. It's also possible that Take-Two keeps the price relatively low to increase the number of players that jump in early and keep them hooked on Grand Theft Auto Online to spend on microtransactions for years to come. Keep in mind that the below poll is asking for a prediction of the standard edition price, not a deluxe or any other special edition that Take-Two will introduce for additional benefits. Also, there is the chance of the company splitting up the campaign and online portions. If you think that will happen, put your vote on what you think will be the total cost of the two. Poll Poll: How much will Grand Theft Auto VI cost? $59.99 $69.99 $79.99 $89.99 $100 or more Submit Vote If you have a very specific prediction in mind, sound off in the comments below.
    • Would you please fix your graphics. They are outdated and don't fit the article.
    • The Light of Life? We actually do glow till our Death, study finds by Sayan Sen Image by Rafael Rendon via Pexels A study by researchers at the University of Calgary has found that living organisms produce an extremely faint light known as ultraweak photon emission, and that this glow appears to drop significantly after death. The research was published in the Journal of Physical Chemistry in April 2025 and quickly drew widespread attention, leading to more than 200 news stories about the findings. Ultraweak photon emission (or UPE), sometimes called biophoton emission, refers to tiny amounts of light released by living cells as a result of normal biological activity. A photon is the basic particle of light, and researchers say every living system examined so far, including plants and animals, has been found to emit these photons. The glow is far too faint to be seen by the human eye. “I suppose it has a little to do with people being reminded of auras,” says Dr. Christoph Simon, PhD, one of the authors of the study and a professor in the Department of Physics and Astronomy in the Faculty of Science. “It is a fact that living beings glow. It’s a very weak glow, but it’s there and visible with very sensitive cameras.” According to the study, the light involved is extremely weak, ranging from 10 to 1,000 photons per square centimetre per second across a spectral range of 200 to 1,000 nanometres. For comparison, a nanometre is one-billionth of a metre and is commonly used to measure wavelengths of light. Detecting emissions at such low levels requires highly specialized equipment. To study the phenomenon, researchers used electron-multiplying charge-coupled device (EMCCD) and charge-coupled device (CCD) cameras. These imaging systems are designed to detect extremely small amounts of light, including individual photons, while minimizing background noise. The technology allowed researchers to capture signals that would otherwise be impossible to observe. The team worked with the Human Health Therapeutics Research Centre at the National Research Council of Canada (NRC) in Ottawa to examine photon emissions in mice. Researchers took two-hour exposure images of the animals before and after death and compared the results. “We saw that the level of light that they emit – this biophoton glow – is distinctly different between living and dead animals,” says Dr. Daniel Oblak, PhD, an associate professor in Physics and Astronomy and the corresponding author of the study. The images showed a clear decrease in photon emissions after death across the entire body of each mouse. According to the researchers, this provided direct evidence that living and dead tissue produce different levels of ultraweak photon emission. “It’s a very small amount and it’s, of course, very tricky to detect,” Oblak says. The study grew out of discussions between Simon, whose research interests include quantum biology, and Oblak, whose work focuses on detecting light for quantum communication experiments. Quantum biology is a field that explores whether processes described by quantum physics, which studies matter and energy at very small scales, may also play a role in living systems. “Since I work as a quantum physicist on light detection for quantum communication, I thought that experimentally we have a lot of the tools to be able to detect the light,” Oblak explains. The researchers also investigated UPE in plants and found that the light changed in response to stress. When plants were exposed to higher temperatures or physically injured, their photon emissions increased. Chemical treatments also affected the glow. Among the substances tested, the local anesthetic benzocaine produced the strongest emission response when applied to injured plant tissue. These findings suggest that ultraweak photon emission is closely linked to biochemical and metabolic activity inside living organisms. Metabolism refers to the chemical reactions that allow cells and organisms to stay alive and function. Because these reactions change when an organism experiences stress, injury or disease, researchers believe UPE may provide a way to monitor those changes. The researchers stress that the glow is a physical and biological phenomenon, not a metaphysical one. Oblak says more research is needed to understand exactly how the light is produced and what information it may reveal about the condition of living tissue. “We must understand what that is to figure out what’s happening,” he says. “If we can understand how that relates to certain influences on the body – stress, diseases – then that could be used as a diagnostic tool.” The researchers believe the technique could eventually help scientists study health and disease without invasive procedures. Because UPE can be measured without adding dyes, markers or labels, it may offer a way to monitor whether tissue is healthy, damaged or alive. In plants, it could help researchers better understand how organisms respond to injury, heat and other forms of stress. While the work is still in its early stages, the study demonstrates that ultraweak photon emission imaging can provide a non-invasive and label-free way to observe biological activity. Researchers say the approach could become a useful tool for studying vitality, stress responses and other important processes in both animals and plants. Source: University of Calgary, ACS publication This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Year In
      hhgygy earned a badge
      One Year In
    • One Month Later
      AMV earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      AMV earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Collaborator
      ryansurfer98 went up a rank
      Collaborator
    • One Month Later
      Eurosoft10 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      513
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      171
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      82
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      74
    5. 5
      Michael Scrip
      72
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!