"I mean seriously...name one battlefield title that wasn't plagued with server browser issues at launch."

Here's an idea: Instead of pulling stupid shit like this, how about they hire someone competent enough to create an in-game server browser that actually works? That's insane, I know! Why would anybody do that? It just makes too much god damn sense.

Welp, DICE never was good at fixing stuff. That's why their games feel like early betas -- all laggy, wobbly and jittery -- even years after release. And yet millions of people will gladly go to the store and pay for their shoddily developed, regurgitated products time after time, every single year. Stupidity never ceases to amaze.

Man I remember All Seeing Eye...Crap was so awesome, lol. Playing on old Half-Life MP servers and Team Fortress Classic servers with it. It's not really a big deal at all if it's like that.

Yes, but in case of both these games and many other idTech based titles that I played using a third party server browser, you always had the option to use the in-game browser if you so preferred and, most importantly, you could just right click, copy th IP, paste it in the console and connect to a new server without having to restart the whole game. Can you do that in BF3?

all the alpha testers said they actually liked the new system.

So? It doesn't make it a good system. Certain people would like it even if DICE included a huge thorny dildo with each copy of the game that they'd need "use" to keep the game running. I can't reason with that.

Bubs for All-Seeing-Eye reference!

@k3x

Sooo if many people liked it and a lot of them said it was actually quicker to get into a game it's still bad according to you because it's "different"? Great logic -_-

Yes certain people will praise anything regardless of the quality (*cough* cod *cough*), but this hasn't been tried before, at least not in a Battlefield game so chill out and judge it after you've tried it.

"I mean seriously...name one battlefield title that wasn't plagued with server browser issues at launch"

If screwing up every time made screwing up again okay, we'd live in an exponentially more screwed up world.

Instead of excuses, I think we can demand something as simple as a competent built-in server browser.

@ superrey19

I'm guessing the difference lies in the fact that the server list in BF3 is displayed pretty much instantaneously as opposed to in-game server lists, where you download the entire server lists with all the additional data like player names etc. and have to wait for the entire process to finish.

Still, it's a dumb idea and one of many shining example of DICE's crappy design practices. You have the game running, you close it, you choose a server through your internet browser. You then start the game again, from scratch, at which point all the resources need to be loaded back into memory, even if the server you chose is running the same map you were playing a moment ago.

But sure, let's wait and see how it pans out. I know for a fact that the BF fanbois/COD haters will get used to everything DICE shoves down their throats. I can already imagine them telling the people that complain about the fact that the game needs to be restarted every time they want to switch servers to "upgrade their shitty computers," and thus once again pay for DICE's utter incompetence with money from their own pockets.

What I'm curious about is this: How can you rag on COD in one sentence and then go on to praise and defend a game like BF? They're almost identical products. Same pseudo-realistic team warfare bullshit for casual players who color themselves competitive for some unfathomable reason. Same rehashed ideas in slightly different packages every single year.

The main difference from the perspective of a gamer who hates both of these unimaginative cookie-cutter FPP borefests equally? At least COD uses an engine from a company that knows what they're doing (id), which enables it to function like a final version of a game and not some early beta that's bursting at the seams everywhere you look.

^ "You then start the game again, from scratch, at which point all the resources need to be loaded back into memory, even if the server you chose is running the same map you were playing a moment ago."

That would be an excellent argument IF the in-game server browsers actually kept previous map-data in its memory.
As it stands, most in-game server browsers suffer from the same points you mentioned against the web-browser... so what's there to complain about? O.o

Server browsers keeping previous map-data in their memory? What? The game does that. Unless it's restarted every time you change servers that is.

Loading new maps or restarting maps after the game's already been running for a while has always been drastically faster than loading them from scratch for the first time after launch. Just as it's much faster to reopen a large document in an application like, say, Adobe After Effects, that's already running, than to close the process and then reopen the whole thing again. This is how it's always been, in every application, in every game. You can't argue with that, though I'm pretty sure you'll try anyway.

Stop being such a fanboi and you might feel like less of a "O.o" to such an extent that you'll be able to formulate a response that isn't 100% drivel.

"what if the website goes down ??"
What happens if the master server goes down? It happens in BFBC2 on a regular basis for maintenance.

"what if the DNS at my ISP is down ???"
Then you can't play online anyway.

Your rationale makes no sense. How bout you people actually USE THE SERVICE BEFORE BASHING THE HELL OUT OF IT.

It's different than what you might be used to, but
IT. WORKS. PERFECTLY. FINE.

What makes no sense is why they thought it would be a good idea to get rid of the server browser

"what if the DNS at my ISP is down ??? or Fu*ked up (sometimes it happens where some websites work and some don't) "

Then.....that's a fault of your ISP....Not the game.

They didn't get rid of the server browser.. wow. You browse for servers through your actual browser and you can keep browsing until the game is loaded. Infinitely better than in-game server browsers.

@wicko so browsing servers through an internet browser such as firefox is more convenient than doing it in-game?

I was also in the alpha and I found the whole battlelog experience left me feeling disconnected and it was very buggy. Hopefully those bugs are gone and voice chat will be in game instead of through battlelog (which only makes sense if you are only going to play with your friends every time you play).

I just want them to release modding tools for bf3. Project Reality for battlefield 2 was/is my favorite "battlefield" experience to date.

Your edit makes no sense whatsoever.
Perhaps you should actually play on the PC?

The number of steps aren't all the different, and BF3's server switching was faster than BC2 because you didn't have to wait for the server list to load twice (not to mention the dreaded 'updating soldier' dialog)

- There is no 'extra loading' that you speak of.

- An in-game server-browser has nothing to do with 'shinny' graphics.

- What on earth is a 'static' browser?

- You do realize that PC fanboys are stereotypically whiny babies that cry over the smallest details, right?
Check the article about FromDust if you need assurance.
If they're fine with it, then chances are, it's not a big deal.

Who the fuck cares about a shiny looking server browser? Every server browser I have ever seen could easily be replicated in a browser. I'd much rather be able to browse around/check out stats then sit there staring at a loading screen. God you are dumb, jidery. Sounds like some PC gamers made your butt hurt.

U sound mad bro