Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

Interesting, as Battlelog has been criticized by the gaming press including the Penny Arcade guys, who call it buggy and hard to use.

I have to say, too, that in my experience the more client-side state a web page keeps, the buggier it tends to be. Building applications this way is harder, and I hope we don't end up losing the characteristics that have made the Web so successful in the transition.

Battlelog by itself would be fine if it was just for statistics and socializing. On the PC it's also how you launch the game as there's no in game server browser. When you launch BF3 it launches origin which in turn opens your browser to battlelog. The context/app switching is annoying and slow as you go from your browser to the game and then back to the browser when it's time for a server change. When the game first was released and things were slow and buggy (in game and on battlelog) it was very painful.

I never had any problems, and I have to say it is easily the best server browser I've ever used. Valve's pre-TF2 updates one (still toggleable back on) is probably the only other one I've actually liked before. It's a huge improvement over DICE's browsers in the past, which have always been merely bad at best (the BF2 menu had to load when you pressed escape).

A lot of users complained that there was no feature to allow you to wait in a queue for a full server. So... they added it. Pushed a server update. No patch, no new binaries to download. A new checkbox simply appeared.

Now, there's no reason that this has to be in browser. EA and Valve both clearly have WebKit or IE implementations (I think I heard the "clicking" noise in the Origin browser) that play nice in fullscreen games. They could certainly be integrated as part of the game interface, but Battlelog makes it clear to me that HTML and CSS are the way to go with video game server browsers in the future.

During the first few days the game was out I routinely received errors trying to get the server list at all but as I've said, they have been incrementally improving battlelog since release. My biggest complaint is that the server browser isn't available in game. The game completely closes when leaving a server from in game or closing a game from battlelog. Then it has to be relaunched when starting the next game. This is really slow for many of us and there doesn't seem to be a very good reason for it. The use of origin also doesn't add anything for the player. I also would prefer being able to launch the game directly without having to open three applications (origin, browser, bf3).

Exactly. As it currently stands, battlelog is not an improvement over previous systems. If you were to compare the time it took to get into a game with friends on Bad Company 2 (the previous Battlefield game) and Battlefield 3 you'd see this.

I've heard the complaints about getting friends in game, and then on the same squads. I haven't run into this problem yet as none of my friends bought the game due to origin.

It definitely is harder.

I've done my shared of such web-application using GWT.

This technique, known as the "single page application" is like writing a desktop-app but with additional complexity such as maintaining a history on your own and deciding what "back" button action means depending on the context.

The other additional complexity is the "offline" mode. Now suddenly you have sync issues.

Pretty difficult even with frameworks.

in my experience the more client-side state a web page keeps, the buggier it tends to be.

I've noticed that too. You still need to load a fresh DOM from time to time. I'm sure future frameworks will have some sort of a semi-refresh where all of the static elements stay the same, but the framework runs a sort of cleanup on the DOM.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact