Battlefield 4 in October 2013?

i dont know what to say. i just want to have fun in BF world but it seems like it is a bit far to GOOD TO HAVE GREAT FUN. ir somehow works but for my liking, it needs to get better. and i dont know how it is going to get better.

i want to play tonight a bit.
last night played a bit cod bo2 . had great fun in minutes. bullets does register good but indeed small maps, no destructible environments etc etc..iam wishing a mp fps game mix of these two great games.

 

Does it have russian version?

 

Its worse than counter strike source
In bf3 need have ping 50 or less
For me on german servers i have 70+100

 

Yeah i still popin to Bc2 from time to time, its still ok.
I love Atacama desert map.

 

BC2 is better than BF3 interms of that network latency stuff?

 

Yeeah. I've long since felt the same way. I have ~800 hours in BC2, and only around ~180 hours in BF3. I just can't do BF3 anymore. The damage model and maps usually force people to stand behind walls and peak out to shoot at the enemy from time to time, but usually nobody wants to move much because you die so fast. It results in a boring game I think. That, and the infantry\vehicle balance never felt right.

I also loved that you could actually jump in BC2. I hate the vault mechanic, especially when it fails and you get stuck on a simple railing. The guns and shooting overall felt more fun in BC2 as well. Maybe all the changes to make BF3 more realistic made it less fun for me. BF3 is successful for a reason... but it's not the game for me.

I might get BF4 if I can get 100 hours of it it, it's still a worthwhile purchase.

BC2 had its fair share of issues as far as netcode is concerned. A lot of shooting someone, seeing blood and hearing the headshot noise, but nothing happening.

 

Even BF2 had it. Can't remember how it was in 1942 as I only got to play that on LANs back in the day
It's a long-lasting issue and also has been one of the advantages I liked about CoD. If they got rid of that issue though, well, choices get much easier

 

yea the avatar felt like running in a tunnel also, no skill needed to shoot either.
love all Bf series but BF3 was a huge epic fail.
BC2 is ok but hopefully some at dice can get us the battlefield experience again.

 

Personally, as a person who was one year in the finnish army, I think the bolded part is what makes the game great.
It's more rewarding when you successfully make a mad dash across the open and flank the enemy. Overall I'm a fan of high risk high reward kind of gameplay, instead of a levelled playing field where you get a second or even a third chance

 

Yep same. I always tend to end up playing Atacama Desert, Oasis or Heavy Metal on lengthy tickets. All three maps are great for combined infantry/heli/tank battles. Atacama is prone to heavy base raping though if you end up on the wrong server.

If I have any real complaints about BC2 it's that the team balancing is at times god awful. I remember playing a game the other night where it was 3 of us vs 7 of them but luck was on our side and we fought back hard and soon enough people on the other team got fed up and left or changed to our team.

The most fun I actually had on BF3 recently was on a knife only server, was great fun.

 

I think we have to take a deep breath and not hype this garbage up you guys jinxed bf3 bigtime.
so no BS like "its made for pc then ported for console"
lastime


What i still wait for and never get is More classes(less guns) no regen anything

they know bf players only want k/d console cod people,is where its at now.

I might be wrong but i dought it.

 

Agreed 100%. Gunning and running is mindless and boring. Making it tactical is the true Battlefield hallmark and is the actual fun part. It's a smarter game.

- PR-0927

 

have to agree with PR and Xendance (long time no see!). it should feel like that. it's war, it's live rounds, it's your life on the line. if anything, what j2p described is realistic warfare. I like that stuff.

 

That's how it should be, yes. It didn't work very well for me, so far, due to numerous reasons though:

- bad AA, as in anti-aliasing. People were able to hide some meters away as long as they stood still because the post-processing AA only worked well up close
- clipping. People who were able to crawl below the map or hide within rubble, being impossible to see (as they were not drawn on others' screens) just doesn't work
- hitboxes / lag comp. If someone "head-glitches" (they call it that way, leaning out of a window for example) in CoD and only exposes two pixels of his player model it's possible to hit these two pixels and get a kill (the famous "big toe" kill in Hardcore mode ).
If I have to hit a random hitbox after bullet drop and spread have been applied though I ran out of luck very soon.
- map design. Newer CoD titles have this too but I simply hate maps which are only connected through some very obvious choke points. "Tactical waiting" easily turns into camping there.

Apart from the issues a tactical, slower-paced and game with a realistic approach is as good as it gets

 

Pre ordered my copy from gamestop when I went to trade in my ps3 copy of Resident Evil 6 because I bought it for pc,waiting for the beta now.

 

BF3 is nowhere close to be realistic tbh.

ArmA is here for that. BF3 is just trying to mix both world in, arcade and realism.

I don't know if the result is really successful, but they're trying at least.

 

I dont want this..

I want bad company 3


they should done a vote....

 

Use MSAA + downsampling. BF3's post processing AA bad.

 

There is no comparison when it comes to the Arma Series. And I laugh at the people that try to do so. Besides, I believe EA is trying way to hard to recruit the COD players and is failing miserably at it.

 

Sure, BF3 sits nicely between CoD and ARMA. not much wrong with that, BF series was never the "ultra" realistic series anyway.