Discussion in 'Games, Gaming & Game-demos' started by Stone Gargoyle, Jan 31, 2013.
its marketing crap
Won't be surprised at all.
It's a way of saying "you will need a more powerful computer".
I just hope it runs good on PC's that can run BF3 perfectly fine.
i think they ment they optimized Frostbyte Engine, like they did with BC2.
Big maps doesn't always mean better. I liked playing conquest and rush in BC2, but in BF3.... hell no. They maps are too big and they are not as action packed as BC2's somewhat smaller maps. Either put more than 100 players in BF3 big maps or reduce the maps size to BC2's maps. I will prob get the "go play COD" reply now lol
Valparaiso RUSH. <3
Rush in BF3 is lol.
BC2 found just the right balance between level size and action bubbles where something was always happening right on your door step and you aren't continuously forced to seek it out in a way that takes forever. The only map where it went ala BF3 was on Heavy Metal but than that map is awesome just for the huge tank battles you can get going that fire from one side of the map to the other.
Oasis is probably one of my favourite maps.
I'm not jumping on the hype train either. BF3 had IMO the worst (and smallest) map selection of the franchise (counting only vanilla maps). A lot of teamplay mechanics from BF2/2142 got lost as did some important features.
I'm pretty sure BF4 will have some sort of Battlerecorder this time around and they are going to advertise it as a big feature. But if they still don't release server files for unranked servers and support modding, I don't see any reason to get this anytime soon - especially if after 10 years they still don't support more than 64 players. Hell, BF42 and BF2 have mods/modded servers that can take 120 players. And with big and well designed maps this shouldn't be a problem.
I'm still really hoping for more than 64 players on pc. My biggest concern is hit detection though. The client side hit detection for pc is a ridiculous joke. That crap needs to stay with the childrens console toys.
They wont release server files nor support modding = less money in their opinion. Publisher is EA, so....
Will this one actually have a single player this time, or will it be the same cliched crap the last one slung at us?
I think there's potential in a BF single player game, they just need to dial back the whole "Must be real and dramatic" crap.
And I know most people go into BF for the MP only, but... if DICE are going to include a single player... they need to make it worthwhile. Not just throw it in "because"...
This way they can control the fan base. Which in their mind = more money.
They are wrong of course, but EA is EA, the people buying their product is not their first priority, Their own wallet is.
If they released great games and treated their customer with respect instead of trying to control us, they will find people will like them and in turn they will make more money.
On EA Origin recently there was a survey asking would you recommend EA Origin to a friend, I voted No, Not at all.
Why? Origin does work alright now, it has to do with EA's attitude towards it's customer, It wants it all for itself, it is Greedy, it Lies.
Look at the new Sims game, at the base of it's problem is EA wanting to control the customer.
It has been proven that DRM does not stop illegal copies of a game, IT DOES NOT STOP ILLEGAL COPIES OF A GAME... all it does is make paying customers jump through hoops, and in some cases, stop paying customers from playing the game they bought with their hard earned dollars.
EA have published some very good games in the past, but the way they treat their paying customers, is quite frankly.. Disgusting..
While BF4 might just be the best Battlefield to date, I can see DICE doing some amazing new things in the title, I cant help but feel angry because of EA.
huh? I know there are people with different opinions. But BF3 SP was quite good. Certainly better than call of duty.
A few friends of mine didnt like the SP, too. Some did, i did
agreed, of course.
It was ungodly boring.
So tightly scripted and focused everything just felt so empty and lifeless. Yeah the game looked amazing, but... gameplay wise it's just... dull.
The only thing I remember about the single player is a QTE to kill a rat. And that's because it was so damned stupid. But, the rest of the campaign just blurs together with all the other overly cliche', tired and worn out modern war themed shooters.
Yeah, you can apply these on every new game, all (plain) vanilla, nothing special anymore. Only a few exceptions, but thats another topic
Maybe i was just so excited about it, cos im a huge BF fan that i connived the "scripted". It has nice atmosphere tho.
Don't forget that great app Origin.
Same here, although the BC2 campaign was more fun, the BF3 one was decent. I was surprised they even made one. The co-op was not bad either, just too short and limited to 2 players.
I think they should make it more like Bad Company 1, big maps and freedom which is what BF is about. Not "GET BACK IN THE COMBAT AREA!" when you take 3 steps from the main path.
Also some consistency would be nice, instead of being a different character in a different part of the world every mission, makes it feel like you're playing the levels in the wrong order or something
I doubt BF4 will be about Bad Company, but i hope they will not forget about it. I loved BC1 and 2. It had good gameplay, good humor and it was fun.
Hopefully BF4 wont disappoint!
All the maps in BF3 are small except for Armored kill and Gulf of Oman. Then again, I only found Gulf of Oman to playable with 32-40 players.
BC2 Rush on PC was an unbalanced linear cluster ****. 32 players is too much for BC2. Valparaiso with 32 players was grenade and explosive spam all over the place.