Battlefield 4 Review

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Head on over to Vortez this afternoon and check out their review of Battlefield 4 for the PC. While you are in the mood for all things BF4, you can read our handy BF4 Win 7 vs. Win 8.1 performance review and our BF4 video card performance and IQ review as well.

The twelfth installment of the Battlefield series, Battlefield 4 still uses the winning multiplayer formula of its predecessors, and why shouldn't it? It’s what’s made the series so popular in the first place and is what makes it stand out from the others. However, a single player campaign has also been added that continues on from the events of Battlefield 3’s campaign.
Click to expand...
 
I'm waiting for a true next-gen Battlefield game and not just BF 3.1, looking forward to that
 
I'm looking forward to the next exciting installment of the fascinating single-player component. What will they think of next?

The time they've wasted doing those could have been applied to fixing and improving multiplayer.
 
I'm looking forward to the day we have truly destructible environments, and not just scripted demolitions.
 
Focker said:
Some of you will never be happy with any pc games ever again.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty happy with Natural Selection 2 & Dota 2. Too bad I can't add any recent BF game to that list because of no mod support, derpified gameplay, community spplitting nickle and diming DLC, and "premium" subscriptions.
 
I'm looking forward to all of thee above. I am also looking forward to non browser based server selection. Nasty.
 
jmilcher said:
I'm looking forward to all of thee above. I am also looking forward to non browser based server selection. Nasty.
Click to expand...

When the whole browser based battlelog thing was introduced I was like you -- thought it sucked.

However when I want to play on a specific server and wind up in a queue to join, it's pretty damn nice just hitting 'join', and then surfing the web for a bit while you wait to join.

If I had to wait in game -- making my whole PC effectively useless for other tasks, then I'd get pretty pissed off. Not a fan of origin or EA in geneal, but the browser based game finder does work quite well. Stats galore as well if you are into that sort of thing.
 
FordFanboy said:
I'm pretty happy with Natural Selection 2 & Dota 2. Too bad I can't add any recent BF game to that list because of no mod support, derpified gameplay, community spplitting nickle and diming DLC, and "premium" subscriptions.
Click to expand...

I am a big Natural Selection 2 player, I'd advise anyone who hasn't checked it out, to, errr, check it out. haha.

It's an RTS/FPS hybrid with a very high skill ceiling. Also the graphics are some of the best out there.
 
collegeboy69us said:
When the whole browser based battlelog thing was introduced I was like you -- thought it sucked.

However when I want to play on a specific server and wind up in a queue to join, it's pretty damn nice just hitting 'join', and then surfing the web for a bit while you wait to join.

If I had to wait in game -- making my whole PC effectively useless for other tasks, then I'd get pretty pissed off. Not a fan of origin or EA in geneal, but the browser based game finder does work quite well. Stats galore as well if you are into that sort of thing.
Click to expand...

Alt tab or minimize?
 
yeah at first browser based server list seemed redonkulous, but it actually is quite an advantage, namely because it allows them to update it on a regular basis without having to require an entire game patch. Original BF2 server browser was a complete mess, and stayed that way for like 2 years before they finally got it reasonably functional. Plus you dont have to load up the entire game to see if there is any action out there.
 
Climber said:
Alt tab or minimize?
Click to expand...


And then you can't see when the queue's over, and the in-game browsers were clunky/slow/poorly laid-out/etc. always. The Battlelog browser is smooth as silk, has a ton of functionality with great friends list/chat/stats/loadout changing etc. utilities, and can be kept on your desktop alongside anything else you want when queued. Even without queueing it's still far superior to any in-game server browser I've ever seen.
 
GoldenTiger said:
And then you can't see when the queue's over, and the in-game browsers were clunky/slow/poorly laid-out/etc. always. The Battlelog browser is smooth as silk, has a ton of functionality with great friends list/chat/stats/loadout changing etc. utilities, and can be kept on your desktop alongside anything else you want when queued. Even without queueing it's still far superior to any in-game server browser I've ever seen.
Click to expand...

Battlelog doesn't find the servers close to me unless I spend 5 mins spamming page down. Even then most of them won't have ping info. It keeps finding servers in Europe when I live in NC. Hell it doesn't find most east coast servers for me. When Hardocp was sponsoring servers it never found those unless I typed the name of the server into it. So many people renting servers and don't know that they aren't being populated on the list unless the user does it manually or knows the specific name already.

Hell the ones on my favorite's list never show up in the server list unless I scroll forever. So you might say so what is he bitching about? Why is he being so negative? Because if I spend 10 mins populating and refreshing the list I can get servers with less than 20ms to me. If I pick from the ones that Battlelog shows me I have to play on 150+ms servers. If I were a new player and not well versed in server lists, I would think that the game was a shitty rubberbanding mess. At 150+ms the game has crappy hit detection, especially compared to 20ms.

I'd rather have a master server list like the Battlefield series used to have. I got to see everything that was available at once and I didn't have to know in advance what the server name was to find favorite servers with less than 20ms. They showed up in the list automatically unlike today's browser based system.
 
cageymaru said:
Battlelog doesn't find the servers close to me unless I spend 5 mins spamming page down. Even then most of them won't have ping info. It keeps finding servers in Europe when I live in NC. Hell it doesn't find most east coast servers for me. When Hardocp was sponsoring servers it never found those unless I typed the name of the server into it. So many people renting servers and don't know that they aren't being populated on the list unless the user does it manually or knows the specific name already.

Hell the ones on my favorite's list never show up in the server list unless I scroll forever. So you might say so what is he bitching about? Why is he being so negative? Because if I spend 10 mins populating and refreshing the list I can get servers with less than 20ms to me. If I pick from the ones that Battlelog shows me I have to play on 150+ms servers. If I were a new player and not well versed in server lists, I would think that the game was a shitty rubberbanding mess. At 150+ms the game has crappy hit detection, especially compared to 20ms.

I'd rather have a master server list like the Battlefield series used to have. I got to see everything that was available at once and I didn't have to know in advance what the server name was to find favorite servers with less than 20ms. They showed up in the list automatically unlike today's browser based system.
Click to expand...

Um, just filter by region and you'll get servers close to you. Select "USA" and "Canada", sort by ping, voila. :) Want populated servers? Tell it you want ones with only a certain number of free slots or less with the checkboxes. In-game "master server lists" sucked horrendously. For favorite servers just go to your favorites page.... :confused:.
 
GoldenTiger said:
Um, just filter by region and you'll get servers close to you. Select "USA" and "Canada", sort by ping, voila. :) Want populated servers? Tell it you want ones with only a certain number of free slots or less with the checkboxes. In-game "master server lists" sucked horrendously. For favorite servers just go to your favorites page.... :confused:.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I do. And it doesn't work when you live in NC as it brings up servers in California, Texas, and Canada as the desired servers to play on. 100+ms servers are not fun to play on. It will further down the list have a few servers from Georgia, that are at 45ms. If I want sub 20ms servers, I have to know the name or spend a significant amount of time spamming page down. And if you spam page down many of the servers will report no ping information rendering sort by ping useless. When it starts reporting no ping, the only solution is to refresh the list and spam page down slower. I never had these issues with a master list in Battlefield. Just my personal experience. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top