Any news on BattleField 4 ?

I must say, this looks really really good, and the BC2 style recon class has me itching...but: Origin, Hackers(client side + lack of caring about anti-cheat), and (likely) $120 worth of DLC has me staying far away....
 
Do you all think it would be a balance issue if recon had the choice of having C4 OR Claymore? Obviously recon having C4 leads to the stealth aspect of running in, blowing shit up, and then running out. At the same time claymores would go back to the BF2 roots of having snipers able to protect themselves better when camping. I don't see a balance issue with having the choice to use one or the other, but what do you guys think?

Back on topic - When they first announced BF4 I was skeptical, but it's really starting to look like it's trying to go back to the BF roots all of us hardcore BF fans enjoyed from the originals. I don't think it will ever be replaced, but BF4 is so far a hell of a lot closer to the originals than BF3 was.
 
TheOrangeJuicer said:
Do you all think it would be a balance issue if recon had the choice of having C4 OR Claymore? Obviously recon having C4 leads to the stealth aspect of running in, blowing shit up, and then running out. At the same time claymores would go back to the BF2 roots of having snipers able to protect themselves better when camping. I don't see a balance issue with having the choice to use one or the other, but what do you guys think?
Click to expand...

Claymores only protect the sniper and does nothing for the team.
C4 on the other hand can disable vehicles, blow through walls etc. all which helps the team.

lilbabycat said:
I must say, this looks really really good, and the BC2 style recon class has me itching...but: Origin, Hackers(client side + lack of caring about anti-cheat), and (likely) $120 worth of DLC has me staying far away....
Click to expand...

There's cheating in every popular game, nothing is going to stop it. DLC Premium was only $50 at release, I got mine for $40. Don't let you imagination run wild.
 
WorldExclusive said:
Claymores only protect the sniper and does nothing for the team.
C4 on the other hand can disable vehicles, blow through walls etc. all which helps the team.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree. Place the claymore(s) around the flag or MCOM station and snipe from a distance. If he's camping then he probably isn't helping the team that much anyway.
 
WorldExclusive said:
There's cheating in every popular game, nothing is going to stop it. DLC Premium was only $50 at release, I got mine for $40. Don't let you imagination run wild.
Click to expand...

Still an absolute rip off for content that could be easily created by the community.
 
WorldExclusive said:
There's cheating in every popular game, nothing is going to stop it. DLC Premium was only $50 at release, I got mine for $40. Don't let you imagination run wild.
Click to expand...

$50 in 2011/2012, $120 in 2014. Not that far of a stretch, imo.

And there is hacking, and there is "hackfest", as in "here's a video of us killing all of the devs with our hacks", lets post it on battlelog and watch as LEGIT players are banned for "naming and shaming" us, and lets watch EA do nothing about it for 6 months. All of that happened.
 
Raudulfr said:
I find your use of the word "only" in that sentence to be quite disturbing.


How much was the DLC in Bad Company 2? Oh wait, it was free.
Click to expand...

BC2 vietnam was free? I remember buying it when it came out.

And how is $50 for 5 expansions "disturbing" anyways?
 
Raudulfr said:
Don't like it don't read it. I'm tired of pseudo-moderators wanting to censor threads to remove all criticism.
Click to expand...


If you don't like the game then don't post here. If you think your post on this forums is going to make DICE or EA change the game you would be very wrong. I doubt you even bought BF3, or you're one of the people who "boycotted" premium. Don't forget your Guy Fawkes mask little freedom fighter.
 
Don't like it don't read it.
Click to expand...

How does one ascertain that they won't like it before reading it, this is a BF4 thread, people come here for news and fun, the perpetual emo'ing is not something one would normally expect. The problem would probably be alleviated if you guys started a BF4 hate thread, but of course you know no one would read it..
 
Wasn't all that hyped for this game since BF3 was such a disappointment but seeing they put back the ability to toss C4 made me change my mind. I think I was the first to platinum C4 kills in BFBC2, fun times! Not a fan of the motion balls being put back in though.
 
Raudulfr said:
I find your use of the word "only" in that sentence to be quite disturbing.


How much was the DLC in Bad Company 2? Oh wait, it was free.
Click to expand...

50 bucks isn't that huge an amount for five expansions bud. I paid 37.50 myself. DLC for bc2 was paid and only one came out, Vietnam. Nice try troll-ah. And I am fascinated by people claiming dlc will be 120 bucks.... Hilarious.
 
If $50 is too much for a game....heck even if $60 is too much...then you should rethink how you financially plan your life and shouldn't be spending money on games.
 
GoldenTiger said:
50 bucks isn't that huge an amount for five expansions bud. I paid 37.50 myself. DLC for bc2 was paid and only one came out, Vietnam. Nice try troll-ah. And I am fascinated by people claiming dlc will be 120 bucks.... Hilarious.
Click to expand...

They weren't expansions, they were piddly map packs each comprising 4 pretty mediocre if not downright shitty maps. Don't know when PC users started suffering from the same form of Stockholm syndrome as console users, but I don't see the value in these especially where they serve to fragment online populations.

And you are wrong on BC2, yes there was only one paid expansion, but there were 7 map packs comprising new maps (e.g. White Pass, Oasis, Harvest Day) and game modes subsequently released on PC for free which console users had to pay money to unlock if the didn't have a VIP pass.

What's hilarious is the fact that DICE had previously stated that they would never charge for new maps, but the corporate taint of EA and smell of money was obviously too difficult to resist.

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/241306/dice-well-never-charge-for-battlefield-maps/

And I think you are reading too literally what he says about DLC costing $120, most likely he is cynically characterizing BF4 as little more than an incomplete DLC expansion of BF3 ($60) with the expectation that you have to pay another $60 to get the full game. Based on what I have seen so far I can't say I disagree. BF4 is the game BF3 should have been, and all the improvements and changes are things which users have bitched about since the BF3 alpha, from the lack of commander to the absence of destruction, abominable UI, small squads, etc.
 
TheOrangeJuicer said:
I have to disagree. Place the claymore(s) around the flag or MCOM station and snipe from a distance. If he's camping then he probably isn't helping the team that much anyway.
Click to expand...

That's a good plan, but only a handful of people would use that strategy.
If something can be abused, the players will find it and do it over and over i.e. UAV Kills and Elevator.

A sniper would just place Claymores on the stairs and snipe from the window.
You have to get close for C4 to be effective, forcing the sniper to move their position.

Before the abuse starts, axe it.

Blade-Runner said:
Still an absolute rip off for content that could be easily created by the community.
Click to expand...

Yea, but we've been down this road for BF1/2/3 games. Mod tools to make maps aren't coming.
Can't miss something we never had.

Raudulfr said:
I find your use of the word "only" in that sentence to be quite disturbing.


How much was the DLC in Bad Company 2? Oh wait, it was free.
Click to expand...

Those free maps were from consoles. The real PC expansion "Vietnam" was $15 and had better netcode than the original game.

Sprayingmango said:
If $50 is too much for a game....heck even if $60 is too much...then you should rethink how you financially plan your life and shouldn't be spending money on games.
Click to expand...

I agree. Most of my games are ~$10, so it all balances out in the end when I do decide to spend $40+ on one game.
When I had a console, it was a monthly practice to buy $60 games.
 
WorldExclusive said:
Yea, but we've been down this road for BF1/2/3 games. Mod tools to make maps aren't coming.
Can't miss something we never had.
Click to expand...

Not sure where you are getting that from considering the plethora of mods released for BF 1 & 2. Yes DICE didn't released mod tools, but they also didn't actively wall off the engine to prevent the community from developing its own tools.

WorldExclusive said:
Those free maps were from consoles. The real PC expansion "Vietnam" was $15 and had better netcode than the original game.
Click to expand...

Again don't know where you are getting that from because only Oasis and Harvest Day were recycled from BC1. And Vietnam was an expansion in the conventional sense which warranted a price tag, not a couple of pissy maps that could have been easily put together with mod tools. Hilariously the second map pack for BF4 is going to be recycled maps from BF3, but I guarantee they will still be charging for them.

WorldExclusive said:
I agree. Most of my games are ~$10, so it all balances out in the end when I do decide to spend $40+ on one game.
When I had a console, it was a monthly practice to buy $60 games.
Click to expand...

This value argument is completely subjective and relative, and that isn't really the issue when it comes to DLC for MP games. The problem is that they fragment online populations and ultimately reduce the longevity if the game, but planned obsolescence works in EA/DICE's favor now that they want everyone to "upgrade" their games every 2 years.
 
Blade-Runner said:
Not sure where you are getting that from considering the plethora of mods released for BF 1 & 2. Yes DICE didn't released mod tools, but they also didn't actively wall off the engine to prevent the community from developing its own tools.
Click to expand...

Once the game went multiplatform, I expected for it to be a different game, and it was. FB2 does wall of mods and Origin/BL doesn't support searching for mods either. The latter makes mods useless.
Also, the engine is heavily licensed through EA since they invested in it and use it for many other games. Having people outside of their studios tinker with the code isn't going to make them money.

So yes, DICE never officially supported mod tools and EA doesn't allow FB mods. Nothing of value was lost.
 
Meob said:
is the sky scraper the only building in that map that is destructible? I've seen people talk about the new destruction, but after watching a tiny bit of video, the destruction didn't seem any more improved over bf3 other than that single building.
Click to expand...

Actually, in watching some of the extended play videos, there seems to be a lot more granular destruction to the environments.

Whether or not gameplay situations will be designed around this, remains to be seen. Bad Company 1 and 2 both made a point to have maps with set pieces that emphasized the destruction aspects. Blowing out walls to reveal campers, making your own doorway, removing cover opportunities. Bad Company 1 had a map with a section where the small building housing a flag was fortified with a strong wall that had only one entrance/exit. But a couple hits with rockets or C4 and you could make new entrances. Rush mode in BC2 had several points that weren't even accessible, until you blew them open. You also had terrain that would deform from bombs and whatnot. So you could end up with fairly large gouges in roads and whatnot. Tough to drive over, usefull to take cover while on foot. The gameplay was a lot more dynamic with the Bad Company games. I'm hoping they get back to designing maps this way, for BF4. In Battlefield 3, the destruction took a major back seat. It may as well have not even been in the game. Half the time, walls, doors, window frames, wouldn't even blow out like I expected them to, after playing BC1 and 2. The set pieces and map design was also just all together, less good. and it seems like they pretty much wrote off Rush Mode, which was fantastic in the Bad Company series.
 
Yeah, I felt BFBC2 was a better overall game. Hti detection in BF3 seemed really piss poor. Kids online keep posting about ppl hacking because they die 20 foot behind a solid wall and don't realize its piss poor hit detection, not hacking. Out of all BF games 3 seemed to be the worst in this catagory, even having a great ping ment nothing as I have a 50 ping getting beat by ppl in the 300's.

Unless Dice tightens up the code for BF4, the only DIce game next on my list is Star Wars Battlefront.
 
chameleoneel said:
Actually, in watching some of the extended play videos, there seems to be a lot more granular destruction to the environments.

Whether or not gameplay situations will be designed around this, remains to be seen. Bad Company 1 and 2 both made a point to have maps with set pieces that emphasized the destruction aspects. Blowing out walls to reveal campers, making your own doorway, removing cover opportunities. Bad Company 1 had a map with a section where the small building housing a flag was fortified with a strong wall that had only one entrance/exit. But a couple hits with rockets or C4 and you could make new entrances. Rush mode in BC2 had several points that weren't even accessible, until you blew them open. You also had terrain that would deform from bombs and whatnot. So you could end up with fairly large gouges in roads and whatnot. Tough to drive over, usefull to take cover while on foot. The gameplay was a lot more dynamic with the Bad Company games. I'm hoping they get back to designing maps this way, for BF4. In Battlefield 3, the destruction took a major back seat. It may as well have not even been in the game. Half the time, walls, doors, window frames, wouldn't even blow out like I expected them to, after playing BC1 and 2. The set pieces and map design was also just all together, less good. and it seems like they pretty much wrote off Rush Mode, which was fantastic in the Bad Company series.
Click to expand...

well now i want to get back into BC2. shit ton of fun that game :D
 
Blackstone said:
Is there a consensus on whether BF4 is a graphical update over BF3?
Click to expand...

its the same engine, with little to no improvements. looks like they got rid of the blue tint though so it will look better i think.





alpha keys have been sent out just a heads up
 
There are no improvements? What about physics and destruction? They didn't touch the engine at all? I hope PC gamers aren't capped at BF3 level performance for 8 years simply because the consoles don't have a high-end graphics card in them.
 
Blackstone said:
Is there a consensus on whether BF4 is a graphical update over BF3?
Click to expand...

I thought BF4 was using the Frostbite 3.0 engine, where as the current BF3 uses the Frostbite 2.5 engine ? I know .5 engine update isn't a major upgrade, but still there should be some improvements ?
 
Blackstone said:
There are no improvements? What about physics and destruction? They didn't touch the engine at all? I hope PC gamers aren't capped at BF3 level performance for 8 years simply because the consoles don't have a high-end graphics card in them.
Click to expand...

opps I am mistaken ! it is an updated version of frostbite and destruction has improved supposedly.

Zorachus said:
I thought BF4 was using the Frostbite 3.0 engine, where as the current BF3 uses the Frostbite 2.5 engine ? I know .5 engine update isn't a major upgrade, but still there should be some improvements ?
Click to expand...

there is not 2.5

there was a 1.5 but it jumped from 2 to 3

on frostbite 3.0 =
The game engine has several upgrades including improved tessellation technology. It also features Destruction 4.0, which enhances the in-game destruction over its predecessors.
Click to expand...
 
1,353 hours in BF2 and 1,099 hours in BF3. No alpha invite. Whut.

O wait... I only played BF Heroes for like an hour. Crap.
 
BF4 is nothing more than a graphical fix of BF3. Only way i'm going to buy it is if EA adds BOTS to the game like they did in BF1942 and BF2. I'm not going threw the server issues with another BF game.
 
Mousefart said:
BF4 is nothing more than a graphical fix of BF3. Only way i'm going to buy it is if EA adds BOTS to the game like they did in BF1942 and BF2. I'm not going threw the server issues with another BF game.
Click to expand...


Oh God, this was the only thing i was hoping for with BF4, but they already said no bots. With 2 year old running around and baby on the way i just cant play real online match nor pay attention to the game for more than 60 seconds without being interrupted. Bots would be perfect middle ground for me, but no DICE :p. Oh well, Black Ops 2 got my money already, so screw them.
 
lilbabycat said:
I played BC2 several times this weekend, far more solid gunplay than BF3.
Click to expand...

I hadn't even thought of this and after seen this comment several times over I think there is some truth to it. Seems like BF3 is geared towards the COD bromo's than actual FPS players. After a series of nerfs to rocket, tank and mortar splash damage there is even more truth. I always liked the Hard Core servers on BC2, It was one shot one kill and if you learned to juke and jive you would be surprised how long you can live!
 
SnowBeast said:
Yeah, I felt BFBC2 was a better overall game. Hti detection in BF3 seemed really piss poor. Kids online keep posting about ppl hacking because they die 20 foot behind a solid wall and don't realize its piss poor hit detection, not hacking. Out of all BF games 3 seemed to be the worst in this catagory, even having a great ping ment nothing as I have a 50 ping getting beat by ppl in the 300's.

Unless Dice tightens up the code for BF4, the only DIce game next on my list is Star Wars Battlefront.
Click to expand...

Yep.. BF2 was a big offender of this but BF3 definitely takes the cake in that regard.. After all the complaints risen from BF2 DICE didn't do shit, and even worsened it.
 
ounumen said:
I hadn't even thought of this and after seen this comment several times over I think there is some truth to it. Seems like BF3 is geared towards the COD bromo's than actual FPS players. After a series of nerfs to rocket, tank and mortar splash damage there is even more truth. I always liked the Hard Core servers on BC2, It was one shot one kill and if you learned to juke and jive you would be surprised how long you can live!
Click to expand...

BF3 still has hardcore, the only way to play IMO. Cleaner HUD, no ridiculous 3D spotting, damage model seems better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top