Any news on BattleField 4 ?

[polonyc2]

Why even bother with Single player in BF4. Nobody gives a damn about that. This series has always been about the massive multiplayer map battles.

not if DICE has anything to say about it going forward:

"We see single-player as a very important part of Battlefield...Battlefield is no longer a multiplayer-only game...Next-gen needs to be more than just more polygons. To us, it's like, how do we evolve the gameplay?...moving elements from multiplayer into single-player is one way of evolving it...

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...eld-4-interview-dice-leaves-technology-behind

 

[Plague_Injected]

not if DICE has anything to say about it going forward:

"We see single-player as a very important part of Battlefield...Battlefield is no longer a multiplayer-only game...Next-gen needs to be more than just more polygons. To us, it's like, how do we evolve the gameplay?...moving elements from multiplayer into single-player is one way of evolving it...

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...eld-4-interview-dice-leaves-technology-behind

Complete fuckheads. DICE's idea of evolving gameplay (at least as BF3 was concerned) is to remove features from previous games.

 

[stooleywood]

All of those games are considered very complete games and have way more content than bf3 has with no dlc. I got 25 + (fun) hours out of each of those games without touching the dlc I got about 17 (mediocre) hours out of bf3 before i ran out of content. That was both single player/coop and multi before i was absolutely sick of it.

What makes it a complete game? Because you got 25+ hrs (fun, as you put it) and only 17hrs (mediocore) out of bf3? Than I don't think online fps is for you, or you were playing solo.

Checking my battlelog, I have 289hrs in BF3 on my main account and another 28hrs on my competitive account. Keep in mind I didn't play much of CQ or AK. According to steam I have 0 hrs in SR3, 26hrs in BL2, and 15mins in Sleeping Dogs. BF3 sure seems like a complete game to me, I think I also beat the SP campaign once if that and never touched co-op.

 

[yourgrandma]

What makes it a complete game?

Depends on the quality of the experience provided as well as the amount of content. Sleeping dogs is definitely the better of those games even though it is probably provided the lowest amount of playtime for me.

Stand alone Bf3 has very short campaign and multiplayer has very limited maps on what is considered its main attraction of battles taking place on large battlefields.

Than I don't think online fps is for you ,or you were playing solo.

LOL yea because i think bf3 sucks that makes online fps not for me. . I don't know what rock you are living under but there are plenty of people who hate bf3 just as much as i do. The mulitiplayer is a HORRIBLE experience. Having to unlock even the most basic equipment is not even remotely enjoyable nor is sticking 100 tactical phalluses on my gun. Every map feels like a run and gun lone wolf map even the largest ones because you can essentially run at 25mph and easily reach most destinations on foot. Team work is nonexistant because simply it just doesn't work well with the type of spammy gameplay it provides. Spawn killing is a bigger problem then any other multiplayer game i have played in the last decade. Netcode is just awful even on low ping servers.... ect.

 

[illybang]

LOL yea because i think bf3 sucks that makes online fps not for me. . I don't know what rock you are living under but there are plenty of people who hate bf3 just as much as i do. The mulitiplayer is a HORRIBLE experience. Having to unlock even the most basic equipment is not even remotely enjoyable nor is sticking 100 tactical phalluses on my gun. Every map feels like a run and gun lone wolf map even the largest ones because you can essentially run at 25mph and easily reach most destinations on foot. Team work is nonexistant because simply it just doesn't work well with the type of spammy gameplay it provides. Spawn killing is a bigger problem then any other multiplayer game i have played in the last decade. Netcode is just awful even on low ping servers.... ect.

Wow. I've gotta side with the conclusion that you haven't played many online shooters if you think this is a HORRIBLE experience. It's like rich people complaining about the quality of their caviar not being up to par.

If you don't enjoy this type of game, just leave it at that.

And if you don't mind sharing, let me check out your battlelog page.

Edit: Reminds me of this Louis CK bit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpUNA2nutbk

 

[Dethred]

Wow. I've gotta side with the conclusion that you haven't played many online shooters if you think this is a HORRIBLE experience. It's like rich people complaining about the quality of their caviar not being up to par.

If you don't enjoy this type of game, just leave it at that.

And if you don't mind sharing, let me check out your battlelog page.

Edit: Reminds me of this Louis CK bit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpUNA2nutbk

I played every previous BF game. About 4000 hours combined between Bf2 and 2142. I've played a whole host of FPS shooters, and currently play Planetside 2.

I absolutely think BF3's flaws made it a worse-than-horrible. Any FPS game that allows you to kill someone, or be killed yourself, over a full second after taking cover.... MAKES FOR A HORRIBLE FUCKING EXPERIENCE.

Watch at least 30 seconds of this shit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adfgUL5aM0I

It defeats the entire point of having cover, and not just having everyone run around in an open field.

 

[socK]

I absolutely think BF3's flaws made it a worse-than-horrible. Any FPS game that allows you to kill someone, or be killed yourself, over a full second after taking cover.... MAKES FOR A HORRIBLE FUCKING EXPERIENCE.

It's an artifact of the lag compensation, it's a trade off you'll never get rid of in any game that does it. Your movement being predicted + lag compensation = it looks like you hit the dirt instantly (but you're still delayed by your latency in reality) and the shot potentially registers late so you get a fucked up looking death. You'll find the "died around a corner" thing in every Source engine game for example... just netcode black magic at work.

BF3's netcode wasn't flawless by any means but it was the best in the series yet.


Also http://www.p4rgaming.com/?p=1711

 

[Wildace]

didnt BF2 have laggy hit box's to the point you could popup and down fast from behind cover and sometimes your hit box would go up with you and some times it would just stay crouched down.

also at one point dolphin dive spam and jump crouch in the air with the diving would cause your hit box to stay really small from the rapid movement/position changes.

 

[illybang]

I played every previous BF game. About 4000 hours combined between Bf2 and 2142. I've played a whole host of FPS shooters, and currently play Planetside 2.

I absolutely think BF3's flaws made it a worse-than-horrible. Any FPS game that allows you to kill someone, or be killed yourself, over a full second after taking cover.... MAKES FOR A HORRIBLE FUCKING EXPERIENCE.

Watch at least 30 seconds of this shit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adfgUL5aM0I

It defeats the entire point of having cover, and not just having everyone run around in an open field.

If that's true, then I suggest you go get your ass checked out at the doctors office.

Even if you die a few times to lag compensation, that still doesn't put BF3 even remotely CLOSE to the vicinity of a horrible experience. You can choose to whine about it while many others will look past it and enjoy the game for what it is and everything it does have to offer.

 

[illybang]

didnt BF2 have laggy hit box's to the point you could popup and down fast from behind cover and sometimes your hit box would go up with you and some times it would just stay crouched down.

also at one point dolphin dive spam and jump crouch in the air with the diving would cause your hit box to stay really small from the rapid movement/position changes.

And YES. There definitely was the issue of hitbox lag in BF2. I remember it pissing me off too. Your actual hitbox would remain sometimes even if you jump around a corner.

 

[Drakenfeng]

People are still complaining about gear unlocks giving unfair advantage? Apart from the initial IR scope fiasco (which was quickly nerfed) the guns and attachments are largely sidegrades. In BC2 and BF3 the starting assault rifles were the first weapons I platinumed - they tend to be the most well rounded with the later unlocks being more special purpose.

That being said, the M60 was broke as hell in BC2

And from personal experience, the hit detection in BF3 is improved over BC2 - I frequently had ghost bullets in BC2 whereas that's a very rare occurrence for me in BF3. And as far as lag compensation, I've been playing with it since Team Fortress Classic and Counter Strike on dial up where I really COULD get shot 2 seconds later around a corner. It's just a part of online gaming as far as I'm concerned.

The only FPS I've played that didn't have lag comp. is Unreal Tournament - but that works out because even if your bullets are being delayed by your ping you can learn to visually compensate because of the heavy particle effects and travel time on every weapon in that game. I remember UT being playable even on dial up due to this. Even the few hitscan weapons like shock rifle spewed a giant laser that let you learn the proper lead based on your ping at that moment. The tiny tracer you get in battlefield every 5th bullet would not be sufficient for this purpose, especially in close combat which would be most sensitive to lack of lag comp.

 

[odditory]

If you want zero latency hit detection join the military

 

[Plague_Injected]

No co-op for BF4: http://www.co-optimus.com/article/9950/battefield-4-announced-dropping-co-op.html

 

[collegeboy69us]

No co-op for BF4: http://www.co-optimus.com/article/9950/battefield-4-announced-dropping-co-op.html

surely it's only being taken out so it can be added back in for the super awesome low price of only $14.95 super exclusive DLC pack

The co-op missions in BF3 were more fun than the single player (of which I did not even finish)

Just imagine if we lived in the good ole' days of PC gaming when you could have something like BF3 or BF4 come out - and a few months later there would be a whole host of free player created packs/mods for singleplayer co-op missions.

 

[Ironchef Chris Wok]

Complete fuckheads. DICE's idea of evolving gameplay (at least as BF3 was concerned) is to remove features from previous games.

I heart you.

When gameplay evolves, it means reducing 7 classes to 4 (so that one class is so overpowered it makes no sense), no commander mode, no spectate mode, complete bullshit for communication buttons, maps that are too large....


and I still spent 500 hours and 110 dollars on this game.

Edit: LOL no co-op mode, the co-op missions were so much better than that "single player campaign". I'm not a COD guy, but even I have to admit the single player COD is entertaining. That BF3 single player campaign is just BS.

 

[Viper87227]

Edit: LOL no co-op mode, the co-op missions were so much better than that "single player campaign". I'm not a COD guy, but even I have to admit the single player COD is entertaining. That BF3 single player campaign is just BS.

To each their own. I've not been able to stand any COD single-player since MW2. BF3's was ok. Not great, certainly not a selling point of the game, but I did enjoy it.

 

[caddys83]

People are still complaining about gear unlocks giving unfair advantage? Apart from the initial IR scope fiasco (which was quickly nerfed) the guns and attachments are largely sidegrades. In BC2 and BF3 the starting assault rifles were the first weapons I platinumed - they tend to be the most well rounded with the later unlocks being more special purpose.

man I miss that original IR scope before the patch. I was gawd like

 

[odditory]

maps that are too large.... .

For the sake of all that is holy I'm going to pretend I didn't read that

 

[Flopper]

its just that the game shouldnt make you frustrated due to bad netcode and hitbox.
then the movement as an avatar is like moving inside a tunnel without a need to aim.
all in all, as a player not that fun

 

[Silverghost]

Which would you prefer? Getting shot around a corner or getting false hit markers so you stop shooting, thinking he's dead then he kills you.

 

[WorldExclusive]

If that's true, then I suggest you go get your ass checked out at the doctors office.

Even if you die a few times to lag compensation, that still doesn't put BF3 even remotely CLOSE to the vicinity of a horrible experience. You can choose to whine about it while many others will look past it and enjoy the game for what it is and everything it does have to offer.

I haven't came across a shooter that didn't require me to adjust to their flaws.
People chose to have selective memory when it comes to this.

I challenge someone to name one shooter that they didn't have to adjust to the play style or game flaw.
That perfect game doesn't exist, and I'm tired of people trying to ram their great ideas into other people's heads.

No matter what the shooter is, I still sit atop of the leader boards. Why? Because I adapt and overcome.
Quitters and complainers chose not to adapt and overcome.

 

[caddys83]

No co-op for BF4: http://www.co-optimus.com/article/9950/battefield-4-announced-dropping-co-op.html

Thank Gawd! Means more time to work on the netcode right

 

[caddys83]

I haven't came across a shooter that didn't require me to adjust to their flaws.
People chose to have selective memory when it comes to this.

I challenge someone to name one shooter that they didn't have to adjust to the play style or game flaw.
That perfect game doesn't exist, and I'm tired of people trying to ram their great ideas into other people's heads.

No matter what the shooter is, I still sit atop of the leader boards. Why? Because I adapt and overcome.
Quitters and complainers chose not to adapt and overcome.

COD4 was the perfect shooter. Wut you talking bout

 

[odditory]

Thank Gawd! Means more time to work on the netcode right

They could've saved a lot of time if they just focused 100% of their effort on the multiplayer, included a copy of Seal Team Six in place of the SP campaign and called it a day.

 

[illybang]

COD4 was the perfect shooter. Wut you talking bout

Selective memory / Nostalgia at work again.

 

[Zorachus]

Call of Duty was only good the first couple of releases, years ago, back when it was a WW2 single player game, was really good, but the multiplayer always was lame, just stupid deathmatch crap.

Battlefield had CoD in spades with multiplayer, BF a million times better, with real vehicles to use, etc...

And CoD MW now LOL, you couldn't pay me to play that garbage.

 

[Blade-Runner]

Looks like some of the press is weary of the hype.

http://www.joystiq.com/2013/03/27/editorial-how-the-concessions-stand-in-battlefield-4/

EA seized an entire movie theater in San Francisco in the midst of GDC 2013 to demonstrate nearly 20 minutes of Battlefield 4, which is also a video game. The venue was large and loud enough to encapsulate the shooter's cinematic aspirations, and flaunt every extravagant detail manifested in the weapons, soldiers, lighting and urban environments – right down to the cracking, withered paint on a door. Battlefield 4 belonged on every inch of that big screen.

And that's fine. I enjoy shooters, I adore movies, and I think there's a valid convergence to be found between the two. It's rarely a shortcut for superior storytelling, but the medium is malleable and fit for many authors. Some strive for realism, others seek expression in the abstract, and some guys prefer to make a crazy game about shipping soup to other planets.

None of those, however, have claimed responsibility for a "new era of interactive entertainment." That would be Battlefield 4, according to EA Games Vice President Patrick Söderlund. "Revealing the game to you all today is a big deal for us," he said in epilogue to the game's exquisitely rendered destruction. "It signals a new era of Battlefield and, frankly, a new era of interactive entertainment."

His frank statement, made within earshot of this week's Game Developers Conference, seemed to oscillate between deleterious and delirious. The content of the presentation – the objective of which is to showcase the game's technology and intent – seemed incongruous with Söderlund's mantra of "redefining what gaming can be," and later became harmful to it.

Here's some of what I saw: a slow, linear walk through a dilapidated school, followed by a cutscene and a shootout; a crashing helicopter; an escape from a building as it crumbled right on cue; the protagonist, Recker, helped up by a fellow soldier after briefly losing consciousness. Is Battlefield 4 "redefining" gaming or looking it up in the thesaurus?

Though Battlefield 4 is obviously the product of many talented programmers, artists and sound designers, the rich imagery couldn't obscure the rails. Battlefield 3's single-player campaign was lambasted for its intrusive scripting, so to see it again and so prevalent is disappointing. The feeling is exacerbated when you consider Battlefield's multiplayer origins, and the personalized stories that emerged from the car chases and plane crashes instigated by players themselves.

As the speech went on, the subject became more and more hollow. It was the melon ball scoop of speeches.

"We have built the Frostbite 3 game engine to be state of the art," Söderlund said. "It is a world-class engine that is more powerful than anything we have ever built. It is a piece of technology that really challenges us to come up with new ideas, new innovations, new ways to entertain people. The power of Frostbite leaves us with no excuses. There's nothing really holding us back anymore."

If Frostbite eradicated excuses and restraints, and the results aren't obviously distinguishable from older games, then ... what was holding Battlefield back? The demonstration suggested EA and DICE are chasing after fidelity (again: fine!), but Söderlund said they're chasing storytelling. Even if you adopt a reductionist approach and simply consider Battlefield 4 a movie of sorts – and this presentation its trailer – it's fair to say that it looks like a lousy movie. I'm not saying the game won't be fun to play regardless; I'd just love it if a kitsch neck-stab at cinema was on the low end of aspirations in our Battlefield-induced new era of interactive entertainment.

After trumpeting the power of Frostbite, Söderlund scooped this one out: "As we all know, the best games out there are not really about polygons, or shaders; it's the emotional connection that we make with players. The DICE studio has evolved into world-class entertainers and storytellers. We are strongly driven by the desire to craft new worlds, new gameplay experiences, and fill them with gripping stories, unique characters and spectacular moments." Nobody in the audience disagreed with this, which was nice, but all of the Battlefield 4 footage just did. In the broad range of emotions that might be explored in a shooter – tension, fear, panic, excitement – where does yet another exploding helicopter fall?

Finally, Söderlund suggested that DICE and EA "are creating experiences that touch us emotionally – experiences that are human, dramatic and believable."

Editorial How the Concessions Stand in Battlefield 4
The Example of DICE's attempts at inciting emotion, and not simply recreating it in the faces of their virtual actors, came later in the show. After tumbling through several floors of a collapsing building, the player found a fellow soldier injured and pinned beneath heavy debris. The only way to extract him in time was to cut off his leg.

The frantic argument and distress was not poorly acted, but the scenario felt generic and insincerely contrived; its execution shallow and tactless. Press F to Cut Leg, and the scene continues. Frostbite 3 made the wound seem realistic, and painted a tortured expression on the leg's squirming owner, but it couldn't impart the severity or trauma of the act. This is not a problem solved by better technology, though Söderlund's presentation was hinged on the idea that it was.

The last time I spent a good deal of time cutting off a limb (in a game) was in Telltale's The Walking Dead. It was harrowing, justified, and memorable. Though Telltale's engine is undoubtedly lacking the technological finesse of Frostbite 3, it is far better at acknowledging the player's participation in a dramatic scene, and relied on good writing just as much as its character models and animation.

It's too early and unfair to discuss dilution of agency in Battlefield 4, so I'm expressly focusing on the quality and conviction of the presentation I saw in a movie theater. For better or worse, the venue was appropriate - big, brash and capable of blasting out what little remains of the classic Battlefield theme. It used to be so energetic and melodic, and now it sounds like a dubstep song played through a Geiger counter.

 

[Ironchef Chris Wok]

For the sake of all that is holy I'm going to pretend I didn't read that

I should re-word that, maps that are too large for 64 players. That was my mistake.

The Armoured Kill maps aren't bad, it's just that there aren't enough players in the to make it remotely interesting. 7 Flags, all of them sort of far away, 32 playres on each team with vehicles, it just feels that conquest is running around capturing flags. The Armoured kill maps should have been 96 to 128 player maps.

I only play rush now.

 

[Flopper]

I haven't came across a shooter that didn't require me to adjust to their flaws.
People chose to have selective memory when it comes to this.

I challenge someone to name one shooter that they didn't have to adjust to the play style or game flaw.
That perfect game doesn't exist, and I'm tired of people trying to ram their great ideas into other people's heads.

No matter what the shooter is, I still sit atop of the leader boards. Why? Because I adapt and overcome.
Quitters and complainers chose not to adapt and overcome.

If a game works consistently within its set defined limits, but BF3 is a joke.

Bf2 you could adapt to and have consistent hitboxes but you also needed to track the players pings in relation to their hitbox which means you could aim differently to the player you met which I did. In Bc2 and BF3 that dosnt work as the game is made to be kid stuff.

Bf3 simply put was horrible in every way in regard to the netcode and hitbox and requries no skill due to the avatar moves in a tunnel and was made for kids with no skill and lacking the battlefield experience was a huge turn off also as I been with Bf1942 and Bf2 from the start and Bc2 and Bf3 simply lacked the feel of battlefield.

That I have to search for a server where the advantage is for me in regard to the hitbox and netcode is epic fail in regard to coding and design as I you know like to play for fun a lot but Bf3 design choices and coding simply was aweful.

I play BC2 from time to time and the difference in hitbox vs server with same ping is so different and I get constantly accused of cheating and hacking due to the kids dont know how the game works.

There is a slimmer of hope with Bf4, that the battlefield feel wasnt there with Bf3 so they might taken that to heart and made it fun again. Not holding my breath tho for it.

 

[collegeboy69us]

what's with this emotional crap talk by one of the EA/Dice guys?

Are they trying to turn my video games into some emotional woman type soap opera in war form?

If so -- holy fuck for gaming. I would have loved to be someone in the audience that stands up and says "Excuse me -- but I play games to have fun and blow shit up -- not to have some emotional connection to some character nobody gives two shits about"

 

[tehslippery]

I should re-word that, maps that are too large for 64 players. That was my mistake.

The Armoured Kill maps aren't bad, it's just that there aren't enough players in the to make it remotely interesting. 7 Flags, all of them sort of far away, 32 playres on each team with vehicles, it just feels that conquest is running around capturing flags. The Armoured kill maps should have been 96 to 128 player maps.

I only play rush now.

Honestly, I have to agree. The original maps I had some fun with conquest. Now? It's boring as fuck. You either camp an objective and hope someone comes there, hop objectives trying to keep them capped so your team wins, or run around in a tank. It's just boring as fuck and I don't see the point. I'd by far rather play Rush or CTF where the objectives are concentrated and you actually have action.

 

[Superhuman]

I should re-word that, maps that are too large for 64 players. That was my mistake.

The Armoured Kill maps aren't bad, it's just that there aren't enough players in the to make it remotely interesting. 7 Flags, all of them sort of far away, 32 playres on each team with vehicles, it just feels that conquest is running around capturing flags. The Armoured kill maps should have been 96 to 128 player maps.

I only play rush now.

Honestly, I have to agree. The original maps I had some fun with conquest. Now? It's boring as fuck. You either camp an objective and hope someone comes there, hop objectives trying to keep them capped so your team wins, or run around in a tank. It's just boring as fuck and I don't see the point. I'd by far rather play Rush or CTF where the objectives are concentrated and you actually have action.

Go play COD you two. If anything, the flags in BF3 conquest maps aren't spread out far enough.

 

[caddys83]

Wow just wow. People bitched in the begining about flags was to close, now people bitchin about flags to far apart? I need a tylenol

 

[tehslippery]

Way to dispute a reasoned why with a different reasoned point.

 

[odditory]

what's with this emotional crap talk by one of the EA/Dice guys?

Are they trying to turn my video games into some emotional woman type soap opera in war form?

If so -- holy fuck for gaming. I would have loved to be someone in the audience that stands up and says "Excuse me -- but I play games to have fun and blow shit up -- not to have some emotional connection to some character nobody gives two shits about"

Yep I had my emotional connection with Michael K. Williams when his name was Omar in The Wire and I say that as a straight man but a peaceful man.

 

[Blade-Runner]

 

[RangerXML]

*snip*

God damn fucking straight there skipper.

I do not think any single BF fan could say it any better and I even already preordered BF4. BF2 I still have the most hours on and I still have not yet reached max lvl, with each successive BF title I spend less and less time playing them. Same thing with the CODs, except I have the most hours in Black Ops 1.

 

[Ironchef Chris Wok]

Go play COD you two. If anything, the flags in BF3 conquest maps aren't spread out far enough.

There aren't enough players on Armoured Kill Maps to make it remotely interesting. It's just boring as fuck.

Karkand maps are still the best fun for both Rush AND Conquest. of course they were from BF2.

This is an Armoured Kill only gripe, and you can't tell me tank superiority comes remotely close to fun

 

[Plague_Injected]

There aren't enough players on Armoured Kill Maps to make it remotely interesting. It's just boring as fuck.

Karkand maps are still the best fun for both Rush AND Conquest. of course they were from BF2.

This is an Armoured Kill only gripe, and you can't tell me tank superiority comes remotely close to fun

DLC maps don't count in this instance. What counts are the maps that came with the actual $60 game. They were very, very small...

 

[Ironchef Chris Wok]

DLC maps don't count in this instance. What counts are the maps that came with the actual $60 game. They were very, very small...

And most of the Vanilla maps are fun. On a good game of 64 man RUSH on any of the vanilla maps, the experience is SOOOO much better than any COD experience I've ever had, so whoever it is that "told me to go play COD", screw off.