Why do you dislike Battlefield Hardline?

Meh.

I don't need anymore Call of Modern Battlefield.

All these games appeal too much to the lowest common denominator, presumably because they target console audiences.
 
I guess it's less based on the merits of the game itself than on years of disappointing twitchy shooters that are designed to be dumb and simple and appeal to 13 year-olds playing with consoles.

It has gotten to the point that I dismiss these titles completely without ever even looking at them if:

  • They contain the name Call of Duty, Battlefield or Halo.
  • If there are any space marines
  • If multiplayer is "deathmatch" or "run and gun" based, rather than team strategy
  • If success in game is based more on fast twitchiness than thinking and strategy
  • If there are any "skins" or DLC
  • If they are designed with consoles in mind. I will never even look into a console port. Titles co-developed for PC and Console are unlikely to get my attention, but it is possible. If you want my business, make it a PC exclusive at launch, with no console design elements at all. If it is later ported to console, so be it.
  • If they appeal to 13 year olds who in game are just going to spam th emic with "gay", "fag", misogeny/sexual harassment, smack-talk or being offensive.
  • Etc. Etc.

How to get me interested? Realism, realism, realism. Not just in graphics, but in game play. If its a shooter, realistic recoil, no crosshair, aiming down sights, make running and shooting essentially a suicide. Focus more on dashing between places of cover, and on strategy.

Open game worlds.

Anything at all that gets rid of the damned children. There is nothing more depressing than to log into a game and realize you are playing with children who werent even born when you were in college.

I realize I am a bit of a hypocrite, as I am currently playing Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, and it contains many of the elements I despise, but I do this primarily out of nostalgia. Had tons of great times in that game for a few years after it first came out in 1999-2000.

Without the nostalgia element though, I wouldn't touch any titles using that formula.

Some examples of semi-recent FPS titles that REALLY got it right, and sucked me in:

1st Place: Red Orchestra, and Red Orchestra 2 (in realism mode):
Why: High levels of realism, no 30mph running and spraying. Cover cover cover. Bolt action manual bolting, and reloads. Historical accuracy (at least sortof) Effective conveyance of the horrors of war, on one of the worst fronts in human history.

2nd Place: S.T.A.L.K.E.R Series:
Why: Open world. post apocalypting Russian shit. (I'm a sucker for the post apocalyptic Russian shit)

3rd Place: Deus Ex: Human Revolution
Why: Very compelling story. Semi-open world / non-scripted. Nostalgia back to 2001 and the original.

4th Place: Metro 2033/Last Light series
Why: Compelling mystery based story. More of that Russian post apocalyptic shit I am a sucker for.

5th Place (distant): Fallout Series:
Why: Compelling story. Open world.

Side note:
Based on my appreciation of Red Orchestra, I really should like the Arma series.

I really tried to like it. IMHO they took it just a little too far, and made it complex and realistic to the point of it no longer being enjoyable. There IS a balance to be struck.


So to sum it up: To me the Call of Duty, Battlefield and Halo brands have such strong negative connotations to them that they could make the best game of all time, and if it carries any association to those brands, or the studios that made them, I will likely never buy.

I want PC exclusives that challenge the mind, not just the twitchy hands and quick reflexes.

I also want the titles to challenge high end PC hardware.

I want titles that dissuade anyone born after 1990 from playing.

Also, I should change my name to "The Curmudgeonly Old Gamer".

Did I mention I hate the term "gamer"? :p Games don't define me. I am not a gamer any more than I am a movier. I am a well balanced adult with a full time professional job who sometimes watches movies, and sometimes play games, neither of which define me :p
 
Zarathustra[H];1041486160 said:
Side note:
Based on my appreciation of Red Orchestra, I really should like the Arma series.

I really tried to like it. IMHO they took it just a little too far, and made it complex and realistic to the point of it no longer being enjoyable.
Click to expand...

ArmA's problem is that it actually isn't that realistic. The devs seem to attempt to add something in or improve something, then just stop. The result is a crappy sandbox where everything sucks. You can spam rockets like in BF4 with rocket launchers that reload as quick as a rifle, ect. The "improved" editor in ArmA 3 simply changed the icons and moved them from the right to the left of the screen.

There are other things they intentionally do to promote "false realism" to "make the game harder". Like not being able to pull out a sidearm when walking. Although there are some mods for ArmA 3 (and I think 2) which add this functionality...
 
Battlefield hard line is tacked on and looks absolutely worse than the previous games visually. In terms of gameplay it felt so mediocre in comparison to other games like it.

Also. To this day, I stand by my word that DICE does not know how to fully create a multiplayer game because their hit detection is horrible as well as the "netcode" for lack of a better word.
 
refraxion said:
To this day, I stand by my word that DICE does not know how to fully create a multiplayer game because their hit detection is horrible as well as the "netcode" for lack of a better word.
Click to expand...
DICE didn't develop this game, Visceral Games did.
 
Comixbooks said:
I'll buy it for 5.99 in the first year
Click to expand...

Basically, this. I can pretty well guarantee I'll buy the game some day, but it has to end up cheap enough that I won't give a fuck about plating for a couple hours and then walking away. $10 or less and i'll bite.
 
Lith1um said:
This! I'm sick of modern combat technology and it's fire and forget munitions.
Click to expand...

That's the turn off for me. It was cool at first to see a missile take off and track a target. But now, there's so many of them that it's not fun.

Give me arched rocket projectiles, dumb artillery, and dumb bombs any day. That's why BF42 played so well. It had a lot of skill involved in vehicles. Heck, Desert Combat did a good job of being fun with modern tech without the advanced tech.
 
I finally bough it and enjoy it a lot.
So sorry about first post, I did not read the thread start completely.

So what I dislike is:
Car collision
Upgrade system that require achievement to have.
The hack that are ridiculous imo.
 
I tried it in closed beta, to be honest, I didn't like the game play much, it didn't feel as natural or immersive as bf2,3 and even 4.

I'm also getting fed up with the DLC/expansion-Whoring, so it looks like I'm going to be passing on this one.
 
Dice doesn't understand competition paced gameplay, they should make it more like cs go. Also dice maps never seem to have any flow at all.
 
It is clearly DLC and doesn't deserve that price. For 20 dollars I'd consider it. I own BF3 and dont see much improvement from that. The beta was unimpressive. Felt like CSGO still has better gun play/maps. Rather not endorse EA and the yearly release program too.
 
I can get more value for my money elsewhere. It's a 15$ experience for me, defined as a very bland, arena'ish game.

I value open world games that give simple tools which will afford complex results when placed in the players hands.
 
I'm probably the exception here, but I'm not at all interested in multiplayer shooting.

I'm pretty much a single player kind of person. I really like FPS games, but prefer the open world stuff like STALKER. I liked Metro and LastLight as well.

My first FPS was Half-Life and I was hooked. Enjoyed FEAR and Bioshock one as well as all the Deus:Exs.

This Hardline seems to be very much multiplayer and nothing new in the graphics department.
I'd run through the SP if/when the game is 5 bucks.
 
Shantarr.Dalrae said:
I can get more value for my money elsewhere. It's a 15$ experience for me, defined as a very bland, arena'ish game.

I value open world games that give simple tools which will afford complex results when placed in the players hands.
Click to expand...

Doubt you will get your valve from your money anywhere else. Games give the most hour per dollar over almost every form of entertainment. For any game.
 
Armenius said:
The Frostbite engine was designed, developed, and programmed by DICE...
Click to expand...

You're right I see the info now on the Frostbite page, very interesting. I'm going to edit my post since it was incorrect. It looks like maybe they have a separate team continuing to develop the engine now
 
butterfliesrpretty said:
Dice doesn't understand competition paced gameplay, they should make it more like cs go. Also dice maps never seem to have any flow at all.
Click to expand...

Milkman128 said:
It is clearly DLC and doesn't deserve that price. For 20 dollars I'd consider it. I own BF3 and dont see much improvement from that. The beta was unimpressive. Felt like CSGO still has better gun play/maps. Rather not endorse EA and the yearly release program too.
Click to expand...

Domini said:
It should not be more like CS GO at all. They need to go back to the roots of BF2
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong here.

CS is and has been since its launch one of my guilty pleasures. The latest incantation (GO) I feel is a step backwards, but it is still fun.

I enjoy it more than I do any of the "Call of Modern Battlefield Online" games but it shouldn't be more like CS GO, for the following reasons.


We already have CS GO. What's the point of having more than one game that's the same. If you want to play CS GO, play CS GO.
CS GO is by no means the shining example of FPS gameplay. CS was the best when it first came out in 1999, but a lot has changed since then. The game rewards twitchy fast paced game styles over careful strategy, and many of the game elements are so disconnected from reality as to be absurd. (jump up to peek over a box while zoomed in with a sniper rifle and insta headshot someone across the map while in the air anyone?) Not to mention rampant cheating.

CS GO is a deeply flawed game. They have dialed in the model to make it highly addictive, but it is still deeply flawed.

A good FPS game needs to slow the pace down and make it more deliberate. Increase the dependence of strategy and deemphasize fast twitchiness. Make bullet physics and weapons handling more realistic, and less like circus acrobatics.

Red Orchestra 2 is fantastic in this regard (though it has its own problems)
 
I am in a unique situation as I was not going to purchase another EA/DICE game ever again as a result of the lies and greed that were fed to us PC gamers in regard to BF3/4, but because I run a very large gaming community where i review games in great detail I had to. This is a very small review since i have only played the game for about 30 minutes.

The Frostbite engine created for BF3 in its alpha state was a true PC game engine and then somewhere towards the release of the beta the platform was switched to console first making the frostbite engine a console port. Frostbite 2 would remain the same. The hit detection was also switched and changed to client side hit detection and we all know what that did to the game play. Very frustrating. Both BF3 and 4 have the feel of a perpetual beta game with no finish in sight.

Back to the topic at hand and this is for anyone thinking about this game. It is also an unfinished, console port with many cinematic, unplayable scenes added. The game feels all wrong from the start and I decided to uninstall and stop playing it. I would suggest not purchasing it to the OP.

I miss the days of Bf 1942 and it's many mods like Desert Combat, but even more I miss BF2 and it's mods. That's when DICE wasn't hampered by the EA bean counters catering to the damn consoles. I know that I am waxing poetic here, but it just seems as if those days are gone forever.
 
Fire488 said:
I am in a unique situation as I was not going to purchase another EA/DICE game ever again as a result of the lies and greed that were fed to us PC gamers in regard to BF3/4, but because I run a very large gaming community where i review games in great detail I had to. This is a very small review since i have only played the game for about 30 minutes.

The Frostbite engine created for BF3 in its alpha state was a true PC game engine and then somewhere towards the release of the beta the platform was switched to console first making the frostbite engine a console port. Frostbite 2 would remain the same. The hit detection was also switched and changed to client side hit detection and we all know what that did to the game play. Very frustrating. Both BF3 and 4 have the feel of a perpetual beta game with no finish in sight.

Back to the topic at hand and this is for anyone thinking about this game. It is also an unfinished, console port with many cinematic, unplayable scenes added. The game feels all wrong from the start and I decided to uninstall and stop playing it. I would suggest not purchasing it to the OP.

I miss the days of Bf 1942 and it's many mods like Desert Combat, but even more I miss BF2 and it's mods. That's when DICE wasn't hampered by the EA bean counters catering to the damn consoles. I know that I am waxing poetic here, but it just seems as if those days are gone forever.
Click to expand...

Also, I'm not sure if it does, but if this game requires Origin, it pretty much guarantees I will never buy it.
 
Zarathustra[H];1041503658 said:
Don't get me wrong here.

CS is and has been since its launch one of my guilty pleasures. The latest incantation (GO) I feel is a step backwards, but it is still fun.

I enjoy it more than I do any of the "Call of Modern Battlefield Online" games but it shouldn't be more like CS GO, for the following reasons.


We already have CS GO. What's the point of having more than one game that's the same. If you want to play CS GO, play CS GO.
CS GO is by no means the shining example of FPS gameplay. CS was the best when it first came out in 1999, but a lot has changed since then. The game rewards twitchy fast paced game styles over careful strategy, and many of the game elements are so disconnected from reality as to be absurd. (jump up to peek over a box while zoomed in with a sniper rifle and insta headshot someone across the map while in the air anyone?) Not to mention rampant cheating.

CS GO is a deeply flawed game. They have dialed in the model to make it highly addictive, but it is still deeply flawed.

A good FPS game needs to slow the pace down and make it more deliberate. Increase the dependence of strategy and deemphasize fast twitchiness. Make bullet physics and weapons handling more realistic, and less like circus acrobatics.

Red Orchestra 2 is fantastic in this regard (though it has its own problems)
Click to expand...

I guess my point is you die, you respawn, rinse repeat. I don't mean the game should be fast like cs go necessarily, but give you a reason to keep playing and really desire to begin the next round, and give you a reason to do good on the round you're on (being able to buy better weapons for instance).

There's a reason why cs go professional lans are all the rage, and I rarely here about something like that for battlefield. It's understanding flow and desire, battlefield has no flow, and I have no desire to keep playing other than to unlock a weapon maybe. The carrot on a stick just isn't enough.
 
Zarathustra[H];1041503723 said:
Also, I'm not sure if it does, but if this game requires Origin, it pretty much guarantees I will never buy it.
Click to expand...

It requires it, why the hate towards Origin? Its actually a very good client
 
Domini said:
It requires it, why the hate towards Origin? Its actually a very good client
Click to expand...

Well,

It may have improved, but it certainly wasn't on launch.

In general I am entirely opposed to the fragmentation of ecosystems for game (or any other) content delivery.

I want to have a single unified client for ALL my titles.

Right now Steam has more titles than anyone else, and as such Steam is the only client installed on my machine. It's not ideal, but I will not waver on this. One client only.

I will similarly refuse to purchase any titles that rely on that new Xbox/Games For Windows Live part 2 thing that's supposed to be a part of Windows 10.
 
Zarathustra[H];1041506010 said:
Well,
I will similarly refuse to purchase any titles that rely on that new Xbox/Games For Windows Live part 2 thing that's supposed to be a part of Windows 10.
Click to expand...

Waiiiiiiit there is a GFWL 2?!?! I thought they learned from the first one that it was a terribad idea and gave up
 
Milkman128 said:
Waiiiiiiit there is a GFWL 2?!?! I thought they learned from the first one that it was a terribad idea and gave up
Click to expand...

It's called "XBOX Live Gold for Windows 10" or some bs. like that, but from what anyone can tell it is essentially GFWL2

We discussed it at length here.
 
Zarathustra[H];1041506010 said:
Well,

It may have improved, but it certainly wasn't on launch.

In general I am entirely opposed to the fragmentation of ecosystems for game (or any other) content delivery.

I want to have a single unified client for ALL my titles.

Right now Steam has more titles than anyone else, and as such Steam is the only client installed on my machine. It's not ideal, but I will not waver on this. One client only.

I will similarly refuse to purchase any titles that rely on that new Xbox/Games For Windows Live part 2 thing that's supposed to be a part of Windows 10.
Click to expand...

After dealing with all of them over the years I actually disagree. Steam is becoming kind of a monopoly and Im ok with having an assortment of 3rd party delivery systems thats said. I actually don't like that EA separated BF from origin. You stil lhave to have the client but it doesn't even work with BF still have to run Battlelog on top of it which is strane counter-intuitive to getting people to want your dumb client. Valve worked incredibly hard to get people to use Steam over Xfire and the like. EA shit on their own client for no particular that I can see.
 
Zarathustra[H];1041503723 said:
Also, I'm not sure if it does, but if this game requires Origin, it pretty much guarantees I will never buy it.
Click to expand...

I understand Origin really sucked when it first came out. Initially I hated it as much as anyone. These days my only issue with Origin is the fact that you can't move it to another drive and keep your game files as easily as you can with Steam. Otherwise I dare say I like Origin's basic interface better. It is definitely better about helping you find DLC for a game and buying it. (Insert EA greed jokes here.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top