sauron wrote on Sep 26, 2016, 16:04:
Apparently this includes the full game - can anyone confirm?

They also have BF2 listed as included - does the download include that as well?

Thanks for any info.

Slick wrote on Sep 20, 2016, 22:36:

thecakeisalie wrote on Sep 20, 2016, 22:24:

RaZ0r! wrote on Sep 20, 2016, 20:34:
Nothing has matched Rush in Bad Company 2 to date for me. BF3 and BF4 both had it but it just wasn't the same and I'm not really sure why.

Bad Company 2 was, by far, my favorite Battlefield. You earned everything. There was no "I'm too lazy to just play the game" cash shop and no obnoxious "Season Pass" bullshit. I couldn't get into BF3 and I gave BF4 a miss completely.

Loving something like a grown up requires recognizing what was good and bad about them. No prone-ing, no strafing while sprinting, servers capped at 32 players, there was a lot that the Bad Company series left to be desired if you're being honest.

And furthermore, do you actually know a single human being who's actually purchased a weapons upgrade pack? I don't. And If I did I wouldn't hate them for it, just feel bad for them that they obviously don't have enough time to enjoy unlocking things as per normal. Either way, it doesn't affect my enjoyment of the game one bit.

And BC2 kinda sucked because it only had one DLC, it was a GREAT one however, but only 4 maps. I had a lot of love for BC2, and would have wished that they'd support it with additional content. After BC2 Vietnam got stale, there was a void in my FPS playtime that wasn't really being filled with anything.

Supporting a game with extra content isn't a bad thing, I know this is a crazy notion. It's giving the people who love the game more stuff to love. And if you don't love the game, then you're not missing out. How is there still a discussion about this? People act like the 3-4 times that console games included DLC on the vanilla game-disc is the norm, and that any additional maps were just "cut" from the vanilla game. It's a strawman argument. Expansion packs have been around for literally decades.

jdreyer wrote on Sep 15, 2016, 04:10:

<Electric-Spock> wrote on Sep 14, 2016, 22:20:
Oddly enough, all the BF1 beta did for me was to remind myself that I own BF4. And while I won't know until release, after playing BF4 a few times over the last week, I have a feeling BF4 will probably be the better game and will satisfy my battlefield playstyle needs when in the mood.

Also shortly into the beta, I was reminded of how awesome it would be to have mod tools for the community. It seems like so much could be done with the Frostbite engine and there is so much wasted potential.

I would love to see a more PC oriented battlefield. Nothing really grabbed me with the BF1 beta, gameplay wise, it felt rather casual.

ArmA 3 too much for ya?

Slick wrote on Dec 13, 2015, 21:29:

<Electric-Spock> wrote on Dec 13, 2015, 20:52:

jdreyer wrote on Dec 13, 2015, 16:25:

The Half Elf wrote on Dec 13, 2015, 16:03:
PLEASE be 2143.

It would be cool if it was, but I'm just so soured on what this franchise has become after BF2.

I thought BC2 was pretty solid, but I agree, once EA fully bought out DICE, downhill for sure.

Also, if they want to get into the competitive community, they better keep focusing on the netcode. Only with the latest patch with them upping the tickrate server option(60HZ),and whatever algorithm tweaks they've been working on for hit detection is it starting to feel decent.

If the underlying core foundation is broken for an FPS, I don't see much Esport stuff around BF.

BF used to have a very active competition community, it actually predated the term "e-sport".

and I played those old BF games, I competed in them. and trust me they were way more broken than the current iterations. Anyone who still has the rose-tinted glasses should look at some BF2 footage. That game was positively broken. just a few highlights:

-the RNG cone-of-fire weapons
-the insta-prone
-not being able to sprint and strafe
-view distance of 150m
-questionable ballistics model
-spawn camping airfields, and spawn camping in general (always makes me lul when i get called a spawn camper blowing up a tank in BF3/BF4 which had just exited it's uncap's insta-death zone for me)
-getting stuck on everything
-hilarious low tic rate

compared to the advances of the later battlefield are no small feat

-arguably best looking/optimized engine on the planet
-dynamic water mesh
-dynamic lighting
-dynamic weather
-ridiculously good looking hybrid animations (keyframe+ragdoll)
-guns that feel very solid, accurate, and effective at range
-max viewdistance is now the whole map and beyond, 10km at least
-pro tic-rates (better late than never, but there are 144hz tic servers in the wild right now)
-battlelog (some claim as a contentious issue, but I welcome the ability to browse servers, manage a 100 person friendlist, in HTML)
-vehicles with weight, with punch

I'd love for someone to offer some evidence for the downfall of the series since BF2, when every DICE game I've played has gotten progressively better since. please, show me some fact-based evidence, and I'll eat my foot.

jdreyer wrote on Dec 13, 2015, 16:25:

The Half Elf wrote on Dec 13, 2015, 16:03:
PLEASE be 2143.

It would be cool if it was, but I'm just so soured on what this franchise has become after BF2.

CJ_Parker wrote on Dec 1, 2015, 20:52:
Hilarious stuff in that R6 blurb like...

…Study up on the Operators. Try all of them. There may be some you’re a secret badass with, but wouldn’t necessarily go to because they don’t seem like your style.

^ Yup. Great idea... in theory, UbiSoft. In practice, however, even your fucking retarded SINGLE PLAYER terrorist hunt mode forces this 15 seconds timer on your ass!
How are you supposed to "study up" on the operators and all the possible gear in 15 fucking seconds? You can't! In fucking SINGLE PLAYER!
I can fully understand a timer for multiplayer (but make it 30s maybe?) so people don't camp the selection screen instead of playing the game but what the fuck is that timer for in SINGLE PLAYER? Were you too fucking lazy to remove it, UbiShit? Seriously? Goddammit!

sdgundamx wrote on Dec 1, 2015, 20:24:
I dunno... I enjoy the game on the PS4. It scratches a certain itch for me, especially after playing a much more refined shooter like Destiny: TTK for like the past month and a half.

I don't get the complaints about it not being the next Battlefield though... I mean, the goal of any game company--particularly EA--is to make money. How could they possibly take that franchise and market it only to the niche hardcore shooter crowd?

It's pretty obvious why they chose the arcadey feel--they're hoping people who don't normally play FPS will pick this up and give it a go and be able to have fun. They didn't want new players to be constantly getting pub-stomped by some clan of 13-year olds. And it's not like this should be surprising--the devs have been publicly saying for months the kind of experience they were going for and the beta gave everyone a pretty good idea of what the final game would be like. People who bought it after all that and expected some kind of high skill ceiling FPS game are idiots IMO.

In terms of the Star Wars experience, the game delivers. I've had tons of "cinematic" moments in the game, like last night when I strode into a rebel-controlled bunker on Endor as Darth Vader, killed two rebels by deflecting their shots back at them and then mowed down four more with a single saber throw. Force-choked a guy who was late to the party, then strode out of the other side of the bunker with 5 or 6 stormtroopers at my back and waded into another group of rebels.

There are definitely some wonky bugs that detract from the experience though (spawning in the middle of enemies or spawning in the middle of nowhere, the invincibility bug that pops up occasionally, etc.). But I don't get the hate for the game. I'd give it a 7/10 (possibly 8/10 once they push out more maps and fix the bugs). It's not GOTY or anything but it is entertaining enough that I'll get my money's worth out of it (got it on sale for around $50 after tax).

Slick wrote on Nov 17, 2015, 16:50:

Creston wrote on Nov 17, 2015, 12:31:

Verno wrote on Nov 17, 2015, 09:43:
Reviews are being pretty brutal about the lack of content and I found the beta entertaining but only in small doses. Pass.

Yeah I'm not paying $60 for that. I mean it looks great, but so few maps...

there's 10 maps (8 now, 2 more in 2 weeks) which is exactly what DICE have been putting out for more than a decade.

the only difference is that not all maps have all modes.

there's pros and cons for this, basically it halves the number of maps per mode, which yes, sucks. But at the same time, the close-quarters maps are actually built for that game mode, and that game mode alone.

I'm sure we've all been in a battlefield TDM server which is just a bunch of shipping containers in a yard in an otherwise gigantic map because they had to tack on every game mode to every map. I can handle maps made for modes. I really can.

These are by far the most gorgeous, and best designed maps I've ever seen from DICE.

Whiskers wrote on Nov 17, 2015, 09:37:
It's really a shame DICE locks down their engine from modding. Imagine all of the amazing Battlefield 2 mods that could have been made for Battlefield 4.

Slick wrote on Nov 13, 2015, 07:37:

Suppa7 wrote on Nov 13, 2015, 02:42:

Slick wrote on Nov 13, 2015, 01:44:
"actual big maps" lol.

such rose-tinted nostalgia glasses, the article itself said explicitly how small a view distance there was in BF2 (and it was small, so very very small, like 150m). The point is that it "felt" bigger. When you have a 4KM view distance, nothing really changes with the skyline when you move around.

Size is relative, you'd actually have to sit down and do metric conversions of the time and distance travelled between games. It's quite possible for the maps to be larger in terms of space/travel time despite having 'lower distance'. AKA the relative distances are all that matter. So its quite possible if you blew up or scaled down he co-ordinate space (depending on which is bigger or smaller) you'd find out all sorts of interesting things.

this is true, you can't do an apples-to-apples comparison, but it does paint a picture. The move speed is the main factor, as most other assets are scaled relative to the player height (most games do this from what i'm told, player height is the first unit of measurement against everything else in the map).

that being said, you can use the (already metric =p) meter distance indicators on your hud, 400m to that flag etc. This correlates with the earlier games, assuming that a meter is still a meter. which is again probably measured against the height (and speed) of a player.

BF3 has had the biggest map in BF history so far, and it's freaking huuuuuge. but you can still easily still see the landforms on the opposing side of the map. hence my point that the most obvious factor in play here is the view distance. when the whole world bubble around your character can fit 10 times in the legnth of a map end to end, it "feels" bigger than if your world bubble already extends to either side of the map.

start walking from one uncap to the other in operation firestorm (bf3 and bf4) and it'll take you 20 minutes. and that map isn't the biggest of the big maps. and jesus goddamn, the music in that trailer... gives me tingles.