Jackplug wrote on Oct 17, 2013, 09:44:
After Bad Company 2 I expected better destruction, however I did forget about EA being the controlling party and they lowered the destruction in BF3! BF3 for me lasted 3 months before I uninstalled it. Now in BF4 I feel its the same as BF3 and already I was getting bored, blasting a rocket against a wall only to see a black mark instead of a hole.
I saw a few hackers and Dice said theyve switched their defenses off, I do feel that this game will fall again to all the noobs who cant shoot for shit and require hacks to win!
Tim Collins wrote on Oct 17, 2013, 12:11:Let's make a FPS VR OS that will succeed unlike the previous failed ones.
Battlefield itself is useless, the goal here is to sell the engine to other game makers. This Frostbite game engine is basically a self contained OS.
DedEye wrote on Oct 17, 2013, 08:37:It seems like months and years according to http://www.gamerankings.com/browse.html?search=battlefield+1942&numrev=3&site= ...
BF1942 is one of the few games I played for years.
How long was it in between expansions? Time fades the memory but it had to be at least a year (?)
BF3s were accelerated and this really put me off as it seemed, as previously pointed out, like a cash grab ala COD. Add in EAs legendary piss poor support and I have no interest in this one as a result.
DarkCntry wrote on Oct 17, 2013, 04:01:I did like the beta also, and I like Battlefield games but 4 just feels like 3 with some tweaks and new maps.
Going to simply buck the trend...I didn't have any issues with BF4's beta and I actually enjoyed the time I played with it. But hey, everyone has different tastes and what-not.
Rigs wrote on Oct 17, 2013, 03:38:
I, honest to GOD, can not see the difference between 3 and 4! I mean, I didn't play the beta, so maybe there are obvious things, but in all the streams and vids, I didn't see anything that told me, right off the bat, that this was BF4...am I crazy? (or just stupid?)
Wait! Don't answer that... (I actually asked the internet if I'm stupid...yeah, like they're going to give that chance up... )
Brumbek wrote on Oct 16, 2013, 23:36:
I don't mean to stir things up but it amazes me how many issues BF4 beta has, after playing for about 6 hours personally. DICE, after, years of working with BF3 still manages to produce a very buggy, very poorly performing game, with many exploits and balance issues.
On the other hand, Call of Duty games don't use betas but always manage to release in a great, stable, well-performing state (except BLOPS1). Granted, CoD games aren't as expansive in their reach I suppose, but BF4 is so much like BF3 making the "innovation" point a bit moot.
So I'm left to wonder: would I rather have an ambitious "realistic" game that is a mess or a more simplified shooter that runs and plays great even if it is not so complex.
I guess the real answer we all can hope for is simply: Titanfall.