[Megathread] Battlefield 4

[Shinzai]

I dont get it peoples blind loyalty to this game astounds me, I had a feeling so i played the beta for a while then popped in bf2 and they play almost exactly the same, few new things here and there tripods, jumping over stuff ect but the combat is the same and it doesnt feel right, vehicle combat is ok but infrantry battles dont feel smooth at all. Even though i love the tank play i will def not be purchasing this unless they make some major changes between now and release.

I would say the same about Halo, but it never even changed as much as Battlefield did between games.

[Glorious Leader]

I would say the same about Halo, but it never even changed as much as Battlefield did between games.

In terms of FPS BF has had lots of changes over the years. Halo less so. I love both games so I don't really get this "blind loyalty" thing. BF is BF and while the game has changed over the years it will still be BF. I didn't expect BF4 to become borderlands. Now i get why people would be upset that it didn't, it can get repetitive but it's a design decision about how far you want to take things. Personally I think bf4 adds alot but still keeps to the core of battlefield. *shrug* I guess I'm blind..

[Drofdel]

So far, the beta has been pretty unplayable for me due to crashing/loading issues. I hope it's resolved by the time the game is out.

Oh, and I still hate the obnoxious battlelog. I don't enjoy having to use an Internet browser to launch the game and join servers when there should be a server browser already integrated into the game's interface.

[Shinzai]

In terms of FPS BF has had lots of changes over the years. Halo less so. I love both games so I don't really get this "blind loyalty" thing. BF is BF and while the game has changed over the years it will still be BF. I didn't expect BF4 to become borderlands. Now i get why people would be upset that it didn't, it can get repetitive but it's a design decision about how far you want to take things. Personally I think bf4 adds alot but still keeps to the core of battlefield. *shrug* I guess I'm blind..

Indeed, this is what I don't get: There have been a lot of changes, advances in gameplay, graphical updates, alterations to the setup of the classes (pushing Recon more offensive and giving it C4 for example), new weapons and updates for all the returning ones, a whole array of new maps being added for multiplayer, new loadouts for vehicles as well as refreshes/updates for them, a new single player campaign, a couple more gameplay modes, the entirety of the Naval Warfare maps and the dynamic that fully sea-based maps will bring, not to mention the wave tech they're implementing and so on.

Yet despite all that BF 4 will bring, people seem to expect a completely different game. Which in turn, would make it no longer Battlefield. So yeah, I don't understand the argument either.

[Deleted]

Anyone else feels the domination map is a little small?

I also miss rush

Is Rush removed?

[Shinzai]

Is Rush removed?

No, it hasn't been removed.

http://bf4central.com/battlefield-4-...er-game-modes/

Rush
Conquest
Deathmatch
Defuse
Obliteration
Domination
Capture The Flag
Air Superiority
Tank Superiority
Team Deathmatch
Squad Deathmatch
Squad Rush

Have all been confirmed.

[Vyce223]

Anyone else feels the domination map is a little small?

I also miss rush

Definately small, however it provides good CQB fun even with all of those damn roof campers.

As far as rush, well it should be back come release right? :P

[Deleted]

I think Domination is for the Call of Duty Kiddies. Seems like CloseQuarter Combat in BF3.

[Zeta333]

I think Domination is for the Call of Duty Kiddies. Seems like CloseQuarter Combat in BF3.

It is funny how you poke at COD yet now BF is doing the same thing, coming out with a game that is barely an expansion pack and marketing it as a new game.

[Shinzai]

It is funny how you poke at COD yet now BF is doing the same thing, coming out with a game that is barely an expansion pack and marketing it as a new game.

Would you explain what exactly you believe they'd have to add to the game to justify calling it a new game? At this point, you're just sitting there, trolling.

[Iamanerd]

Indeed, this is what I don't get: There have been a lot of changes, advances in gameplay, graphical updates, alterations to the setup of the classes (pushing Recon more offensive and giving it C4 for example), new weapons and updates for all the returning ones, a whole array of new maps being added for multiplayer, new loadouts for vehicles as well as refreshes/updates for them, a new single player campaign, a couple more gameplay modes, the entirety of the Naval Warfare maps and the dynamic that fully sea-based maps will bring, not to mention the wave tech they're implementing and so on.

Yet despite all that BF 4 will bring, people seem to expect a completely different game. Which in turn, would make it no longer Battlefield. So yeah, I don't understand the argument either.

I agree with this, people expect a whole new game but it doesn't work that way, they tweak things add new weapons or accessories and so on. Plus all the new maps, a more refined game engine and physics plus polished gameplay. I mean we get new game modes/maps and single player plus other things I"m most likely forgetting. Same goes with Halo and I have no problem shelling out $60 for games I'll get 200+ hours out of.

[Zeta333]

I agree with this, people expect a whole new game but it doesn't work that way, they tweak things add new weapons or accessories and so on. Plus all the new maps, a more refined game engine and physics plus polished gameplay. I mean we get new game modes/maps and single player plus other things I"m most likely forgetting. Same goes with Halo and I have no problem shelling out $60 for games I'll get 200+ hours out of.

its just ironic consider how many people in this thread i see in multitudes of other threads bashing games like COD for being the same game with a different name and now they defend BF for doing exactly what they have bashed about.

[Schmittay]

its just ironic consider how many people in this thread i see in multitudes of other threads bashing games like COD for being the same game with a different name and now they defend BF for doing exactly what they have bashed about.

Are you just in this thread to say the same crap over and over again? We get it, you think BF4 is a glorified expansion of BF3 and you think BF3 fanboys are the same as COD fanboys.

Move along, kiddo.

[Glorious Leader]

its just ironic consider how many people in this thread i see in multitudes of other threads bashing games like COD for being the same game with a different name and now they defend BF for doing exactly what they have bashed about.

Did you think halo 3 was more than a glorified expansion for halo 2? What came out of halo 3 that made it worth buying after halo 2? or halo 2 compared to halo 1?

[Zeta333]

Did you think halo 3 was more than a glorified expansion for halo 2? What came out of halo 3 that made it worth buying after halo 2? or halo 2 compared to halo 1?

after halo 2 every single halo game following has been worse, while halo 3 wasnt that bad it still wasnt as good. Besides if you look at multiplayer from halo 1 or 2 and compare it to 4 its not even close to the same game, some of the gametypes may have the same game concept but the gameplay has changed so much its almost a different title. And im not saying at all that this sort of thing going from game1 to game2 with not much difference is a bad or good thing im just pointing out the amount of hypocrits on these forums and how they are mostly full of shit.

[Wilian]

Well to be honest it does seem more like traditional expansion than actual new game. Few improvements to aspects of the game like better hit detection, couple new modes, one of which was returning feature from earliel game (Commander) and a bunch of new bigger maps. Anyone who claims that there's any real leap like between BF 1942 -> BF 2 -> BF 3 is delusional at best.

It doesn't mean it wouldn't be fun to play and toy around with but looking at it objectively and comparing to earliel full launches of the serie that's what one walks away with. Hell, I'd dare to say some expansion packs in earliel games have been much more feature filled like Secret Weapons of WW2.

[Sinnermighty]

Well to be honest it does seem more like traditional expansion than actual new game. Few improvements to aspects of the game like better hit detection, couple new modes, one of which was returning feature from earliel game (Commander) and a bunch of new bigger maps. Anyone who claims that there's any real leap like between BF 1942 -> BF 2 -> BF 3 is delusional at best.

It doesn't mean it wouldn't be fun to play and toy around with but looking at it objectively and comparing to earliel full launches of the serie that's what one walks away with. Hell, I'd dare to say some expansion packs in earliel games have been much more feature filled like Secret Weapons of WW2.

Well anyone claiming they want a leap of quality like there was between 1942 -> 2 -> 3, for 3 -> 4 is delusional too. 4/5 year gaps between the games vs 2 + getting closer & closer to diminishing returns on graphical quality (polygon count, so focus more on the little things).

I think BF4 is a great new game and deserves to be a new numbered title. Maybe when they go back to a 4/5 year cycle between the numbered games and use the side titles like Bad Company/BF2142 etc. for the meantime then you can expect the leaps that were there for previous numbered games.

[Zeta333]

Well anyone claiming they want a leap of quality like there was between 1942 -> 2 -> 3, for 3 -> 4 is delusional too. 4/5 year gaps between the games vs 2 + getting closer & closer to diminishing returns on graphical quality (polygon count, so focus more on the little things).

I think BF4 is a great new game and deserves to be a new numbered title. Maybe when they go back to a 4/5 year cycle between the numbered games and use the side titles like Bad Company/BF2142 etc. for the meantime then you can expect the leaps that were there for previous numbered games.

Speaking of 2142 will we ever get a sequal you can only rehash modern combat like they have been for so many titles. I want my futuristic mech combat back again.

[Wilian]

Well anyone claiming they want a leap of quality like there was between 1942 -> 2 -> 3, for 3 -> 4 is delusional too. 4/5 year gaps between the games vs 2 + getting closer & closer to diminishing returns on graphical quality (polygon count, so focus more on the little things).

I think BF4 is a great new game and deserves to be a new numbered title. Maybe when they go back to a 4/5 year cycle between the numbered games and use the side titles like Bad Company/BF2142 etc. for the meantime then you can expect the leaps that were there for previous numbered games.

Well the most natural shift to make differentiation between the versions would've been a new setting instead of yet another modern mil shooter. There's many proxy wars from Cold War that would more than well enough fill the shoes of the serie. And I wasn't talking about graphics one bit really, which you seem to stress about.

[Sinnermighty]

Speaking of 2142 will we ever get a sequal you can only rehash modern combat like they have been for so many titles. I want my futuristic mech combat back again.

I know they're planning to bringing Bad Company back again, really enjoyed the humor in the SP campaign for BC/2. Really don't know about BF2142, but I would like for it to come back too, could also really be a game that could compete with Titanfall 2 (if it comes out, though that would be two Mech Futuristic shooters from EA).