Battlefield 4's aim assist is ridiculous

[Slimebeast]

Akvod said:

Slimebeast said:

Akvod said:

DamnTastic said:
how messed up is BF4 atm man :L

I've just gotten so used to the crashes, so it's hard to even evaluate the game. What's really infuriating is how the crashes result in the PS3 telling me that the system was improperly turned off. Not only do I lose save data on multiplayer settings, but also the single player data. I've spent hours playing DICE's shitty single player to get multiplayer unlocks, and then all the progress is gone.

As for the gameplay, I'm mixed. Battlefield 4 did fix the biggest problem with BF3, with map designs. Although BF3's map designs were so horrible, the bar was set really low.

 

Could you explain how BF3 had bad map design? And what were its other flaws?

This explains everything wrong with BF3's map design:

And I thought Port Valdez in BC2 was bad:

 

I was actually planning on making a video about Battlefield and how it really hit a low point in BF3, but that's on the shelf right now indefinetly.

What I was going to say in the video was that there were two main changes/problems after BC1 was released:

1) Lowering of TTK

2) Bad map design/under utilized destruction

Sure there's all the other problems and non-problems. People made such a shit storm about prone, instead of focusing their attention on more important gameplay matters. Sure there's the blue tint in BF3, the graphical glitches, etc, etc.

But those two changes fundamentally affect the game IMO. They kill Battlefield as a sandbox shooter.

 

So let's go back to that for a moment. Battlefield is a SANDBOX shooter, not a fucking twitch shooter like Quake.

The game is about players moving around an open map. It was more about tactics and strategies with team mates than the lone wolfing duels you have in CoD. The game was also focused on having classes distinct from each other, one of the major ways was in the effective range of players. 

Bad Company 1 pushed the concept of a sandbox game further by giving players another tool: destruction. They could make their own paths now and actually change the map. More importantly, it also reduced camping since now cover wasn't guaranteed. If you got pinned down you needed to move.

 

With low TTK, players just instantly die the moment they step out of cover. That incentivizes players to just cling close to cover and to stay proned. Then you have the lack of destructible cover in BF3 (again, look at Operation Metro) and BF4 compared to Bad Company, which just allows people to camp. The low TTK also makes the shooting itself less fun, because aiming isn't as important. With gun fights ending in miliseconds, it's much more rational to just aim for the body in the hopes of shooting first than the head. Gun fights happen so fast your brain can't even process it. How is that even fun from the perspective of a shooter? The low TTK also diminshes the system Bad Company created by not giving players the time to get to cover if they do get shot at. If the players can't even get to cover, then there's no point in destroying cover.

Then the shitty map design in BF3 (it's better in BF4). A lot of maps barely had any vehicles. And a lot of them were literally just tunnels and/or alleyways. Whereas Battlefield is about flanks and maneuvering you just had meat grinds.

 

Gonna stop here because I'm just ranting now, but BF3 was just the biggest fucking dissapointment ever. 

I agree with everything you say here. I just wasn't aware very well how BF has changed since Bad Company 2 (although I've read complaints and we've had similar threads before, but I forgot the main points).

Yes, the beauty of BF was always the slow, heavy, methodological pace, the team play and strategy.

I hate low TTK. I loved in Bad Company 2 when I could run long distances, get shot with a couple of bullets and still survive.

People already have Call of Duty for the twitch solo players. Battelfield should keep the features that make it unique.