By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - New Battlefield 4 Details

 

So?

Looks good, can't wait! 27 50.00%
 
Maybe, still undecided 8 14.81%
 
No, not really feeling it 6 11.11%
 
Boo military fps, booo! 3 5.56%
 
Pftt no more Battle of Duty 32 for me! 7 12.96%
 
lol 3 5.56%
 
Total:54
the2real4mafol on 10 August 2013

Despite what i've seen for Battlefield 4 so far (it looks good), i just don't know about this game. There are too many military FPS games, time for something different. I'll stick to my action adventure games i think. GTA V, AC4, watch dogs and Beyond 2 souls all look far far more interesting to me.



Xbox Series, PS5 and Switch (+ Many Retro Consoles)

'When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called the people's stick'- Mikhail Bakunin

Prediction: Switch 2 will outsell the PS5 by 2030

Around the Network
Th3PANO on 10 August 2013
Zkuq said:
ultima said:
Zkuq said:
ultima said:
Zkuq said:
They shouldn't try to do a Call of Duty like story, they can't directly compete with CoD because BF is different. Instead, they should focus on making great battles in single-player and have it accompanied by a believable story. Over-the-top just doesn't fit Battlefield and it doesn't give it an edge over the competition.

I disagree. Bad Companies had the best stories in Battlefield.

That's because Bad Companies were much less Battlefield then any other Battlefield games. They were a whole lot different. Anyway, by over-the-top I meant something that's still aiming to seem somewhat realistic, like CoD. Bad Company isn't like that, it's much more over-the-top and light-hearted.

What made Bad Companies less Battlefield than any other Battlefied games?

Don't you think they were different - significantly?


BF 3 is way more like cod then BC 2 tbh.



riderz13371 on 11 August 2013
KylieDog said:
1. There should not even be a single player campaign

2. Operation Metro is an awful map, the people who play it are the CoD noobs who jumped ship, is no Battlefield gameplay to it, Assault is the only class worth playing because it is the only class who's abilities have a use. Also has a great out of map exploit that DICE never bothered to fix despite the widespread use of it.

I have run into this quite a lot recently...It's super annoying because they can shoot you and you can't see them =/. 



ultima on 11 August 2013
Zkuq said:
ultima said:
Zkuq said:
ultima said:
Zkuq said:
They shouldn't try to do a Call of Duty like story, they can't directly compete with CoD because BF is different. Instead, they should focus on making great battles in single-player and have it accompanied by a believable story. Over-the-top just doesn't fit Battlefield and it doesn't give it an edge over the competition.

I disagree. Bad Companies had the best stories in Battlefield.

That's because Bad Companies were much less Battlefield then any other Battlefield games. They were a whole lot different. Anyway, by over-the-top I meant something that's still aiming to seem somewhat realistic, like CoD. Bad Company isn't like that, it's much more over-the-top and light-hearted.

What made Bad Companies less Battlefield than any other Battlefied games?

Don't you think they were different - significantly?

No, not significantly. Like KylieDog pointed out, it evolved along with the genre. And like said before, B3 took this direction even further.

In my opinion, Bad Companies had everything that made the Battlefield series great. Great destruction, very well designed maps, lots of vehicles, and of course beautiful multiplayer. Actually, BC2 is my favourite game in the series.



           

Zkuq on 11 August 2013
ultima said:
Zkuq said:
ultima said:
Zkuq said:
ultima said:
Zkuq said:
They shouldn't try to do a Call of Duty like story, they can't directly compete with CoD because BF is different. Instead, they should focus on making great battles in single-player and have it accompanied by a believable story. Over-the-top just doesn't fit Battlefield and it doesn't give it an edge over the competition.

I disagree. Bad Companies had the best stories in Battlefield.

That's because Bad Companies were much less Battlefield then any other Battlefield games. They were a whole lot different. Anyway, by over-the-top I meant something that's still aiming to seem somewhat realistic, like CoD. Bad Company isn't like that, it's much more over-the-top and light-hearted.

What made Bad Companies less Battlefield than any other Battlefied games?

Don't you think they were different - significantly?

No, not significantly. Like KylieDog pointed out, it evolved along with the genre. And like said before, B3 took this direction even further.

In my opinion, Bad Companies had everything that made the Battlefield series great. Great destruction, very well designed maps, lots of vehicles, and of course beautiful multiplayer. Actually, BC2 is my favourite game in the series.

More like devolve, not evolve. When most games in a genre are very much the same, I don't see how moving towards that direction is evolving (especially considering how simple CoD, the direction they're taking, is).

I agree, Bad Companies were great (well, I pretty much missed the first one). They were also totally different from the first games in the series due to consoles. BF3 tried to bring the old things back, too, but apparently it failed at that.  BF4 seems to be trying to fix that, but it's still trying to appeal to the CoD audience at the same time. As for the things you said made the BF series great, the first one didn't even exist in the beginning so it couldn't make it great (and besides, destruction is a fun feature but very rarely is it something that 'makes a game great'). The rest, except for vehicles, are so ambiguous, that they could be said even about CoD (and probably every other popular multiplayer shooter).

And finally: do you have experience of the first games in the series, before Bad Companies?



Around the Network
areason on 11 August 2013

I would be interested if wasn't sick of modern shooters



ultima on 11 August 2013
Zkuq said:
ultima said:
Zkuq said:
ultima said:
Zkuq said:
ultima said:
Zkuq said:
They shouldn't try to do a Call of Duty like story, they can't directly compete with CoD because BF is different. Instead, they should focus on making great battles in single-player and have it accompanied by a believable story. Over-the-top just doesn't fit Battlefield and it doesn't give it an edge over the competition.

I disagree. Bad Companies had the best stories in Battlefield.

That's because Bad Companies were much less Battlefield then any other Battlefield games. They were a whole lot different. Anyway, by over-the-top I meant something that's still aiming to seem somewhat realistic, like CoD. Bad Company isn't like that, it's much more over-the-top and light-hearted.

What made Bad Companies less Battlefield than any other Battlefied games?

Don't you think they were different - significantly?

No, not significantly. Like KylieDog pointed out, it evolved along with the genre. And like said before, B3 took this direction even further.

In my opinion, Bad Companies had everything that made the Battlefield series great. Great destruction, very well designed maps, lots of vehicles, and of course beautiful multiplayer. Actually, BC2 is my favourite game in the series.

More like devolve, not evolve. When most games in a genre are very much the same, I don't see how moving towards that direction is evolving (especially considering how simple CoD, the direction they're taking, is).

I agree, Bad Companies were great (well, I pretty much missed the first one). They were also totally different from the first games in the series due to consoles. BF3 tried to bring the old things back, too, but apparently it failed at that.  BF4 seems to be trying to fix that, but it's still trying to appeal to the CoD audience at the same time. As for the things you said made the BF series great, the first one didn't even exist in the beginning so it couldn't make it great (and besides, destruction is a fun feature but very rarely is it something that 'makes a game great'). The rest, except for vehicles, are so ambiguous, that they could be said even about CoD (and probably every other popular multiplayer shooter).

And finally: do you have experience of the first games in the series, before Bad Companies?

Well okay, you're right about COD. I meant to say evolved along with the majority's taste.

The games I played before BC are Vietnam and 1943. I don't think Vietnam had destruction, but the other three were definitely present.

Destruction plays a major role in Battlefield. It really does have a significant effect on matches. Map design I'd say was always well above average with these games. By beautiful multiplayer I meant actual team and squad based multiplayer, not mindless COD type run-and-gun.



           

Zkuq on 11 August 2013
ultima said:
Zkuq said:

More like devolve, not evolve. When most games in a genre are very much the same, I don't see how moving towards that direction is evolving (especially considering how simple CoD, the direction they're taking, is).

I agree, Bad Companies were great (well, I pretty much missed the first one). They were also totally different from the first games in the series due to consoles. BF3 tried to bring the old things back, too, but apparently it failed at that.  BF4 seems to be trying to fix that, but it's still trying to appeal to the CoD audience at the same time. As for the things you said made the BF series great, the first one didn't even exist in the beginning so it couldn't make it great (and besides, destruction is a fun feature but very rarely is it something that 'makes a game great'). The rest, except for vehicles, are so ambiguous, that they could be said even about CoD (and probably every other popular multiplayer shooter).

And finally: do you have experience of the first games in the series, before Bad Companies?

Well okay, you're right about COD. I meant to say evolved along with the majority's taste.

The games I played before BC are Vietnam and 1943. I don't think Vietnam had destruction, but the other three were definitely present.

Destruction plays a major role in Battlefield. It really does have a significant effect on matches. Map design I'd say was always well above average with these games. By beautiful multiplayer I meant actual team and squad based multiplayer, not mindless COD type run-and-gun.

Fair enough, you've explained your opinion well. Now that I review the whole discussion, I'm getting the impression that we haven't even been debating about the point I originally tried to make because of my bad choice of words ('over-the-top' when I was referring to gameplay instead of story). I guess it doesn't hurt, though.



oldschoolfool on 11 August 2013

I'll get this game eventually,but not this year.



think-man on 11 August 2013
riderz13371 said:
Eww I hope they don't put MCOM stations in destructible buildings. That just ruins the point of rush because people don't even bother planting the bomb. They just shoot RPG's from a distance at the building...


Agreed^^^^^



 

How to Make friends In Dark Souls 3