Akvod said:
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. They've still kept the damage model which is just killing the tempo of the game. Battlefield was never supposed to be a Quake like twitch shooter. It was supposed to be about the bigger picture and experimenting like you would in GTA. So if you run out in the open you instantly get killed, and the result is everyone just sniping or clinging to corners. And then the destructible environment. Destructible environments were introduced in Bad Company exactly to combat camping. Yet they've toned down the traditional destruction (lots of buildings where you can take cover) and replaced it with more context sensitive type destructions (e.g. shoot this pillar to bring the floor down). In Bad Company, destruction was an ever present element and the backbone of the game. Now it feels more like a set piece/feature for them to show off how pretty the game is. So in a nutshell, aside from the bugs, better than Battlefield 3. But Battlefield 3 was so horrible, it's not really an accomplishment to improve on it. |
I wonder why BF4 is so buggy. Did EA rush it that hard or what?
if they don't look out it's going the MoH way














(mostly)
