OdinHades said: Why don't you just play on hardcore servers?
Because it still has aim assist and even lower TTK?
News to me, but I'm playing on PS4, maybe that's different. Anyway, I don't think it's a big problem. It's for casuals, let them enjoy the game without practicing for endless hours. I still manage to do quite ok. Or else, just play on PC.
Why am I playing a competitive multiplayer if it's not competitive??? Consoles are about the convenience of setting up the hardware and software. It doesn't mean that a game shouldn't be competitive. And second, forget the competitive aspect, why would you play a game that's primarily about shooting, when you don't even do the shooting???
I understand GTA's aiming system, since the game is more than about shooting. But a FPS that's primarily sold for its competitive multiplayer pretty much lets the game edit for you?
What the fuck???
And no, I'm not going to shell out a ridiculous amount of money for a gaming PC that'll go obsolete when I also need a laptop rather than a desktop (and I ain't going to shell out even more money for a gaming laptop). More importantly, I don't even game that much anymore. So why the fuck would I shell out that much money for such a huge investment?
Play Killzone if you don't want aim assist. A lot of people hate the Killzone franchise because they continue to ignore aim assist that noobs seem to love so much.
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.
RG3Hunna said: Play Killzone if you don't want aim assist. A lot of people hate the Killzone franchise because they continue to ignore aim assist that noobs seem to love so much.
Yeah, but Killzone 3 has shitty map designs, low TTK, and is boring as shit.
RG3Hunna said: Play Killzone if you don't want aim assist. A lot of people hate the Killzone franchise because they continue to ignore aim assist that noobs seem to love so much.
Yeah, but Killzone 3 has shitty map designs, low TTK, and is boring as shit.
Yeah but that was just kz3. I didn't like that game either.
RG3Hunna said: Play Killzone if you don't want aim assist. A lot of people hate the Killzone franchise because they continue to ignore aim assist that noobs seem to love so much.
Yeah, but Killzone 3 has shitty map designs, low TTK, and is boring as shit.
Could say the same about BF too.
Anyway, aim assist is stronger when the enemy is closer because most people cant master the acceleration for both extremely close range and very long range gun fights, for noobs this can be extremely frustrating.
RG3Hunna said: Play Killzone if you don't want aim assist. A lot of people hate the Killzone franchise because they continue to ignore aim assist that noobs seem to love so much.
Yeah, but Killzone 3 has shitty map designs, low TTK, and is boring as shit.
Could say the same about BF too.
Anyway, aim assist is stronger when the enemy is closer because most people cant master the acceleration for both extremely close range and very long range gun fights, for noobs this can be extremely frustrating.
Battlefield at least has a simple philosophy and goal: sandbox game.
What the fuck is Killzone?
First game was a heavy shooter that was hinting towards the cover based shooters you would see in TPS a few years later.
Killzone 2's single player continued that with the sticky cover system. But it's multiplayer was some attempt to ripoff Team Fortress while maintaining the heavy feel of the game.
Killzone 3's was then trying to ripoff Team Fortress AND CoD.
I mean, what exactly is Killzone's "mission statement"? What kind of game is it trying to be?
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.
RG3Hunna said: Play Killzone if you don't want aim assist. A lot of people hate the Killzone franchise because they continue to ignore aim assist that noobs seem to love so much.
Yeah, but Killzone 3 has shitty map designs, low TTK, and is boring as shit.
Could say the same about BF too.
Anyway, aim assist is stronger when the enemy is closer because most people cant master the acceleration for both extremely close range and very long range gun fights, for noobs this can be extremely frustrating.
Battlefield at least has a simple philosophy and goal: sandbox game.
What the fuck is Killzone?
First game was a heavy shooter that was hinting towards the cover based shooters you would see in TPS a few years later.
Killzone 2's single player continued that with the sticky cover system. But it's multiplayer was some attempt to ripoff Team Fortress while maintaining the heavy feel of the game.
Killzone 3's was then trying to ripoff Team Fortress AND CoD.
I mean, what exactly is Killzone's "mission statement"? What kind of game is it trying to be?
Theres so many things wrong with that comment, but I dont want to derail the thread so I wont bother because this could go on forever.
RG3Hunna said: Play Killzone if you don't want aim assist. A lot of people hate the Killzone franchise because they continue to ignore aim assist that noobs seem to love so much.
Yeah, but Killzone 3 has shitty map designs, low TTK, and is boring as shit.
Could say the same about BF too.
Anyway, aim assist is stronger when the enemy is closer because most people cant master the acceleration for both extremely close range and very long range gun fights, for noobs this can be extremely frustrating.
Battlefield at least has a simple philosophy and goal: sandbox game.
What the fuck is Killzone?
First game was a heavy shooter that was hinting towards the cover based shooters you would see in TPS a few years later.
Killzone 2's single player continued that with the sticky cover system. But it's multiplayer was some attempt to ripoff Team Fortress while maintaining the heavy feel of the game.
Killzone 3's was then trying to ripoff Team Fortress AND CoD.
I mean, what exactly is Killzone's "mission statement"? What kind of game is it trying to be?
Theres so many things wrong with that comment, but I dont want to derail the thread so I wont bother because this could go on forever.
Go on.
Give me the core principles behind Killzone's multiplayer. What kind of game is it trying to be? Does it have an over arching game design philosophy?
