• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Battlefield 4 |OT| Prepare to Leave Beta... Nevermind

Status
Not open for further replies.
GMG pre-order placed, $45.

Love PC gaming.

8YJ1IP4.gif

What is code to get it for $45
 
Does this really only come with 10 maps?
1942 launched with 16 and 2 more added for free with patches later on...

1942's maps were sooooo much easier to make than they are for BF4. Now you have a lot more detail to cram in. Destruction. Dynamic events like ships crashing into islands and skyscrapers collapsing. All maps are made to work with all game modes.

Considering all that, I consider 10 maps to be really impressive.
 
To be fair, these maps have a much higher complexity than the static BF1942 maps, or than most multiplayer game maps as far as I know.

Its not that. The single player portion of the game is eating up a huge amount of the budget, unlike the older PC-only BF games that didn't bother with it.

I wish BF would go back to that model and give us more multiplayer content instead of single player and co-op that most people don't care about. Bad Company 1's single player was pretty decent, but I couldn't be bothered to get very far into BC2 and BF3 story mode, they were terrible.
 

SpyGuy239

Member
Does this really only come with 10 maps?
1942 launched with 16 and 2 more added for free with patches later on...

This is true.

But I have to say these BF4 maps look alot more impressive!

Its not that. The single player portion of the game is eating up a huge amount of the budget, unlike the older PC-only BF games that didn't bother with it.

I wish BF would go back to that model and give us more multiplayer content instead of single player and co-op that most people don't care about. Bad Company 1's single player was pretty decent, but I couldn't be bothered to get very far into BC2 and BF3 story mode, they were terrible.


I like SP, and am buying BF4 for that as well. So just because you're not an SP or co-op fan doesn't mean no one cares about it.
 
Its not that. The single player portion of the game is eating up a huge amount of the budget, unlike the older PC-only BF games that didn't bother with it.

I wish BF would go back to that model and give us more multiplayer content instead of single player and co-op that most people don't care about. Bad Company 1's single player was pretty decent, but I couldn't be bothered to get very far into BC2 and BF3 story mode, they were terrible.

The team and budget is massively larger than BF1942 days.
 

Spl1nter

Member
Its not that. The single player portion of the game is eating up a huge amount of the budget, unlike the older PC-only BF games that didn't bother with it.

It is that.... You could make a map in 1942 in a day. Now it takes months.

The single player portion doesn't effect the resources put towards the multiplayer. Singleplayer is an important part of the game now for numerous reasons. Wouldn't sell tens of millions without it.
 

Bookoo

Member
Really hope they do a better job with rush maps this time around. I loved Rush in BFBC2, but hate most of the Rush maps in BF3. It seems like all of them have serious choke points where it is really hard for attackers to win.

Although I played BFBC2 on PS3 where it was 24 players and BF3 on PC where it was 32.
 

pleunv

Member
Didn't know EU only goes live on the 31st... Anyone an idea if we'll be able to play VPN-less once unlocked on the 29th? Can't remember what the deal was exactly with SC.
 
Really hope they do a better job with rush maps this time around. I loved Rush in BFBC2, but hate most of the Rush maps in BF3. It seems like all of them have serious choke points where it is really hard for attackers to win.

One of the advantages rush had in BC2 is that there were rush-specific maps for that game. And they were great.

I NEVER played rush in BF3... and somehow I doubt I'll play it in BF4.
 

Overdoziz

Banned
Do we have anything on the snow map yet? Other than he name of course.
It's a linear close quarters infantry map.
One of the advantages rush had in BC2 is that there were rush-specific maps for that game. And they were great.

I NEVER played rush in BF3... and somehow I doubt I'll play it in BF4.
It's not just the maps, but also the M-COM placement which was questionable at best on most maps in BF3.
 

Timu

Member
Really hope they do a better job with rush maps this time around. I loved Rush in BFBC2, but hate most of the Rush maps in BF3. It seems like all of them have serious choke points where it is really hard for attackers to win.
Operation Metro is full of them and that's why it's one of the worst maps for Rush ever.
 
Metro is horrible for Conquest too. It's a bad map all around as far as I'm concerned. Really any map that is exceptionally linear with very few options for reaching capture points while avoiding combat is a bad map.
 
Metro is horrible for Conquest too. It's a bad map all around as far as I'm concerned. Really any map that is exceptionally linear with very few options for reaching capture points while avoiding combat is a bad map.

16 or 24p was pretty fun. I would agree 32 was too much - although somewhat useful for grinding out unlocks.
 

Seanspeed

Banned
Operation Metro is full of them and that's why it's one of the worst maps for Rush ever.
Maybe. With 24 players, I thought Metro was a great Rush map. I don't think chokepoints are all so bad. They can be quite fun at times and a change from the 'I have 10,000 alternate ways to get there' gameplay. It also forces you to work with others as attacking a defended chokepoint on your own is suicide.

Just a change of pace thing for me. I like variety and don't understand this 'I only like these two maps' sort of thinking. I enjoyed all the BF3 maps in their own way.
 

Milennia

Member
Really hope they do a better job with rush maps this time around. I loved Rush in BFBC2, but hate most of the Rush maps in BF3. It seems like all of them have serious choke points where it is really hard for attackers to win.

Although I played BFBC2 on PS3 where it was 24 players and BF3 on PC where it was 32.

In bad company 2 you can just demolish your own route tot he com stations on most maps.

This obv doesn't work in the current gen of battlefield games, but it would be nice if they brought it back ( hopefully with bad company 3).

Metro is just a shit map any way you look at it Imo.. Even if the game did have bad company 2 destruction mechanics, the map is just designed as one enormous bottleneck.
 
I NEVER played rush in BF3... and somehow I doubt I'll play it in BF4.

Same. I've always found Rush kind of maddening. Mainly because I hate dying, and half of Rush is just continuously throwing yourself at a wall of bullets until something gives. Most of the time while on offense I shamelessly stayed back and mortared - which was actually pretty useful on Rush.

As an old-school Counter Strike guy, I'm actually kind of excited for Defuse.
 

HariKari

Member
Operation Metro is full of them and that's why it's one of the worst maps for Rush ever.

Metro is the greatest rush map ever designed. It's arranged like a football field, with important pieces of cover every 10 yards or so. Choke points are easily defeated so long as there aren't 64 players.
 

Seanspeed

Banned
Same. I've always found Rush kind of maddening. Mainly because I hate dying, and half of Rush is just continuously throwing yourself at a wall of bullets until something gives. Most of the time while on offense I shamelessly stayed back and mortared - which was actually pretty useful on Rush.
Its pretty much mandatory to work with/run with other players in Rush as yes, the points you're attacking will be heavily defended.

I've dealt with some coordinated Rush squads that were just killer. My team just got annihilated by some very methodical teams.
 

Chaplain

Member
Metro is the greatest rush map ever designed. It's arranged like a football field, with important pieces of cover every 10 yards or so. Choke points are easily defeated so long as there aren't 64 players.

I agree. Metro Rush is one of the reasons I love BF3. It takes skill, patience, teamwork and skilled medics as attackers to beat a team that knows how to defend really well.
 

Bookoo

Member
In bad company 2 you can just demolish your own route tot he com stations on most maps.

This obv doesn't work in the current gen of battlefield games, but it would be nice if they brought it back ( hopefully with bad company 3).

Metro is just a shit map any way you look at it Imo.. Even if the game did have bad company 2 destruction mechanics, the map is just designed as one enormous bottleneck.

Ya, being able to actually destroy the M-Coms was a nice bonus. It got cheesed a little with people RPGing from miles away, but that can be adjusted.

I think a rush mode where both teams have to attack and defend would be neat. The map could just expand in different directions. Looking forward to that Obliterate mode. I didn't know it was active during beta and never got to try it.
 

Milennia

Member
Ya, being able to actually destroy the M-Coms was a nice bonus. It got cheesed a little with people RPGing from miles away, but that can be adjusted.

I think a rush mode where both teams have to attack and defend would be neat. The map could just expand in different directions. Looking forward to that Obliterate mode. I didn't know it was active during beta and never got to try it.

It was really great in the beta, easily my favorite mode of the beta actually.

It was essentially just rush, yet the attackers and defenders were swapped on the fly.

Its not exactly what you described, but pretty close :p i love your idea as well, i don't really care for having to wait an entire round just to attack or defend. mid match sounds awesome and is part of the reason i loved diffuse.

However there were large stints were the ball would sit in the exact same spot for a while, as people would just get swamped right as they picked it up. This was however, on consoles with 24 players. Im unsure if the mode will be 64 players or not ( even on consoles) as i haven't looked into it much, but 64 player obliteration sounds really great.
 

Sanjay

Member
Quality over Quantity?

But 1942 maps were the best.

But they did make more then 10 maps, their just charging for them, its Premium service.

1942's maps were sooooo much easier to make than they are for BF4. Now you have a lot more detail to cram in. Destruction. Dynamic events like ships crashing into islands and skyscrapers collapsing. All maps are made to work with all game modes.

Yet they did make more then 10.
 

Sanjay

Member
They were barren and simplistic, thus easy to make. That shit wouldn't fly in 2013.

They were barren and simple due to the technology of its time, the map design would hold up amazing with today's tech.

DICE have 8 maps ready day one pretty much for Premium users.

People point that its hard to make maps etc does not fly and is BS. They just want to charge for them.

I really, really hope the maps are better this time around. It was the worst thing about BF3 for me, I didn't love even one map.

Not even any of these 3?
Operation Firestorm
Kharg Island
Noshahr Canals

I wish we could have another Arica Harbor or Isla Inocentes. Loved those two maps from BC2.

Man I loved them maps. BC2 maps were great and free.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom