-
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 Review Thread
- Thread starter Poetic.Injustice
- Start date
dapperbandit
Banned
So does BF4 not have Co Op?
I quite liked the Co Op in BF3
I quite liked the Co Op in BF3
It's out. They said they decided not to try it this time around because too few people played it in 3.
BLACK AMERICAN PSYCHO
Junior Member
Welp, looks like getting KZ and maybe CoD.
LabouredSubterfuge
Member
Sucks too because it's one of the things I really enjoyed with BF3
Why do reviews place more emphasis on single player than multiplayer in a core multiplayer game? There are soo many single player games with shit multiplayer but they still get great scores. Look at tomb raider for example. It just seems like most reviews dont play multiplayer games ( most podcasts all they do is complain about online gameplay in general) and so dont even bother trying to get invested.
I dont know, this is just the feeling I get from games journalists, most hate multiplayer as they always complain that they dont have time to get invested and complain about getting beat by players more invested.Just seems a bit shallow.
I dont know, this is just the feeling I get from games journalists, most hate multiplayer as they always complain that they dont have time to get invested and complain about getting beat by players more invested.Just seems a bit shallow.
If it wasn't for the multiplayer guns you can unlock in singleplayer, I wouldn't even touch it. Sadly I have to grind through it now, but if it means I can use more weapons in the most glorious, badass multiplayer game ever I'll bite through it. Lets see if I can top my BF3 hours..
Gotta love the VPN unlock by the way
Gotta love the VPN unlock by the way
This is a far better review tbh focus on multiplayer then bring up a couple pieces on single player
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrozYqHrRS4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrozYqHrRS4
The Gametrailers one is great too.
thunder_snail
Member
Reading the reviews, I feel that EA will finally achieve its generation long dream of overtaking COD.
9 maps is piss poor?
Any reviews in particular make you say that? They all seem to cover both single and multiplayer *and* recognize that multiplayer is the strong suit for the series.
Razgriz-Specter
Member
Because a game like this without a campaign would basically be an expansion pack.
Also normally more time, effort and money are put into SP so thats normally how they are judged.
They cover both but cover single player in far more depth than multiplayer, even though single player is its tacted on mode like most single player games with tacted on multiplayer.
There is just such a huge sense from the journalist that they just dont like multiplayer games in general. Very rarely do I hear journalists talk about liking online.
Why would it be an expansion pack? Thats like saying uncharted 3 is a expansion pack of uncharted 2.
AstroZombie
Banned
Those reviews just show that DICE should ditch SP and focus all their resources on MP.
Yup.
Both are full of 'trademarks' of this kind:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NH7A8mFjTM0&feature=youtu.be&t=57s
:-X
TheRealTalker
Banned
wonder what IGN will give the next COD :/
EatChildren
Currently polling second in Australia's federal election (first in the Gold Coast), this feral may one day be your Bogan King.
Though I'll probably end up cranking out my own review, I think games like Battlefield 4 are very, very difficult to critically review and score because a lot of what they're dependant on won't be known until public launch and the weeks/months following.
Battlefield is predominantly a multiplayer series. This, by default of genre, factors in popularity, server performance and lag, match making and connectivity, game balance, and so on. Game balance is a particularly big one. Ambitious multiplayer games are expected to have some bugs and balance issues that will be tackled in post launch updates. How fast those updates come and whether or not they address the issues is impossible to know without experiencing them first hand.
You can't review a multiplayer centric game in a review environment. You can maybe gauge whether or not people should jump in at launch or wait, and a general idea of content and polish. But you're not going to experience exploits as they develop, balance concerns, network issues, and so on in a controlled, limited environment.
So you're left with reviews that over emphasise the importance of the short campaign, which tends to be laden with frustrations based on "it's not the multiplayer", and a limited sample of a multiplayer that cannot be judged until post-launch.
Battlefield is predominantly a multiplayer series. This, by default of genre, factors in popularity, server performance and lag, match making and connectivity, game balance, and so on. Game balance is a particularly big one. Ambitious multiplayer games are expected to have some bugs and balance issues that will be tackled in post launch updates. How fast those updates come and whether or not they address the issues is impossible to know without experiencing them first hand.
You can't review a multiplayer centric game in a review environment. You can maybe gauge whether or not people should jump in at launch or wait, and a general idea of content and polish. But you're not going to experience exploits as they develop, balance concerns, network issues, and so on in a controlled, limited environment.
So you're left with reviews that over emphasise the importance of the short campaign, which tends to be laden with frustrations based on "it's not the multiplayer", and a limited sample of a multiplayer that cannot be judged until post-launch.
Marvel
could never
A breathtaking 9.5.
No, it's their fault for including it. You can't exclude an entire chunk of a game just because it's better in MP. They built a shitty campaign, they have to deal with lower scores. Next time, don't include the damn thing.
TheRealTalker
Banned
ha ha ha! funny but true
Edit: Sad to see that the gameplay options in the SP is the same old same old
I think DICE having this at a review event probably hurt scores instead of helping them. Which is a good thing for those who were worried about moneyhats and such.
Hopefully once consoles launch we can have reviews without having to go to review events again.
Forreal. I keep forgetting and almost saying "It's DICE so of course they can't make a singleplayer" but BC 1 and 2 were damn good. I think because they were less linear.
Hopefully once consoles launch we can have reviews without having to go to review events again.
Forreal. I keep forgetting and almost saying "It's DICE so of course they can't make a singleplayer" but BC 1 and 2 were damn good. I think because they were less linear.
Yea, nonlinear and the characters were funny and not trying to be serious.
Razgriz-Specter
Member
No because they completely changed Uncharted's MP gameplay from 2 to 3
and to my point it had an AAA campaign and some co-op.
Battlefield 4 is a few tweaks, swapping around some class gear a couple new vehicles, weapons and maps.
Its US & Russians with similar gear and weapons(and some of China's weapons were in BF3) with most of the same vehicles with the same gameplay slightly adjusted.
Not a bad thing but nothing that required a full new game to do so, especially with how great 3's DLC had been.
If the campaign was better than an F grade campaign it would be worth being a complete new game.
Because if Dice bothered to include SP, then reviewers can freely include that on their reviews as well.
Yes, the SP is there, "it's a chunk of the game". But what is it's importante compared to the MP?
Is Arcade Mode in SF as importante as multiplayer?
If DICE takes it out, reviewers will complain about lack of SP campaign, and still shave points of the final score.
chickdigger802
Banned
its hilarious that the scores would probably be higher if they dropped sp.
Because Single Player is theoretically playable forever, while the vast majority of Multi-player games become literally unplayable when their player-base goes away (which pretty much already applies to those games you've listed).
That's also why I'll wait now I've heard the SP is a turd again. It seems that EA want to Battlefield be like a bi-yearly sports franchise, and I'm not paying full price for a game where the good part will be dead in a few years when everyone's moved on to Battlefield 5/6/whatever.
Razgriz-Specter
Member
Now everything im saying is only for current gen.
PS4 version is definitely worth the upgrade.
the 64 player count alone completely changes the game for consoles.
You can still play Battlefield 1942, Battlefield 2, 2142 ect. and they all still have a healthy playerbase.
You don't need to worry about the longivety of BF games, at least if you play on PC.
chickdigger802
Banned
not if the sp doesn't get magically better.
The issue at hand here is most people in the press care more about sp than mp (its not like they have the time to stick with 1 game for a long time because they got other shit to play and review).
main reason why a game with mediocre mp can still get a good score, while its rare for the opposite.
Don't those games fully support things like mods, and aren't beholden to EA's servers in the way newer ones are?
The earlier Battlefield games are some of the rare MP games that have achieved true longevity, but they come from such a different time (where the players had much more power to add to and shape the game) I'm not sure there's a direct comparison with the newer games in the series. I guess time will tell though.
It has 10 maps. One better than BF3 but still a small number for a MP focused game. As someone who is only interested in MP and only interested in the large maps that are unique to the franchise, 10 maps don't really give me enough to play with.
They should drop the SP and release with 16 maps imo.
Lé Blade Runner
Member
I think 10 maps is fine, as long as they are well-designed and varied.
While BF2 and 2142 have open server files you still need to connect to the "master server" for stats and stuff.
I didn't mention the newer games but bc2 still has an active playerbase, that game is almost 4 years old too by now. It may not last the 10 years the original did but i'm pretty sure by that time no one will want to play the majority of linear military FPS campaigns either.
They always do this because the vast majority of reviewers don't get much time to actually play the game and hardly ever bother putting any decent amount of time into any multiplayer aspect and it always shows in the reviews.
Razgriz-Specter
Member
Just this gen
COD4
COD W@W
COD MW2(Washington DC stuff)
Rainbow 6 Vegas
Bad Company 1
Bad Company 2
Halo ODST
Not great but much better than regular Battlefield attempts.
Rainbow 6 Vegas 2
COD MW3
COD BO
COD BO2
Medal of Honor
Medal of Honor Warfighter
Killzone 2
Killzone 3
Resistance 1
The single player is in the game and a large part for many gamers (I believe something absurd like 40% of COD players play the SP and never touch the MP). If it sucks and is lazily done then it needs to be called out by reviewers and the score drastically hurt.