Razgriz-Specter
Member
Really deflated my interest,
had been hyped since I got the premium version at Christmas.
-
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.
BF4Central Rumor: New Battlefield 4 details from wallpaper leaker [Updated]
- Thread starter Nirolak
- Start date
Really deflated my interest,
had been hyped since I got the premium version at Christmas.
Canis lupus
Member
Where did you hear that?
-COOLIO-
The Everyman
damn, this is gunna look beast at that res.
Ignore that comment. It's bullshit.
Where did you hear that?
I'm still keeping my fingers crossed for 1080p/60 after the Chinese leak and the hint on EA's financial call.
rakkadakka
Member
Looking forward to it, BF3 is one of my most played games this generation.
Say what you want about map size, but by the end of BF3 + Premium they have supplied more than enough variety for different play styles. I imagine them going towards more small maps is a reflection of what people are playing vs COD chasing for the sake of it.
Say what you want about map size, but by the end of BF3 + Premium they have supplied more than enough variety for different play styles. I imagine them going towards more small maps is a reflection of what people are playing vs COD chasing for the sake of it.
Spinning Plates
Member
Battlefield 4 Rumors Suggest The Return of Commander Mode, Recording Functionality, Dynamic Weather and More...
http://bit.ly/15YKIO5
Jibbajabbawockky
Member
They're going to have to convince me this isn't just a glorified expansion pack.
In the actual Chinese forum posting it starts off with the OP noting that they made up the information for laughs in a spoiler tag.
Confidence Man
Member
In a way I'm glad as I won't even be tempted.
Sounds like you're talking about ArmA 3! ;-)
I think the balance isnt THAT bad. Engineer is the most played because it's the easiest one to use, but it's by no means the best IMO.
kevcampbell
Member
Premium day 1 for me
IceDoesntHelp
Banned
VibratingDonkey
Member
Doesn't sound like it'd be too difficult to skip if/when the EA shenanigans start getting unearthed.
I haven't really stopped playing BF3 for any larger amount of time, so if this isn't a particularly big change then I don't know that I can get too excited about it. Bigger focus on close quarters would be further deflating. I'm hoping they'll go the opposite direction and increase the scope.
I haven't really stopped playing BF3 for any larger amount of time, so if this isn't a particularly big change then I don't know that I can get too excited about it. Bigger focus on close quarters would be further deflating. I'm hoping they'll go the opposite direction and increase the scope.
D
Deleted member 80556
Unconfirmed Member
Fuck. Me. Come on, if you're going to make more close quarter maps, at least do more maps. That means less big scale maps.
But the rest sounds good for me. Even new writers! Hallelujah! Even Call of Duty had a better campaign than BF3.
More of an evolution? Well if they go with client side hit detection again, i'm not even going to bother. If they do server side then I'll consider it.
More close quarter maps with the same amount? Blaaahhh, why not just include more close quarter sections in the bigger maps? We need Metro to be apart of a LARGER map instead of being a one off map. I want to see a map that meshes the diff scales of Metro, Seine Crossing, & Davamand Peak. They dont need to make diff maps that are diff scales, they need to combine them and make large maps that include everything from those, on the macro and micro scale. That is what I want from battlefield
More close quarter maps with the same amount? Blaaahhh, why not just include more close quarter sections in the bigger maps? We need Metro to be apart of a LARGER map instead of being a one off map. I want to see a map that meshes the diff scales of Metro, Seine Crossing, & Davamand Peak. They dont need to make diff maps that are diff scales, they need to combine them and make large maps that include everything from those, on the macro and micro scale. That is what I want from battlefield
Evolved1
make sure the pudding isn't too soggy but that just ruins everything
And the writing was the very least of BF3 SP problems. The writing wasn't even that bad. It was the fucking campaign and everything to do with gameplay that was the problem.
But hire different writers, that will fix it.
But hire different writers, that will fix it.
Engineers had the easiest time of dealing with vehicles, and that's why most people rolled them I believe. Hell, it's why I use the class most often. If vehicles are left unchallenged by your team, then enjoy losing badly. I hope they tone down vehicles slightly against infantry this time around, especially helicopters.
bodyboarder
Member
Make people buy a new game and pay for premium again.
Evolved1
make sure the pudding isn't too soggy but that just ruins everything
EA wants that CoD money...
SJRB
Gold Member
Perhaps the Close Quarters dlc sold exponentially more than the others? I mean, there must be a reason for Dice to keep pushing the close quarters infantry combat [aside from trying to snag the COD players, I suppose].
secondspace
Member
Vehicle health regeneration and anti-air falling more to the engineer because of the lack of fixed AA meant that you needed a higher proportion of engineers than in BC2. Probably wasn't too big a problem on the PC, but it was pretty annoying on the 360.
If it allows them to cram in more detail while keeping the fps @ 60, then I'll be fine with it.
I'll take 60fps over 1080p for this game, although, both would be heaven for a console shooter.
I agree with a lot of the criticism here and im still skeptical about the whole thing (though my friends are there so I know im going in), but calling it an expansion might be a bit much.
VicDaMoan03
Member
On one hand I love BF. on the other this sounds like a $120 expansion pack.
BF + close combat= yuck
BF + close combat= yuck
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
Jets mean that you don't need AA to keep choppers out of the sky, and they'd rather dogfight each other than strafe infantry. BC2's air balance was so unbelievably broken.
Also, the AA vehicle is ruthless.
bigboss370
Member
oh for fuck's sake EA...
This is what I find to be fishy about the article. Almost back to back they say "infantry centric maps" and "maps are larger".
But it's all starting to sound the same to me, honestly.
Yeah, to me it sounds like a typical 2 year dev cycle sequel. No enormous changes but a good evolution with some new features.
They said maps are bigger.
I think they meant that they will probably have a bigger infantry focus not that they are going to be smaller.
Think aftermath maps instead of armored kill maps if you played the game.
Aftermath maps were decent sized and still had vehicles but because of the geography infantry play was encouraged.
I'm particularly fine with this.
To be fair, outside of the engine upgrade, Battlefield 3 wasn't exactly the world's most revolutionary Battlefield sequel.
That's very possible. Perhaps if not just sold the most, but also they tracked it and it's the most played as well? Finally, maybe they're going to try to break into the dreaded "eSports" segments.
Shit, that for some reason didn't come to mind. I love the maps in Aftermath, they have great design and are a hell of a lot of fun to play. If this is what they mean by infantry (urban, China, Shanghai, makes sense) then I'm fine with it.
Also, this conception of close quarters/infantry not being what Battlefield is all about is bullshit. I agree it shouldn't be the only focus of the game, but there is certainly room for it. The Close Quarters expansion was actually
much better than expected.