On Aberdeen, the German side alone had 9 tanks to play with.
It's true, DICE got it the most right the first time. You didn't have to pay an additional fee to play with that many tanks.
-
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
It's true, DICE got it the most right the first time. You didn't have to pay an additional fee to play with that many tanks.
cobragt4001
Banned
Aftermath has nice sized maps but most of the fighting is close quarter fighting so maybe large maps that are densely populated by buildings and such.
As a PC player who mainly plays 64-player Conquest Large, I couldn't disagree more. The larger Armored Kill maps gave the expansion a more methodical, tactical feel where squad cooperation was more important and vehicles couldn't be ignored. You really shouldn't be able to sprint from objective to objective without using transport vehicles, you shouldn't be attacking flags without AT and/or AA support, and you shouldn't be trying to do anything by yourself. Armored Kill reminded me of old-school Battlefield, and I liked that about it. Playing in enormous, open, vehicle heavy maps with less dense player populations is something that more people should try with an open mind. It's a slower style of play, but it's immensely gratifying because it actually rewards planning and cooperation.
Naked Lunch
Member
All this expansion talk...
64 players on consoles and the return of commanders is not an expansion, sorry. Old news or not - this is a huge, huge deal.
BF3's infantry combat, vehicle combat, and overall immersion completely trumped the rest of the franchise. BF3 was lacking coordinated team-wide communication and tactics - which the commander now fixes/returns.
If consoles are going 64 players - this essentially makes it equal to the PC version. That is amazing. Ive been wanting a true 64 player squad based Battlefield in the living room since being addicted to 2005's BF2. Took them long enough but ill take it.
To all those complaining about CQC maps - its not like the series has abandoned large scale maps. That talk is just pure bullshit. Just look at BF3's overall maplist. There is plenty of large scale to choose from - its just not ALL large scale like the past. This series does so much more than one style of map these days - it literally does it all, and does it well - deal with it. Having variety is a good thing. BF3's quantity of 29 varied maps is nothing to sneeze at. I expect BF4 to have even more.
64 players on consoles and the return of commanders is not an expansion, sorry. Old news or not - this is a huge, huge deal.
BF3's infantry combat, vehicle combat, and overall immersion completely trumped the rest of the franchise. BF3 was lacking coordinated team-wide communication and tactics - which the commander now fixes/returns.
If consoles are going 64 players - this essentially makes it equal to the PC version. That is amazing. Ive been wanting a true 64 player squad based Battlefield in the living room since being addicted to 2005's BF2. Took them long enough but ill take it.
To all those complaining about CQC maps - its not like the series has abandoned large scale maps. That talk is just pure bullshit. Just look at BF3's overall maplist. There is plenty of large scale to choose from - its just not ALL large scale like the past. This series does so much more than one style of map these days - it literally does it all, and does it well - deal with it. Having variety is a good thing. BF3's quantity of 29 varied maps is nothing to sneeze at. I expect BF4 to have even more.
legacyzero
Banned
Am I a sinner if I say I liked Closed Quarters?
Sorry, people said the same exact thing about Destruction 3.0 in BF3 and it turned out to be a disappointment. The possible return of commander mode in BF4 also holds little weight to me because let's be honest here, commander mode is a glorified spotter. The guy who plays commander sits in a corner of the uncappable and spams the spotting button while dropping supplies on blown up artillery and occasionally putting the UAV in atrocious spots. I've played tons of BF2 and 2142 and while there were exceptions, the return of commander mode will not suddenly make pubbers work together for the greater good.
stop liking things I don't like!
What about that 60fps?
Kane Zakharov
Banned
Very well said. Again, I personally liked the expansion. I was just stating that there are a some legitimate complaints regarding the expansion, mainly from those who played it on consoles.
I will, when it's on PS4
Naw, I like both.
The more ways to play, the better imo.
Naked Lunch
Member
Different strokes I suppose. I spent 60% of my time as squad leader in BF2 looking at the map - giving my own orders and talking by VOIP to the commanders. Maybe it was the servers I played on (Texas Teamplayers in particular) but the commanders took that shit seriously. It was almost laughable how serious. I remember in particular, asking thru the commander for jet support at a base and he would talk to the jet squad - seconds later the jets bombed the shit out of the tanks there. Just really cool stuff. This tactical element is almost completely removed from BF3. BF3 is basically every squad for themselves and do whatever.
Look, everyone isnt going to listen to the commanders - but having that option and communication are what made BF2 so awesome. Dont forget about the secondary objectives teams had of destroying/repairing the commander assets itself. That was a game within a game itself. And downing a teams arty could mean victory. Again, this was all absent from BF3. Like I said, ill take BF3's core infantry/vehicle gameplay - but add the hardcore tactical stuff from BF2 and you have a monster.
XANDER CAGE
Member
Battlefield, at its best, has a lot more to it than being "a modern war shooter." Freedom, teamwork, exciting/hilarious unscripted moments, etc.
I mean I wish they'd go back to 2142-era or something, but I have nothing against the setting by itself.
MaximumFlipFlop
Banned
No, Close Quarters domination fucking rules.
Jigolo
Member
Next gen consoles are rumored to run at 720p/60FPS
EatChildren
Currently polling second in Australia's federal election (first in the Gold Coast), this feral may one day be your Bogan King.
Close Quarters was a lot of fun, much more than I expected it to be, but that was in part of it being an extra to Battlefield 3 and not part of the core map line-up.
That being said, if the "more close quarters maps" simply means replacing the weirdly middling (and frankly shit) maps in Battlefield 3 then I don't mind. Might as well go extremes: the awesome big maps, and the awesome small maps.
That being said, if the "more close quarters maps" simply means replacing the weirdly middling (and frankly shit) maps in Battlefield 3 then I don't mind. Might as well go extremes: the awesome big maps, and the awesome small maps.
Insane Metal
Member
Dynamic weather in a BF game? Whoa.
My feelings as well. It is a nice change of pace to go to after a good number of matches on the bigger maps.
XANDER CAGE
Member
The DLC in general for BF3 was stellar. There were only two or three maps worth playing at launch, but Close Quarters proved that they could do fun small maps. If Battlefield 3 had just launched with the maps it ended up with in its expansions it would have been a much better launch.
My only gripe with it was that DICE put in Back to Karkand, when I already got it with the game.
Most feel that it is one of the best valued "subscription/season passes" out there. I agree with that, and the content and support BF Premium has provided has been much better than expected. It also helps that the DICE's map design showed serious improvement with the DLC, especially in Aftermath and End Game.
Rygar 8 Bit
Jaguar 64-bit
nope the maps with that expansion were rad
Quicksilver4648
Member
I will be on board day 1 most likely. Battlefield 3 has been a great experience despite the many, many haters on this forum. I felt Premium was a decent value and if they can match the variety they achieve in BF3 then I will be happy. I liked the small close quarters maps AND the massive open maps. I feel the game can scale quite well. The only real negative to premium is that you have to like each dlc pack as you only start to save money when you compare it to purchasing each one individually. Depending on when it releases I might even get a new GPU as my GTX 560 Ti most likely wont be able to keep up with the improved engine.
ChimpanzeeThat
Member
Would there be any reason why the PS4/720 versions wouldn't support 64 players?
Just a hypothetical question really....
Just a hypothetical question really....
Bandwidth throttling? The specs on both machines won't be it.
Quicksilver4648
Member
I could see DICE locking the Close Quarters maps to 24 or 32 players MAX. On PC I absolutely LOVED 64 players on the micro-maps (absolute anarchy) but it might be too much of a network/resource hog and simply too hectic.
Razgriz-Specter
Member
Its been great, if the base game alone was a 6-7 then the DLC alone is a 10.
only wish they gave more exclusive character customization camo, 5 or 6 including the 4 we already got.
XANDER CAGE
Member
Premium is the only season pass style DLC that I've ever purchased, and I'm very much satisfied.
I wish I could have my default knife back, but otherwise it's been great value. Hopefully BF4 Premium is of a similar level of quality. I'll be picking it up day 1 if possible.
Good value and the DLC maps we got were a million times better than the base game's maps, which were terrible.
ChimpanzeeThat
Member
Very true, this is why i'm foolishly expecting the PS4/720 versions to support 64 players.
I would be okay with that on smaller maps, but the classic wide-open Battlefield maps have to support 64 players for me otherwise i would stick with a PS3/360 version of the game.
D
Deleted member 80556
Unconfirmed Member
I am pretty sure it was 1080p/60FPS.
VibratingDonkey
Member
BF3 Premium has been good. BF4 Premium might be shit.
Based on what?
I am pretty bored of it now myself. Like I said numerous times, which I can't believe I'm saying this, but I would kill for BF4 to have been based in WW2. I want a true AAA WW2 game on a modern AAA engine.
I would like to see in this game as a battle rages on that on an overcast map that the smoke blots out the already limited sunlight. This effect is in War Thunder and it is incredible.
Also, I really wish they'd up the "brutality" in the game a couple notches.
Finally, make the vehicle combat more in depth and not with this crappy arc damage for Front/Side/Rear damage, especially for the MBTs. Make the choppers able to have their tail rudders blown off and there's no chance for a safe landing, and this damage can happen from a single rocket. Also, smoke/flares need longer cooldowns. Vehicles are too strong, and need to be toned down a notch, but not nerfed into the ground.
Raven77
Member
How the flying FUG do you have "more COD STYLE I mean CLOSE QUARTERS" infantry maps and also "Maps are larger and more detailed."...
Someone explain this? Shouldn't it say SOME maps are larger and more detailed?
Rumors probably bogus.
"The maps are BIGGER but they are also SMALL!!!"...makes sense.
Someone explain this? Shouldn't it say SOME maps are larger and more detailed?
Rumors probably bogus.
"The maps are BIGGER but they are also SMALL!!!"...makes sense.
cobragt4001
Banned
Big is the new small
but seriously we'll have to wait and see but I wouldn't mind big maps like Strike at Karkand which had a lot of elements of CQ fighting.
D
Deleted member 80556
Unconfirmed Member
Soon, my friend. When people are sick of Modern and Future settings, the only way forward is the past. We got WW1 and 2, and I doubt most will choose WW1.
Raven77
Member
Big is the new small
You think Strike at Karkand is big?
The real issue with BF3 maps is not their size, its the flag placement. Awful...simply awful.
Their are some gems in there, especially armored kill maps, but most were just so bad.
VibratingDonkey
Member
The uncertainties of the universe.