HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Non-Sports > Geek Emporium
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Geek Emporium Discuss computers, hardware, software, electronics, video games, internet, etc.

Battlefield 4 (10/29/13)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-26-2013, 10:11 PM
  #51
XX
Tippett 2 the Limit
 
XX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Tipplandia
Country: United States
Posts: 40,353
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kitten Mittons View Post
BF is following the CoD model almost fully now. I guess that was expected but it sucks. Or maybe they wanted BF on the next-gen consoles.
Quote:
Well, pretty deep as it may seem. EA has invited countless Call of Duty only commentators to witness the reveal of Battlefield 4 in both San Francisco and Sweden while failing to invite countless, worthy, Battlefield centric Youtube commentators. This is more than just an act of good will though toward the Call of Duty commentators (and a slap in the face to the Battlefield community), as EA has put many of these commentators under strict NDA while giving them massive benefits to boot.
http://www.examiner.com/article/ea-s...id=db_articles

Pretty pathetic.

XX is offline  
Old
03-27-2013, 01:05 AM
  #52
Everlasting
Registered User
 
Everlasting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Somwhere in time
Country: Sweden
Posts: 5,157
vCash: 500
So we can confirm that EA once again, does not aim to be the best Battlefield, but rather something that steals consumers from COD. I hope this does not mean that the game becomes even more COD ....


Everlasting is offline  
Old
03-27-2013, 01:20 AM
  #53
Patchey*
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Gaylord, Michigan
Country: United States
Posts: 12,768
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by XX View Post
It makes sense? They invited all the biggest Battlefield guys, and have brought in a bunch of highly popular Call of Duty guys? More people seeing it means more people potentially buying it. Maybe if you stopped being such a sourpuss about EA every once in a while you'd be able to see past it.

Patchey* is offline  
Old
03-27-2013, 01:35 AM
  #54
XX
Tippett 2 the Limit
 
XX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Tipplandia
Country: United States
Posts: 40,353
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patchey View Post
It makes sense? They invited all the biggest Battlefield guys, and have brought in a bunch of highly popular Call of Duty guys? More people seeing it means more people potentially buying it. Maybe if you stopped being such a sourpuss about EA every once in a while you'd be able to see past it.
It's pandering to a demographic that is viewed as the polar opposite from the core Battlefield fan. EA went to a lot of trouble to market towards CoD players the last time. "Rise above the call." If EA had the option of trading out one fanbase for another, they would do so. The fact that 'we' like Battlefield and 'they' like CoD is irrelevant. That Battlefield is historically a PC title focused on teamwork is irrelevant. It's all about revenue. They want CoD levels of sales and revenue. EA could care less how they get there because they are a corporation. The desire of the Battlefield group is irrelevant if the Call of Duty group offers more revenue.

I don't like the compromise or perversion of a title I grew up with. Nothing more. Certainly not the first time in gaming this has happened and it won't be the last. It's a great way to lose your extremely loyal base, and gain a bunch of fickle 13 year olds with Xbox live. That's not a trade-off you should always make.

XX is offline  
Old
03-27-2013, 01:42 AM
  #55
XX
Tippett 2 the Limit
 
XX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Tipplandia
Country: United States
Posts: 40,353
vCash: 500

XX is offline  
Old
03-27-2013, 02:02 AM
  #56
Patchey*
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Gaylord, Michigan
Country: United States
Posts: 12,768
vCash: 500
Even though I knew it was campaign footage, I'm a LITTLE disappointed watching it. The new HUD is pretty nice though. Excited to see if they end up integrating the angled 45 degree ironsights into multiplayer. It still looked pretty cool, and fun for a playthrough or two.

Patchey* is offline  
Old
03-27-2013, 02:06 AM
  #57
Patchey*
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Gaylord, Michigan
Country: United States
Posts: 12,768
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by XX View Post
It's pandering to a demographic that is viewed as the polar opposite from the core Battlefield fan. EA went to a lot of trouble to market towards CoD players the last time. "Rise above the call." If EA had the option of trading out one fanbase for another, they would do so. The fact that 'we' like Battlefield and 'they' like CoD is irrelevant. That Battlefield is historically a PC title focused on teamwork is irrelevant. It's all about revenue. They want CoD levels of sales and revenue. EA could care less how they get there because they are a corporation. The desire of the Battlefield group is irrelevant if the Call of Duty group offers more revenue.

I don't like the compromise or perversion of a title I grew up with. Nothing more. Certainly not the first time in gaming this has happened and it won't be the last. It's a great way to lose your extremely loyal base, and gain a bunch of fickle 13 year olds with Xbox live. That's not a trade-off you should always make.
I get where you're coming from for sure (a freaking Rihanna/Jay-Z song in the trailer) but I don't see how trying to get more fans is a bad thing. I know COD has a bad rep, but to be honest, Battlefield fans aren't a whole lot better. If they start pumping out game like Infinity Ward / Treyarch then you're definitely right, but they still have a long way to go.

I wouldn't be super upset over a new game every 2 years, but I WOULD prefer it to be 3/4 in between.

Patchey* is offline  
Old
03-27-2013, 02:07 AM
  #58
XX
Tippett 2 the Limit
 
XX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Tipplandia
Country: United States
Posts: 40,353
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patchey View Post
Even though I knew it was campaign footage, I'm a LITTLE disappointed watching it. The new HUD is pretty nice though. Excited to see if they end up integrating the angled 45 degree ironsights into multiplayer. It still looked pretty cool, and fun for a playthrough or two.
I don't even know why they bother with a singleplayer campaign anymore. That's not what people pay for. If you hashed it out into an equation, the campaign probably takes a disproportionate amount of effort versus what people actually look forward to. It looks basically identical to Battlefield 3. Even some of the models were recycled. That demo is probably running on a couple Titans, so I'd like to see the console graphics. The driving segment was straight out of Warfighter. Not a bad thing, as that was fairly entertaining if not repetitive.

I don't get why **** has to crumble, collapse or explode every 5 seconds though. Give us some huge scale battles or something. AI looks as ******** as ever.

I actually liked 3's campaign. Not spectacular, but solid. If I could have had a few more maps, more polish in exchange for dropping it, I absolutely would. I don't know why CoD bothers anymore, either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patchey View Post
I get where you're coming from for sure (a freaking Rihanna/Jay-Z song in the trailer) but I don't see how trying to get more fans is a bad thing. I know COD has a bad rep, but to be honest, Battlefield fans aren't a whole lot better. If they start pumping out game like Infinity Ward / Treyarch then you're definitely right, but they still have a long way to go.
Before Bad Company 2, "Battlefield fans" were a more mature group, more likely to play something like Arma as an alternative than Call of Duty. Let's not forget that CoD has been perverted a bit for the sake of appealing to the lowest common denominator. Look at 4, then MW3, and it's hard to feel great about where it's headed. Battlefield is the same way to me, now. They had a chance to really hit a homerun with the teamwork and vehicles, but chose to bunt instead.

XX is offline  
Old
03-27-2013, 02:52 AM
  #59
Zodiac
Registered User
 
Zodiac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,627
vCash: 500
that BF4 vid looked pretty awesome.

cuttin a dude's leg off with one swipe of a knife was a little silly, but whatever. some pretty exciting footage ...12:00 to 13:00 was really cool.

pre order is up ...
http://store.origin.com/store?Action...lefield4_en_US


Last edited by Zodiac: 03-27-2013 at 03:17 AM.
Zodiac is offline  
Old
03-27-2013, 03:34 AM
  #60
Patchey*
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Gaylord, Michigan
Country: United States
Posts: 12,768
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by XX View Post
I don't even know why they bother with a singleplayer campaign anymore. That's not what people pay for. If you hashed it out into an equation, the campaign probably takes a disproportionate amount of effort versus what people actually look forward to. It looks basically identical to Battlefield 3. Even some of the models were recycled. That demo is probably running on a couple Titans, so I'd like to see the console graphics. The driving segment was straight out of Warfighter. Not a bad thing, as that was fairly entertaining if not repetitive.

I don't get why **** has to crumble, collapse or explode every 5 seconds though. Give us some huge scale battles or something. AI looks as ******** as ever.

I actually liked 3's campaign. Not spectacular, but solid. If I could have had a few more maps, more polish in exchange for dropping it, I absolutely would. I don't know why CoD bothers anymore, either.



Before Bad Company 2, "Battlefield fans" were a more mature group, more likely to play something like Arma as an alternative than Call of Duty. Let's not forget that CoD has been perverted a bit for the sake of appealing to the lowest common denominator. Look at 4, then MW3, and it's hard to feel great about where it's headed. Battlefield is the same way to me, now. They had a chance to really hit a homerun with the teamwork and vehicles, but chose to bunt instead.
This post is right in every aspect. Cod has DEFINITELY been dumbed down. COD4 was ****ing astounding. I loved that game, and it's pretty sad to see it in the state it is now. I completely get what you're saying, but I think it's a little soon to say it's heading down that path already. Maybe Dice has fallen asleep behind the wheel, and they are slowly drifting off course, but I expect them to hit the rumble strip and right the ship.

I still think Battlefield will ALWAYS have the teamwork part ingrained into it. I can admit that BF3 was a tad dumbed down (not super detrimental or anything) but it's astounding the things you can do in this game, even with just one solid squad. Working as a unit will always feel great, it's up to the player base to figure this out.

Patchey* is offline  
Old
03-27-2013, 04:47 AM
  #61
LOFIN
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Country: Finland
Posts: 1,050
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patchey View Post
I still think Battlefield will ALWAYS have the teamwork part ingrained into it. I can admit that BF3 was a tad dumbed down (not super detrimental or anything) but it's astounding the things you can do in this game, even with just one solid squad. Working as a unit will always feel great, it's up to the player base to figure this out.
And the thing is, in BF3 that's extremely rare compared to BF2. I don't consider BF3 to be teamwork oriented anymore. You sometimse get flashes of that old battlefield feeling, but those don't come very often.

I still feel BF3 is a fun game to play, but it's not fully worth the title IMO.

LOFIN is offline  
Old
03-27-2013, 05:18 AM
  #62
CanadianHockey
Smith - Alfie
 
CanadianHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Petawawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 29,810
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by LOFIN View Post
And the thing is, in BF3 that's extremely rare compared to BF2. I don't consider BF3 to be teamwork oriented anymore. You sometimse get flashes of that old battlefield feeling, but those don't come very often.

I still feel BF3 is a fun game to play, but it's not fully worth the title IMO.
I never played BF2, but BF3's multiplayer feels harder to dominate than when I'd play BFBC or BFBC2. Perhaps it's because I spent so much of my time in BC2 on SQDDM working with the M1 Garand and just dominating, but in BF3 I'm so much more likely to run into a squad that dominates the game by working together.

Although, it may just be that I'm playing console, so I'm more exposed to casual gamers.


Anyway, unsurprisingly and disappointingly, premium is back for BF4...

Anyone know if the 8th gen consoles are getting 64 player maps?

__________________
CanadianHockey_________ _ _ _ _ _______Sens, Oilers, and Team Canada

Last edited by CanadianHockey: 03-27-2013 at 05:34 AM.
CanadianHockey is offline  
Old
03-27-2013, 06:15 AM
  #63
G F O P
Moderator
 
G F O P's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 246,887
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by XX View Post
No, they aren't. Some of them are very, very poorly designed for certain modes.
I've never had any problem at all with 64 player maps and conquest, rush, ctf, et cetera.

G F O P is offline  
Old
03-27-2013, 06:25 AM
  #64
G F O P
Moderator
 
G F O P's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 246,887
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by XX View Post
It's pandering to a demographic that is viewed as the polar opposite from the core Battlefield fan. EA went to a lot of trouble to market towards CoD players the last time. "Rise above the call." If EA had the option of trading out one fanbase for another, they would do so. The fact that 'we' like Battlefield and 'they' like CoD is irrelevant. That Battlefield is historically a PC title focused on teamwork is irrelevant. It's all about revenue. They want CoD levels of sales and revenue. EA could care less how they get there because they are a corporation. The desire of the Battlefield group is irrelevant if the Call of Duty group offers more revenue.

I don't like the compromise or perversion of a title I grew up with. Nothing more. Certainly not the first time in gaming this has happened and it won't be the last. It's a great way to lose your extremely loyal base, and gain a bunch of fickle 13 year olds with Xbox live. That's not a trade-off you should always make.
The thing is, after all your complaints, the game is still playable. All your complaints about the game inching towards Call Of Duty are total nonsense, as the game hasn't integrated juggernaut or any type of perk to that degree. So I fail to see where you are coming from.

Call Of Duty has no vehicles, whereas Battlefield 4 unleashes a wide variety of vehicles and planes for the user to explore. The styles of games are completely different.

As a huge Battlefield fan since it's initial release with 1942, I've had very few problems at all with the series. I play 3 every morning, and 3 is still better than Planetside 2, or any competitor. The issue with the games isn't that it's like CoD. The issue isn't even that it's coming out every year now, like CoD, because the game looks damn fine. The issue is physics in-game. The issue is getting shot through wood or concrete by magic, or being sniped by a machine gun. I'm not saying the game is perfect, and there are a lot of missing qualities which could make 3 better, such as foreign speech (like in 2 and 1942) and VoIP. Battlelog is also one of the most flawed means to join a game, as servers frequently don't exist in server search, and users can get kicked for no reason other than "Connection lost to EA Online". If you can ignore these occasional glaring issues and odd glitches, the game itself is very fun to play. And I have no doubt 4 will be just as fun.

The criticism regarding a game that has not even come out yet, simply because they are "EA", is ridiculous. As said, it's not perfect, but you aren't going to find a game that is. Every single iteration of Battlefield has made significant improvements, and I'd expect 4 to take the next step in the series.

G F O P is offline  
Old
03-27-2013, 06:35 AM
  #65
CanadianHockey
Smith - Alfie
 
CanadianHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Petawawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 29,810
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by ixcuincle View Post
The thing is, after all your complaints, the game is still playable. All your complaints about the game inching towards Call Of Duty are total nonsense, as the game hasn't integrated juggernaut or any type of perk to that degree. So I fail to see where you are coming from.

Call Of Duty has no vehicles, whereas Battlefield 4 unleashes a wide variety of vehicles and planes for the user to explore. The styles of games are completely different.

As a huge Battlefield fan since it's initial release with 1942, I've had very few problems at all with the series. I play 3 every morning, and 3 is still better than Planetside 2, or any competitor. The issue with the games isn't that it's like CoD. The issue isn't even that it's coming out every year now, like CoD, because the game looks damn fine. The issue is physics in-game. The issue is getting shot through wood or concrete by magic, or being sniped by a machine gun. I'm not saying the game is perfect, and there are a lot of missing qualities which could make 3 better, such as foreign speech (like in 2 and 1942) and VoIP. Battlelog is also one of the most flawed means to join a game, as servers frequently don't exist in server search, and users can get kicked for no reason other than "Connection lost to EA Online". If you can ignore these occasional glaring issues and odd glitches, the game itself is very fun to play. And I have no doubt 4 will be just as fun.

The criticism regarding a game that has not even come out yet, simply because they are "EA", is ridiculous. As said, it's not perfect, but you aren't going to find a game that is. Every single iteration of Battlefield has made significant improvements, and I'd expect 4 to take the next step in the series.
His Call of Duty analogy has little to do with Battlefield abandoning its own class system and vehicles, and nothing to do with whether BF is a functional FPS.

It's based on EA/DICE's increasing emphasis on DLC via Premium (which is a bit of a money grab, akin to CoD releasing a new game every 9 months and a break from its roots where fan-driven mods were encouraged), its attempts to replicate CoD's singleplayer experience despite BF's history as a franchise built around multiplayer (pandering to CoD, rather than BF fans), the decision to devote valuable time and resources into developing basic game modes that resemble CoD's TDM more than BF's original conquest modes, and its lack of major innovations between titles.

CanadianHockey is offline  
Old
03-27-2013, 06:37 AM
  #66
G F O P
Moderator
 
G F O P's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 246,887
vCash: 500
After running my expert eye through the proceedings, I've determined that, in single player respects, this game does appear to be Call Of Duty. However, keep in mind that Battlefield pretty much has been doing this since BC2. You will never, ever, convince me that the multiplayer aspect of this game is like Call Of Duty. The two games are starkly different in that aspect, and will continue to be different until Call Of Duty allows you to take conquest points and fly various vehicles.

It is natural to compare the game to Call Of Duty, when we are given a 17 minute preview of a single player campaign. The true fans know that the single player experience is highly inferior to the multiplayer. I mean, I haven't even finished Co-op or Single Player yet in 3. The first thing I did after the frustrating installation and errors that proceeded the installation...find a 64 player server and get to work.

G F O P is offline  
Old
03-27-2013, 06:41 AM
  #67
G F O P
Moderator
 
G F O P's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 246,887
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanadianHockey View Post
His Call of Duty analogy has little to do with Battlefield abandoning its own class system and vehicles, and nothing to do with whether BF is a functional FPS.

It's based on EA/DICE's increasing emphasis on DLC via Premium (which is a bit of a money grab, akin to CoD releasing a new game every 9 months), its attempts to replicate CoD's singleplayer experience despite BF's history as a franchise built around multiplayer (pandering to CoD, rather than BF fans), the decision to devote valuable time and resources into developing basic game modes that resemble CoD's TDM more than BF's original conquest modes, and its lack of major innovations between titles.
I'm as frustrated as everyone else over the game release dates too, since I played 2 for pretty much 5 years, including the first 2 years in college at 6 AM. 2 was a viable game that you could play for years and years.

However, we don't know anything about this game or the multiplayer mode to judge.

In the end, he is right that it does come to money. However, he is not right in that this is a "EA thing". It is more of an industry-wide practice now. I'm as cheap as any person in here, cheap enough that I refuse to pay for 2 cable outlets, and a cell phone plan with internet. I hate having to dish out money every 2 years or so for this. But, the truth of the matter is, this is becoming common industry practice, and it is pretty much basic business. In fact, World Of Warcraft puts out a new expansion every 2 years. And every year I mumble and complain about how I just bought another expansion pack and I have to buy yet another pack with minimal content for 40 bucks and

And every time I end up coming back

Let's see what features are out for this game first before we judge too harshly. Also, it's unlikely that 64 player games will be on any console anytime soon. So you might want to start building that new computer to join the rest of us elitists in 3.

G F O P is offline  
Old
03-27-2013, 06:49 AM
  #68
CanadianHockey
Smith - Alfie
 
CanadianHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Petawawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 29,810
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by ixcuincle View Post
I'm as frustrated as everyone else over the game release dates too, since I played 2 for pretty much 5 years, including the first 2 years in college at 6 AM. 2 was a viable game that you could play for years and years.

However, we don't know anything about this game or the multiplayer mode to judge.

In the end, he is right that it does come to money. However, he is not right in that this is a "EA thing". It is more of an industry-wide practice now. I'm as cheap as any person in here, cheap enough that I refuse to pay for 2 cable outlets, and a cell phone plan with internet. I hate having to dish out money every 2 years or so for this. But, the truth of the matter is, this is becoming common industry practice, and it is pretty much basic business. In fact, World Of Warcraft puts out a new expansion every 2 years. And every year I mumble and complain about how I just bought another expansion pack and I have to buy yet another pack with minimal content for 40 bucks and

And every time I end up coming back
Didn't mean to say the practice was only on EA. Just that EA has sort of become the symbol for the commercialization of the gaming industry. Gaming has simply become mainstream enough that companies can make a lot of money by pandering to the broadest demographics, rather than developing games that fill a niche or are highly original but potentially limited in mass appeal.

Quote:
Let's see what features are out for this game first before we judge too harshly. Also, it's unlikely that 64 player games will be on any console anytime soon. So you might want to start building that new computer to join the rest of us elitists in 3.
Don't have the money.

CanadianHockey is offline  
Old
03-27-2013, 06:51 AM
  #69
G F O P
Moderator
 
G F O P's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 246,887
vCash: 500
It's industry wide practice

Blizzard does it with WoW and people are upset but everyone is coming back. Mists of Pandaria offered minimal content and people still got it.

G F O P is offline  
Old
03-27-2013, 07:09 AM
  #70
G F O P
Moderator
 
G F O P's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 246,887
vCash: 500
About to play FIFA, and then gonna jump into a game of 3. But, looking at the video, the single player campaign is like one they've been doing for years with Bad Company and Bad Company 2

It's not new

Yes, it's like CoD, but they've also been doing this since Bad Company. You can't "progressively" go towards CoD when you've been doing the same Bad Company / BF3 "single player" narrative for several years now.

G F O P is offline  
Old
03-27-2013, 07:10 AM
  #71
G F O P
Moderator
 
G F O P's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 246,887
vCash: 500


Lol preorer now for 60 dollars **** that

G F O P is offline  
Old
03-27-2013, 08:50 AM
  #72
CanadianHockey
Smith - Alfie
 
CanadianHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Petawawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 29,810
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by ixcuincle View Post
About to play FIFA, and then gonna jump into a game of 3. But, looking at the video, the single player campaign is like one they've been doing for years with Bad Company and Bad Company 2

It's not new

Yes, it's like CoD, but they've also been doing this since Bad Company. You can't "progressively" go towards CoD when you've been doing the same Bad Company / BF3 "single player" narrative for several years now.
The Bad Company series was supposed to do that, though. It was supposed to change the traditional BF format by appealing more to casual gamers and focusing on the console demographic. The SP campaign didn't take itself too seriously, and the series was essentially a test for Frostbite. It worked because it wasn't meant to be a traditional Battlefield game.

Battlefield 3 was anticipated to be a return to the more traditional Battlefield games, as it was a direct successor to BF2 and not part of a spin-off series. That's where the disappointment stems from - that it feels more like a successor to BC/BC2, but without the humour, rather than a true sequel to BF2. BF3 took it even one step further by adding more DLC than any of the BC or predecessor BF games had done (BC had one free DLC based on demand for conquest, while BC2 had only a single expansion for Vietnam, compared to BF3's 4 expansion packs). At least that's how I see it.


Last edited by CanadianHockey: 03-27-2013 at 08:55 AM.
CanadianHockey is offline  
Old
03-27-2013, 09:52 AM
  #73
Everlasting
Registered User
 
Everlasting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Somwhere in time
Country: Sweden
Posts: 5,157
vCash: 500
Just saw parts of the gameplay, and i am quite disspointed.

They could have shown some parts of it and label it as "BF 3 DLC 8" and i would not have understand that this was a new game. Graphics are very similar, animations are very similar, sun is still too bright and shooting looked the same. It had also become more Call of Duty, just look at the ending... Weather and dust effects looks nice tho, and the animations were more fluid.

And what is the point of preorder a game that in 6 months after release will have twice as much content avaible through dlc and a "premium" package which will be cheaper?
God dammit EA.

...

BC is nothing like COD. Have you guys even played it? The campign had large open maps which you could replay in many diffrent ways etc. It was nothing like the linear COD action generic scripted boring been done a million times by now campign.

Everlasting is offline  
Old
03-27-2013, 10:01 AM
  #74
G F O P
Moderator
 
G F O P's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 246,887
vCash: 500
If you don't understand by know that Battlefield is meant to be for multiplayer I don't know what to tell you

If you play the MP you're going to have a good time*

* depending on whether laws of physics decide to apply, team balance, classless base camping, et cetera

G F O P is offline  
Old
03-27-2013, 10:02 AM
  #75
CanadianHockey
Smith - Alfie
 
CanadianHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Petawawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 29,810
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Everlasting View Post
BC is nothing like COD. Have you guys even played it? The campign had large open maps which you could replay in many diffrent ways etc. It was nothing like the linear COD action generic scripted boring been done a million times by now campign.
The original BC wasn't very much like CoD, but BC2's campaign became more CoD-like, and BF3 turned into an essentially CoD singleplayer.

But either way, I think the point is that before BC, Battlefield didn't do much with single player. 1942, Vietnam, BF2 all had single player modes that equated to playing the multiplayer maps with AI.

Quote:
And what is the point of preorder a game that in 6 months after release will have twice as much content avaible through dlc and a "premium" package which will be cheaper?
Uh, this isn't just on EA. Every new game gets cheaper over time. You want to play it from day 1? Well, you have to pay more for it than someone who buys it after it's been out a year. Premium is an added cost that sucks, but preordering has nothing to do with it.

CanadianHockey is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:14 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2016 All Rights Reserved.