15 replies to this topic

[General]

SCREENS !
http://www.ign.com/a...ots-leak-online

[Chyros]

That's amazing, they managed to make it look monochrome AGAIN!

[Wizard]

SO. MUCH. BLOOM.

I love the way they have set Frostbite up so that no matter how bright the action is, you can still see your weapon as if it was lit from behind

[Sgt. Rho]

[Alias]

Didn't care for Battlefield 3, can't see why this will be any different.

[General]

Alias, on 27 March 2013 - 12:33, said:

Didn't care for Battlefield 3, can't see why this will be any different.

Visuals, thats why

[Soul]

Battlefield 3 was a disappointment for a number of reasons, lets hope that Battlefield 4 is more like a battlefield game and less like a COD game like they did with BF3.

[General]

Soul, on 27 March 2013 - 16:52, said:

Battlefield 3 was a disappointment for a number of reasons, lets hope that Battlefield 4 is more like a battlefield game and less like a COD game like they did with BF3.

There is too much to learn from COD games, single player of COD is second best I've seen after Half Life 2. If I were in the leading position of a game company and if I were to make a big FPS game, I should check COD games and will see what to do and what not to do.

I just hope they learn from COD instead of simply copying it.

[Chyros]

General, on 27 March 2013 - 17:56, said:

Soul, on 27 March 2013 - 16:52, said:

Battlefield 3 was a disappointment for a number of reasons, lets hope that Battlefield 4 is more like a battlefield game and less like a COD game like they did with BF3.

There is too much to learn from COD games, single player of COD is second best I've seen after Half Life 2. If I were in the leading position of a game company and if I were to make a big FPS game, I should check COD games and will see what to do and what not to do.

I just hope they learn from COD instead of simply copying it.

Copying CoD is the biggest mistake they could make, the whole point of Battlefield is that it ISN'T CoD. The two games are completely different, that's why they appeal to such different people. If you like fast-paced, action-packed gameplay based primarily on gunlpay where one man can be an army, you'll love CoD and there's no way you'll like Battlefield. If you want a more realistic team-based game where tactical coordination is more important than simple gunplay, you'll love Battlefield and hate CoD. Why would Battlefield want to copy CoD - they'd never beat CoD on their own territory and they'd alienate their own fans.

[CJ]

General, on 27 March 2013 - 17:56, said:

Soul, on 27 March 2013 - 16:52, said:

Battlefield 3 was a disappointment for a number of reasons, lets hope that Battlefield 4 is more like a battlefield game and less like a COD game like they did with BF3.

There is too much to learn from COD games, single player of COD is second best I've seen after Half Life 2. If I were in the leading position of a game company and if I were to make a big FPS game, I should check COD games and will see what to do and what not to do.

I just hope they learn from COD instead of simply copying it.

Who cares about single player in BF? Most of the older games of the franchise didn't even have a campaign, and it's better that way imho. Any person who plays a Battlefield game is supposed to do it for the multiplayer aspect, not for a story with more cinematics and scripted events than actual gameplay.

[Sgt. Rho]

"Any person who plays a Battlefield game is supposed to do it for the multiplayer aspect, "

And who are you to define what one is supposed to do in Battlefield?

[CJ]

Sgt. Rho, on 27 March 2013 - 23:13, said:

"Any person who plays a Battlefield game is supposed to do it for the multiplayer aspect, "

And who are you to define what one is supposed to do in Battlefield?

Well, you tell me where the single player part was in older BF titles that were so popular.
If people liked the games without them having a campaign, it is obvious that it's not for it's singleplayer -_-

A campaign in BF is merely a bonus feature at best, but it should never be the selling point. It's just as silly as counter strike getting one, I don't think a lot of people found Condition Zero interesting in solo mode.

EDIT : BTW, when I was talking about what one was supposed to play, I actually don't even know how I wrote that, the idea I was trying to convey is that the developers should not make it so the people will play for the singleplayer, but I rephrased that so much that I fucked up the whole sentence in the end and didn't reread myself after

Edited by CJ, 28 March 2013 - 00:49.

[Sgt. Rho]

The campaign in BFBC2 was pretty fun, not sure about BC1, didn't play it. The one in BF3 wasn't terrible either. So I really don't see the problem.

Edited by Sgt. Rho, 28 March 2013 - 01:20.

[Raven]

Campaign wise I also didn't see an issue with BF. TBH I did not find the COD campaigns any better except for the COD4's which I rank as the best of all CODs. MP wise I really liked BF3 and the stupid performance issues with Frostbite kept me from playing it a lot. I enjoyed the BC2 MP a great deal though.

[Stalker]

If BF and CoD have one thing in common, it's they're both Multiplayer Games. Of course, there is also an SP part, (which looks promising in BF4) that can be good or bad, but you'll spend most of your time in MP. Even if you play through the campaign twice (Who would do that? ) the average player would still have more game-time in MP.
They can show SP footage all day, I don't really care for that. If it's good, I'll play it, if it's bad I'll skip it. Let's be honest, a 4-8hours SP isn't worth 60€/$. If I buy this game, I'll do it because of the MP part. They should just show MP gameplay. Imho all that SP footage is just shown to lure dumb customers into thinking MP looks/feels the same. (although I guess that works quite well in this genre)

[General]

Stalker, on 28 March 2013 - 07:38, said:

If BF and CoD have one thing in common, it's they're both Multiplayer Games. Of course, there is also an SP part, (which looks promising in BF4) that can be good or bad, but you'll spend most of your time in MP. Even if you play through the campaign twice (Who would do that? ) the average player would still have more game-time in MP.
They can show SP footage all day, I don't really care for that. If it's good, I'll play it, if it's bad I'll skip it. Let's be honest, a 4-8hours SP isn't worth 60€/$. If I buy this game, I'll do it because of the MP part. They should just show MP gameplay. Imho all that SP footage is just shown to lure dumb customers into thinking MP looks/feels the same. (although I guess that works quite well in this genre)

True true, while I enjoy a good campaign very much, I spend hundreds of hours on mp. But for advertising vise, its wiser to show some sp stuff to amaze people. Showing mp stuff for a trailer will be confusing, as it will be not clear what the hell is going on and it will look unappealing So yes, this is perhaps the sole reason why they work on sp too much