Battlefield 4? You have got to be kidding me... [Archive]

Cortexian

July 15th, 2012, 12:29 AM

The MoH Warfighter Alpha is fucking terrible.

Battlefield 3 still isn't in a playable state for many players, and it needs SERIOUS attention to make it come anywhere close to being as good as Battlefield 2. I haven't bought Close Quarters yet, and I won't be buying Premium ever. I'll probably try Armored Kill when it comes out but I'm not sinking more of my money into the bug-ridden game that EA/DICE has produced.

Consoles, please stop ruining PC gaming.

Donut

July 15th, 2012, 01:01 AM

im still waiting on the c4 glitch fix and ridiculously bad hit detection issues in bad company 2 to get straightened out. except that they never will. the game has been damn near unplayable recently.

oh well, maybe bad company 3 will fix these issues. probably not though.
E: preorder for 69.99? welp, here it is... heres the price of new games rising by 10 bucks again

§partan 8

July 15th, 2012, 01:18 AM

That's why I never buy new games anymore.^ I just wait a year or two. I'm in no hurry. Plus I don't play very much like I use to not worth spending that much money.

Bobblehob

July 15th, 2012, 01:36 AM

What is the c4 glitch that you are talking about Donut?

Also, seriously guys, the game is not anywhere near unplayable. There are some hit detection issues, and some glitches, but it isn't that bad xP

ThePlague

July 15th, 2012, 01:50 AM

Donut

July 15th, 2012, 01:50 AM

i have never seen anybody talking about this c4 glitch, but its happened to me multiple times, its happened to my friend, and one time i ran over a guy who had it happen to him. what happens is you press the detonator, but instead of detonating the c4, it just throws more c4. it uses the c4 you have, until your count hits 0, then it continues throwing more c4. this c4 is all very real, but you cant blow it up, because you just end up throwing more. its an infinite supply of un-detonatable c4.

i notice the glitch happens only when im jihad jeeping. ill strap the jeep with c4, jump out of the car, detonate, but throw c4 instead of blowing up the stuff thats already there :(

it seems resupplying fixes the issue, but its ridiculously annoying, seeing as i cannot figure out what causes it. i just rig the jeep, then resupply immediately as assault. i havent had the issue since i started doing that.

just to be clear here, im talking about bad company 2. not battlefield 3.
and bad company 2's hit detection has steadily been getting worse since around march or so. maybe im just noticing it more now, but i got a hit marker with a jeep today on a guy standing still. a fucking hitmarker, with a jeep. then the guy blasted me out of the driver seat with a 40mm shotgun as i ran him over. switched servers, then put an entire xm8c mag into a medic that wasnt looking at me, and had to pull the rex out to kill him. even that took 4 shots. also, there have been a lot more people with pings over 200 recently. as soon as you get into the 200 range, youve basically got a built-in lag switch, because people with pings that high are fucking invincible.

Warsaw

July 15th, 2012, 01:55 AM

I've sunk just over 148 hours into BF3...and it's only fun for maybe the first couple rounds and then it just becomes infuriating as the amount of BS encountered builds up. BF2 didn't have this issue. Halo...didn't have this issue.

And those BF3 stats in my sig are so wrong it's not even funny.

Bobblehob

July 15th, 2012, 02:01 AM

Meh, It really depends on individual experience, I have put a total of about 120 hours into the game, on both Xbox and PC and I haven't encountered anything that really bothers me too much. My only real qualms are with the hit detection, and with the unlock system that puts anyone, especially in vehicles at an extreme disadvantage, but even with those problems, I still manage to have fun in pretty much every game that I play. Especially when it comes to Jihad Jeeping, or doing one of the many ridiculous and sometimes troll worthy things the game allows.

Warsaw

July 15th, 2012, 02:56 AM

I play to win, and the way the game is set up it's incredibly frustrating because I can only do so much to stem the tide of stupidity on my team. My W/L is horrid because every time I join, I'm on the team that doesn't know shit about dick and gets pushed back to spawn every time. I can get out and cap things and do some damage, but I'm one guy. Exacerbating the issue is that you can't whittle away at the enemy because they all regenerate. It's frustrating when you *almost* down a jet with AA, and he just goes *trololololo* out to the mountains, regenerates his armour, and resumes his rampage. Or when you've put that sniper down to 2% health, and he just pops behind some cover to come back 100%. That's not Battlefield, that's Call of Duty.

By the way, hit-detection improves when you slide Network Smoothing all the way to the "off" position. Players will jitter around a bit more, but you'll find that your shots register more reliably. It still sucks compared to BF2's hit detection, but it's much better.

P.S. Flying a jet in third-person automatically means you (general you, not you specifically) suck.

Amit

July 15th, 2012, 01:02 PM

As someone who's already sunk almost 600 hours into BF3, I have no doubt that BF4 will be out by next year.

And yes, there are some parts of battlefield 3 that are still shitty, but it's a damn fun game still, and I love playing it almost everyday.

Not by next year, but by the end of next year.

E: preorder for 69.99? welp, here it is... heres the price of new games rising by 10 bucks again

That's the price of the Deluxe Edition of MoH Warfighter. The regular edition is $60 like most other games.

just to be clear here, im talking about bad company 2. not battlefield 3.
and bad company 2's hit detection has steadily been getting worse since around march or so.

The last update BC2 got was R11 in September last year. If you haven't noticed yet, DICE have dropped support for that game. They won't be fixing anything from BC2. And Hit detection has always been especially bad in BC2. I don't see how it can gradually get worse over time when updates aren't being released. It has to be the servers you're playing on.

And those BF3 stats in my sig are so wrong it's not even funny.

Update your stats on your bf3stats page and the sig will update within a few hours. Be gracious for I had to completely recreate my sig from Enjin to update my stats.

Donut

July 15th, 2012, 03:40 PM

lol i know bc2 isnt supported anymore. i figure its either servers slowly disappearing, or people just fucking around with horrible connections or something. ive always seen bullshit with the hit detection, its just that recently it has been so much worse.

Warsaw

July 15th, 2012, 04:51 PM

Update your stats on your bf3stats page and the sig will update within a few hours. Be gracious for I had to completely recreate my sig from Enjin to update my stats.

I did. Only some of the numbers are correct, though. I may just end up removing that as my sig.

PenGuin1362

July 15th, 2012, 06:44 PM

I do believe DICE said they're not done with bad company so I'm hoping that's the next thing they push out

Amit

July 16th, 2012, 12:08 AM

I do believe DICE said they're not done with bad company so I'm hoping that's the next thing they push out

Quite honestly, I would prefer a BC3 break between BF3 and 2142's TRUEEEE sequel. I will rip their heads off if they don't do 2142 sequel right.

Warsaw

July 16th, 2012, 01:05 AM

They won't. It'll be more of the current formula with new and improved bugs.

Bobblehob

July 16th, 2012, 01:16 AM

Man you are so fucking negative all the time xP

I personally still want to see 1942 remade with a current gen engine, like frostbite 2, that shit would be the best game ever.

PenGuin1362

July 16th, 2012, 01:26 AM

I dunno, I have faith in DICE, they've delivered on much thus far. EA though....

And I agree, I would LOVE to see 1942 redone with frostbite 2. 1943 was hardly a decent remake.

Warsaw

July 16th, 2012, 02:04 AM

Man you are so fucking negative all the time xP

I personally still want to see 1942 remade with a current gen engine, like frostbite 2, that shit would be the best game ever.

And you're naive.

I would love to see a WWII Battlefield game on Frostbite. I don't know about you guys, but I also thought the first level of Bad Company 2 was a great template for an entire Bad Company campaign set during that time.

Amit

July 16th, 2012, 02:55 AM

And you're naive.

I would love to see a WWII Battlefield game on Frostbite. I don't know about you guys, but I also thought the first level of Bad Company 2 was a great template for an entire Bad Company campaign set during that time.

I was hoping at least a quarter of the Campaign would be WWII related shit tying into the modern era story. Nope .avi

Warsaw

July 16th, 2012, 04:51 AM

Bad Company '44.

That would be a day one purchase, especially if it followed the BC1 style campaign play.

Bobblehob

July 16th, 2012, 10:07 AM

And you're naive.

I would love to see a WWII Battlefield game on Frostbite. I don't know about you guys, but I also thought the first level of Bad Company 2 was a great template for an entire Bad Company campaign set during that time.

Nah, I just have a broader definition of fun in BF3 than you do. Glad to see that you would at least appreciate a WWII game from Dice.

=sw=warlord

July 16th, 2012, 10:15 AM

Playing Metro on conquest is akin to fun as hammering carpeting nails through your Testicles into a 4x4.
If you really enjoy that then be my guest, there's always at least one masochist around.

Bobblehob

July 16th, 2012, 10:23 AM

Playing Metro on conquest is akin to fun as hammering carpeting nails through your Testicles into a 4x4.
If you really enjoy that then be my guest, there's always at least one masochist around.

You are right on that one xP I avoid those servers if at all possible. I usually do things like Jihad Jeep'ing and C4 traps, more troll worthy things that make me happy.

=sw=warlord

July 16th, 2012, 10:32 AM

You are right on that one xP I avoid those servers if at all possible. I usually do things like Jihad Jeep'ing and C4 traps, more troll worthy things that make me happy.

If you want to troll, C4 a helo, park it at the other teams base, fly away in one of their jets and then watch them bitch when they take off in the trap.

Bobblehob

July 16th, 2012, 11:28 AM

Yes! Birgirpall did that in a couple of his videos, and I probably will try it as soon as I finish the video I am working on.

DarkHalo003

July 16th, 2012, 12:07 PM

Battlefield 4: Return of the Origins.

Why did this suprise anyone? This is EA we're talking about.

Pooky

July 16th, 2012, 06:34 PM

They won't. It'll be more of the current formula with new and improved bugs.

I lol'd quite heartily at that

Bodzilla

July 17th, 2012, 10:41 AM

this game has regenerating health?
for planes???????

GOOD PLAN.

BobtheGreatII

July 17th, 2012, 01:43 PM

Battlefield fans –The team at DICE is hard at work on the next entry in the Battlefield series, and to ensure access to the exclusive Battlefield 4 beta, shooter fans can pre-order Medal of Honor Warfighter today. While there is no further Battlefield 4 news at this point – remember, if you don’t see it published here, it’s just rumor and speculation – we did want to take this opportunity to share a few thoughts on the state of the Battlefield franchise.

We are extremely proud of Battlefield 3, and with millions of fans out there, we’re happy you’re enjoying it too. When we launched the game, we introduced unparalleled levels of in-game destruction, all-out vehicle warfare and redefined online gameplay. Even with billions of bullets fired and millions of games played, we know the Battlefield 3 story is still just the beginning. As ever, we are humbled by the community’s response to the game, and couldn’t be happier with the feedback we have received to Battlefield 3 Premium. With the Back to Karkand and Close Quarters expansion packs already out, Armored Kill around the corner, and End Game and Aftermath still on the horizon, we’re looking forward to many more hours of gameplay with you, and can’t wait to see the stories you will tell through Battlelog and player created videos.

But we’re not ready to talk about Battlefield 4 yet - in the meantime, we hope you will continue to enjoy Battlefield 3 and all the Battlefield 3 Premium content still to come. We invite you to check out Danger Close Studio’s Medal of Honor Warfighter, which is also powered by the Frostbite 2 engine and the free social network, Battlelog. Don’t forget that pre-ordering Medal of Honor Warfighter Limited Edition (at no extra cost) guarantees access to the exclusive Battlefield 4 Beta.

See you on the battlefield!

I don't understand why people are surprised? Making a game takes time. Of course they already got started on the next one. Why wouldn't they? It's not like they sit around with their thumbs up their asses and watch as people play a game. It's a money making business.

I mean, Halo Reach was being developed right after Halo 3. And so was ODST. It makes sense to get to work right away so they can make a deadline. I don't get why people are so worked up about this.

Bobblehob

July 17th, 2012, 04:04 PM

It's just so soon after the release of BF3, less than a year, to already be announcing the next big game.

BobtheGreatII

July 17th, 2012, 04:07 PM

It got leaked. They didn't make an announcement in a sense. It seems like it's more or less caught people off guard. I mean, it's not like we didn't know that Halo 3 was going to happen after Halo 2. Why do people think there wasn't going to be another Battlefied game? Of course there is. It's not like they're saying it's coming out right away. You still have probably a year or two of Battlefield 3. Which is about right for a game.

Bobblehob

July 17th, 2012, 04:18 PM

I didn't say there wasn't going to be a BF4 :P I just wasn't expecting to hear about it so soon.

Warsaw

July 17th, 2012, 06:00 PM

I laud BF3 for having destructible environments, but I don't see where they can get off calling it "unparalleled" when BC2's buildings were fully collapsible. BF3's destruction is pretty, but it lacks substance.

BobtheGreatII

July 17th, 2012, 06:05 PM

Buildings fully collapse in BF3 too.

Amit

July 17th, 2012, 06:56 PM

Buildings fully collapse in BF3 too.

Not many of them, though. The only map that I can think of where a building fell on my has to be Strike At Karkand (the buildings around Square and Market).

Donut

July 17th, 2012, 07:52 PM

You still have probably a year or two of Battlefield 3. Which is about right for a game.
does anybody else see the issue with this mentality? im not bashing you bob, im just saying in general. pooky made a good point about castlevania. its old as fuck, but it still, to this day, has replay value. now we're in this mentality where people see the next big game come out, and the last game they were playing dies completely, despite it being better. cod4 and bfbc2 are good examples of this. i hear and see comments all the time where people say ridiculous things about older games, like for example, "i wish bf3 didnt come out so i could still go back and platinum the vss in bc2", like, as if the release of bf3 immediately makes it taboo to play bc2.

bad company 1 vs 2142 is a good example. the gameplay is different and innovative enough that both games can continue to appeal to people, and the company that makes the games still turns a profit. modern call of duty is a good example of the exact opposite of this

Warsaw

July 17th, 2012, 08:01 PM

Buildings fully collapse in BF3 too.

Not the big ones. Even those large buildings on Panama Canal will collapse if you hit them enough. Some of the small buildings in the Back to Karkand pack can be chipped away into roughly half the size, but I've never seen one actually be completely destroyed or collapsed.

ODX

July 17th, 2012, 08:03 PM

Personally I'm mad about it because BF3 was just released and is a monster of a game that I would say has maybe 3 or so years of gameplay that it can offer. It was a long wait from BF2 to BF3, and with so much work going into BF3 it seems like it should last a while. But now with BF4 apparently on the horizon, it seems like that ideal is dead.

Also, because they should be working on fucking Bad Company 3.

RedBaron

July 17th, 2012, 08:18 PM

People aren't buying games for a new game experience anymore. People are buying games in order to keep up with the bigger player base. I've noticed this and am very disappointed with how single player is completely ignored. To begin with, I don't even like 90% of multiplayer games out there. This is why I don't feel bad for not paying $60 for 5 hour long campaigns, either through borrowing console copies or otherwise.

However, Battlefield has always been the go to multiplayer shooter for me. The feeling of beating an entire army over the course of 40+ minutes per round was so much more rewarding than the pick-up-and-kill-people rounds with the halo and CoD kiddies. Battlefield 2 was a coherent game where you had to not play like a retard in order to succeed. Battlefield 2142 kept that same requirement for the most part while still adding a lot of additional gameplay mechanics. Battlefield 3 pisses me off now because it has been watered down so much. Anyone in that game can do well now, everything is made to be easy so that it will attract the CoD kiddies. Teamwork is not a requirement for success anymore. Everyone can just go rambo and hipfire their weapons, and still do well.

If Battlefield jumps onto the CoD release model, then I can only foresee Battlefield getting worse as a game. Year by year, it'll just be re-released in order to appeal to the masses. I must have played Battlefield 2 for at least 5 years, even after the release of 2142. I played both of them. 2142 was not a spit out of the same game, it had enough differences from Battlefield 2 that I was able to play both.

Donut

July 17th, 2012, 08:48 PM

^ fucking all of this. i hope bad company 2 stays active for a long time.

ThePlague

July 17th, 2012, 10:44 PM

Post from r/bf3 (http://www.reddit.com/r/battlefield3/comments/wpzyo/battlefield_4_beta_official_information/)

Hey Guys,
Seeing a lot of questions about the BF4 beta announce and thought that'd I make a thread where you can find official, definitive information and help to address some concerns that I'm seeing.

The beta will be in Fall of 2013. We don't have a BF4 release date yet but, of course, it will be after the beta.
We will continue to support BF3. DICE and EA are dedicated to continuing our support for Battlefield 3. Just as we've continued to support and maintain Bad Company 2, we intend to continue providing the best Battlefield 3 experience we can well into the future and past the release of End Game and Battlefield 4.
There are several teams at DICE. Starting work on Battlefield 4 does not mean that we will be abandoning Battlefield 3 or working any less hard to bring you the best expansions we can.
Your feedback absolutely matters. We will continue to use it to improve BF3 and to make Battlefield 4 even better from day one.
Official details regarding BF4 will always be on Battlefield.com/battlefield-4. We expect there to be a lot of rumours and speculation - don't fall for it! ;)
Let me know if you guys have other concerns. Obviously, at this point there are some things that we don't know or that we're keeping under wraps.
Today's a busy day so it may take me some time to get back to you - thanks for your patience!

Ian
EDIT: Additional points of clarification

There will be other ways to get into the beta aside from MoH Warfighter. At this time, however, it is the only way to guarantee entry.
We've been seeing a lot of concerns about the pacing of release (i.e. "only" two years after BF3). I think it's worth noting that DICE has released a Battlefield game every two years or sooner AND Mirror's Edge at least every two years. I truly believe that we're in one of the best positions to be creating our next title - Frostbite 2 has matured, we've been gathering fan feedback like crazy, Battlefield 3 continues to expand with features which we can learn from, and we've got more data about how people play than ever.
EDIT: Additional clarification
Things that we recognize that there is a serious desire for, including but not exclusive to:

A better VOIP solution
Battle Recorder
Spectator Mode
More robust eSports support

Warsaw

July 18th, 2012, 01:34 AM

@RedBaron: Agree on all counts 100%.

RedBaron

July 18th, 2012, 01:45 AM

If 2142 had widescreen support, I would be playing that right now. The amount of hours I clocked in it when it was new back in my high school days was completely unhealthy lol.

Amit

July 18th, 2012, 01:55 AM

If 2142 had widescreen support, I would be playing that right now. The amount of hours I clocked in it when it was new back in my high school days was completely unhealthy lol.

It does have widescreen: http://www.widescreengaming.net/wiki/Battlefield_2142

RedBaron

July 18th, 2012, 02:18 AM

Actually, I have tried that before. However, none of the original gun models in first person were meant for widescreen, so a lot of weapons have huge holes in their geometry towards the bottom right corner of the screen. This is enough to deter me from playing, sadly.

BobtheGreatII

July 18th, 2012, 05:35 AM

We should have a 2142 game night or something. Do the servers still work?

does anybody else see the issue with this mentality? im not bashing you bob, im just saying in general. pooky made a good point about castlevania. its old as fuck, but it still, to this day, has replay value. now we're in this mentality where people see the next big game come out, and the last game they were playing dies completely, despite it being better.

But the video game business is a money making machine. Why would they just stop? It makes no sense. I get what you're saying. It sucks that we act like this, but I don't want to wait ten years for a new Battlefield or anything else. I'm always waiting on the next big thing. So I guess that makes me one of those people you're describing, however, anyone else tends to be classified as a casual gamer. Am I wrong?

Warsaw

July 18th, 2012, 10:34 AM

Yes. Casual gamers are the ones who just want instant gratification and don't enjoy an actual challenge in a game.

I call it the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. test. Do you like shooters, but don't like that game for any gameplay reason? Casual. :v:

The industry is also on an unsustainable track. There have been several publications on the matter this past year, saying it's headed for another crash. They are right. You have big publishing corporations like EA and Activision trying to nickel and dime the consumer and an ever increasing rate so they can say to their share-holders "look, profit growth!" Apparently there is something wrong with remaining profitable; if you aren't increasing quarterly, you are a failure! :downs:

Worse, developers in conjunction with the studios go "waaaah" over lower sales, harder sales, and "piracy" without realizing the simple truth that people will buy it if they think it is worth it. A lot of gamers no longer think it is worth it, but they don't want to acknowledge that. So we're stuck with annual sequels to successful, entrenched franchises. As they run out of fuel and we get bored with those franchises, the quality of each successive sequel degenerates.

Long story short:

Look at Valve: look at how sensible and awesome and loved they are. They are privately owned.

Look at EA: see how hated, poorly run, and shitty they are. They are publicly owned.

Welp, there's yer problem.

rossmum

July 18th, 2012, 10:51 AM

RIP Battlefield series, it was fun while it lasted.

Donut

July 18th, 2012, 01:10 PM

But the video game business is a money making machine. Why would they just stop? It makes no sense. I get what you're saying. It sucks that we act like this, but I don't want to wait ten years for a new Battlefield or anything else. I'm always waiting on the next big thing. So I guess that makes me one of those people you're describing, however, anyone else tends to be classified as a casual gamer. Am I wrong?
waiting on the next big thing isnt necessarily a bad thing. immediately ditching the older thing and never even considering going back to it, despite how shitty the new thing may be, is a bad thing.

i totally understand the need to make money, and the release history of battlefield games shows that they have been capable of revolutionizing gameplay with each release. the bad company series is proof of this. the thing is though, when an IP has been played out, either revolutionize it, or make a new IP. its really sad to watch EA run battlefield into the ground just to keep up with call of duty.

and if anyone is still wondering why we hate call of duty, this mentality it has bred is why.

E: everything warsaw said. i like the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. test :iamafag:

Amit

July 18th, 2012, 01:21 PM

Strange how in the 2000's EA released a major new BF game every other year and nobody said anything then.

Actually, I have tried that before. However, none of the original gun models in first person were meant for widescreen, so a lot of weapons have huge holes in their geometry towards the bottom right corner of the screen. This is enough to deter me from playing, sadly.

What you smoking? Go update your graphics drivers and try again.

We should have a 2142 game night or something. Do the servers still work?

Yes. Yes, we must do this.

Mr Buckshot

July 18th, 2012, 01:32 PM

waiting on the next big thing isnt necessarily a bad thing. immediately ditching the older thing and never even considering going back to it, despite how shitty the new thing may be, is a bad thing.

i totally understand the need to make money, and the release history of battlefield games shows that they have been capable of revolutionizing gameplay with each release. the bad company series is proof of this. the thing is though, when an IP has been played out, either revolutionize it, or make a new IP. its really sad to watch EA run battlefield into the ground just to keep up with call of duty.

and if anyone is still wondering why we hate call of duty, this mentality it has bred is why.

E: everything warsaw said. i like the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. test :iamafag:

qft. After the success of MW2, it seemed like at least half the entire industry hopped on a "shallow paid DLC plus $60 PC version" bandwagon. Now to be clear, I'm not one of those verbal anti-DLC guys - I happily buy DLCs that feel like proper expansions, usually for single player games. Not small map packs for a multiplayer FPS - I'll stick with games that allow community-made custom maps tyvm.

probably not going to buy any EA games apart from Mass Effect 3 in the near future, and that's after I finally complete the first two which will take long enough. I mostly lost interest in BF3 and I really doubt BF4 will reinvigorate my interest unless it brings back the features that make BF2 still sustain a strong online community.

Warsaw

July 18th, 2012, 11:16 PM

Strange how in the 2000's EA released a major new BF game every other year and nobody said anything then.

What you smoking? Go update your graphics drivers and try again.

Yes. Yes, we must do this.

Are you calling Vietnam, Special Forces, Armored Fury, and Euro major releases? Because they aren't. Today, they would be called DLC.

Amit

July 18th, 2012, 11:40 PM

Are you calling Vietnam, Special Forces, Armored Fury, and Euro major releases? Because they aren't. Today, they would be called DLC.

Major Battlefield releases from 2000-2010

2002: Battlefield 1942
2004: Battlefield Vietnam
2005: Battlefield 2
2006: Battlefield 2142
2008: Battlefield: Bad Company
2010: Battlefield: Bad Company 2

Three years in a row a new BF game was released. And how in the hell would you call Vietnam DLC? You own it, you should know that it's a full fledged game.

rossmum

July 19th, 2012, 01:08 AM

those were actually good though, and were distinctly battlefield

Amit

July 19th, 2012, 02:06 AM

itszutak

July 19th, 2012, 02:17 AM

=sw=warlord

July 19th, 2012, 06:21 AM

Alright, BF3 was definitely not what we were expecting, but who's to say that DICE won't make BF4 into a traditional battlefield game? Maybe they felt bad after stuffing BF3 down our throats. BF3 may be DICE's Vista, but BF4 could be DICE's W7.

Heh
hehe
ahahahahaha
Good joke, you honestly expect EA to feel sorry for its customers?
They only did something about ME3 because it was having lawsuits out the eyes and ears.

Warsaw

July 19th, 2012, 06:29 AM

Major Battlefield releases from 2000-2010

2002: Battlefield 1942
2004: Battlefield Vietnam
2005: Battlefield 2
2006: Battlefield 2142
2008: Battlefield: Bad Company
2010: Battlefield: Bad Company 2

Three years in a row a new BF game was released. And how in the hell would you call Vietnam DLC? You own it, you should know that it's a full fledged game.

Battlefield: Vietnam is not a major release. It's essentially Battlefield 1942 with a Vietnam theme. I almost hesitate to call BF2142 a major release because it used BF2 as a base, and was a guinea pig for a refined class system as well as a new theme, though it is distinct enough to earn a major designation. The Bad Company series by definition is not a major release, it's the [successful]console experiment.

Major releases were 1942, BF2, BF 2142 and BF3. Everything else is them fiddling around with something in preparation for the next major release.

@Itszutak: Halo returnedd to ditched mechanics. Single-wielding came back, health came back, even the scoped rifle pistol called the M6D/G came back. In Battlefield, the Comma Rose returned, as did jets. It can happen.

Amit

July 19th, 2012, 11:44 AM

Heh
hehe
ahahahahaha
Good joke, you honestly expect EA to feel sorry for its customers?
They only did something about ME3 because it was having lawsuits out the eyes and ears.

DICE and EA are not the same thing. How would you feel if your reputation was built upon one game series and then you were forced to bastardize it into an "in your face, nigga!" premium experience? Outside videos and news posts, it's like the DICE team doesn't even want to talk about it.

Battlefield: Vietnam is not a major release. It's essentially Battlefield 1942 with a Vietnam theme. I almost hesitate to call BF2142 a major release because it used BF2 as a base, and was a guinea pig for a refined class system as well as a new theme, though it is distinct enough to earn a major designation. The Bad Company series by definition is not a major release, it's the [successful]console experiment.

I do consider Vietnam and 2142 as major releases, even if they were built using the same engine and general mechanics of the previous game of their engine. Vietnam was the first time that the 3D map was introduced. That's a pretty significant addition in itself. The graphics were improved with Vietnam, as well. Not to mention, the whole era change up was enough to make it a whole new game. The environment in Vietnam had thick jungles that affected your line of sight which changed the way you played the game.

2142 was pretty much BF2 in a new era, but it was a major release because of the things that were added/changed. It felt like a brand new game because of the new maps, new mechanics, drop pods and launch pods, the sexy equipment unlock system (including field promotions), and of course, Titan mode. Yes, 2142 was a major release. I know you agree, but I was just mentioning it to give the people following this discussion an idea of what we're talking about.

Everything else is them fiddling around with something in preparation for the next major release.

Anything that plays like a new game is a major release. The Bad Company series was not traditional Battlefield, but those are still major releases, even if they were released on consoles. BC1 was the console experiment. BC2 was the experiment of how PC gamers would take the game, too.

=sw=warlord

July 19th, 2012, 12:06 PM

DICE and EA are not the same thing. How would you feel if your reputation was built upon one game series and then you were forced to bastardize it into an "in your face, nigga!" premium experience? Outside videos and news posts, it's like the DICE team doesn't even want to talk about it.

Who pays DICE's wages?
Oh right.

rossmum

July 19th, 2012, 12:58 PM

Alright, BF3 was definitely not what we were expecting, but who's to say that DICE won't make BF4 into a traditional battlefield game? Maybe they felt bad after stuffing BF3 down our throats. BF3 may be DICE's Vista, but BF4 could be DICE's W7.
please point out to me where this has happened in recent times

only example i can think of is deus ex

PenGuin1362

July 19th, 2012, 03:13 PM

Publishers can have creative control over subsidiary companies. See: Modern Warfare 2 and 3. I still thoroughly enjoy BF3. It doesn't always feel like classic BF2 but it's still fun as hell and I still have faith they'll deliver with future releases. It's also WAY to early to tell, you're all jumping the gun and making assumptions (in both directions) with nothing to base it on but past experiences. Calm yo tits.

Warsaw

July 19th, 2012, 04:28 PM

@Amit: so to you, that means there is no such thing as a major and a minor release. That also means BC2: Vietnam is a major release, as it feels like a new game as well.

I look at it this way: if all of the Battlefield games were made today, Vietnam and 2142 would be DLC expansions onto 1942 and BF2 respectively. Bad Company id not mainline Battlefield and was even said by DICE to be the prototype for BF3 and that precludes it from being a major release. It didn't even get hyped up like BF2 and 3.

Donut

July 19th, 2012, 05:05 PM

lol, bad company 2 was a prototype? thats funny, because that game is better than nearly every other first person shooter ive ever played.

Pooky

July 19th, 2012, 06:44 PM

How often do games return to previously-ditched game mechanics? The general trend in my experience is "streamlining" over a series of games, rather than an increase in complexity. Halo reach returning to the halo 1 health system is one fairly rare counterexample (and may have had to do with game lore and such), but it seems halo 4 is returning to the 2-3 shield-only system.

It depends on the series in question and the target audience. Look at the Mega man series. Each series (MM, MMX, MMZ etc.) has only increased in complexity with every iteration. That's because Mega man is targeted towards a specific, hardcore audience that thrives on masochistically difficult gaming. Battlefield on the other hand is currently being targeted towards a mass market, mainstream audience. That means reducing the complexity and learning curve as much as possible so any dumbass can pick up the game and do well.

Warsaw

July 19th, 2012, 06:57 PM

lol, bad company 2 was a prototype? thats funny, because that game is better than nearly every other first person shooter ive ever played.

According to DICE, Bad Company 1 and 2 was them learning how to use their new Frostbite tech so they could then employ it in a more refined iteration for Battlefield 3.

@Pook: And they shouldn't be making Battlefield more mainstream. That's what Medal of Honor is for. :maddowns:

Amit

July 19th, 2012, 07:47 PM

@Amit: so to you, that means there is no such thing as a major and a minor release. That also means BC2: Vietnam is a major release, as it feels like a new game as well.

Absolutely not. Not only does there have to be a variation in the feel of the game, but there has to be a lot of content to complement it. Why do you think I didn't include 1943 as a major release? Because it's the same size as BC2: Vietnam. Something between DLC and an expansion.

Warsaw

July 20th, 2012, 04:41 AM

But what constitutes "a lot of content?" Vietnam really isn't all that much of a change from 1942 vs. BC2: Vietnam from BC2. Ok, 3D map. Whoopee. It's still mostly just a conversion of 1942 as BC2V is a conversion of BC2.

The numbered series is the mainline series. Those are the only ones that are "major" releases. Everything else is passing the time until the next major release so they don't fade into obscurity.

Amit

July 20th, 2012, 01:40 PM

=sw=warlord

July 20th, 2012, 04:27 PM

Warsaw

July 20th, 2012, 05:30 PM

Vietnam had enough change. New weapons, new vehicles, new environments...everything that contributed to taking it into the Vietnam era made the game feel different and play differently, but it it still had more stuff in it than BF1942. If a game looks, feels, and plays differently, that's enough to call it a major release.

BC2 Vietnam had all of those things. If 1942 was a modern game like BC2, Vietnam would have been a DLC expansion. Hence, not a major game. You really can't call it a major release unless you want to call BC2:V and BF1943 major releases as well because they do enough differently from BC1 and BC2 to stand alone. BF2 is a true departure from BF1942, and BF2142 is a true departure from BF2. That's why they are major releases. BF3 is a bit of a joke; it is a departure from 2142, but not from that much from the Bad Company offshoot series, earning it the monicker "BC2.5."

Donut

July 20th, 2012, 06:19 PM

except that its nowhere near as entertaining as bc2

Amit

July 20th, 2012, 10:37 PM

BC2 Vietnam had all of those things. If 1942 was a modern game like BC2, Vietnam would have been a DLC expansion. Hence, not a major game. You really can't call it a major release unless you want to call BC2:V and BF1943 major releases as well because they do enough differently from BC1 and BC2 to stand alone. BF2 is a true departure from BF1942, and BF2142 is a true departure from BF2. That's why they are major releases. BF3 is a bit of a joke; it is a departure from 2142, but not from that much from the Bad Company offshoot series, earning it the monicker "BC2.5."

Except Vietnam had significantly more maps, more vehicles, more weapons, and more players than BC2: Vietnam. It was built very similar in mechanics to 1942, like you say, but so was BF2142 in relation to BF2. The difference is that BF2142's futuristic changes to BF2 mechanics changed the gameplay more than the environment did. Vietnam's only real game changer was the maps, but even if it wasn't too different than BF1942 besides content, that doesn't make it any less of a game.