banana
True Banana
Zoro > Law
Posts: 1,577
|
Post by banana on May 10, 2016 10:34:37 GMT -5
BF1 Trailer most liked trailer of all time. Space Cod trailer most disliked trailer of all time. Yes, you read that correct. Battlefield's base mechanics are whack. The maps are way too big and bullets have to travel to places lmaoooo. Fun > Realism The only reasons Star Wars Battlefront is good: 1. People on there suck, going positive is cake 2. The Hero vs Villains game mode 3. It's possible to 1v2 in that game mode and it feels awesome. All you need to do is have a friend or somebody to practice your Hero fighting with in a private matvh and you'll be set for online. The characters aren't balance last time I checked though. For example, Darth Vader's attacks do more damage than Luke's and Luke has no advantage going for him. Especially with Vader's 20 damage Lighsaber throw 4. Star Wars is a cool series
|
|
mannon
True Bro
wordy bastard PSN:mannonc Steam:mannonc XB:BADmannon
Posts: 15,371
|
Post by mannon on May 10, 2016 10:48:00 GMT -5
I wouldn't call Battlefield realistic, by any means. But most of the games try to lean a bit more towards authenticity than CoD does. That's mostly for the immersion and atmosphere, so that you feel like you're in a battle that's something like what you may have seen in movies where there were battles. There are still numerous areas where realism is thrown completely out to serve the gameplay.
To be honest I think you're overly generous to SW:Battlefront. I think it's literally only good because Star Wars. Having said that, don't underestimate that aspect. I've had a hell of a lot of fun playing it because it's the next best thing to playing with all our action figures when I was little. It's almost pretty much like the things we imagined when we were little. That's great for anybody my age. It's a massive nostalgiafest, plus you can try to actually win battles and stuff. There is a game under all those pretty graphics, I guess. ;3
I really wish they did more with it, though. For example the diorama is basically just crap. Who cares about unlocking yet another asset in this linear BS diorama thing. It's really just a line of crap to unlock that's vaguely arranged in some fashion, but really not interesting to look at and you can't do anything with it anyway. They should have just given us a real diorama where we unlock the assets then build our own by placing them and making our own scenes. Then you'd have people quite eager to unlock stuff to build with even if all you could do is fly around and maybe activate sound effects and special effects. That would be great!
|
|
|
Post by Pegasus Actual on May 10, 2016 13:31:47 GMT -5
Rainbow Siege is hitscan and a lot more realistic than Battlefield or COD. And at typical COD engagement distances Battlefield feels plenty hitscany enough. The base mechanics of Battlefield are solid. Limb/head/body damage multipliers are more consistent than COD. The accuracy/spread/recoil/stance mechanics are more intuitive and satisfying than COD. As to the nature of fun, well, Battlefield is pretty much a sandbox FPS focused as much on emergent gameplay as much as anything. To me that's pretty much a textbook commitment to fun, whereas COD is kind of an attempt at a juvenile and superficial esport at this point.
To me the real test isn't if you're having fun wrecking people, because just about any FPS is fun when you do that. Hell, Overwatch is pretty gosh darn golly gee whiz fun on that level. But when you're up against someone who's better than you, or someone with incredibly cheesy tactics Overwatch, and recent COD for that matter really fall apart to me. In Battlefield I'm always having fun, even if we're getting smacked. That's mostly true for Titanfall or R6 as well.
As for the trailer likes vs dislikes, that's absolutely hilarious. I mean, there has to be a pretty massive botting campaign going on somewhere, but still. It's the age of shooters trying to drink each others' milkshakes. The Division going at Destiny, Battlefield going at COD. It's fantastic entertainment which also leads to better games. I just hope as Battlefield sucks every last drop out of COD's war porn milkshake that Titanfall 2 can do the same with the space war sci-fi milkshake.
|
|
mannon
True Bro
wordy bastard PSN:mannonc Steam:mannonc XB:BADmannon
Posts: 15,371
|
Post by mannon on May 10, 2016 14:05:58 GMT -5
Yeah there are many ways to still have fun even if you're losing a game in Titanfall. Hell just making it to the drop ship feels like a win and if you have a titan at the end it's super badass to pull off an ejection evac... damn... now I want to play some Titanfall...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2016 22:19:03 GMT -5
In Battlefield I'm always having fun, even if we're getting smacked. I wonder if that has anything to do with its unusually high player count. With loads of other people on your team it's probably harder to see why a team's losing, who's playing poorly, or even worry about your own performance. I think any game would see a more relaxed casual community if 32 players were an option. EDIT: Jeeesus
|
|
|
Post by UrbaneVirtuoso on May 11, 2016 4:38:50 GMT -5
Let's bring it up to 2 mil, people!
|
|
|
Post by Pegasus Actual on May 11, 2016 4:52:34 GMT -5
In Battlefield I'm always having fun, even if we're getting smacked. I wonder if that has anything to do with its unusually high player count. With loads of other people on your team it's probably harder to see why a team's losing, who's playing poorly, or even worry about your own performance. I think any game would see a more relaxed casual community if 32 players were an option. EDIT: Jeeesus That's definitely a factor. You can only do so much, and it frees you of some guilt and frustration. But COD heaps the rage-inducing stuff on you when you're getting stomped in killstreak form, and just by having no room to breathe on the small ass maps. As to why your team is losing in Battlefield, once you get a feel for the game it's pretty easy to figure out from looking at the map for a couple of seconds. Mediocre vehicle players won't lose a game if they can make the opposing vehicles, no matter how good, have to focus on them for long stretches of time. But, if your vehicles are just outright getting clobbered by the opposition, it's a huge problem. If half your team is in the hills going for long distance sniper shots, you're Foxtroted. But sometimes just one guy taking an ATV behind enemy lines and capping an undefended point can flip an entire game. That's one thing I love about Conquest in Battlefield games, it's not just if you can hold a point or not. It's the price you can force them to pay. If 2 or 3 guys can contest a point for 5 minutes against 10, it can open everything up for their teammates even if the teammates have no clue why all of a sudden they are capping points successfully. Lose the battle but win the war, if you will. Let's bring it up to 2 mil, people! It's actually so pathetic that I gave it a pity upvote...
|
|
wings
True Bro
Posts: 3,776
|
Post by wings on May 11, 2016 9:42:01 GMT -5
New innovative experiences? You mean copying what sci-fi shooters have been doing for years? What a joke. I swear I heard someone from Call of Duty, whether a developer or some pen pusher at Activision, stated that Advanced Warfare was innovative with the cloaking feature despite this featuring in Crysis nearly a decade ago. May be it's innovative for Call of Duty to have something that is a bit different for themselves, rather than truly unique in the gaming industry? If it's any consolation, Eric Hirshberg also said that Destiny was innovative by combining elements of MMOs (he actually meant RPGs) and a FPS when many features that Destiny used when some features were used by games released far earlier like Borderlands. The only thing I think might be unique with Destiny is the drop-in and out of public spaces for a console game but that might be wrong too.
|
|
mannon
True Bro
wordy bastard PSN:mannonc Steam:mannonc XB:BADmannon
Posts: 15,371
|
Post by mannon on May 11, 2016 10:11:06 GMT -5
Destiny is an odd beast that probably could have been an MMO with only a few tweaks to it, but in the end fell way short of that. I think perhaps that was even the goal at some point, but they had to drop most of those features and they wound up just about neutering the public space focused patrol mode. If they had integrated all the missions into something like patrol mode with branching instanced dungeon areas that you could enter without having to go to orbit then you probably could have called it an MMO. But if they had it would have been more difficult to do their linear, heavily scripted storytelling style missions outside of the instanced dungeons, and those areas aren't really big enough to hold their own. Plus it would remove much of the time sink of having to go to orbit repeatedly. It would have revealed just how small their worlds are and any sequence of missions on the same planet could be completed really quickly without having to go to orbit. Still, though... I think it could have been a much better game for it.
Especially if they got creative with it. For example when you first land on a planet you have a fairly restricted public space. You do some missions that branch from dungeons in that space then get one that actually takes place in an instanced version of another public space. Once you've completed said mission you've unlocked a new public space, expanding your roaming territory and opening up more dungeon areas. Of course you can only enter dungeon areas when you have a mission for it and those have to be unlocked in order. Missions can still weave in and out of public spaces as they already do, you aren't limited to one dungeon area per mission, and you very well may go back through spaces you've been to before as the game does now. The main difference would be that you never go to orbit and most dungeon areas are either locked out or converted to public spaces. As for replaying missions, you just introduce a means of basically timewalking where you essentially go back in time and redo the mission. Preferably you could activate this from orbit or on the ground. But anyway... that's enough daydreaming about the game that could have been...
|
|
banana
True Banana
Zoro > Law
Posts: 1,577
|
Post by banana on May 11, 2016 10:25:17 GMT -5
It's actually so pathetic that I gave it a pity upvote... I gave infinite warfare a like too but I actually think it will be a decent game
|
|
|
Post by lustindarkness on May 11, 2016 11:34:50 GMT -5
It's actually so pathetic that I gave it a pity upvote... I gave infinite warfare a like too but I actually think it will be a decent game This.
|
|
|
Post by illram on May 11, 2016 11:59:06 GMT -5
The COD community, this fine little site excluded, are mostly immature, whiny morons empowered by anonymity to be awful. So millions of downvotes is no surprise. If those are all real people I bet at least half not only buy the game but the season pass too.
|
|
Will
True Bro
K/D below 1.0
Posts: 1,309
|
Post by Will on May 11, 2016 15:11:42 GMT -5
While I don't doubt that the game will be pretty good, I gave the trailer a dislike because it is a shit trailer. Most COD trailers are super incredible exciting and get my blood pumping and trick me into buying the game before it's on sale. This one was just plain bad.
|
|
|
Post by illram on May 11, 2016 20:03:53 GMT -5
Yeah it is a pretty ho hum trailer that's true. Compared to the Battlefield trailer which was pretty badass.
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on May 11, 2016 20:53:48 GMT -5
I didn't give it a dislike or like, but the fact you have to buy it to get the remastered CoD4 makes me instantly hate anything about it. Though as I was discussing that with my friend we wondered if it would almost be like Battlefield Vietnam, where you can't even run CoD4 if you don't own IW. Which I wouldn't put it past Activision to do so.
|
|
Gamma
True Bro
Posts: 127
|
Post by Gamma on May 12, 2016 10:06:11 GMT -5
Rainbow Siege is hitscan and a lot more realistic than Battlefield or COD. And at typical COD engagement distances Battlefield feels plenty hitscany enough. The base mechanics of Battlefield are solid. Limb/head/body damage multipliers are more consistent than COD. The accuracy/spread/recoil/stance mechanics are more intuitive and satisfying than COD. As to the nature of fun, well, Battlefield is pretty much a sandbox FPS focused as much on emergent gameplay as much as anything. To me that's pretty much a textbook commitment to fun, whereas COD is kind of an attempt at a juvenile and superficial esport at this point. To me the real test isn't if you're having fun wrecking people, because just about any FPS is fun when you do that. Hell, Overwatch is pretty gosh darn golly gee whiz fun on that level. But when you're up against someone who's better than you, or someone with incredibly cheesy tactics Overwatch, and recent COD for that matter really fall apart to me. In Battlefield I'm always having fun, even if we're getting smacked. That's mostly true for Titanfall or R6 as well. As for the trailer likes vs dislikes, that's absolutely hilarious. I mean, there has to be a pretty massive botting campaign going on somewhere, but still. It's the age of shooters trying to drink each others' milkshakes. The Division going at Destiny, Battlefield going at COD. It's fantastic entertainment which also leads to better games. I just hope as Battlefield sucks every last drop out of COD's war porn milkshake that Titanfall 2 can do the same with the space war sci-fi milkshake. Is Battlefield fun to play solo? (as fun as playing solo can be, relative to CoD/TFall) The reason I've never played it is because I assume it's not
|
|
mannon
True Bro
wordy bastard PSN:mannonc Steam:mannonc XB:BADmannon
Posts: 15,371
|
Post by mannon on May 12, 2016 11:14:36 GMT -5
Probably one reason I've largely avoided it as well, though I have had a little fun with it solo. I actually played the BF3 Beta solo quite a bit and had lots of fun... (aside from the fact that I could not actually capture the CP's... the UI told me to hold A I believe but it did nothing.) I've barely touched the full games, though. A couple games in BF4. Partly I just loathe the fact that I have to use a fucking web browser to find a game... O,o Also game performance in MP is about 1/5th what it is in SP so that doesn't help. *shrug* Mostly just a bunch of little things that caused me to go play something else instead at the time. I really wanted to like the games, I just never could get into them... maybe with friends it would have been different.
|
|
|
Post by Pegasus Actual on May 12, 2016 12:46:30 GMT -5
Is Battlefield fun to play solo? (as fun as playing solo can be, relative to CoD/TFall) The reason I've never played it is because I assume it's not Relative to those games not so much. Teamwork is OP, lots of mechanics like resupply, med packs, revives, multi-seat vehicles, spotting and squad spawning. There are some things you can do solo, single-seat vehicles, dickhead sniper with a spawn beacon way off in the hills, but it's a much better game if you have at least one person to work with. I have fun playing solo, but you have to learn to work around randoms. If you can find a squad that isn't private, that has 4 people reasonably high level, and isn't infested with snipers, there's a decent chance you can wordlessly work with them somewhat effectively. I have a feeling that in BF1, Red Baron mode is going to be my go-to option when rolling solo.
|
|
hebbnh
True Bro
Cacodemon expert
Posts: 2,688
|
Post by hebbnh on May 12, 2016 12:46:38 GMT -5
Battlefield is more fun with a group, but it's plenty of fun solo as well. You can always join a squad in-game and kind of team play with them, to an extent. Not as good as having your own group, but good enough to have options for where to spawn and help with flag caps and such. I wouldn't let a lack of friends playing dissuade you if it's a game you're interested in.
|
|
wittyscorpion
True Brorange
All warfare is based on deception.
Posts: 8,598
|
Post by wittyscorpion on May 12, 2016 14:20:21 GMT -5
I have never played any BF games either due to the concerns of playing solo does not look very fun. However, if there are lots of interest from XONE Den bros, BF 1 could be the start for me
|
|
|
Post by UrbaneVirtuoso on May 12, 2016 15:07:11 GMT -5
Sharing the sentiment above, but with the PS4. Horseback riding and biplane fighting look really appealing.
|
|
bradman
True Bro
token old guy
Posts: 1,178
|
Post by bradman on May 12, 2016 15:52:31 GMT -5
I love all the Battlefield games and have never had a group to play with.
|
|
asasa
True Bro
fuck
Posts: 4,255
|
Post by asasa on May 12, 2016 16:10:15 GMT -5
I just started playing BF4 again and it's pretty fun. Yeah, coordinated teams are "op", but I don't feel the same rage as cod does to me.
Large maps with wasted space worked well in BF2142 but not so well in the modern shooters. Mostly because titan mode allowed dropping anywhere, I think.
Also the snipers suck ass at sniping.
If any of you play on PC I'd like to team up. My origin account was hacked and they deleted all my friends so if I deleted you, that's why.
|
|
|
Post by kylet357 on May 12, 2016 16:27:03 GMT -5
While I don't doubt that the game will be pretty good, I gave the trailer a dislike because it is a shit trailer. Most COD trailers are super incredible exciting and get my blood pumping and trick me into buying the game before it's on sale. This one was just plain bad. Should I remind you of the Ghosts 'Some people wear masks...' trailer? Besides, it's only a reveal trailer. I never expect a reveal trailer to be exciting.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2016 20:38:45 GMT -5
While I don't doubt that the game will be pretty good, I gave the trailer a dislike because it is a shit trailer. Most COD trailers are super incredible exciting and get my blood pumping and trick me into buying the game before it's on sale. This one was just plain bad. Should I remind you of the Ghosts 'Some people wear masks...' trailer? Besides, it's only a reveal trailer. I never expect a reveal trailer to be exciting. To be fair the Ghosts trailer was accurate- the game was disappointing.
|
|
|
Post by kylet357 on May 12, 2016 21:14:47 GMT -5
Should I remind you of the Ghosts 'Some people wear masks...' trailer? Besides, it's only a reveal trailer. I never expect a reveal trailer to be exciting. To be fair the Ghosts trailer was accurate- the game was disappointing.
|
|
|
Post by GodMars on May 22, 2016 14:24:58 GMT -5
Should I remind you of the Ghosts 'Some people wear masks...' trailer? Besides, it's only a reveal trailer. I never expect a reveal trailer to be exciting. To be fair the Ghosts trailer was accurate- the game was disappointing. I don't get how Ghosts rates as a disappointment. It's the best the game engine has ever run, the netcode was excellent, and the guns were a lot of fun to use. My only complaint was that some of the maps were less than desirable; but some were also great. After AW and the BO3 Black Market debacle, I really don't know how anyone could disparage Ghosts. It's the best next-gen CoD game we've gotten. Even without the Black Market bullshit, BO3 didn't come close to running as well as Ghosts did.
|
|
Usagi
True Bro
Grin and Barrett
Posts: 1,674
|
Post by Usagi on May 22, 2016 16:44:04 GMT -5
It's the best the game engine has ever run Yeah, crashing every other game and not being able to get solid 60 FPS with a $5000 rig while still looking like a Wii game was a very impressive technical accomplishment. No way to knock that.
|
|
prioc
True Bro
eep
Posts: 235
|
Post by prioc on May 22, 2016 16:50:27 GMT -5
but it doesnt have supply droppings so it's better
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2016 18:16:53 GMT -5
I don't get how Ghosts rates as a disappointment. It's the best the game engine has ever run, the netcode was excellent, and the guns were a lot of fun to use. After AW and the BO3 Black Market debacle, I really don't know how anyone could disparage Ghosts. It's the best next-gen CoD game we've gotten.
|
|