Champ
True Bro
mai ingrish iz gud
Posts: 442
|
Post by Champ on Mar 27, 2013 13:03:41 GMT -5
No one likes blue tint from BF3, so they made metal-grey tint.
Also I like how the guy chops off another guy's leg with one sweep. And how civilian car doesn't have any leaks under water.
|
|
Champ
True Bro
mai ingrish iz gud
Posts: 442
|
Post by Champ on Mar 27, 2013 13:16:26 GMT -5
To be fair graphics look a little bit better. Maybe some new shaders or something.
|
|
prioc
True Bro
eep
Posts: 235
|
Post by prioc on Mar 27, 2013 13:25:35 GMT -5
I like the lighting system more, it looks pretty cool.
|
|
tiesieman
True Bro
mental lagger
Posts: 1,401
|
Post by tiesieman on Mar 27, 2013 13:43:22 GMT -5
lol press f to cut leg
|
|
42
True Bro
Bingo Bango Bongo
Posts: 1,588
|
Post by 42 on Mar 27, 2013 14:32:03 GMT -5
Why do they always show campaign? It's the last part of the game that people want to play.
|
|
|
Post by didjeridu on Mar 27, 2013 15:21:39 GMT -5
Why do they always show campaign? It's the last part of the game that people want to play. Because they think if they polish their turd hard enough, they'll attract a few more players. I like how the the little video blurb says it's a "human, dramatic, and believable single-player campaign." What a joke. I just pray they don't force single-player/co-op on us if we want to unlock guns (again). The one thing I got out of that video is that BF4 is really just going to be BF3.5. Although, I already assumed as much. The base game given in BF3 is good, but I just hope they get off their asses when it comes to bug fixes and balancing. I still don't expect them to ever touch BF3 again, but they better get some crap sorted out by the time BF4 comes around.
|
|
pachiderm
True Bro
Chewing some serious leaves
Posts: 647
|
Post by pachiderm on Mar 27, 2013 17:51:20 GMT -5
I was just about to post that video.
|
|
pachiderm
True Bro
Chewing some serious leaves
Posts: 647
|
Post by pachiderm on Mar 27, 2013 17:53:12 GMT -5
Graphics won't see a huge improvement until the next generation of console comes out. Dice wants to make sure the game can still run on the 360 and PS3.
|
|
|
Post by beavernator on Mar 27, 2013 22:29:28 GMT -5
Graphics won't see a huge improvement until the next generation of console comes out. Dice wants to make sure the game can still run on the 360 and PS3. At least 2-point conquest sounds fun.
|
|
Robospy
True Bro
Look at that lovely cock
Posts: 723
|
Post by Robospy on Mar 29, 2013 4:35:45 GMT -5
It looks like a regurgitation of BF3 really. I'm hard-pressed to see any difference between this and BF3 w/ new UI and Better Graphics.
I really doubt that this will see any purchase at all from me considering how terrible my experience with BF3 on PS3 was. (Input lag, clunky controls and movement, billions of bugs and glitches, rented servers owned by 12 year olds, all non-DLC servers being full)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2013 16:12:05 GMT -5
The deciding factor for whether or not I'll get it is how much the multiplayer changes
|
|
|
Post by kirbyderby on Mar 29, 2013 17:15:22 GMT -5
I'm a few fries short of a Happy Meal and even I don't play Battlefield for the campaign.
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Mar 29, 2013 19:21:47 GMT -5
Mousey, you forgot the apostrophe in "ILL", also a comma after "FINE", and you forgot to capitalize "stuff" and give a proper bookends to your work with appropriate punctuation.
ANYWAYS yes this looks like a game.
|
|
|
Post by beavernator on Mar 31, 2013 5:28:47 GMT -5
Dying from OMA noobtubing is pretty bad, but dying from uneven tiled flooring is much worse.
|
|
Champ
True Bro
mai ingrish iz gud
Posts: 442
|
Post by Champ on Apr 1, 2013 3:57:59 GMT -5
It looks like a regurgitation of BF3 really. I'm hard-pressed to see any difference between this and BF3 w/ new UI and Better Graphics. I really doubt that this will see any purchase at all from me considering how terrible my experience with BF3 on PS3 was. (Input lag, clunky controls and movement, billions of bugs and glitches, rented servers owned by 12 year olds, all non-DLC servers being full) What's your experience with BF3 on Gameboy?
|
|
Will
True Bro
K/D below 1.0
Posts: 1,309
|
Post by Will on Apr 6, 2013 6:56:43 GMT -5
The best part will be the fact that the new consoles will be out in time for this, so us console jockeys will get to experience what PC players have been enjoying on BF3. Oh boy! 64 man servers. My pants got tighter.
|
|
tiesieman
True Bro
mental lagger
Posts: 1,401
|
Post by tiesieman on Apr 6, 2013 12:35:31 GMT -5
I actually sorta agree mouse but for different reasons. Most of the time I'd play 32 - 48 people; most maps just aren't big enough to support 64 players
And the maps that are big enough just are more open with focus on vehicles, which i'm not too interested in because vehicle vs vehicle combat sucks. There's no good 64 player infrantry maps
32x player rush is best
|
|
Champ
True Bro
mai ingrish iz gud
Posts: 442
|
Post by Champ on Apr 7, 2013 6:55:37 GMT -5
so us console jockeys will get to experience what PC players have been enjoying on BF3. You still don't have mouse + kb HA-HA
|
|
|
Post by didjeridu on Apr 7, 2013 15:05:47 GMT -5
i havent been following bf4 news or watching any videos. anyone here care to tell me what innovations they see, or is it just bigger and prettier bf3? From the singleplayer video, it's exactly the same as BF3, but with less blue tint. The only new thing it seems is a side-mounted iron sight attachment. Cute, but pointless. It suppose it helps when gimping yourself with scopes, but then you're using up a slot that could be used for something actually useful. Also, the super tube (semi-auto grenade launcher). Assuming it's in multiplayer, it better have a severe downside.
|
|
Champ
True Bro
mai ingrish iz gud
Posts: 442
|
Post by Champ on Apr 7, 2013 17:10:08 GMT -5
Also they set gun model FOV to a higher value, so gun doesn't cover half of your screen. Which is nice.
|
|
Will
True Bro
K/D below 1.0
Posts: 1,309
|
Post by Will on Apr 8, 2013 13:49:11 GMT -5
I actually sorta agree mouse but for different reasons. Most of the time I'd play 32 - 48 people; most maps just aren't big enough to support 64 players And the maps that are big enough just are more open with focus on vehicles, which i'm not too interested in because vehicle vs vehicle combat sucks. There's no good 64 player infrantry maps 32x player rush is best Well even that would be an awesome experience for us on console. Conquest on Operation Firestorm with 12 players is just fucking dumb as hell.
|
|
Champ
True Bro
mai ingrish iz gud
Posts: 442
|
Post by Champ on Apr 8, 2013 14:13:48 GMT -5
I actually sorta agree mouse but for different reasons. Most of the time I'd play 32 - 48 people; most maps just aren't big enough to support 64 players And the maps that are big enough just are more open with focus on vehicles, which i'm not too interested in because vehicle vs vehicle combat sucks. There's no good 64 player infrantry maps 32x player rush is best Well even that would be an awesome experience for us on console. Conquest on Operation Firestorm with 12 players is just Foxtrotting dumb as hell. At least you can fly a chopper. On 64 player server your chances to get in that chopper are close to zero.
|
|
|
Post by LeGitBeeSting on Apr 13, 2013 22:32:27 GMT -5
Battlefield 4? More like BlueberryField 4!! Bwahaahahahahahahahaha!
|
|
42
True Bro
Bingo Bango Bongo
Posts: 1,588
|
Post by 42 on Apr 14, 2013 8:37:54 GMT -5
Wait, and that's funny how? Is it funny because it's not funny? Well, then it just isn't funny.
|
|
Champ
True Bro
mai ingrish iz gud
Posts: 442
|
Post by Champ on Apr 14, 2013 23:39:04 GMT -5
You should be able to spawn like a stick of C4!
|
|
adw1983
True Bro
Red Frostraven
Posts: 244
|
Post by adw1983 on Apr 24, 2013 13:16:33 GMT -5
Meh.
Unless bullets have upgraded speed from "motorcycle speed" to "bullet speed" AND the damage has been upgraded from "rubber" to "full metal jacket" -- I simply can't even be remotely interested in playing.
While Battlefield may be more team oriented -- the inability to kill two players unless they LET you kill them is too much;
The three last battlefields have gone something like this: Lead your target 5 meters on 150 meters range, hit him 6-7 times to kill him over 20 seconds and two reloads and hope he doesn't fire back with his buddy.
Sure enough, there were the semi-auto snipers, but... my poor G3 :/ Almost good, then nerfed out of effing nowhere, then buffed, then nerfed and then buffed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2013 13:06:40 GMT -5
Honestly I'm amazed that 64 man servers is even a thing. I know the maps are big but jesus christ. I always prefer smaller sized teams in whatever game I play anyway. Bf just isn't for me. I'm more concerned with map saturation; a lot of players on a small map is much worse for a game's competitive nature as two squads on a massive map. Map design is the biggest culprit in this. Rush on Seine Crossing, Grand Bazaar, Operation Metro, Damavand Peak, and even Tehran Highway are maps with an excessive number of choke points. They're terrible for rush. While they're big, they're a lot thinner than previous iterations of the game. Neither team has enough space to outmaneuver their opponent, and the game regresses into a stand-off. The only way to break that is if someone mows down half the enemy team and sprints for that M-COM. It's retarded. Here's a 12v12 competitive match of Battlefield 3 on Metro roughly 2 months after the game is released. Both sides are at a stand-still, and the action never goes beyond the escalator and the stairwell towards the left of the Russians. Both the Russian and American spawn points are equidistant from the B Flag, but the Russians get to cap it first because they have the high ground and superior cover. This isn't what Battlefield's all about. Not even Medal of Honor would pull off something this stupid. Looking back at BFBC2 I preferred the way a lot of the maps handled map design around MCOMs. Most of them weren't obscured in a corner, or on the edge of the map. They were usually in a small shack that could be completely leveled, or a bigger building with many entrances. They were never stuck in the middle of a map; nor were they kept in a room that was hard to break into but easy to defend. That's silly, and it's why I haven't gotten into BF3 as much I would've wanted to.
|
|
|
Post by volgon on Jun 7, 2013 13:52:50 GMT -5
100% agreed with Sweetwater. I hate BF3 Rush or I would probably play the game more. I loved BC2 Rush; Valparaiso second bomb had a HUGE amount of area that you could traverse as Attackers instead of being funneled down a small subway or something equally retarded. I think that DICE focused the game more on Conquest than Rush, though. People were clamoring for the "huge maps, vehicle clusterfuck" so that's what they gave them and Rush fell by the wayside. Whereas it seems to me like BC2's maps were design specifically for Rush and adapted to Conquest (or, from a design perspective, fit Rush better than Conquest).
|
|
|
Post by lackingdamage on Jun 7, 2013 17:28:09 GMT -5
Only useful thing DICE do is remove random bullet deviation from suppression may think about buying it. BF3 was a mess due to so many reasons.
Map design is another thing that bugged me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2013 21:45:41 GMT -5
You should be able to spawn like a stick of C4! Ahhh, C4... Jihad jeeps/IFV's are my favy
|
|