Battlefield 4 opinions?

[Dazza_the_Dragon]

So I jumped on Battlefield 4 last night for the first time in about two months and I fell in love with the game again. It's still not fixed, there are still many glaring bugs and the netcode still isn't perfect but even with all it's flaws I still managed to have a blast. I started using the MG4 and it's a beast. I was shredding people all over the place, and I'm usually terrible

 

Anyway I'm just curious on what people's opinions are on the game, does anyone here still play it? Or have you given up on it and play other games instead like Battlefield 3 or Bad Company 2?

 

I'm just curious

Call of Duty is better for hardcore gamers as it has an immersive gaming experience and has realistic physics. 

 

 

I love it but I'm horrible at it compared to BF3. (I run it at ~360p @ 15 fps) #pcmasterrace 

I'm pretty sure even an XBone or a Potato-Station 4 is better than your computer dude.

[Alan3345]

Call of Duty is better for hardcore gamers as it has an immersive gaming experience and has realistic physics. 

 

I suck at call of duty haha, I just can't get the hang of it on PC, so I don't play it. Battlefield is more engaging and entertaining to play (in my opinion).

[Dazza_the_Dragon]

I suck at call of duty haha, I just can't get the hang of it on PC, so I don't play it. Battlefield is more engaging and entertaining to play (in my opinion).

Nah I'm joking, I actually dislike CoD but at least you respect other peoples opinions!

[Alan3345]

Nah I'm joking, I actually dislike CoD but at least you respect other peoples opinions!

 

I didn't pick up on that Yeah everyone hates on Call Of Duty but everyone has their own preferences. I don't see why I should hate on someone just because they like a game better than I do ha.

[LOST TALE]

So, what exactly entitles you to call me a noob? BF4 was NOT fixed, it certainly got better but it never became finished, and even if it had 1 year of patching for the game to freaking WORK is unacceptable. Premium is just a money grab, it should not exist period. Furthermore the queue priority and premium dog tags are a constant and unfriendly reminder to the other players that they are not getting the full game, they are not paying and are therefore "less important" to the game than premium users, which is bullshit considering they still got the game at full price. That content should have already been in the game, or at the most been a 20$ dlc considering it's only a few maps (look at sc2: the expansion includes a full campaign, new units and constantly updating maps, for about 40 bucks). Furthermore they should have allowed community made maps to be played.

Everyone is entitled to be straight about their opinion, you want to discuss entitlement to say things? beware the massive truth magnet that is realism of relative morals and your puny unjustified walll of morals.

BF4 was never fixed and so where ALL the games I touched in the last 3 years. and BF4 is the least buggy of all, maybe at the exception of spaz.

Premium is an option, and a good option, instead of buying a new game, you can get the equivalent of 2 vast new BF games in one package that still includes the previous game, 300% game content.

BF3 premium was the real shit, Bf4 was better unitl u include china failing.  My periods are after gadzillions of interrelated justifications containing all aspects fo reality till the roots of all logic where even the goals and preferences are

re-generated by the solvant of all universe conception possibilities for the best total of possible outcomes in balance with risk.

Besides queue priority, you are getting the exact same game you had before premium existed. Maybe if you try to answer this you'll find your thoughts where just void.

Well one of them pays more, It's pretty unfriendly to be reminded that your not the biggest investor right? thats a psychological and perspective problem, I put it on you. It's your unhappy interpretation.

Yeah, it would have been better. It could of also been worse.

 

Random side quote of the post: You want it to be worse? increase neo-liberalism.

INB4 muricans who got their shitty economy course.

Well it's better when the other options dont work because of incompetency, theres that.

[CaptainRagu]

Im starting to play for the first time today after finishing my latest rig (I played COD on console for about 6 years).

 

Any tips for a noob? So far ive found the outlay of the game quite confusing and am running through the campaign to get use to the controls.

[Alan3345]

Im starting to play for the first time today after finishing my latest rig (I played COD on console for about 6 years).

 

Any tips for a noob? So far ive found the outlay of the game quite confusing and am running through the campaign to get use to the controls.

 

I would start here

 

[Grrizz]

I enjoy BF4, its a hell of a lot of fun when you play with a few people on VOIP. It had a TERRIBLE start and still needs some fixing but its come a long way in the last couple of months and if CTE is anything to go by we should continue to see improvements coming through.

I just wish they left it in the incubator for another year or so before release, I hate the thought that games have to be released every year or two. Older games used to last several years with people continually developing and refining their tactics if they were any good, now games are more complex but publishers feel like they need to pump something out every 12-24 months even if its pretty much the same thing (AC's even down to 6 months!?!?!) - take 4 years to develop different alternating games releasing every 2 years if you must!

[Alan3345]

I enjoy BF4, its a hell of a lot of fun when you play with a few people on VOIP. It had a TERRIBLE start and still needs some fixing but its come a long way in the last couple of months and if CTE is anything to go by we should continue to see improvements coming through.

I just wish they left it in the incubator for another year or so before release, I hate the thought that games have to be released every year or two. Older games used to last several years with people continually developing and refining their tactics if they were any good, now games are more complex but publishers feel like they need to pump something out every 12-24 months even if its pretty much the same thing (AC's even down to 6 months!?!?!) - take 4 years to develop different alternating games releasing every 2 years if you must!

 

Yeah true man, I agree but in Assassins Creed's case: while the games come out every year, they are in development for 2 - 3 ears. Ubisoft is a huge company and they have different divisions working on each game. ie the people who worked on brotherhood are now working on Unity. Likewise the team that worked on black flag have likely started a new AC that we'll see in 2 - 3 years

[Sauron]

Everyone is entitled to be straight about their opinion, you want to discuss entitlement to say things? beware the massive truth magnet that is realism of relative morals and your puny unjustified walll of morals.

BF4 was never fixed and so where ALL the games I touched in the last 3 years. and BF4 is the least buggy of all, maybe at the exception of spaz.

Premium is an option, and a good option, instead of buying a new game, you can get the equivalent of 2 vast new BF games in one package that still includes the previous game, 300% game content.

BF3 premium was the real shit, Bf4 was better unitl u include china failing.  My periods are after gadzillions of interrelated justifications containing all aspects fo reality till the roots of all logic where even the goals and preferences are

re-generated by the solvant of all universe conception possibilities for the best total of possible outcomes in balance with risk.

Besides queue priority, you are getting the exact same game you had before premium existed. Maybe if you try to answer this you'll find your thoughts where just void.

Well one of them pays more, It's pretty unfriendly to be reminded that your not the biggest investor right? thats a psychological and perspective problem, I put it on you. It's your unhappy interpretation.

Yeah, it would have been better. It could of also been worse.

 

Random side quote of the post: You want it to be worse? increase neo-liberalism.

INB4 muricans who got their shitty economy course.

Well it's better when the other options dont work because of incompetency, theres that.

 

Not sure why you are trying to verbally confuse me when we could just be having a civil discussion, but I guess it's your prerogative. Let me rephrase the first sentence in my previous post: how could you possibly know that I am a noob? Entitlement was the wrong choice of word.

 

Let me be clearer about my point of view on premium: the content of the premium season pass should have been way cheaper for bf3 (they are only maps and guns, not enough content to justify 60 bucks) with no queue priority and have been directly included in the game for free in bf4. Why should it have been free for bf4? Because by definition dlcs and expansion packs are conent that was created by the developer post-release as a continuation of the story if the game is focused on that or as a map pack that the dev didn't have enough time to include in the original game. The premium maps for bf4, or at least some of them, where ready and finished already when the game launched, and yet they are behind a 60$ paywall. They're selling you 60% of the game and expecting you to pay again to gain access to the remaining 40%. And no, a mappack is not equivalent to a full new game, sorry, that's accepting that a new game is just a reskin of the previous one with new maps, the "call of duty" release style. If you have played some of the older battlefield titles like 1942 and 2 you know that community support, WHEN THE DEVELOPER ALLOWS IT, can make a game last much longer than a couple of years and maps can be made in the hundreds by fans. Oh, and that being reminded of being a lesser contributor part: why should I accept to be reminded that I didn't invest 110$ just to get the full content of the game? It's like if starcraft 2 had launched with 2 races and only those paying another 50 bucks could have access to the third one. It would be ok if premium content stayed inside of premium, for example premium weapons could only be used in premium maps.

 

As for the bugs, you must have played a very strange series of games in the last 3 years if you think all games are as broken as bf4 or worse. It is simply not the case, at all.

 

The "it could be worse" argument is not something that should make anyone decide to spend their money on a game instead of on another. Who cares if it could be worse, the only thing that matters is that it could be way better with very little effort on the developer's side and they are just asking too much money for it. Cancer could be worse, too, it could take 2 hours to kill you, does it mean I should want to have cancer because it could be worse?

[chingpot]

I'm playing the 7 day trial and its mostly just freezing up and I gotta power off

 

this normal then?

[cobra6]

Love it

[Alan3345]

I'm playing the 7 day trial and its mostly just freezing up and I gotta power off

 

this normal then?

 

I haven't experienced that too often, I think it's been two months since I came across that

[LOST TALE]

Not sure why you are trying to verbally confuse me when we could just be having a civil discussion, but I guess it's your prerogative. Let me rephrase the first sentence in my previous post: how could you possibly know that I am a noob? Entitlement was the wrong choice of word.

 

Let me be clearer about my point of view on premium: the content of the premium season pass should have been way cheaper for bf3 (they are only maps and guns, not enough content to justify 60 bucks) with no queue priority and have been directly included in the game for free in bf4. Why should it have been free for bf4? Because by definition dlcs and expansion packs are conent that was created by the developer post-release as a continuation of the story if the game is focused on that or as a map pack that the dev didn't have enough time to include in the original game. The premium maps for bf4, or at least some of them, where ready and finished already when the game launched, and yet they are behind a 60$ paywall. They're selling you 60% of the game and expecting you to pay again to gain access to the remaining 40%. And no, a mappack is not equivalent to a full new game, sorry, that's accepting that a new game is just a reskin of the previous one with new maps, the "call of duty" release style. If you have played some of the older battlefield titles like 1942 and 2 you know that community support, WHEN THE DEVELOPER ALLOWS IT, can make a game last much longer than a couple of years and maps can be made in the hundreds by fans. Oh, and that being reminded of being a lesser contributor part: why should I accept to be reminded that I didn't invest 110$ just to get the full content of the game? It's like if starcraft 2 had launched with 2 races and only those paying another 50 bucks could have access to the third one. It would be ok if premium content stayed inside of premium, for example premium weapons could only be used in premium maps.

 

As for the bugs, you must have played a very strange series of games in the last 3 years if you think all games are as broken as bf4 or worse. It is simply not the case, at all.

 

The "it could be worse" argument is not something that should make anyone decide to spend their money on a game instead of on another. Who cares if it could be worse, the only thing that matters is that it could be way better with very little effort on the developer's side and they are just asking too much money for it. Cancer could be worse, too, it could take 2 hours to kill you, does it mean I should want to have cancer because it could be worse?

Everything that I said last time was after eahc of your sentences, if you read paralely, but LTT forum doesnt have any convenient quote cutting functionality. So I'l do the same.

you can always expand text or make it more compact and ''efficient''. Depending on how good the reader is it may seem too slow or too Terse. Do worry some masterminds speak even more hardcore, I'm not trying to make it hard, it's easy to me and english is my 3rd, but thats no excuse anyway. If anything is seen as a fierce argument I wont stop it, I'm having a calm conversation I dont even consider this a discussion.

 

I see, unless you catche don rumours, did you consider BF3 a full game at release? well whatever they do, idc about ''the full game'' thing. I see the ''BF3 at release'' 60$? kool , I take it. Oh Premium? 50$ kool I take it. Bf3+prmeium 110$ kool. I would pay 250$ for it. if they made as they did before in BF2 with mod support and all it would value much more obviously.

''They're selling you 60% of the game and expecting you to pay again to gain access to the remaining 40%''

I decided that ''60%'' was a worthy spending and wether or not that 40% exists IDC. it could have been 2% they can add 100000 premiums in the future, It wont change my view on the money I spent in the past, unless it inhibits my experienc elike queue priority, which is not a big problem either.

 

''And no, a mappack is not equivalent to a full new game'' Its not a mere map pack its an expansion pack adding vastly new gameplay, Premium alone contains ATLEAST 200% of what BF3 contains alone.

'', sorry, that's accepting that a new game is just a reskin of the previous one with new maps, the "call of duty" release style''

No its not, not any game of battlefield and no expansion pacl either. They are not reskins, none of them. same as above.

 

''The "it could be worse" argument is not something that should make anyone decide to spend their money on a game instead of on another. Who cares if it could be worse, the only thing that matters is that it could be way better with very little effort on the developer's side and they are just asking too much money for it. Cancer could be worse, too, it could take 2 hours to kill you, does it mean I should want to have cancer because it could be worse?''

Indeed, the only thing that matters is the existing moment and the future. I wasnt using that as an argument.

but that doesnt change that I was very satisfied with my 125$ expenditure and 110$ on BF4 expenditure.

 

For the progress of this conversation I would you to confirm the ''full game view'' expecially the orange highlted part. I am explaining why my view differs. If I want somehting form your reply I'l state it.

 

If you want I can present several games I've played recently.

 

''It would be ok if premium content stayed inside of premium, for example premium weapons could only be used in premium maps.''

Its not a a disadvantage, you over estimate any premium weapon. So did I.

if you take a particular situation when a premium weapon would be the best to spawn with: the result of all gains would be trivial. It's a nothing.

 

''the only thing that matters is that it could be way better with very little effort on the developer's side and they are just asking too much money for it''

I think I have already stated that I know, understand and agree to that. including all the adjective used.

 

If I recall correctly, we were discussing wether BF4/BF3 were worthy.

 

Regarding my value of the content, you may be wondering, It's because unlike the common person I enjoy BF at its fullest extent.

All vehicles, All gamemode, All maps.

[Norman_the_Owl]

It's still not very good IMO. The netcode, even with CTE fixes, is still mediocre. But not getting shot from behind corners doesn't fix the fact that the map design is atrociously bad, and entirely nonsensical. The animations are also pretty frustrating.

 

Also, bullets don't appear to come out of your actual barrel...

 

Did i mention it's a touch pay2win, and plagued by too numerous and too expensive dlcs?

[Alan3345]

It's still not very good IMO. The netcode, even with CTE fixes, is still mediocre. But not getting shot from behind corners doesn't fix the fact that the map design is atrociously bad, and entirely nonsensical. The animations are also pretty frustrating.

 

Also, bullets don't appear to come out of your actual barrel...

 

Did i mention it's a touch pay2win, and plagued by too numerous and too expensive dlcs?

 

Well that's because the major CTE patches haven't come across yet. A big one is coming in September that will address the poor netcode, improve maps (for rush) and generally improve gun balance as well as fix some other bugs etc. So at least it will be better in that sense. 

 

Yeah that is one thing that's kind of annoying is that all the DLC guns are superior to the vanilla ones. I've been killed so much by the AWS, Bulldog and Gol that it's not even funny. Even so I still manage to have fun. I was in a game of TDM last night and it was a 5 V 5 match. It was really close, we lost 150 to 148 but I managed to come top of the leaderboards with 51 kills to 45 deaths. I can honestly say I didn't notice the bugs while playing, I'm sure they were there but when you're not outright looking for them and are having fun they're much harder to notice  

[Sauron]

-

 

Fair enough, after all if you enjoy it why should you not play it?

However, when the op asks if bf3/4 are worth it, personal taste is certainly a factor, but we can't ignore the fact that some shady tactics were implemented in the release of the two games. You would probably have preferred to pay 50 bucks in total per game, right? The fact that you are willing to pay more does not necessarily mean it's a good thing. Another problem with this is that by giving them your money, you'll convince them that their model works and they can keep it that way or make it worse, which is not good for anyone.

 

From my point of view, things look a bit like this:

 

It's still not very good IMO. The netcode, even with CTE fixes, is still mediocre. But not getting shot from behind corners doesn't fix the fact that the map design is atrociously bad, and entirely nonsensical. The animations are also pretty frustrating.

 

Also, bullets don't appear to come out of your actual barrel...

 

Did i mention it's a touch pay2win, and plagued by too numerous and too expensive dlcs?

 

Your opinion may differ, but wouldn't you warn the op if you thought this was the case?

 

As for why I considered your previous posts, well, unfriendly, the reasons are two: the unjustified noob calling at the beginning, which was completely uncalled for if not very offensive, and this

 

 

My periods are after gadzillions of interrelated justifications containing all aspects fo reality till the roots of all logic where even the goals and preferences are

re-generated by the solvant of all universe conception possibilities for the best total of possible outcomes in balance with risk.

 

Don't worry, my English is close to C2 level, I understood the sentence, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a uselessly complicated way of saying you are just logically right and there's nothing I can do about it, when saying you considered every possible variable since the "roots of all logic" is far-fetched at best. It also looks a hell of a lot like an attempt to confuse me and make me look like a idiot if I asked for explanations.

That's the problem I had with your posts. However, since you seem to be a sensible person I suppose you probably didn't mean any harm and I'll just ignore that part.

[Norman_the_Owl]

Fair enough, after all if you enjoy it why should you not play it?

However, when the op asks if bf3/4 are worth it, personal taste is certainly a factor, but we can't ignore the fact that some shady tactics were implemented in the release of the two games. You would probably have preferred to pay 50 bucks in total per game, right? The fact that you are willing to pay more does not necessarily mean it's a good thing. Another problem with this is that by giving them your money, you'll convince them that their model works and they can keep it that way or make it worse, which is not good for anyone.

 

From my point of view, things look a bit like this:

 

 

Your opinion may differ, but wouldn't you warn the op if you thought this was the case?

 

As for why I considered your previous posts, well, unfriendly, the reasons are two: the unjustified noob calling at the beginning, which was completely uncalled for if not very offensive, and this

 

 

Don't worry, my English is close to C2 level, I understood the sentence, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a uselessly complicated way of saying you are just logically right and there's nothing I can do about it, when saying you considered every possible variable since the "roots of all logic" is far-fetched at best. It also looks a hell of a lot like an attempt to confuse me and make me look like a idiot if I asked for explanations.

That's the problem I had with your posts. However, since you seem to be a sensible person I suppose you probably didn't mean any harm and I'll just ignore that part.

Unjustified noob calling in my previous posts?

 

Dude, this is my first post in this thread

[Sauron]

Unjustified noob calling in my previous posts?

 

Dude, this is my first post in this thread

 

That wasn't directed at you, sorry if it wasn't clear D: I quoted you just to say I shared your opinion, but I was answering to the other guy.

[Norman_the_Owl]

That wasn't directed at you, sorry if it wasn't clear D: I quoted you just to say I shared your opinion, but I was answering to the other guy.

Ok, my bad

[totjup5]

It's a great game. Especially compared to most other shooters that come out. Also the graphics are just beautiful at 1440p