Battlefield 4 - Thread

Fr0dders · 16 Jul 2012 at 16:31

well thats not exactly true is it.

DICE said that the PC was the "lead platform"

Least it was, in the sense it was built using an engine that far exceeded the needs of any current console, with features and graphics that only PCs could exploit.

Beyond that, it became apparent that was simply not true as EA signed an exclusivity deal giving PS3 customers one week early access to all DLC.

norm · 16 Jul 2012 at 17:39

RavenXXX2 said:
Look at the AC-130 being on-rails on PC, by all means rail it for consoles due to there only being 12 ADHD players per team but make it pilot-able on PC or at the least make it a server side option, again Dice develops the game for consoles and **** on the PC in the process. They really have butchered the franchise

BF3 really needs some sort of "veteren" mode, which in catering to older BF players would allow it to be flyable. The stupids can have the AC-130 on-rails mode.

It's all a ruse by DICE. The AC130 isn't flyable because they don't want to waste time rendering cockpits + configuring controls.

Same reason BC1/2 didn't have prone, it wasn't configured properly so they omit it from the game citing gameplay reasons.

norm · 16 Jul 2012 at 17:53

nitram100 said:
Battlefield is redundant with Planetside 2 around the corner. It has pretty much EVERYTHING that Battlefield should have had. Larger player counts, HUGE maps, in game VOIP, Commander mode etc lol Battlefield is so damn rubbish.

Except Planetside 2 resembles Halo more than it does Battlefield which is a big no no for me.

Fr0dders · 17 Jul 2012 at 07:15

norm said:
It's all a ruse by DICE. The AC130 isn't flyable because they don't want to waste time rendering cockpits + configuring controls.

Same reason BC1/2 didn't have prone, it wasn't configured properly so they omit it from the game citing gameplay reasons.

You know what, i don't believe its anything to do with wasting time.

I genuinely believe the guy is that arrogant, that he believes because he doesnt play with friends who squad up and use things like the transport choppers. Nobody can.

Observe:

http://forums.electronicarts.co.uk/battlefield-3/1479599-wont-game-we-designed-gustav.html

Who gives a damn about the game you designed, how about giving us the game we want ??

Its exactly the reason we don't have a "veteran mode" etc.. with commander mode etc.. because thats not the game Kertz designed, and YOU WILL play the game he designed, or not at all.

He simply doesnt care what you want.

Here's another example

https://twitter.com/gustavhalling/status/210652242104156160

[quote[Any explanation why you didn't go with the Desert Combat route? What's wrong with someone piloting it?[/quote]

And the response:

And how often do you end up with a good transport helicopter pilot randomly on a server that helps you get kills ? 1/50 times for me

I don't think its technical and a case of programming the cockpit would take too much time. I just think they are indeed that arrogant.

Its why there's no squad VOIP. They don't think you need it, so you won't get it.

silversurfer · 17 Jul 2012 at 12:49

They could allow flight with no cockpit, just a full screen view and HUD. That is relatively easy to do, making the plane move realistically under control would be something else.

If you have a passenger looking out of the plane, its just a question of coordinates to move that fixed view forward. Just like they can do 3rd person view, its in the engine already

RavenXXX2 · 17 Jul 2012 at 13:39

BF4 beta access at the end.

Erich Kriegler · 17 Jul 2012 at 13:57

EA better give premium members access to the beta.

V_R · 17 Jul 2012 at 14:50

kcon1 said:
EA better give premium members access to the beta.

+1

MissChief · 17 Jul 2012 at 15:07

I don't get why everyone has a woody over Commander mode? When i played BF2 no one wanted to be commander as most servers had draconian rules that commander couldn't use any vehicles or actually fight. Half the time no one actually went commander so you got no UAV, no ammo drop, no vehicle drops and it was nothing but a hinderance.

now a pseudo commander mode in Bf4 where a side with less flags can summon a UAV (longer recharge than the BF2 version anyway) or can request a vehicle to a currently held flag would be good, but proper commander mode, as in BF2 bored me to tears and SHOULDN'T be in a BF game unless it changes fundamentally.

RavenXXX2 · 17 Jul 2012 at 15:27

MissChief said:
I don't get why everyone has a woody over Commander mode? When i played BF2 no one wanted to be commander as most servers had draconian rules that commander couldn't use any vehicles or actually fight. Half the time no one actually went commander so you got no UAV, no ammo drop, no vehicle drops and it was nothing but a hinderance.

now a pseudo commander mode in Bf4 where a side with less flags can summon a UAV (longer recharge than the BF2 version anyway) or can request a vehicle to a currently held flag would be good, but proper commander mode, as in BF2 bored me to tears and SHOULDN'T be in a BF game unless it changes fundamentally.

lol play on " better " servers for a better battlefield experience where commanders do their job. The fact you think a commander should be flying around in a jet instead of commanding says a lot about your level of maturity. I would kick your ass off the server if you went command and ****** about. AHDH kids pff.

BF3 is already as dumb and casual as it goes, a command mode would add more depth to the game, especially for squads and their leaders. I command all the time in BF2, voice coms ' not necessary as the tools are in there to command without VOIP ' with the squads adds greatly to the gameplay and it's always great to be complimented on doing a good job as command.

MissChief · 17 Jul 2012 at 15:32

I didn't say anything about 'better' servers. nor did i say anything about commanders flying around in jets. i was kicked for commanding from an APC. When there's 8 a side and your commander isn't allowed to do anything it sucks.

I've never had any commander tell em what to do via voice comms and even then, I can easilt tell which flags need capping. I don't see why it's deemed an 'essential' when it's not exactly been in every BF game ever.

Kouba · 17 Jul 2012 at 15:41

MissChief said:
I didn't say anything about 'better' servers. nor did i say anything about commanders flying around in jets. i was kicked for commanding from an APC. When there's 8 a side and your commander isn't allowed to do anything it sucks.

I've never had any commander tell em what to do via voice comms and even then, I can easilt tell which flags need capping. I don't see why it's deemed an 'essential' when it's not exactly been in every BF game ever.

From what I saw during BF3, the teams were often dispersed and everyone tended to go their own way. BF2 had, or atleast.. seemed to have more substance in the commanding and leading aspect of the game, that's something I really liked about it.

Voice comms weren't essential, as Raven said, the tools and commands were there to support those who didn't have a microphone. It was effective when it was used properly, and often resulted in a good, well-planned battle.

RavenXXX2 · 17 Jul 2012 at 15:46

What? it was introduced in BF2, and was in 2142, these games evolved from BF1942 by introducing ground breaking new features, on PC it was dropped with the console focused BF3, I don't count that other console port BC2 as that is a spin-off from the battlefield franchise something that BF3 feels like.

BF3 went backwards and removed many features not only the command mode, this to the detriment of the gameplay. If BF3 was designed for PC first you can bet that it would have an advanced commander mode in, seeing as consoles are the focus of BF3 it was always going to be a dumbed down game designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

phil675 · 17 Jul 2012 at 15:53

I agree, having a commander was what made the game unique and having a bunch of reasonably organized players even in a public server made for a great game. On BF3 everyone just does what they want as if its team deathmatch on COD, it is slightly awkward to give orders as a squad leader compared to the click-on-the-map interface of BF2 and there is no cohesion between squads because of the lack of a commander.

All you can do is spam the chat saying GO HERE but no one will listen because there is no structure which the Commander > Squad Leader > Squad Member orders system gave.

Also, having people appear on the mini-map when they shoot is awful, bring back the UAV.

RavenXXX2 · 17 Jul 2012 at 15:55

http://www.battlefield.com/battlefield4

Fr0dders · 17 Jul 2012 at 16:13

and there we have it

Proof that EA have pushed DICE into a alternating Bi-Annual release like Activison have COD

setter · 17 Jul 2012 at 16:22

MrLOL said:
and there we have it

Proof that EA have pushed DICE into a alternating Bi-Annual release like Activison have COD

True, first we had bfbc2, then moh 2010. Now bf3 and warfighter. Theyve seen how much activision are making and want a peice of that pie.

Yaayuh! · 17 Jul 2012 at 16:43

MrLOL said:
and there we have it

Proof that EA have pushed DICE into a alternating Bi-Annual release like Activison have COD

But CoD is one series, Dice are doing 2 different series. I very much doubt they'd be able to release BF4 this year..

I do agree with you on EA pushing Dice though, makes sense.

MissChief · 17 Jul 2012 at 16:47

it could be argued that CoD MW and Black Ops are separate series, much like battlefield, bad Company and Medal of honor.

I'd prefer to see a three year cycle. BF, then MOH/BC then the other one.

nitram100 · 17 Jul 2012 at 17:08

norm said:
Except Planetside 2 resembles Halo more than it does Battlefield which is a big no no for me.

If you choose Vanu yeh.