Battlefield 6 - Thread
- Thread starter Neil79
- Start date
I enjoyed Hardline
Now how to turn the comments off…
Twas fun, for a spin off lol
It was a good idea ruined by all the bad bits of the Frostbite engine and some poor developer approaches to some stuff.
EDIT: To be honest I didn't enjoy a single moment of playing Hardline though, I liked the idea not the implementation.
Last edited:
As someone who was a massive fan of the early releases - I have zero intrest in this these days. Terrible dev team, terrible engine, terrible publisher, poor release after poor release. EA just trying there best to squeeze out as many $ from this franchise as possible. The orignal formula will never return to this game for as long as its owned by EA.
Lets go back to Badcompany 2 days. I'll bring my Carl Gustov out and "I'll make war not love" :d
Lets go back to Badcompany 2 days. I'll bring my Carl Gustov out and "I'll make war not love" :d
should have said your trans, fat and can only game using your feet
TBF so did iI enjoyed Hardline
Associate
- Joined
- 5 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 2,189
I signed up to play test thing...my guess is I won't get into anything but maybe some kind of load test close to release...
Associate
- Joined
- 13 Sep 2010
- Posts
- 2,364
I'd be so happy if they returned to the levels of environmental destruction that BC2 had in multiplayer, completely leveling Arica harbour each game was epic, as well as noob-tubing holes in walls when people were trying to hide from you 
Apparently 1.3 million signed up so I can see a fair few of us missing out!
imagine the size of maps, the size f players on each size that modern tecxh is capable off..
then remember about 20 years ago we had 64 player servers... maybe even more than that.
gamings sooo stale when you think about it the only gains are in graphics really
surely technology sahould be able to handle like 256vs256 on some huge map by now, if not more..
CPUs, GPUs, memory etc 100x as fast as when people were used to 32 and 64 player servers... wheres the gaming evolution at?
surely we can handle a first person server with like 256-512 players doing a first person foxhole style game
then remember about 20 years ago we had 64 player servers... maybe even more than that.
gamings sooo stale when you think about it the only gains are in graphics really
surely technology sahould be able to handle like 256vs256 on some huge map by now, if not more..
CPUs, GPUs, memory etc 100x as fast as when people were used to 32 and 64 player servers... wheres the gaming evolution at?
surely we can handle a first person server with like 256-512 players doing a first person foxhole style game
Last edited:
On a 124man server my cpu is at 70% usage I’d love so see the system requirements for 256 man server
It would be nice to see a massive map with 150man teams
Last edited:
theres probably no optimization though.
how did we have 64 player servers when people had like dual core cpus?
20 player servers with 1 core cpus at like 700mhz...
how did red faction achieve destructible environments and multiplayer in 2001? you could literally make tunnels with explosives, even in multiplayer
2001-2009... 24 years later imagine what should be possible.
Last edited:
The graphic leaves are massively different now but I get what your saying
Personally I’d love to see it
Not sure I agree that more players is the direction the game needs to go in. More players doesn't necessarily mean a better experience and I'd worry that you'd feel like your contribution has less significance with more players.
I don't think 2042's use of 128 players is a good example as that game just had an identity crisis in general - but I always felt like 64 players was a great number to balance around for a game like Battlefield. With more you start to introduce so many more potential issues that I don't think improve or add to the BF experience.
I don't think 2042's use of 128 players is a good example as that game just had an identity crisis in general - but I always felt like 64 players was a great number to balance around for a game like Battlefield. With more you start to introduce so many more potential issues that I don't think improve or add to the BF experience.
why because you can't charge around alone like Rambo capturing objectives?
maybe with more players, you also need more teams instead of the usual old 2...
anyway apart from graphics not much has changed.
BF series exists because DICE acquired the company who made this game, reskinned it and sold it as bf1942
after like bf2 the series got stale
Last edited:
But for this the game would have to force team play in some way
they always did?