Battlefield 4

[Jaden]

I suspect the main reason for the single player campaign is to justify the price tag of the game.

I'd pay it just for the multiplayer, but it would be a hard pill to swallow for the majority of this generation.

[zibi88]

Personaly I allways get freeze on map Siege of Shanghai ;/ did not happen in beta... any other map no problem but only that one map freezes at the very beggining or few minutes after entering the map

I suffer from the B console button bug (died few times becouse of that bug)... on 2 maps im getting annoying sound bugs.... the voice disappears completly for few sec (gets cut off) then it returns with some glitches and echos in the background... and so on hope they fix it soon as its annoying as hell

battlepacks well I have nothing against them but I reached max level of unlocks on a gun and its sad that I just cant unlock other scopes and stuff becouse battlepacks are needed >_> and they drop random stuff to weps... generally I got lots of unlocks to weapons I dont use at all... I would be glad if some stuff we could unlock in normal way "from kills" while battlepacks might open that sooner


For now im just hoping they could fix some map problems and maybe the damn B console button bug

[Infinite Zenith]

Originally Posted by barcode120x

Oh really? Considering that CoD comes out with like 2 new "CoD" per year with map packs for each one and what not, you'll probably end up paying more for CoD in the long run, a hella lot more.

I didn't buy Call of Duty: Ghosts either

[ReaperxKingx]

Originally Posted by barcode120x

Oh really? Considering that CoD comes out with like 2 new "CoD" per year with map packs for each one and what not, you'll probably end up paying more for CoD in the long run, a hella lot more.

Anyways, I honestly don't see why people are getting butt-hurt about the BF4 campaign. For goodness sakes, BF in general was not meant to be played for single player. Imo, the single player was just an add-on/sweetener and that's all it should be seen as. For those that were planning on buying BF4 for the campaign, all I have to say is . The nitty gritty is the multiplayer and as mentioned earlier, it does have bugs, but it's something that will be fixed within the next few weeks. It's DICE, of course there would be bugs >_>

@ Jagd
I thought the AK-12 was horrible. I only player Assault here and there, but I'm hearing that the AEK (which was my favorite gun in BF3) is OP so I'm working towards that atm.


Tip: don't forget to equip/use your point-bonuses that you get from battlepacks! They REALLY help you out in getting the next rank and gear.

Originally Posted by Jaden

I suspect the main reason for the single player campaign is to justify the price tag of the game.

I'd pay it just for the multiplayer, but it would be a hard pill to swallow for the majority of this generation.

Its already known that Battlefield 4 is a multiplier game. However what people are angry is about the Campaign is that they had two years of development into it and made the same mistakes as the previous one. They also made mistakes in different areas especially in story telling. The story telling was that bad. Also, there were clear similarities of Hollywood cliche that Call of Duty is famous for implemented in the campaign which brought more criticism since some people are divided between the two. Bringing one aspect of another game that is hated by some into the game is really a tender bundle getting set on fire.

One of the biggest reasons of people being hurt is that Battlefield 4 is forcing you to play the Campaign, despite it being a multiplayer game, to unlock weapons for the Multiplayer.

Nevertheless, I love playing Battlefield 4. I already made my review of it in the previous page. Battlefield 4 is addictive and there is a ton of replay into it that I will be satisfied for 2 whole years with it. There is a little biased in me judging the game because I love story and Battlefield didn't deliver one. Other than that, I love the game, it is a game of the year candidate.

Originally Posted by ForwardUntoDawn

I didn't buy Call of Duty: Ghosts either

You really should. The story is pretty good, gameplay mechanics are still the same but it is more refined and polish. Seldom you will find yourself in gliches. Multiplayer is heavily focus into the player than previous generation. There is more emphasis in team work as well. Despite the hate it receive online and youtube, tens of million enjoy the game so much that they would not even bother respond to those criticism.

If you are used to being the only player that can get the job done in multiplayer and hates teammates ruining the game, Call of Duty does that for you. It is a pick up and go game, you do not need competent teammates to play it. I would give Call of Duty Ghosts a review, however, there seems to be no thread for it.

[Infinite Zenith]

Originally Posted by ReaperxKingx

You really should. The story is pretty good, gameplay mechanics are still the same but it is more refined and polish. Seldom you will find yourself in gliches. Multiplayer is heavily focus into the player than previous generation. There is more emphasis in team work as well. Despite the hate it receive online and youtube, tens of million enjoy the game so much that they would not even bother respond to those criticism.

If you are used to being the only player that can get the job done in multiplayer and hates teammates ruining the game, Call of Duty does that for you. It is a pick up and go game, you do not need competent teammates to play it. I would give Call of Duty Ghosts a review, however, there seems to be no thread for it.

Thanks for the suggestion I was looking for a good current-gen shooter to give my shiny GPU a workout, but was mostly in for the single-player...

[ReaperxKingx]

Originally Posted by ForwardUntoDawn

Thanks for the suggestion I was looking for a good current-gen shooter to give my shiny GPU a workout, but was mostly in for the single-player...

If it is for the story, you will be certainly please. It is worth the buy. There are some cliche, however, it is extremely compiling. You can relate to the characters and actually care for them. The plot seems like it could really happen, several aspects of the story is is very interesting though not new but executed very well. You will not be confuse when playing this game. The story is the best for the Activision side of the franchise, it still fall short of Treyarch's Black Ops 2 though it is because you choose how the story plays out. The sequel Ghost 2 is confirmed.

The only thing I hate about the Campaign is that I wish they could allow us to customized our starting weapon before each level. THe difficulty is harder this time around, the enemy A.I. is extremely good and if you do not have good aim, do not bother trying to play veteran (I beaten the campaign on Veteran at the same time collected all 18 Rorke files) you will die so many times.

[barcode120x]

Originally Posted by ForwardUntoDawn

I didn't buy Call of Duty: Ghosts either

Not gonna lie, but I seriously was considering getting it (the last CoD I bought was Modern Warfare 1 lolz), but then school life hit me =/.

Originally Posted by ReaperxKingx

Its already known that Battlefield 4 is a multiplier game. However what people are angry is about the Campaign is that they had two years of development into it and made the same mistakes as the previous one. They also made mistakes in different areas especially in story telling. The story telling was that bad. Also, there were clear similarities of Hollywood cliche that Call of Duty is famous for implemented in the campaign which brought more criticism since some people are divided between the two. Bringing one aspect of another game that is hated by some into the game is really a tender bundle getting set on fire.

Now I know haha, never bothered with the singleplayer for BF3

[Renegade334]

Originally Posted by ForwardUntoDawn

Thanks for the suggestion I was looking for a good current-gen shooter to give my shiny GPU a workout, but was mostly in for the single-player...

Technically, COD games won't give your GPU a workout because the studios in charge (Treyarch, Infinity Ward) have practically made it a point of honor to ensure that gameplay remains at a steady 60fps framerate. They've practically designed the engine to be as smooth as possible (by doing away with all the GFX bells and whistles), resulting in endless criticisms about COD's graphics quality remaining the same game after game. In COD: Ghosts, they've introduced a new version of the IW engine (if that was its name, I might be mistaken), which allows more polygons, greater detail (thanks to the next-gen consoles which'll allow Activision to splurge a little more on the GFX side), but it's nowhere near the level of Frostbite 2/3 in terms of sophistication and GPU workload.

Frostbite 2/3 was practically DICE's attempt to catch up to the heavyweight engines out there such as CryEngine 2/3, with a welcome boost from DICE's patented Destruction system. Whereas the guys at IW and Treyarch worked hard to make IW Engine super smooth for COD's (AFAIK, IWE wasn't licensed for use any other studio/game) fast and furious gameplay, the programmers at DICE were working on things such as occlusion, tesselation, bokeh effects and lens flares, HBAO and whatnot...and making sure Frostbite 3 can be used by other EA-published games (NFS: The Run, etc).

So, no, I don't think "GPU workout" immediately makes one think of COD - quite the opposite.


Anyway, I'm haunting Paracel Storm TDM maps ATM (I'm busy grinding the mickey out of the M416) and I just had my first game freeze (which occurred when quitting during the after-action report - something that was already present in the Beta but I hoped DICE had eliminated). And...I'm still mightily annoyed by sniper campers on maps like Flood Zone and Lancang Dam. >_>

[ReaperxKingx]

Originally Posted by Renegade334

Technically, COD games won't give your GPU a workout because the studios in charge (Treyarch, Infinity Ward) have practically made it a point of honor to ensure that gameplay remains at a steady 60fps framerate. They've practically designed the engine to be as smooth as possible (by doing away with all the GFX bells and whistles), resulting in endless criticisms about COD's graphics quality remaining the same game after game. In COD: Ghosts, they've introduced a new version of the IW engine (if that was its name, I might be mistaken), which allows more polygons, greater detail (thanks to the next-gen consoles which'll allow Activision to splurge a little more on the GFX side), but it's nowhere near the level of Frostbite 2/3 in terms of sophistication and GPU workload.

Frostbite 2/3 was practically DICE's attempt to catch up to the heavyweight engines out there such as CryEngine 2/3, with a welcome boost from DICE's patented Destruction system. Whereas the guys at IW and Treyarch worked hard to make IW Engine super smooth for COD's (AFAIK, IWE wasn't licensed for use any other studio/game) fast and furious gameplay, the programmers at DICE were working on things such as occlusion, tesselation, bokeh effects and lens flares, HBAO and whatnot...and making sure Frostbite 3 can be used by other EA-published games (NFS: The Run, etc).

So, no, I don't think "GPU workout" immediately makes one think of COD - quite the opposite.


Anyway, I'm haunting Paracel Storm TDM maps ATM (I'm busy grinding the mickey out of the M416) and I just had my first game freeze (which occurred when quitting during the after-action report - something that was already present in the Beta but I hoped DICE had eliminated). And...I'm still mightily annoyed by sniper campers on maps like Flood Zone and Lancang Dam. >_>

Thank you sir, for explaining the clear difference between Battlefield and Call of Duty in terms of gameplay and graphics. I wished people would stopped comparing these two first person shooters like they are aiming are the same thing gameplay, story, and graphic wise.

[barcode120x]

Originally Posted by ReaperxKingx

TI wished people would stopped comparing these two first person shooters like they are aiming are the same thing gameplay, story, and graphic wise.

Truth!

Loving my LSAT with FLIR, R2 Suppressor, and Folding Grip (all from the battlepacks ). I can forsee the FLIR getting nerfed in the near future haha...so OP.

[JagdPanther]

Made Rank 5 tonight and unlocked the M416. I'm set for quite some time. I'm finding it fairly easy to kill at range with rifles...

I'm really liking the more destructible environment. Things can change in a hurry if walls fall down or wooden barriers are shot up. That said, a pistol should not so completely destroy a concrete barrier...

[ReaperxKingx]

Originally Posted by barcode120x

Truth!

Loving my LSAT with FLIR, R2 Suppressor, and Folding Grip (all from the battlepacks ). I can forsee the FLIR getting nerfed in the near future haha...so OP.

My only complaint against the LSAT is that you still face the movement penalty of the Light Machine guns. I mean the LSAT is the next generation light machine gun and it is half the weight of M249 SAW. I want at least a bit of realism in games.

[GHOST EYE]

Played the BETA, I'm only afraid that the fun I'll have with BF4 once I buy it won't amount to the fun I had playing BFBC2. Hope to see you guys in BF4 soon once I join in though.

[ReaperxKingx]

Originally Posted by GHOST EYE

Played the BETA, I'm only afraid that the fun I'll have with BF4 once I buy it won't amount to the fun I had playing BFBC2. Hope to see you guys in BF4 soon once I join in though.

Take your time mate, just mooch off a relative like I am. Waiting until Spring to buy my PS4 and Battlefield 4 at the same time.

[dmaxzero]

I think if you want to do something half assed you shouldnt be doing it at all. BF4 should have been a fully multiplayer game if the single player were to be such a half assed disappointment.

[ReaperxKingx]

Originally Posted by dmaxzero

I think if you want to do something half assed you shouldnt be doing it at all. BF4 should have been a fully multiplayer game if the single player were to be such a half assed disappointment.

The thing about Battlefield 4 is that they try to center the game around a single soldier. It limits to what a player could experience because the soldier is only in one battle zone. Also a problem is that the we play alongside a small team of Marines, they are grunts and therefore just take orders without questioned. They do not know what they are doing, but like grunts, they follow without question. I did not know what was the purpose of the single player until Hanna dropped the ball on it later on. If it takes a player to figure out what is the purpose of single player all the way until the end, it is a horrible first person single player.

You add in a horrible story telling that felt like it was written like a fan fiction then forcefully added multiplayer weapons in single player then it doesn't take much for people to criticize.

I miss the old Battlefield on the PS2. Where you can switch from any players. You got no sense of identity, however you got many ways to play the Campaign. It also make sense, if you want to use a tank, switch to a soldier using a tank or helicopter and so on. In battlefield 4, a Marine somehow can pilot drive a tank. Then we play a Marine whose Mission is that if failed, USA and China goes to war. A Grunt is handed that responsibility, a mission to prevent war REALLY!!!! I do not know who writes the story, but a story and mission of that size, you have to play a Tier 1 Special Force Soldier like a Seal Team 6, DEVGRU, 24th Special Tactics Squadron, Army Rangers, or Delta Force. No way in the world a grunt will be given a mission of that size.

I hope in Battlefield 5, they will smarten up and do some real research in the Military. If you have a story involving a prevention against war, you better place us in the body of a Special Mission Unit or commonly known as Tier 1 Special Forces Soldier.

[Sumeragi]

The fact that you consider members of the Marine Special Operations Regiment or the United States Marine Corps Special Operations Capable Forces to be mere grunts seem to indicate you're not completely understanding the story.

[Renegade334]

If they're part of Marine Force Recon (part of the aforementioned USMC-SOCF) then it's not implausible. The undercover mission in Shanghai, however, is more of a DEVGRU-style mission, but it's always possible that with the Russia-US conflict some rules got relaxed and Tombstone was cleared to go into a hot zone in civilian clothing.

I however do find some things from the SP campaign unrealistic, such as how the USS Titan carrier (since when did the USN name its nuclear aircraft carriers after mythological beings instead of presidents and politicians? USS Enterprise set aside, of course) survived relatively intact (structurally speaking) but only two survivors were found. I know the ship was boarded and the corridors were packed with bodies, but the extreme mortality rate gnaws at me. Also - Chang's ship in the final mission suspiciously looks like an American LCS ship - namely the Independence class. The only difference I could spot was the main mast, which looks like a cross when viewed from above. Unless, of course, the Chinese have their own trimaran. And how did the USS Valkyrie land M1s on the beach without LCACs, huh? Did they fly off from the helicopter carrier to the shoreline? But then again, take a look at how other FPS and military sim games deviate from reality. COD:MW2 had tripod-mounted Gatling guns and Predators that seemingly can reload their Hellfire payloads like a gunslinger can reload his derringer, MW3 had M1 Abrams with M134s (note: in Iraq, some vehicle crews DID replace their pintle-mounted M240s and M2HBs with M134s, but I've never heard of that job being done on a M1, only Humvees and MRAPs) and a Mil Mi-24 Hind with remote-controlled nose cannon (even though there is room for a gunner in the cockpit), ARMA3 features the cancelled RAH-66 Comanche stealth helicopter, etc, etc. And both BF4 and COD have weird door-breaching charges. If you've watched Zero Dark Thirty or the bonus disk of Black Hawk Down (which shows how the cast went to boot camp in both Fort Bragg and Fort Benning), you should know that SOFs use C4 bricks or even explosive-lined duct tape to open locked doors. I don't know where these big square thingies with handles come from. Oh, did I also mention the missiles you must guide with a joystick? I'd like to meet the (hypothetical/fictional) engineer who devised that to give him a piece of my mind.

And in the BF4 MP, what is with the remote-controlled M224 mortar? And these motion sensor balls? The MP-APS? Puh-lease...



Anyway...
BF4 multi is either very fulfilling or extremely irritating:
- TDM is a joke. 100 tickets on official servers? Really?
- Why did they reduce heatseeker damage on fighter planes? They practically halved the amount of damage a double salvo does. And why can I, most of the time, only launch ONE missile instead of two like in BF3? It's as if it's reloading them one by one instead of simultaneously.
- Snipers everywhere. Not funny.
- Freezes on most maps, with sound loop. Not funny at all.
- Sometimes I drop out of a match WITHOUT any error/kick/disconnect message. WTF?
- Levolution not much of a game-changer in most Conquest matches I've played - either because neither side had the time to trigger the events or because they just didn't have much impact on my team.
- DDOS attacks. Yay. I missed my rubberbanding days.
- Missing points. In one match I get promoted, but the change doesn't carry over to Battlelog. I have to wait until the NEXT match to win more points, refill the progress bar and re-trigger the promotion message.
- WTF is with the Ultimax U-100? Even when aiming down the sights, with a grip and a scope it's bucking like a stallion that's just been stung by a wasp. Got killed too many times to count because the darn thing just doesn't want to land at least 40% of my bullets on target.
- Netcode is worse than on BF3: I get killed around corners, or shot through walls I shouldn't been seen or hit through. At least on BF3 I could understand why I got killed. On BF4 it's another matter. It's just like the bending bullet trajectory from that movie, Wanted (with A. Jolie).
- Game-crashing while riding a vehicle. I'm getting used to it. Oh yeah, I am.
- DICE stupidly making the China Rising gun and gadget assignments prematurely available (though some might think it's a good thing), but NOT visible on Battlelog. The code behind the assignments is buggy as hell - see here:

Spoiler:

L85A2
Assignment: Open Fire
- Assault ribbon x3
- Get a kill with a pistol in a round
- Get a kill with 40mm grenade in a round
- Get a kill with the defibrillator in a round

L96A1
Assignment: Need Only One
- Sniper ribbon x3
- Get a kill with a shotgun in a round
- Get a kill with a DMR in a round
- Get a kill with C4 in a round

MTAR-21
Assignment: Multi-Talented
- Get a kill with an Assault Rifle
- Get a kill with a Light Machine Gun
- Get a kill with a Sniper Rifle
- Get a kill with a grenade

RPK-74M
Assignment: Powder Keg
- LMG ribbon x3
- Get a kill with the M224 Mortar

MP7
Assignment: Make A Dent
- Anti-Vehicle ribbon x3
- Destroy an air vehicle with portable AA

The criteria involving an "in a round" clause mean that you have to do all of them within the same round (the ribbons, OTOH, can be unlocked over the course of several matches)...but DICE/EA's servers won't register their completion unless you have the ribbon condition already fulfilled...otherwise, you'll have to do them over again. Diabolical, right? Anyway, I have the L96, MTAR and L85 already unlocked. Since I don't have the mortar yet and no anti-vehicle warfare ribbon (cf. earlier grievance) on my meagerly-populated award wall, so the MP7 and RPK-74M will have to wait. I hope that when China Rising is released they won't void the unlocks...I'd hate to redo the Open Fire assignment all over again.

(grievances, cont'd)
- The respawn system, especially in TDM/Dominion, routinely makes all Virgin Mary statues cry tears of blood around the world. It causes so many spawnkills most players end up slashing their wrists in front of their PC/console.
- Spotting system being very whimsical - sometimes it does deign detect an enemy you can see clear as day, sometimes not.
- You need a miracle to get the melee ribbon. With the commander mode it's almost impossible to surprise enemies from behind (that is, if the enemy side DOES have a commander), unless you come across a group of utterly clueless snipers who have their eyes glued to their scopes and their ears stuffed with cotton.
- Most boat drivers STOP to bombard their targets with the onboard cannon/missile launcher...thus leaving the gunners vulnerable to snipers. And it seems they don't care about the chat system.
- Revives? MIA. Med packs? Kinda MIA. Ammo packs. Sorta MIA, too. And Battlefield is celebrated for being a teamwork-promoting game. Jesus H. Christ.


OTOH, I like how some of the fighters seemed more maneuverable. I had fun with them on Rogue Transmission...that is, when other players weren't camping their spawn icons out or when I wasn't colliding with the radiotelescope while pursuing a target.

[ReaperxKingx]

Originally Posted by Sumeragi

The fact that you consider members of the Marine Special Operations Regiment or the United States Marine Corps Special Operations Capable Forces to be mere grunts seem to indicate you're not completely understanding the story.

Okay, my ranting was a bit off. Well, a lot off now that I am rereading. However, if they were MARSOC, they are really not in their proper role in assignment. If they were FORECON, then it is possible however they do not appear to be. I wasn't saying MARSOC are grunts, I think I was trying to say the Marines we play are grunts.

Despite the usage of them being Special Forces, they appear to be regular Marines. Special Forces on assignment are inform of what they are doing and for what purpose. Throughout the game, the Marines were not informed as a whole causing somewhat a chemistry issue on the team. CIA agent unwilling to share information.

The Marines during the ship sequence had issues with swimming and diving, if they were MARSOC, they underwent the Phase 1 of training which is a 10 week basic course involving the standard training along with swimming and diving. Then there is the advance training involving USMC Combatant Diver Course. In the opening mission, PAC, despite the MARSOC 10 week training in Phase 1 including combat medical training, failed to realize the severity of Dun's injuries and thought Dun died instead of realizing he was in shock.

I am trying hard to believe that we were MARSOC during that entire campaign especially the sequences where Irish has difficulty flying (MARSOC undergo U.S. Army Airborne School) and PAC commenting on music in a killzone. As well having issues of stealing enemy speed baots to go back onto their ship.

If DICE was trying to humanized the allies we are playing with, they must have forgotten that MARSOC undergo assessment and selection, and then screening before they are selected.


The story of Battlefield 4 is very cliche, it is a scenario that is seen multiple times in Hollywood movies. However, it is executed very poorly.

[Wild Goose]

So I'm currently in a RHIB sailing off into the dull gray yonder. My thoughts so far:

In a word, underwhelmed.

There appears to be nothing so far that has really made me go "Oh shit!" like the earthquake in BF3, or "OMGOMGOMG" like Going Hunting or Thunder Run.

BF4 and COD: Ghosts are definitely weak offerings this year; Black Ops 2 was still the better shooter in terms of fun and storyline. I do find the squad portrayal in BF4 to be a bit strange: they're being sent to do Tier 1 operator shit, which is not the tasking of Marines, even Force Recon or MARSOC. As has been mentioned, this is Delta/Team Six shit. Tombstone have so far been spending the story kept more or less in the dark, go here do this, and Recker doesn't really sell the illusion that you're playing a leader character. Black Ops 2 was a bit more successful at disguising Section's role as the player following the story - it did a pretty good attempt, IMO, at pretending that you as Section were in a significant leadership position.

The gunplay is good, yes, and Battlefield was always about the online MP, but I still find the campaign to be disappointing so far. Or maybe I'm just jaded.