Battlefield 4 V.1 "Stretching Necks" - Games

[QUOTE=Anthrax713;42785236]Yeah, I have a 7950, do you have that too?[/QUOTE] I have a 7950 and a i5 2500k and 16 gb ram no memory leaks here.

[QUOTE=goon165;42786047]it wasn't perfect, but from 1942 to 2142 the games just had a certain feel to them that Bad Company to 4 don't have. Mainly because the bad company games were originally designed to be something different but when BF3 and 4 came around DICE elected to take from [I]THOSE[/I] games, the games that were purposelessly designed differently, rather than the original Battlefield series of games. the Bad Company games, BF3 and BF4 are good games, but they've moved to being this season's Manshooty Game rather than [B]OH SHIT IT'S BATTLEFIELD[/B], they aren't bad but most of us didn't want Battlefield to be just a dumb manshooty game, they don't have nearly the same scale and they don't carry as much impact as games that have come before. BF4 is so far removed from the old games it's not even funny. But is this fun? [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NC-aQpxSK-w&feature=youtu.be[/media] Yes it is fun, but the older games were a different kind of fun and I'm not sure DICE even remembers that kind of fun, let alone capable of making it again.[/QUOTE] I played BF2 a lot. What you describe as "[i]the feel[/i]" is just pure nostalgia at work. Nothing else. The problem isn't that DICE doesn't remember that kind of fun. It's that [b]you[/b] don't remember it. You glorify games from your childhood, because you were new then and never experienced anything like it before. You constantly search for the same experience, but you will never find it, because you are more experienced now and no longer 'dazzled' by the same features. It's the same reason movie sequels are almost always worse than the original. Been there, done that, seen it syndrome. Battlefield 2 wasn't that great a game. No one ever mentions that the balance was shit, the netcode was horrible and it was an achievement in and by itself just to get into a server. It was enjoyable because it was one of the first games that gave you an actual war experience where you got to be a soldier, a jet pilot or a tank driver all in the same game. Battlefield 3 offers the same thing, but you no longer enjoy it as much because it's no longer special.

[QUOTE=Skanic;42786166]I have a 7950 and a i5 2500k and 16 gb ram no memory leaks here.[/QUOTE] I'm just curious how long matches you usually play (As in, not closing the game down). I have noticed, that if I play more than 2 maps in a row wihout closing the game, memory leak might happen. Sometimes I got to play 5 maps without any memory leak.

So far, Flood Zone is a guarantied crash for me. While other maps works just fine. Except for Shanghai with skyscraper fall.

[QUOTE=V12US;42786184]I played BF2 a lot. What you describe as "[i]the feel[/i]" is just pure nostalgia at work. Nothing else. The problem isn't that DICE doesn't remember that kind of fun. It's that [b]you[/b] don't remember it. You glorify games from your childhood, because you were new then and never experienced anything like it before. You constantly search for the same experience, but you will never find it, because you are more experienced now and no longer 'dazzled' by the same features. It's the same reason movie sequels are almost always worse than the original. Been there, done that, seen it syndrome. Battlefield 2 wasn't that great a game. No one ever mentions that the balance was shit, the netcode was horrible and it was an achievement in and by itself just to get into a server. It was enjoyable because it was one of the first games that gave you an actual war experience where you got to be a soldier, a jet pilot or a tank driver all in the same game. Battlefield 3 offers the same thing, but you no longer enjoy it as much because it's no longer special.[/QUOTE] I agree, i played bf2 and bf2142 a few weeks ago before bf4 and the game mechanics are just not good anymore. I found bc2 and bf3,bf4 a much better experience. Same goes for Battlefield 3 to 4. People that haven*t engaged into battlefield much as in played at least over 100 hours dont have much of a understanding of the differences between the 2 games. All they see is Bf3.5. Which i disagree with, because the features that have been changed from 3 to 4 are much for the better ofc there are still bugs and balancing issues like the Fast attack Boat being Overpowered and some vehicles not doing enough damage. Also the difference between Bad Company series and Battlefield are that Battlefield 3 and 4 are more Combined arms heavy, While Bad Company which ofc has vehicles to is much more infantry based.

[QUOTE=codemaster85;42786142]imho bf2 was very bare bones, same with 1942. both were massively expanded upon by both 2142 and vietnam respectfully. they are both the same barebones like engines with just regular was stuff, but the expansion/sequels added more weapons, gadgets, and vehicles. theres nothing really different since all the games in the series allow you do to outrageous maneuvers still with jumping out of an jet, shoot the enemy jet with a rocket, and then shoot 5 guys on the ground while parachuting down. just because they changed the theme doesnt mean the whole game's premise is completely different.[/QUOTE] true, but the games after bad company just feel more claustrophobic, 4 especially with the amazingly small maps, but it isn't just the maps, things like movement speed and field of view, in addition to people being slightly sturdier in the old games. when you have a map like Caspian border for example, when you are out of the denser areas and into the more open parts it feels...weird, like you shouldn't have this much space with the way the FPS controls handle, like you've actually overran the map boundaries and should be way back somewhere else. in the older games, it felt normal having that much space, you felt more free. this is a lot of touchy feely stuff I know, but Touchy feely stuff is why we can't say this game captures the magic of the old games. [editline]7th November 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=V12US;42786184]I played BF2 a lot. What you describe as "[i]the feel[/i]" is just pure nostalgia at work. Nothing else. The problem isn't that DICE doesn't remember that kind of fun. It's that [b]you[/b] don't remember it. You glorify games from your childhood, because you were new then and never experienced anything like it before. You constantly search for the same experience, but you will never find it, because you are more experienced now and no longer 'dazzled' by the same features. It's the same reason movie sequels are almost always worse than the original. Been there, done that, seen it syndrome. Battlefield 2 wasn't that great a game. No one ever mentions that the balance was shit, the netcode was horrible and it was an achievement in and by itself just to get into a server. It was enjoyable because it was one of the first games that gave you an actual war experience where you got to be a soldier, a jet pilot or a tank driver all in the same game. Battlefield 3 offers the same thing, but you no longer enjoy it as much because it's no longer special.[/QUOTE] ERRRRRRRR, Wrong. I fully remember the hit detection in BF2 and BF2142 was bad, [I]REALLY BAD[/I], the balance was also off kilter between patches because DICE could not for the life of them make up their fucking minds, and then there was that one patch that made the game actually unplayable. they don't feel the same, this isn't nostalgia goggles, the games [B]have[/B] changed, in a multitude of ways.

For some reason I never liked BF2. On the other hand I played the shit out of Desert Combat mod for BF1942.

... I really only like Siege of Shanghai for my sniper gameplay (I am not one of the rooftop campers). But now when they moved the server crash over from the server to the clients when the skyscrapers starts falling, its impossible for me to get my recon service star I am 20k points away from it which is like 2,5% or something on that scale

Is anyone actually able to play the multiplayer properly? Seems like a rather bad launch.

So far I haven't had any dramas with the game, I crashed once when I first played online, but it's been running fine ever since. The only major issue I've faced is Golmud Railway not registering sound properly, but this is apparently a common bug for many players.

I can play everything properly except for Conquest which always tends to crash halfway through the game.

[QUOTE=V12US;42786184]I played BF2 a lot. What you describe as "[I]the feel[/I]" is just pure nostalgia at work. Nothing else. The problem isn't that DICE doesn't remember that kind of fun. It's that [B]you[/B] don't remember it. You glorify games from your childhood, because you were new then and never experienced anything like it before. You constantly search for the same experience, but you will never find it, because you are more experienced now and no longer 'dazzled' by the same features. It's the same reason movie sequels are almost always worse than the original. Been there, done that, seen it syndrome. Battlefield 2 wasn't that great a game. No one ever mentions that the balance was shit, the netcode was horrible and it was an achievement in and by itself just to get into a server. It was enjoyable because it was one of the first games that gave you an actual war experience where you got to be a soldier, a jet pilot or a tank driver all in the same game. Battlefield 3 offers the same thing, but you no longer enjoy it as much because it's no longer special.[/QUOTE] I never really played too much BF2 but i did play every other iteration and the feel is different. It's faster. Everything is quick, the maps are smaller, the flags are condensed, players can re spawn on allies and with 3d spotting the who thing just adds up to complete and utter chaos at all times across the entire map which for me is not that much fun, The difference In 1942 and Vietnam, fighting enemies was a choice, you'd get a fight easy enough if you went looking but you could just as easily avoid fights altogether while still getting across a map. Bf3 - 4, the fighting [I][B]always[/B][/I] finds you.

[QUOTE=Fr3ddi3;42786782]I never really played too much BF2 but i did play every other iteration and the feel is different. It's faster. Everything is quick, the maps are smaller, the flags are condensed, players can re spawn on allies and with 3d spotting the who thing just adds up to complete and utter chaos at all times across the entire map which for me is not that much fun, The difference In 1942 and Vietnam, fighting enemies was a choice, you'd get a fight easy enough if you went looking but you could just as easily avoid fights altogether while still getting across a map. Bf3 - 4, the fighting [I][B]always[/B][/I] finds you.[/QUOTE] in bf2, it wasn't that the fight couldn't find you, it was just if it did you could bunny hop and air strafe out of the way of all of the bullets people fired at you and become impossible to hit. that's why it felt like there was much more freedom

[QUOTE=Pandamox;42787328]in bf2, it wasn't that the fight couldn't find you, it was just if it did you could bunny hop and air strafe out of the way of all of the bullets people fired at you and become impossible to hit. that's why it felt like there was much more freedom[/QUOTE] no, it's because the maps were larger and the fights were spread out, not just some spastic exploit.

[QUOTE=goon165;42787528]no, it's because the maps were larger and the fights were spread out, not just some spastic exploit.[/QUOTE] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1MmkrYnG9I[/media] this what a majority of servers regardless of bunny hopping rules or not. good luck hitting anyone in bf2 with the fucked up weapon accuracy when they're doing this as well

[QUOTE=Pandamox;42787620][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1MmkrYnG9I[/media] this what a majority of servers regardless of bunny hopping rules or not. good luck hitting anyone in bf2 with the fucked up weapon accuracy when they're doing this as well[/QUOTE] Not quite, I cannot remember too many instances of this being used on me to the obnoxious extreme, Grenade spam, people teamkilling me for vehicles, and punkbuster being a shit were more the issues I ran into, it was also a hell of a lot less common in 2142.

[QUOTE=Pandamox;42787620][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1MmkrYnG9I[/media] this what a majority of servers regardless of bunny hopping rules or not. good luck hitting anyone in bf2 with the fucked up weapon accuracy when they're doing this as well[/QUOTE] I had so much fun doing this after getting BF2 for free from the coupon glitch, then I ran into an enemy player and was astonished at how nonlethal my gun was despite being a 4-6 shot kill (iirc I emptied the magazine and then had to switch to a pistol) I thought it was a server issue then I went to another server and it was the same shit where the guns did nothing unless you were at point blank range Then I never played BF2 again

[video=youtube;UP8EIKSm3QE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UP8EIKSm3QE[/video] 2:50

[QUOTE=IAOEGIJaKe;42787781][video=youtube;UP8EIKSm3QE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UP8EIKSm3QE[/video] 2:50[/QUOTE] Dice just make 2145 already. and don't make a singleplayer campaign, you'll just embarrass yourself, Stick to blurbs in the loading screens like the good old days.

I'd love to see a titan like gamemode for the Naval Strike DLC but with carriers instead of the titans.

[QUOTE=goon165;42787860]Dice just make 2145 already. and don't make a singleplayer campaign, you'll just embarrass yourself, Stick to blurbs in the loading screens like the good old days.[/QUOTE] And bots.

DMRs are extremely disappointing in BF4. I need my laser gun fix, damn it.

[QUOTE=Lukeo;42786630]Is anyone actually able to play the multiplayer properly? Seems like a rather bad launch.[/QUOTE] I got it yesterday and have been having so much fun. I can't play Shanghai and conquest sometimes crashes, but I played rush for about 8-10 matches straight and crashed once at the end while loading so it wasn't that much of a problem. Although it seems like some people can't play at all.

[QUOTE=Altimor;42787947]DMRs are extremely disappointing in BF4. I need my laser gun fix, damn it.[/QUOTE] You want a laser gun? Use AK 5C. DMRs are fine. Can't wait to unlock Sniper ACE and SVD12.

I loved 2142 so much but the only thing I remember vividly is grenade spam in titan hallways and that makes me a bit sad [editline]e[/editline] and yeah the DMR feels weirdly underpowered. I can get in a long range shootout with an assault and he'll win more than half the time just by laying down automatic fire

[QUOTE=Hammer7;42788009]You want a laser gun? Use AK 5C. DMRs are fine. Can't wait to unlock Sniper ACE and SVD12.[/QUOTE] Uhm what. Carbines are even less accurate than ARs.

[QUOTE=goon165;42786047]it wasn't perfect, but from 1942 to 2142 the games just had a certain feel to them that Bad Company to 4 don't have. Mainly because the bad company games were originally designed to be something different but when BF3 and 4 came around DICE elected to take from [I]THOSE[/I] games, the games that were purposelessly designed differently, rather than the original Battlefield series of games. the Bad Company games, BF3 and BF4 are good games, but they've moved to being this season's Manshooty Game rather than [B]OH SHIT IT'S BATTLEFIELD[/B], they aren't bad but most of us didn't want Battlefield to be just a dumb manshooty game, they don't have nearly the same scale and they don't carry as much impact as games that have come before. BF4 is so far removed from the old games it's not even funny. But is this fun? [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NC-aQpxSK-w&feature=youtu.be[/media] Yes it is fun, but the older games were a different kind of fun and I'm not sure DICE even remembers that kind of fun, let alone capable of making it again.[/QUOTE] Do you not realize that "it was a different kind of fun" is because you get nostalgic thinking about it? I mean really, so many people say that old games were "different", but they never seem to understand how hilarious saying that is.

Goon is saying nearly the same thing I've been saying since Battlefield 3 tried to be a sequel to Battlefield 2. Right before the BF4 release, I decided to go back and play the old Battlefield games, namely BF1942 and BF2 because those are the ones I played and liked the most. It was so much fun. Yes, they're missing a lot of the modern conveniences that we take for granted nowadays, but the way the maps were built and the way the pacing worked was so much better. Everything felt so much bigger and much more spread out. You had a lot more choices not only in the where you would attack but how you would attack. After playing 1942 a bunch I was trying to figure out why this is. Battlefield 3/4 can make maps as big as El Alamein and Gazala, but it chooses not to. Caspian Border could have been a much bigger map if it wanted to, just look at the enormous amount of wasted space around the edges of the maps. This applies to pretty much all the maps. You have a big map with all the stuff concentrated neatly in a little stamp in the center of the map. It's not just raw map size, but the way everything was paced. Infantry moved slower. In 1942 there wasn't even a sprint. In 2, you could sprint for only a limited time. Walk and sprint speeds also felt slower than what we have right now. It wasn't just the infantry, even vehicles were slower. In 1942, the fastest your tank would go on even ground was something like the normal WASD movement in 4. It's pretty slow, and made everything you did more methodical. Battlefield 2 was faster, but nowhere near the speeds you could reach when you press the sprint button in a tank, and BF2 tanks had no sprint. I hadn't even thought about the impact that 3D spotting has. Personally, I think 3D spotting was a net positive change because it lights up targets for your teammates, but it removes a lot of the stealth elements the classic series had. What I refer to as "classic Battlefield" (1942-2142) is markedly different from the modern Battlefield. Did it have its own set of problems? Oh hell yeah. You had dolphin diving, weird balance choices, record breaking awful netcode, and more, but those are things that don't exist anymore in current Battlefields. The problem with the classic Battlefield nostalgia goggles argument, is that what made the old Battlefield games great can be easily copied today with the current Frostbite engine without the silly and dated flaws they used to have. Current Battlefield games on the other hand are fundamentally designed around a different feel and pace. You can't patch something like that out. It requires building the game, the maps, and the mechanics around those principles that were for whatever reason lost when Bad Company came around. Sorry this got so long-winded, but I really love the classic Battlefield games. I really do think that people who say classic Battlefield wasn't that good because of trivial things, like dolphin diving or easily changed balance numbers, are completely missing the point.

I like the first DMR. I didn't have a problem with it except the ironsights

Any idea what the deal is with these crouch only servers? My experience with them is nobody doing that and admins constantly telling everyone to crouch while moving.