• Battlefield Hardline Angry Review [AngryJoe]
    44 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Raidyr;47388082]How do you define "objectively worse"? Because when it comes to technical aspects like how well the game runs and how well the network copes with the action, Hardline is undeniably in a much better spot at launch than Battlefield 4 ever was. BF4 was garbage, one of the worst launch experiences I've had for a AAA game. It was so bad it made longtime Battlefield friends of mine quit the series because they paid $60 for a facelift to Battlefield 3 that didn't even run as well. Meanwhile Hardline runs smooth as butter and the hit detection is markedly better. I don't care what anyone thinks about how much Hardline should have cost with the amount of content it came with (though frankly Joes $15 price point is absurd and I'm sure even he knows that) but from a sheer quality assurance standpoint, Hardline is the best launched Battlefield game I've played that I can remember, while Battlefield 4 was one of the worst video game launches I've ever had to endure. [/QUOTE] BF4 utilized a new engine at the time, which may have played a big part on it having a shaky launch. Hardline doesn't have technical issues like BF4 did on launch because it still uses frostbite 3, but they're still asking 60 dollars for it.
[QUOTE=Saxon;47388227]Hardline bores me, everything I liked about battlefield has been stripped out or toned down. I usually found vehicle whoring in BF4 to be super annoying, but now that they're all paper its basically just an infantry war which I get tired of after a few hours. The only thing I liked is it feels like air power is properly balanced in that department.[/QUOTE] This is actually probably why I'm having so much fun with it. While I thought BC2/BF3 struck a good infantry/vehicle balance, Battlefield 4 had really bad layouts with altogether too many vehicles. Hardline is refreshing. [QUOTE=Saxon;47388227]Also one of my favorite guns is a preorder bonus/deluxe edition thing. This game can get fucked[/QUOTE] This is legitimately shitty yeah. Hopefully its like when they did the same thing with BF3 guns and made them open for everyone a few months after release. [editline]24th March 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Lamar;47388358]BF4 utilized a new engine at the time, which may have played a big part on it having a shaky launch. Hardline doesn't have technical issues like BF4 did on launch because it still uses frostbite 3, but they're still asking 60 dollars for it.[/QUOTE] It has nothing to do with the engine and everything to do with the lack of QA leading up to release because EA was pressuring DICE to release before Call of Duty. We know this for a fact. I'm sure it's not a coincidence that Hardline was delayed 5 months past the usual Battlefield launch month of November and just happens to be the most technically sound Battlefield ever? [editline]24th March 2015[/editline] Also I think it's a stretch to call Frostbite 3 a "new engine".
[QUOTE=Raidyr;47388082]How do you define "objectively worse"? Because when it comes to technical aspects like how well the game runs and how well the network copes with the action, Hardline is undeniably in a much better spot at launch than Battlefield 4 ever was. BF4 was garbage, one of the worst launch experiences I've had for a AAA game. It was so bad it made longtime Battlefield friends of mine quit the series because they paid $60 for a facelift to Battlefield 3 that didn't even run as well. Meanwhile Hardline runs smooth as butter and the hit detection is markedly better. I don't care what anyone thinks about how much Hardline should have cost with the amount of content it came with (though frankly Joes $15 price point is absurd and I'm sure even he knows that) but from a sheer quality assurance standpoint, Hardline is the best launched Battlefield game I've played that I can remember, while Battlefield 4 was one of the worst video game launches I've ever had to endure. [editline]24th March 2015[/editline] Yeah cool Battlefield 4 had 8 guns for engineer half of which were ports from Battlefield 3 too bad you couldn't use them because you crashed every 3 minutes and none of your bullets worked anyway. I quantify the quality of a product not by how much shit is in it but how well that shit works, and shit just works in Hardline a hell of a lot better than it works in Battlefield 4.[/QUOTE] All of that does not matter now as they fixed that stuff. Sure it launched better but that does not make up for the lack of content for $60 compared to other games. This game was clearly an expansion and EA wanted more money and turned into a "full" game.
[QUOTE=Devil Traitor;47382566]The first thing that comes to my mind is Sleeping Dogs.[/QUOTE] I'm thinking something more tactical, with large levels that let you approach the objective in different ways. There could also be some RPG elements like a branching storyline depending on how you handle the missions.
[QUOTE=Jund;47386378]and then people would complain that they can beat missions without firing a single shot [editline]24th March 2015[/editline] even squad based gameplay (Mass Effect, Spec Ops, Rainbow Six) has useless teammates unless you tell them to do something nobody wants to play a game where your AI teammates can kill by themselves, that's retarded[/QUOTE] Then why have fucking teammates at all. I can't believe that people will defend brain dead teammate AI.
[QUOTE=Jund;47386378]and then people would complain that they can beat missions without firing a single shot [editline]24th March 2015[/editline] even squad based gameplay (Mass Effect, Spec Ops, Rainbow Six) has useless teammates unless you tell them to do something nobody wants to play a game where your AI teammates can kill by themselves, that's retarded[/QUOTE] You just replied to someone saying they want AI that isn't braindead, to tell them that no one wants AI that isn't braindead and called the idea retarded. Are you fucking serious? One of the most praised Star Wars games is Republic Commando, and the entire selling point for that game was that your squad aren't retarded.
[QUOTE=Jund;47386378]and then people would complain that they can beat missions without firing a single shot [editline]24th March 2015[/editline] even squad based gameplay (Mass Effect, Spec Ops, Rainbow Six) has useless teammates unless you tell them to do something nobody wants to play a game where your AI teammates can kill by themselves, that's retarded[/QUOTE] Spec Ops it actually a perfect example of terrible AI teammates. Not only are they rarely useful, but they can cause game overs because they keep walking into enemy fire and getting killed.
[QUOTE=Jund;47386378]and then people would complain that they can beat missions without firing a single shot [editline]24th March 2015[/editline] even squad based gameplay (Mass Effect, Spec Ops, Rainbow Six) has useless teammates unless you tell them to do something nobody wants to play a game where your AI teammates can kill by themselves, that's retarded[/QUOTE] Then make the enemy AI just as good. Sure people don't want friendly AI that can win the game by themselves, but they also don't want friendly AI that isn't overly incompetent and be relied on to get at least basic tasks like not getting in the way of the player or defending itself done without major issues nor do they want enemy AI to be too competent or incompetent. Devs just need to find the best middle ground between too competent or too incompetent for the AI on both sides.
Hardline as a $15 expansion huh? That would of been cool, like Vietnam in BC2.
[QUOTE=ashxu;47399516]Hardline as a $15 expansion huh? That would of been cool, like Vietnam in BC2.[/QUOTE] hardline is battlefield vietnam (not the expansion pack). Its an offshoot of the main series with special features, but less physical content.
[QUOTE=RikohZX;47382912]If it's point-based like this is, it's one thing, but in a game where points either are just for score rather than unlocks, or there's no points at all, i'd rather have teammates that aren't functionally useless.[/QUOTE] Another thing I'd like to have (but never get) in singleplayer shooters is enemies that don't shoot exclusively at you. Never mind those three other assholes flinging bullets our way, shoot that ONE GUY that is currently behind a wall.
Honestly at the rate the series is going I'm wondering whether the 2142 sequel we're all expecting is going to be halfway decent at all. The fact that the last few installments seem intent on stuff like giving more incentive for kills rather than completing objectives makes me worry, yet at the same time I could imagine the titan gamemode's realisation in the frostbite engine as amazing. Just imagine the potential there. [I]Hopefully[/I] DICE can do as best they can not to fuck up, this time.
[QUOTE=Gray Altoid;47402534]Another thing I'd like to have (but never get) in singleplayer shooters is enemies that don't shoot exclusively at you. Never mind those three other assholes flinging bullets our way, shoot that ONE GUY that is currently behind a wall.[/QUOTE] It's sort of the result of the cinematic focus, alongside useless teammates. If your teammates were helpful, they'd take the focus off you kicking ass. Simultaneously, since your teammates are so useless, having the enemies waste their time on them would make things too easy so everyone and their grandma immediately marks your face for execution the instant your hitbox pops out from around that corner. Both problems are mutually related to the focus on the player's actions and pushing the scenes along. [QUOTE=GordonZombie;47402612]Honestly at the rate the series is going I'm wondering whether the 2142 sequel we're all expecting is going to be halfway decent at all. The fact that the last few installments seem intent on stuff like giving more incentive for kills rather than completing objectives makes me worry, yet at the same time I could imagine the titan gamemode's realisation in the frostbite engine as amazing. Just imagine the potential there. [I]Hopefully[/I] DICE can do as best they can not to fuck up, this time.[/QUOTE] The modern EA and DICE would probably make it play like a skin of BF3/4 with some fancy new vehicles. And stick a cliche Black Ops II or Advanced Warfare-style campaign in there that's just as monotonous and meaningless as these other Battlefield campaigns besides BC1's. I don't trust them at all with a 2142 successor.
[QUOTE=RikohZX;47402686]The modern EA and DICE would probably make it play like a skin of BF3/4 with some fancy new vehicles. And stick a cliche Black Ops II or Advanced Warfare-style campaign in there that's just as monotonous and meaningless as these other Battlefield campaigns besides BC1's. I don't trust them at all with a 2142 successor.[/QUOTE] I think the worst part of it is the fact that of all the settings, 2142 has so much potential for a great story. I mean, it's set in the midst of a war between two of the remaining world powers in a desperate bid to claim the last bands of habitable land on the planet, with either side facing the prospect of losing millions of their own civilians to the increasingly inhospitable climate and the famine it causes. It's a much better backdrop than some generic war triggered between the US and Russia/China/EA Corporate Execs and at the same time I fear they'll piss all over it and fuck up. Same with the multiplayer/gameplay in general, there's so much potential there. I remember how you could group up in teams [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPaxtW55ZdI"]storm the enemy titan and systematically destroy it from within[/URL]. With the frostbite engine the potential's even greater there.
[QUOTE=RikohZX;47402686] The modern EA and DICE would probably make it play like a skin of BF3/4 with some fancy new vehicles. And stick a cliche Black Ops II or Advanced Warfare-style campaign in there that's just as monotonous and meaningless as these other Battlefield campaigns besides BC1's. I don't trust them at all with a 2142 successor.[/QUOTE] Sort of like how 2142 was a futuristic skin draped over Battlefield 2? I like the game as much as anyone but iterative development has been DICE's style since Battlefield Vietnam.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.