Battlefield 4 to launch with seven multiplayer modes and ten maps - Sensationalist Headlines

Wow, 10 maps? that's it? they really want people to dump money into the DLC again..

[QUOTE=Looter;41980288]Wow, 10 maps? that's it? they really want people to dump money into the DLC again..[/QUOTE] To be fair Call of Duty games get about the same number of maps and even Battlefield's smallest maps in BF3 are the size of COD's largest maps.

[QUOTE=Looter;41980288]Wow, 10 maps? that's it? they really want people to dump money into the DLC again..[/QUOTE] That's more than BF3 and your average Battlefield map (especially with the enhanced degree of interactability) has more individual substance than most games have in their maps. Ten would be a low number for something like CS:GO where maps are just static setpieces that provide different avenues of fire. In Battlefield they're much more dynamic environments and each can be very different from the last.

[QUOTE=darkrei9n;41980331]To be fair Call of Duty games get about the same number of maps and even Battlefield's smallest maps in BF3 are the size of COD's largest maps.[/QUOTE] I'm aware of how the Battlefield series has stooped to call of duty's level over the years. Honestly, Battlefield's maps, despite however big they may appear to be at times, are pretty small compared to Battlefield 2. Flags right next to eachother, 40%+ of the map being the skybox. Armored Kill had some great maps with actual BF2 size but every other map is small in comparison to how the game used to be. Still, most of the maps are plenty big, it's just the poor design choices that make them shit, such as placing flags within 600 meters of eachother on almost every single map. Can't really blame them for milking their players (including me) though, it sucks, but if your only goal is profit why not make people pay for the game twice, so far its worked. As someone earlier said, you'll either pay $110, or have access to 10 servers with maybe a few full once the DLCs come out playing the same 10 maps over and over, fun. If BF4 is anything like BF3 was near launch, it'll be pretty fun at launch with some over powered weapons, and 10 patches later every weapon will basically be the same due to players crying 24/7 on the forums about X gun being OP. At least this time we won't be teased with server-side hit detection (which was perfect btw) and terrain deformation in the Alpha only to have it ripped out right before launch with no explanation because they are too lazy to hire someone to fix the bugs. [QUOTE=mastermaul;41980366]That's more than BF3 and your average Battlefield map (especially with the enhanced degree of interactability) has more individual substance than most games have in their maps. Ten would be a low number for something like CS:GO where maps are just static setpieces that provide different avenues of fire. In Battlefield they're much more dynamic environments and each can be very different from the last.[/QUOTE] I really hope so, maybe with "Levelolution" the maps will play out much more dynamically than they did in battlefield 3.

Honestly AK didn't work great with BF3. The desert map was attrocious because nobody ever plays together unless you get an organized game going so it would just be random 1-2 player skirmishes and running between undefended capture points for 5 minutes. The map sizes worked for BF2 in part because of the bigger squad size, how it was actually harder to lone wolf the game, and orders being clearly visible so you didn't have as many people running around randomly. Even so, you still ran into problems in pubs with 40 people camping the jet spawns and teamkilling if they don't get them, and despite bf3 having it far worse, there were still people who attempted to split off and go do their own shit.

[QUOTE=Jackald;41979709]I dunno, BF2's Special Forces launched with 8 maps, 2 new classes, and a fuckton of new weapons and vehicles, and that was £20 when I got it brand new, half the price of what I paid for the game. Not to mention that all of the expansion packs beyond that were like proto-dlc packs and were frowned upon back then, added like 3 maps each.[/QUOTE] yea but no-one played special forces so eventually it became pointless the current format of integrated dlc is far more effective than the stupid separate expansion packs, you had to load up a new exe so you couldnt play alongside the base game

[QUOTE=Bloodshot12;41978903]My god that water is gorgeous[/QUOTE] Watch it all evaporate while my 2009 graphics card tries to render it.

[QUOTE=thisispain;41980741]yea but no-one played special forces so eventually it became pointless the current format of integrated dlc is far more effective than the stupid separate expansion packs, you had to load up a new exe so you couldnt play alongside the base game[/QUOTE] While that did suck, people still play SF

As long as the maps are good I don't mind. Battlefield 3's default maps (in general) were bland and dull. I think the only ones I enjoyed were Caspian Border and Operation Firestorm.

Damavand Peak was the only rush map in the entirety of that game that actually felt right playing rush on. Most of the other maps Rush just felt weird and out of place, which was unfortunate because I loved playing rush in BC2.

[QUOTE=Bloodshot12;41980778]people still play SF[/QUOTE] I'm sure they're both happy.

[QUOTE=Jackald;41979613] If you factor in Premium, Battlefield 4 technically costs $110. To get the full Battlefield 4 experience (all the dlc etc) you have to pay $110. That's pretty fucking greedy. Remember when that shit used to get released in free patches or a $30 expansion pack? God those were the days.[/QUOTE] BF2 had $50 worth of expansions. Special Forces which was big but twice the price of a BF3/BF4 expansion, then Armored Fury/Euro Forces which were $10 each and added about the same amount of content.

Watch as all of the maps are crap bar two or three BF3's Vanilla maps were godawful, its only until Premium that they started getting better (excusing Close Quarters)

[QUOTE=Raidyr;41982075]BF2 had $50 worth of expansions. Special Forces which was big but twice the price of a BF3/BF4 expansion, then Armored Fury/Euro Forces which were $10 each and added about the same amount of content.[/QUOTE] armored fury and euro forces had 3 maps each, iirc. all the bf3 expansions had 4 maps each. armored fury and euro forces were pretty mediocre, the only one that really stuck in my mind as good was midnight sun, but that got half-remade in bc2 as port valdez.

[QUOTE=Juniez;41979343]it's not always about the timeframe[/QUOTE] So if I announce DLC that is released 2 months after the game 2 months before the game you think it doesn't matter exactly? It's ridiculous, considering the fact that they've released a trailer for a DLC 2 months before the actual game is out. I wouldn't care if the game was out then they started to show the DLC off but it's 2 months before the game is even out.

10 maps doesn't sound like a lot, although if it's anything like the last Battlefields they'll probably all be massive

[QUOTE=DeepInferno;41982815]So if I announce DLC that is released 2 months after the game 2 months before the game you think it doesn't matter exactly? It's ridiculous, considering the fact that they've released a trailer for a DLC 2 months before the actual game is out. I wouldn't care if the game was out then they started to show the DLC off but it's 2 months before the game is even out.[/QUOTE] game developers and publishers, who need MONEY to operate, aren't going to delay the announcement of their DLC just so gamers like you will feel warm and fuzzy knowing that there wasn't any "CUT CONTENT." the primary reason why they're making trailers for it before release is because it's a preorder incentive. [editline]27th August 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Jackald;41983190]But at launch there weren't many BIG maps for BF3 Small Operation Metro Grand Bazaar Seine Crossing Medium Damavand Peak Tehran Highway Big Kharg Island Noshahr Canals Huge Caspian Border Operation Firestorm I know I personally only ever played on the Big and Huge maps because huge 64 player vehicular combat is what I play battlefield for. Also Metro is the worst designed map i have played in a long time. [editline]27th August 2013[/editline] I never bought any of the DLC, so I can't really judge the other maps that got added. In fact I stopped played BF3 around the time I realised i'd be one of 5 people playing on the old maps whilst everyone else dicked about on the shiny new ones.[/QUOTE] in terms of the new maps, everything from AK and EG are wonderful. karkand's nice too, and the scavenger mode from aftermath is neat. CQ is pretty bad all around, though.

[QUOTE=Novangel;41979584]Yeah CoD invented bomb defusal gamemodes.[/QUOTE] No, but the gamemode has been a mainstay in the series and that is probably what most people will liken it to.

[QUOTE=Squarebob;41985081]No, but the gamemode has been a mainstay in the series and that is probably what most people will liken it to.[/QUOTE] or you know that [I]other[/I] #1 most played shooter of all time. dunno if you've heard of it or not.

[QUOTE=milkandcooki;41985443]or you know that [I]other[/I] #1 most played shooter of all time. dunno if you've heard of it or not.[/QUOTE] Okay, maybe for some people that is what they will associate this gamemode with, however more than likely the majority of people who are going to be playing BF4 will be console plebs and unless they've played CSGO, they will only have CoD to compare it to.

[QUOTE=milkandcooki;41984916]game developers and publishers, who need MONEY to operate, aren't going to delay the announcement of their DLC just so gamers like you will feel warm and fuzzy knowing that there wasn't any "CUT CONTENT." the primary reason why they're making trailers for it before release is because it's a preorder incentive. [editline]27th August 2013[/editline] in terms of the new maps, everything from AK and EG are wonderful. karkand's nice too, and the scavenger mode from aftermath is neat. CQ is pretty bad all around, though.[/QUOTE] People like me? You mean people who like to get value for their money instead of being ripped off? I know they need MONEY to operate I'm not fucking stupid, I have no problem that they want money every company is only looking for money which I know it's what every industry is about music, games, etc. But it's the fact they announce DLC 2 months before the game is released. If it was CoD everyone would be flipping out about this. But I know bitching about it is going to do nothing about it, it's other people who are continuing the debate/argument/whatever you call this, so let's just leave it at this.

[QUOTE=Jackald;41983190]But at launch there weren't many BIG maps for BF3 Big Kharg Island Noshahr Canals Huge Caspian Border Operation Firestorm I know I personally only ever played on the Big and Huge maps because huge 64 player vehicular combat is what I play battlefield for. Also Metro is the worst designed map i have played in a long time. [editline]27th August 2013[/editline] I never bought any of the DLC, so I can't really judge the other maps that got added. In fact I stopped played BF3 around the time I realised i'd be one of 5 people playing on the old maps whilst everyone else dicked about on the shiny new ones.[/QUOTE] And even those big maps were quite small compared to previous major BF titles. +, I know I'm probably repeating this in every discussion about BF3 maps, they were a clusterfuck to play with 64.

I still don't get why they didn't include Highway Tampa in Back to Karkand, it would have been the perfect fit.