• Battlefield 4 'Second Assault' DLC revives classic maps with added destructibility
    90 replies, posted
[QUOTE=milkandcooki;42044648]Wait, people actually liked BF2's infantry combat? Last time I played it was people doing crazy acrobatic moves, guns that felt completely unsatisfying and awful, and bullet sponge enemies. It felt like ARMA 2's clunkiness and Call of Duty's gameplay tried to have a baby.[/QUOTE] I'll freely admit that BF2's infantry combat was not that great, it and 2142 suffered from pretty atrocious hit detection, but that was ok because Battlefield's infantry combat was never the star of the show, it and Vehicle gameplay were always half and half sharing the same stage. DICE have been focusing WAY too heavily on the infantry combat for the last few games and really just tossing the things the differentiated battlefield from the rest of the FPS crowd into the back.
If you seriously believe that the infantry and vehicle combat had "half and half" of the show that was BF2, you're insane. People in vehicles just stomped over everyone on foot, no questions asked. The only things stopping them were other vehicles or things higher in the pecking order (jeeps > APCs > IFVs > Tanks > Helis > Jets). Infantry combat in BF2 was just atrocious, with the most effective way of killing people being an wave of grenades or C4. Dolphin diving, awful hit detection and poor networking just made it so hard to actually fight at range.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;42044757]If you seriously believe that the infantry and vehicle combat had "half and half" of the show that was BF2, you're insane. People in vehicles just stomped over everyone on foot, no questions asked. The only things stopping them were other vehicles or things higher in the pecking order (jeeps > APCs > IFVs > Tanks > Helis > Jets). Infantry combat in BF2 was just atrocious, with the most effective way of killing people being an wave of grenades or C4. Dolphin diving, awful hit detection and poor networking just made it so hard to actually fight at range.[/QUOTE] Someone didn't play Anti-Tank ever.
[QUOTE=goon165;42044796]Someone didn't play Anti-Tank ever.[/QUOTE] AT never really seemed to do an incredible amount against anything that moved faster than you. Yeah if there were enough AT guys around you could take a tank down, but good luck with that. Most people were playing more explosive-throwing things than launchers :v:
[QUOTE=Mr. Tripp;42039262]I was being serious. You fuckers keep complaining about how shitty BF3's maps are and then say stuff like "Metro sucks, bring back Karkand." Karkand is what STARTED this shit. Karkand fucked up everything. [editline]1st September 2013[/editline] They need to remove rank and bring it back to the old days of Battlefield 1942. Rank doesn't encourage teamwork, it encourages lone-wolfing. I bet if everything was unlocked for every class as soon as you started playing Battlefield 4, teamwork would increase.[/QUOTE] Infantry only Karkand was the funniest shit around in BF2, on par with Dragon Valley It's a shame those days are over
Highway Tampa was good. [t]http://fi.somethingawful.com/images/smilies/frown.gif[/t]
[QUOTE=Raidyr;42043164]If "making infantry combat not shit" (like it was in previous BF games) is appealing to the CoD audience then the CoD audience has pretty good taste and DICE should definitely appeal to them. [/QUOTE] I'm sorry, but playing CoD when you launch BF is something a sado maso should do. Battlefield didn't have such fast paced action till Bad Company, which was frowned upon at the beginning. Everyone just sucked it up in the end.
[QUOTE=Why485;42038348]I know this is said in jest (I think) but there is truth to this. The reason Metro even [I]exists[/I] is because DICE noticed that half the servers on Battlefield 2 were Infantry Only Karkand. They concluded that what Battlefield players really want is a linear map with no vehicles. Now that Metro is the most popular map in BF3 for a combination of being easy to grind guns and fuck if I know why else its popular, they now have confirmation that that's what the majority of Battlefield players want.[/QUOTE] I wonder how popular nosehair TDM and metro would be if unlocks were removed entirely. Anyone saying BF2 has good infantry combat is looking through rose tinted glasses. The hitreg is abysmal, close range has stupidly fast kill times and anything beyond that has stupidly long kill times because of random spread. There's also no reason to not be prone in a fight because it further decreases the chances of getting hit.
[QUOTE=goon165;42038050][img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/95/Coduobox2.jpg/256px-Coduobox2.jpg[/img] Get at me.[/QUOTE] UO was the best Call of Duty. So fucking good.
Maybe BF4 will have non-ranked servers that let you screw with server parameters, like having everything unlocked or everything 1-hit kills or something. I mean it wouldn't be that hard to implement, I think bad company did it.
[QUOTE=Altimor;42045823]I wonder how popular nosehair TDM and metro would be if unlocks were removed entirely. Anyone saying BF2 has good infantry combat is looking through rose tinted glasses. The hitreg is abysmal, close range has stupidly fast kill times and anything beyond that has stupidly long kill times because of random spread. There's also no reason to not be prone in a fight because it further decreases the chances of getting hit.[/QUOTE] I love BF2 to death but the infantry combat was pretty mediocre. Back when I played it with my friends we all wished the inf combat played more smoothly like CoD, though BC2 and (definitely) BF3 finally gave us that. BF2's Jets are still fucking fantastic though. And the collision detection for vehicles is infinitely better. BF3's vehicle collision is so garbage it's laughable, colliding vehicles clip through one another, running over someone doesn't register half the time, and flying a jet next to another jet causes the collision to glitch out and start pushing one jet back and makes them both lag all over the place. I hope to god they fix that in BF4.
[QUOTE=Bloodshot12;42046059]I love BF2 to death but the infantry combat was pretty mediocre. Back when I played it with my friends we all wished the inf combat played more smoothly like CoD, though BC2 and (definitely) BF3 finally gave us that. BF2's Jets are still fucking fantastic though. And the collision detection for vehicles is infinitely better. BF3's vehicle collision is so garbage it's laughable, colliding vehicles clip through one another, running over someone doesn't register half the time, and flying a jet next to another jet causes the collision to glitch out and start pushing one jet back and makes them both lag all over the place. I hope to god they fix that in BF4.[/QUOTE] I hope for less terrible vehicle prediction in BF4. In BF3 if you turn off interpolation vehicle prediction becomes wildly inaccurate because the game doesn't consider collision when predicting, jeeps will end up halfway in the ground if they're going on a short downslope.
[QUOTE=milkandcooki;42044648]Wait, people actually liked BF2's infantry combat? Last time I played it was people doing crazy acrobatic moves, guns that felt completely unsatisfying and awful, and bullet sponge enemies. It felt like ARMA 2's clunkiness and [B]Call of Duty's gameplay tried to have a baby[/B].[/QUOTE] what the fuck?
[QUOTE=Odellus;42047340]what the fuck?[/QUOTE] Weird clunky gameplay that tries to be fast paced. Or I guess I could have written a 3 paragraph explanation explaining what I meant.
[QUOTE=BANNED USER;42017100]They sure do love talking about all the DLC for this game before its even released don't they.[/QUOTE] I just realized we aren't talking about BF3 here. Wow.
Call me crazy but infantry combat is what I like about Battlefield games. BF2's was mediocre, but in BF2142 I loved playing infantry-only maps. On Titan mode, I focused on attacking or defending the Titans, and infantry-focused modes like Assault were a lot of fun too. It's like Call of Duty, but slower-paced, class-based, and more focused on teamwork than twitch reflexes. Is that a bad thing? As for unlocks- saying that lacking an unlock system would make it boring just shows how accepting gamers have become of this bullshit grinding mechanic. BF2 had minimal unlocks that were completely unnecessary to enjoy the game. BF1942 had no unlocks and is going strong. To say that no unlocks would make BF4 boring is ludicrous. If it really mattered that much, draw up a spreadsheet and restrict yourself from using certain gear until you 'unlock' it. Oh, does that sound dumb? Yes, it is. You can enjoy a game without being spoonfed content.
2142 actually had pretty fun inf combat, a lot was similar to BF2 but playing infantry wasn't as janky and hit detection seemed better. Also 2142 did a hell of a job to incentivize teamwork, I was genuinely impressed at how many pub players actually followed orders and worked with their squads.
everything i've seen about BF4 so far has been disappointing, because to actually enjoy the full game i'd have to shell out more than what i'd already have paid for the base game. it doesn't help that they're heavily reusing assets and adding some gimmicky shit like that one-hit kill commander dropped 50. cal and playing commander from a tablet (therefore destroying any chance of teamplay between the commander and players, not that much existed in BF2 and 2142 anyway). i feel like bf3 had potential to be one of the best games to come out of DICE, but fell flat because of EA's shady ass nickel-and-dime tactics and DICE's lack of effort w/r/t some features that really should've been in the game at launch like ingame VOIP,.
[QUOTE=popbob;42048333]everything i've seen about BF4 so far has been disappointing, because to actually enjoy the full game i'd have to shell out more than what i'd already have paid for the base game.[/QUOTE] You're still getting the full game when you buy the base game. The expansion content isn't required to actually continue playing the game or experience the full game (as you already have that). It's just there if you like it enough to want more, sooner. As for gimmicks, the only real gimmick is the mobile commander stuff, and that's harmless really, because as you said yourself, commanders never really communicated anyway before now.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;42048358]You're still getting the full game when you buy the base game. The expansion content isn't required to actually continue playing the game or experience the full game (as you already have that). It's just there if you like it enough to want more, sooner. [/quote] the dlc costs as much as the game itself and it literally only adds 4/5 maps and a few weapons per pack. it's ridiculous and only 'optional' until you can't stand dealing with a heavily fragmented playerbase and end up forced into buying premium. it's a shitty practice and shouldn't be happening, and it's clear they are trying to see how much people will deal with before they stop spending their money. do you not remember that some of the very first promo material for frostbite 2/bf3 was showing a map that wasn't released for almost a year after the game itself was? now we are here, a few months before the release of the next game, and DICE has already announced several day-one DLCs and is pushing for people to buy premium for DLC packs that will last another 1/2 years before the next game is out. how anyone can justify defending this, even with it being 'optional', is beyond me. [quote] As for gimmicks, the only real gimmick is the mobile commander stuff, and that's harmless really, because as you said yourself, commanders never really communicated anyway before now.[/QUOTE] it doesn't matter if it hardly happened before, it takes away the entire potential for teamwork in a game that used to be heralded as teamwork-oriented.
[QUOTE=popbob;42048490]the dlc costs as much as the game itself and it literally only adds 4/5 maps and a few weapons per pack. it's ridiculous and only 'optional' until you can't stand dealing with a heavily fragmented playerbase and end up forced into buying premium. it's a shitty practice and shouldn't be happening, and it's clear they are trying to see how much people will deal with before they stop spending their money. do you not remember that some of the very first promo material for frostbite 2/bf3 was showing a map that wasn't released for almost a year after the game itself was? now we are here, a few months before the release of the next game, and DICE has already announced several day-one DLCs and is pushing for people to buy premium for DLC packs that will last another 1/2 years before the next game is out. how anyone can justify defending this, even with it being 'optional', is beyond me. it doesn't matter if it hardly happened before, it takes away the entire potential for teamwork in a game that used to be heralded as teamwork-oriented.[/QUOTE] The DLC doesn't fragment the playerbase that much, BF3 still has a majority of servers running vanilla stuff (admittedly it's Metro so fuck that), people with and without can still play together fine. 4/5 maps (plus weapons, skins, gamemodes, vehicles, etc.) per pack is pretty reasonable for $15, considering some games charge that for the maps alone. The DLC should end up adding up to around the price of the base game for around 20 maps, 20 weapons, 5 or 6 new gamemodes and other little bits and bobs. That's basically the base game again. It's hardly a scam. People are going to keep spending their money if they like the content. BF3 expansion packs have all been pretty tight, the BF4 ones so far all look just as tight, so people are going to spend money. Of course there's going to be "day one" content now, it's easy as shit to distribute and much better than paying your developers to sit around with their thumbs up their asses. It's really quite easy to defend.
I don't like it because as far as EA's accountants are concerned we are more or less paying for the development of the DLC out of the cost of BF4, and getting nothing for it.
[QUOTE=Dirf;42013825]Why the fuck did metro get picked? It's a terrible map.[/QUOTE] Meat grinder maps are fun.
how about bf1942 maps?
[QUOTE=milkandcooki;42047377]Weird clunky gameplay that tries to be fast paced. Or I guess I could have written a 3 paragraph explanation explaining what I meant.[/QUOTE] lol bf2 trying to be fast paced haha ha
[QUOTE=Odellus;42052373]lol bf2 trying to be fast paced haha ha[/QUOTE] thanks for your insightful commentary if only there was a way to communicate on this forum and explain what you mean instead of just laughing
have they done anything to get rid of the spawnkilling?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.