• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Battlefield 1 released!

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
I would give Dice $20 each if they added fully customizable single player bots on all maps and game modes to BF3 and/or BF4. Until someone makes a fun single player FPS I'm afraid my money will stay in my pocket. Way too much BS goes on in multi-player games.
 
balloonshark said:
I would give Dice $20 each if they added fully customizable single player bots on all maps and game modes to BF3 and/or BF4. Until someone makes a fun single player FPS I'm afraid my money will stay in my pocket. Way too much BS goes on in multi-player games.
Click to expand...

The whole point of the battlefield series is MP. It has been since its inception. Looking at the wrong series if you want a meaningful single player game.
 
I preferred 3 to 4, but still enjoyed 4 a lot. BF2 was my favourite, but there is no room for a game like that these days. It would not sell the volume and garner the player base size they want. BF4 is still really active right now and I'd say it's the best shooter on PC apart from CSGO, which is a more tightly tuned competitive FPS, while BF is a different approach.

My concerns would be DICE moving away from 64 player servers, any ideas at all from SW Battlefront being used 😀 and not having dedicated servers.

What I'd like to see are some maps as large as the biggest maps in BF4 that are set in large urban cities. Shanghai doesn't do that well at all. Actually when playing The Division beta I was thinking I'd like to see that sort of environment used in BF. I'd also like to see naval vehicles beyond the attack boats. Submarines would be awesome. Classic mode at launch sounds like a good idea to get the mode some more attention. I don't like normal and I don't entirely like hardcore. Normal health/damage without 3D spotting and the mini map feels best.
 
I can't believe anyone complaining about 3d spotting. When half the team is scout, spotting is required.
 
crisium said:
I don't like the fast TTK of Hardcore because it makes it too twitchy like Call of Duty. And not having a minimap is irrational. All it does it make me constantly press the map button which partially obscures my vision. I toggled it to a 4th mouse button so I have easy access, I guess getting killed while looking at the transparent map is hardcore now.
Click to expand...
I luvs being twitchy, I blame it on my Quake 3 Arena roots.

No mini map is great, it would'nt bother me if there was no map button at all since I never pull it up. Dont handicap yourself by using a crutch, er...I mean map! 😀

darkewaffle said:
You're a bad person.
Click to expand...

Yes he is horrible! Of all the maps ever created, I hate metro the most.

Grooveriding said:
My concerns would be DICE moving away from 64 player servers, any ideas at all from SW Battlefront being used 😀 and not having dedicated servers.
Click to expand...

That would destroy the franchise for me. Battlefront is a pretty fun casual game, but I absolutely HATE it's matchmaking system.


Staples said:
I can't believe anyone complaining about 3d spotting. When half the team is scout, spotting is required.
Click to expand...

The person who came up with 3D spotting and those damn doritos should be spit roasted over a fire! 😡
 
I would love it if it games could collect statistics on how many times a 3D spotted enemy is killed not by teammates (the supposed purpose of spotting) but by the player who spotted in the first place. I think such statistics would be quite telling in terms of just how much a crutch it is for non-teamwork play. In Planetside 2 it ends up being used as an IFF confirmation as much as anything, since there is a lot of long range engagement.
 
Lost interest in Battlefield series, played since BF1942 demo and spent a lot of time in BF3 and also plenty in BF4 once the annoying issues bugs were ironed out (a year after release). Bad Company 1 (on Xbox 360) and Bad Company 2 (PC) were among the most fun in years.

I just don't think DICE has the heart to make another decent Battlefield, they might just make BF5 or whatever worse than BF4- it's sort of evident with that Star Wars Battlefront game. Hardline was an abomination and hopefully Visceral will go onto something else.
 
maevinj said:
I know it wouldn't sell well, but I'd pay $70 if they would release BF42 with updated graphics.
Click to expand...

This.
DeadFred said:
Yes he is horrible! Of all the maps ever created, I hate metro the most.





The person who came up with 3D spotting and those damn doritos should be spit roasted over a fire! 😡
Click to expand...
And this.

I play hardcore in BF3/4 just because of the stupid spotting mechanics designed for 12 year olds, but I'm not sure that it matters considering how rampant the use of NV/FLIR scopes is now. Why the fuck they ever added these huge crutches I don't know. I'm also sick of unlocks and the frenetic game pace. I have better stats now than I did in BF2, but I enjoyed it way more. Hell I'd give my left nut for a good WWII shooter now, but then you couldn't have eleventy billion red dot scope unlocks for every weapon in the game so it won't happen. D:

Have any of you looked at SQUAD? I think it's by the guys that did the reality mod for BF2.
 
Bryf50 said:
BF4 in the Classic or Hardcore mode is pretty enjoyable imo. Unfortunately literally no one plays Classic mode because it really is the sweet spot. Normal mode BF4 is cancer, I don't know how people play that shit.

Here's the rules for Classic
Click to expand...

That sounds awesome, but without players to play with, there is no point.

In the end, a new game would have to build itself up around the "classic" mode to actually force enough players into it. I admit to really enjoying BF4 in it's default conquest mode, but my days playing BF2 and 2142 are the best multiplayer experiences I've ever had IMHO.

I also intensely dislike the fragmentation of introducing so many game modes. I don't care for Rush all that much, and I wish DICE would go back to focusing on conquest. The only exception is the Titan mode from 2142 since it's just a logical outgrown of conquest. I've never played Carrier Assault and as of right now there are neither Carrier Assault or Classic mode servers available on the PC, meaning I don't have a real opinion on how they may or may not play.

The unfortunate thing is that a large part of BF's player base came in post-BF2/2142, meaning they are used to the more fast paced style of the more recent games. DICE's efforts in chasing Call of Duty dream have proved fruitful. While I have no idea what BF2's total sales figures are, it was 2.5+ Million by the end of 2006, and I've seen some claims of 10 Million thanks to popular mods like Project Reality. BF3 sold 15 million copies by mid 2012. Goes to show that multiplatform releases are truly lucrative. The actual BF2 experience wouldn't appeal to new players who are used to being coddled with XP for every goddamn action they do.
 
Staples said:
I can't believe anyone complaining about 3d spotting. When half the team is scout, spotting is required.
Click to expand...

It completely ruins any stealth/flanking element to the game. People shoot at soldiers they can't even see. Just aim at the dorito and get kills. Its like playing with people using wall hacks all the time. Mini map is plenty for spotting.
 
maniacalpha1-1 said:
I would love it if it games could collect statistics on how many times a 3D spotted enemy is killed not by teammates (the supposed purpose of spotting) but by the player who spotted in the first place. I think such statistics would be quite telling in terms of just how much a crutch it is for non-teamwork play. In Planetside 2 it ends up being used as an IFF confirmation as much as anything, since there is a lot of long range engagement.
Click to expand...

Part of the issue is the automatic passive spotting. DICE eventually did cut down the range and angle, but for quite awhile all you had to do was look in the general direction to spot. Because of this I suspect a lot of people kill their own spots because they are already shooting at them. For IFF in HC you only get friendly doritos, which works fine for that.

CropDuster said:
I'm not sure that it matters considering how rampant the use of NV/FLIR scopes is now. Why the fuck they ever added these huge crutches I don't know.
Click to expand...

Yah, I hope those don't make a come back. The whole smoke/flir fiasco was a PITA. I still don't feel like there is enough of a disadvantage for using flir. There really needs to be a passive counter measure like the bugged DICE camo you get from the latest easter egg. Just make something like that a device slot.

The unfortunate thing is that a large part of BF's player base came in post-BF2/2142, meaning they are used to the more fast paced style of the more recent games.
Click to expand...

Blame consoles. They all started on BC/BC2 and thought the BF experience was about tight maps. Sucks, but the majority of BF players have never played the 'core' versions of the game. Doubt we'll ever get a bf2 clone back though.
 
I enjoyed BF3 but absolutely none of it was memorable. I forgot all about the game until I logged into my BattleLog and realized that I had a ton of stats on it.

BF4 was boring.
 
Midwayman said:
Blame consoles. They all started on BC/BC2 and thought the BF experience was about tight maps. Sucks, but the majority of BF players have never played the 'core' versions of the game. Doubt we'll ever get a bf2 clone back though.
Click to expand...

I sort of do, but I would blame DICE mostly. However, they are a business that wants to be profitable, so they catered to a market hungry for fast paced modern combat featuring instant gratification thanks to Call of Duty 4.

So many PC gamers jumped ship to the consoles, esp as the Xbox 360 sat at an amazing price/performance ratio, along with the inherent properties of being plug and play (after updating and installing that is 😉), and featuring a well working online play system.

Also, complicated combat systems a la BF2 that required teamwork, valid tactics and planning didn't sit well with consolites used to a more streamlined system of play using just a controller and jump-in-there action. Like CoD, modern Battlefield gives every player the ability to be independently successful regardless of the overall team performance. That is part of why you're awarded XP for EVERYTHING under the sun while you play.

There is no denying that games have gotten more complicated in the past 10 years on both console and PC, but the PC platform has always lead that charge, often years before console players may be ready.

Worthington said:
Dump 1942 into a new engine. No unlocks, no exp. Set kits for each class.

Take my money. Until then, I'll pass.
Click to expand...

Very few people would bite at that. In all honestly, when BF3 was announced, I was hoping for basically BF2 built on a new engine.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dc7YUvh3VHA
 
Last edited:
Some people can't be pleased. You could throw them on a real battlefield and they'd be like, "that's lame". You could make the most amazing virtual reality war game and they'd be like, "Ya but you should have done this instead".
These people are confused, but luckily I am here. I will be their compass. I will point the needle toward the appropriate response, ranging from "great" to "crappy".

BF 1942: "great"
BF2: "great"
BF 2142: "great"
BF Bad Company 2: "great"
BFBC2 Vietnam: "great"
BF3 "great"
BF4: "great"

Next BF game will also be "great".

You're welcome. Move along now.
 
Last edited:
moonbogg said:
Some people can't be pleased. You could throw them on a real battlefield and they'd be like, "that's lame". You could make the most amazing virtual reality war game and they'd be like, "Ya but you should have done this instead".
These people are confused, but luckily I am here. I will be their compass. I will point the needle toward the appropriate response, ranging from "great" to "crappy".

BF 1942: "great"
BF2: "great"
BF 2142: "great"
BF Bad Company 2: "great"
BFBC2 Vietnam: "great"
BF3 "great"
BF4: "great"

Next BF game will also be "great".

You're welcome. Move along now.
Click to expand...

Do I detect a bit of bias? 😛

Other than 2142 (I hated the futuristic crap) Id say they were all "good" up until BF3/4, then they became "great". Most here wont agree but since Im a "twitchy" type of player, I prefer the faster pace of the latter games.

Id really like to see them go back to WWII with the new Frostbite engine, Im dying for some old school action.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top