I just hope the SP Campaign isn't crappy full of QTEs, Also the Destruction was very scripted, And more players.
This topic is locked from further discussion.
I just hope the SP Campaign isn't crappy full of QTEs, Also the Destruction was very scripted, And more players.
Medal of Honor was last year's spunkgargleweewee release from EA. Next years will be BF4. And since they're benching MoH because EA is too lazy to give the series the time and money it needs to be good, Battlefield will probably be picking up the slack unless Repawn gets their act together. Then EA will milk that IP to death, too. Man, I remember when true Battlefield sequels were events. F*cking EA. Worst publisher ever.[QUOTE="DarkLink77"][QUOTE="Wasdie"]
Every year?
BF3 came out in 2011.
Wasdie
MoH was done by Danger Close. EA works with more than one studio. Oh btw, you should check out the history of BF game launches. There has been a game or an expansion nearly every year since 2002.
Also, as I edited to my post after you responded I'll say it again...
.A team of 230-250 can pump out a full game in 1 year no problem, as long as the ground work and thinking has been done first. Typical big-buget game development time is about 2 years. One for pre-production with a small team and the leaders of the game, and then full production which involves 200+. This way that 200+ can move from project to project easily. You don't have to worry about laying off people inbetween games, you can just keep having people work on different games and pump out content for those.Â
While they were doing pre-production for BF3, the DICE team was working on a Need for Speed project and Medal of Honor 2010's multiplayer.
They have a seperate team at DICE that does engine work. That team only works on the Frosbite 2.0 engine. Unlike for BF3, BF4 will have an advantage of a finished engine and a lot more mature of an engine.Â
So settle down.
I know who did MoH. :P My problem is whether they can make a game. My problem is that I am so tired of shooters that I literally cannot play them anymore unless I force myself. They're just constantly being thrown in our faces. And constantly milking the Battlefield IP is just going to weaken the brand over time. Look at Call of Duty. It's not good for an IP in the long run. But hey, this is EA. So... yeah.[QUOTE="mitu123"]256 players? Oh, Lord. The more players = better game argument. Yeah I don't get that either, just suiting the best amount of players is for the best, and it's why 64 players works for BF.[QUOTE="PCgameruk"] We should be well above that. BF3 should of been 128 this gen at least.DarkLink77
Milking at its finest.
The engine used in BF3 is brand new and very demanding, also BF is a multiplayer game... What substantial improvement could 4 have that couldn't be added to 3 through a map pack?
[QUOTE="campzor"][QUOTE="ChubbyGuy40"]hopefully there is NO campaign, and they just allow you to play mp with bots, just like bf2 -.- That would be awful.why would it be awful? what good came from that sorry excuse of a 4-5 hour campaign? Nothing..it was awful... WIth offline mp... u can pretty much practice to ur hearts content..also bots > shi!tty qte infested linear battlefield campaignI wonder which poorly-fitting rap/hip-hop/wubstep song they'll use for the TV commercial.
Wonder how bad the SP will be this time. Hopefully they do more co-op missions though. That's one thing I actually wanted DLC for in BF3.
JangoWuzHere
I wonder which poorly-fitting rap/hip-hop/wubstep song they'll use for the TV commercial.
ChubbyGuy40
Battlefield games used to be such an event when they came out. When 2 came out everyone went crazy over it. Now each new installment is just like any other game coming out
Huh? Its probably going to be a next gen game, i'm sure there'll be a ton of things in the game not possible on current hardware, never mind as DLC for Battlefield 3 LOLMilking at its finest.
The engine used in BF3 is brand new and very demanding, also BF is a multiplayer game... What substantial improvement could 4 have that couldn't be added to 3 through a map pack?
Grey_Eyed_Elf
BF 4 is most likely going to be for nextgen consoles. Consolites will finally have 64 players at ultra settings.Milking at its finest.
The engine used in BF3 is brand new and very demanding, also BF is a multiplayer game... What substantial improvement could 4 have that couldn't be added to 3 through a map pack?
Grey_Eyed_Elf
Well Battlefield: Bad Company 2 and Battlefield 3 (to a slightly lesser extent) are, in my opinion, the greatest multiplayer shooters ever made, so I could not be more stoked for this. I know it's popular to hate good and popular things, but I quite frankly, dgaf. Battlefield is the epitome of competitive multiplayer in my eyes.
unless its futuristic (like BF 2042) i don't care. Never thought i'd say this to a BF game but im pretty much tired as fk of modern theme. Cannot stand it anymore no matter how of a quality the game is.silversix_Same. Titan mode with destructable environments would be fun as all hell.
If they can cut the SP campaign out entirely, and would drop the price $10 whilst giving them a lot less to stress about, that would be totally fine. Preferable even.
[QUOTE="ChubbyGuy40"]
I wonder which poorly-fitting rap/hip-hop/wubstep song they'll use for the TV commercial.
Wonder how bad the SP will be this time. Hopefully they do more co-op missions though. That's one thing I actually wanted DLC for in BF3.
Master_ShakeXXX
lol, who freakin cares about the single player in these games? I'd rather they make them online only and focus entirely on the multiplayer.Â
You know how people say "I wish they wouldn't include a half-baked multiplayer mode and put all of their efforts into making a great single player experience"? Well that can work both ways for certain games. Battlefield doesn't  need singleplayer. Frankly I think it's a waste in this case.
Dude ... whats with your sig? lol[QUOTE="Master_ShakeXXX"][QUOTE="ChubbyGuy40"]
I wonder which poorly-fitting rap/hip-hop/wubstep song they'll use for the TV commercial.
Wonder how bad the SP will be this time. Hopefully they do more co-op missions though. That's one thing I actually wanted DLC for in BF3.
JasonDarksavior
lol, who freakin cares about the single player in these games? I'd rather they make them online only and focus entirely on the multiplayer.Â
You know how people say "I wish they wouldn't include a half-baked multiplayer mode and put all of their efforts into making a great single player experience"? Well that can work both ways for certain games. Battlefield doesn't  need singleplayer. Frankly I think it's a waste in this case.
Dude ... whats with your sig? lol Creepy girl from Evil Dead Remake.[QUOTE="fueled-system"]BF3 was a disgrace on consoles, hopefully they learn from their mistakes and don't go 100% graphics at the expense of gameplayPug-Nasty
Â
It was a disgrace everywhere.
How so?[QUOTE="Pug-Nasty"][QUOTE="fueled-system"]BF3 was a disgrace on consoles, hopefully they learn from their mistakes and don't go 100% graphics at the expense of gameplayfaizan_faizan
Â
It was a disgrace everywhere.
How so?Â
Battlenet was upsetting, especiallly not being able to change game settings until actually playing.
The servers were a joke, with latency issues primarily due to not being able to set a ping limit on who could join. Â Very few matches I played on PC didn't have players with 200+ ms pings.
The consoles had better search options, with regions within regions able to be set. Â The PC was far more limited in that regard.
Â
I also just feel the Frostbite engine is just not very good. Â It just plays buggy, especially clipping and hit reg.
[QUOTE="MercenaryMafia"]I would rather have Bad Company 3 now and save Battlefield 4 for next-gen consoles, but hey its EA after all.Wasdie
Rumors are that BF4 will be on both of the next gen consoles. 64 players at 60fps as well.
Air Superiority being officially confirmed in End Game makes the China leak look quite real.In which case it at this point sounds like a spruced up BF3 with some more stuff taken from BF2.
Â
After the disappointment that was BF3 I am not excited. As long as they continue to develop BF games for consoles they will continue to suffer.
[QUOTE="Wasdie"]
[QUOTE="MercenaryMafia"]I would rather have Bad Company 3 now and save Battlefield 4 for next-gen consoles, but hey its EA after all.McStrongfast
Rumors are that BF4 will be on both of the next gen consoles. 64 players at 60fps as well.
Air Superiority being officially confirmed in End Game makes the China leak look quite real.In which case it at this point sounds like a spruced up BF3 with some more stuff taken from BF2.
Â
I just hope it has less problems than BF3 as well.[QUOTE="RR360DD"]I don't understand the hate for the SP, it was so much more enjoyable than Black ops 2.megadeth1117
BF3 was a disgrace on consoles, hopefully they learn from their mistakes and don't go 100% graphics at the expense of gameplayfueled-system100% graphics? The graphics were worse than low on the PC version of BF3. :lol:
[QUOTE="fueled-system"]BF3 was a disgrace on consoles, hopefully they learn from their mistakes and don't go 100% graphics at the expense of gameplayDragonfireXZ95100% graphics? The graphics were worse than low on the PC version of BF3. :lol:Agreed. actually,who cares if i agree? theres no denying that the graphics are absolutely horrible lol.
I hope they get rid of that ugly blue/gray filter they put over the visuals, I want some color in the game.
Bad Company 1 and 2 are two of my favourite shooters this gen! Unfortunatly 360 and PS3 couldn't handle Battlefield 3 the way it should be played (64 players, HD, good framerate, etc).
Now, the next gen consoles version of Battlefield 4 seem to be everything BF3 should have been. Can't f*** wait!
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment