WC - Unlike the rest of the Battlefield community, I am actually pretty pumped for Battlefield 4. I thoroughly enjoyed Bad Company 2 and was blown away by Battlefield 3, but couldn’t help but feel let down by a few things.
the horrible latency, wouldnt miss that to be fair.
dunno what youre talking about i get 16ms ping Love the dedicated servers
Talking about the client side hit detection were i get killed from behind solid cover, dropped with one bullet at mid - long range.
24 players is a no go it dosnt justify the name battlefield with 12v12
The consoles are the issue. They have limited hardware remember? Unless you want it to look like poop it won't happen. Thy can only transfer so many Mbs.
Thats why they should wait for next gen consoles but if you take MAG i know it wasnt the best looking game in the world but it had alot of players
No jet co-pilot
12vs12 on the big maps is rediculous.you just end up running around most of the match trying to find someone!
LOL someone said on pc that 64 players wasnt enough on the big maps and it felt empty i mean cmon we have to make due with 24 its a joke on operation firestorm you do more traveling than battling.
If you are going to include it a decent single player and not a some half-assed attempt.
I wouldn't even include a single player. Such a waste of resources. Look at the expansions with Premium, $50 for 20+ multiplayer maps; whereas, BF3 Vanilla has 9 maps and a single player for $60?
actually the rest of the community is PUMPED for Battlefield 4... next-gen console, even BETTER graphics.. its going to be nice.. now if they can just keep the CoD, drop-shooting and dying nerds out the game, it'll be even better..
No singleplayer, focus on mp and bigger teams.
Don' t use Battlefield 3 as base model. Better would be to consider how to improve what they did with Battlefield Bad Company 2, especially about MP. M.A.G. managed 256 players at the beginning of 2010 ... stop with that "console can' t manage more than 24 players" bullshit, thanks. We are not that dumb. Show us a little of respect we deserve.
Apparently, you are THAT dumb. MAG and BF3 use different gaming engines. Just because one game can handle certain things doesn't mean another can do the same. BF3's engine is far more complex than MAG's engine, especially with the destructible environments.
Excuse me, where did you read that I claim 256 players in the battlefield? I' m NOT asking that, I would be happy with 36/40 players. 24 is p.a.t.h.e.t.i.c. on maps of such scale. I don' t care what kind of engine they use, it' s a their problem; telling us that PS3/X360 can' t handle more than 24 players is bullshit. Also, milions of people are playing BF3 MP not because of it' s graphics. If you want graphics you play something else, and up everything, mainly on PCs.
Okay, well the difference there is that MAG looked like a game from 2005, so when you've got an extremely simplistic game, you can throw more players into the world. Battlefield 3, even on consoles actually looked like a game from 2011. It also had a whole bunch of awesome stuff like building destruction and an entire fleet of vehicles. The PS3 and 360 have such an incredibly tiny amount of RAM that it is very unrealistic to expect more than 24 players in a map without killing the framerate.
The whole list is filled with aesthetic stuff, as if the gameplay is perfect. I for one would like vehicles to have less health. Some games of conquest all end up being games of blowing up tanks for half an hour. I know vehicles are a large emphasis to BF but the game is boring if you're playing on small maps with APCs and tanks raining hell on your team
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.