No glasses pal. The beta map for Bad Company 2 was Port Valdez, I remember that from the top of my head. No one will give a damn about the BF1 beta map when the next one's out. The map design was far superior in BC2 compared to BF1. Just compare the two rush modes... and realize they're incomparable.
Seriously: Good luck disputing me, because you can't. Everyone runs around like morons in this beta, unlike BC2. This shows how much better BC2 was designed. Tha...
I'm plenty good, been playing shooters long enough.
BC2 = masterpiece. BF1 = trash. Actually yes I take that back, I would take one masterpiece over any amount of trash. So BC2 is infinitely better than BF1. NO ONE can properly dispute that BF1 is a downgrade from older games. Hell even the destructibility still isn't as good as BC2.
Best Battlefield? Bad Company 2's beta was literally 100x better than this. I'm not even exaggerating, this is so generic in comparison. The desert doesn't feel like it was made for either conquest or rush, Too small for conquest, and too structure-less for rush.
the horses are hilariously bad... They just stand around doing nothing, even when they're shot at. It's like Dice didn't bother making actual horses. WW1 skin over BF4 with worse maps, that&...
So? Battlefield 1 is BF4 with a WW1 skin. Not exactly creative either. Both look rubbish
Why in the hell does this not have space combat? It was the perfect opportunity to make an actual Battlefront game. This is the same as before, now with some even more stupid abilities and killstreaks.
Come on... A riot shields that you can sprint with, and get insta kills just by running into enemies? So stupid.
And what do you base that off? I did alright, good for only 10 minutes.
The desert conquest map is a mish-mash of stuff, it doesn't feel like there's much structure. Just: "Here's a town go kill people." It's too small of a map to have as many capture points as it does, you can really see how bad they've gotten with conquest maps since BF2 and 1943.
It plays pretty much exactly like Battlefront.
Other than the weapon...
If Vexx had better controls it would have been the best 3d platformer of all time, such good and interesting level design.
But due to the controls, it's second behind the first Jak & Daxter for me.
It ended after 10 minutes. Well, for me at least since it was so bad. I had a better time with the Hardline beta, and that wasn't exactly great.
Oh I had to look up what strafing is, I thought you did mean moving while aiming. Yes strafing would be a good improvement.
Perhaps the few cover shooting moments could have been improved too.
The tank controls added to the gameplay of RE4, it would be a weaker game if they fixed that. But yes this remaster is basically just a PS2 re-release, which is pathetic.
Now that's just ridiculous. 480p would make the game blurry, and precision in say shooters would be difficult. Could you imagine playing BF4 in 480p? Wouldn't work.
That's not an issue in 720p, as showcased by the many shooters on PS3/360. The difference between 900p and 1080p is barely noticeable, so that's why it's annoying when resolution becomes a debate.
Like people have pointed out before, if X1 was 720p, and PS4 was something like 721p, ...
Screw that, that's what made it fun. No you don't need a lot of skill to enjoy it, but good players would obliterate the noobs. I consistently got nd 100 points out of 300 every round, some people end with 20-30.
The TF2 beta felt more like Call of Duty than the first. Think about it, the stuff you just complained about are what make it stand out. Being easy doesn't automatically make it cod. Hell cod isn't that easy, noobs get destroyed by good players.
If you played TF1 you'd know what we're complaining about. Even though TF didn't have enough stuff in it, the gameplay was pretty much perfect. At the moment it looks like they focused on the campaign and forgot what made people like Titanfall in the first place.
You could have hundreds of maps of the quality of the TF2 test, and I wouldn't care. They're both worse than every single map from the first game...This is is why I back quality over quantity i...
"It's a comment section which grants me the right to say and express myself however I want"
Such a little bitch comment.
Let me put it this way: they could have extended the play time, resulting in dragged out and repetitive missions. Or they can condense it, and make sure what's there is good. A good 8 hours is better than a bad 20 hours.
I think people underestimate how long a 10 hour game can feel. If it's full of epic moments with no filler, it feels like an epic journey. It's only when it's either dragged out, or feels cut short and unfulfilling that game length is a prob...
You have really long blinks
That wouldn't be entirely fair, considering there's a good argument why Kojima was in the wrong for the whole situation. Just to recap: he went way over budget, then took such a long time to make something that was delayed multiple times, then still wasn't anywhere near finished in the end.
It was a logical business decision to fire him, when you leave the bias behind. It could have been handled way better, but still.
MGSV wasn't even that...
The problem is that all those games felt incomplete at release, then you basically have to pay double to get the whole thing. Halo 5's online playerbase is still high because of the free dlc, so its not just a cost thing. Free dlc keeps the community alive. Here in NZ its very difficult to find rounds of Battlefront, and it has been for a while. This is because it was incomplete at launch, then asked for a lot of money for the season pass. Why bother? Halo 5's better AND its dlc is fr...
Yes it is apples and oranges isn't it? Titanfall 2 will be multilayer centric, and is where the longevity will come from. This means the single player can be whatever it wants, and if that's an epic 4-5 hour roller coaster ride, then so be it. Like Dark knightmare said, dragging it out will make it worse. A good 4 hours is better than a mediocre 8 hours. And its usually a better way to go for multiplayer centric games, because its not where the main effort goes into.
Merging single player with multiplayer/co-op doesn't work for everything, it usually comes at the cost of good scripted moments and weaker level design. Just look at the mission structure in the Bungie halos compared to Destiny, or halo 4 vs halo 5 for examples. Even though destiny's good, the level design is lacking. Same with Halo 5's campaign.
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.