130°

Battlefield 4 Isn’t About Dynamic Destruction

NowGamer: "It’s not clear where the consensus came from, but while playing Battlefield 4’s beta it’s obvious that so many games – too many – are relying on that skyscraper coming down.

Media outlets and gamers alike all criticised the BF4 beta, calling it out for failing to inspire them as that trailer had during E3. The skyscraper comes down and then what?"

Read Full Story >>
nowgamer.com
ArchangelMike4278d ago (Edited 4278d ago )

The skyscraper comes down too easily IMO, or should I say too quickly. Either way, the thing should be more accessible. No stairs, no second or third floor? Most of the buildings in BF3 had at least a second floor. The way the skyscraper is done makes it more like on flat level that's just really high up.

Pandamobile4278d ago

Why does it need a second and third floor? They wouldn't really add much to it.

There's 4 elevators that take you to the top in 5 seconds. Why the hell would you want to climb 70 flights of stairs in a video game...

adventureghost1244278d ago

I think its because battlefields thing is realism, take that away and what do you have? another generic FPS though 70 is a bit much you can always parachute out of helicopter like in BF3

Pandamobile4278d ago

Lol, Battlefield is not geared towards realism.

ARMA is geared towards realism.

Riderz13374278d ago

I agree, it's taken down too easily. I thought you actually had to do damage to the building, but instead all you have to do is take down 2 pillars. It's annoying because at the beginning of every round you have some guy shooting rpg's at the pillars just so the building collapses =/

Mad Aizen4278d ago (Edited 4278d ago )

@Archangel - resources, and tradeoffs. This is why you're never going to see organic natural destruction throughout the entirety of an entirely rendered world for a long time.

Yes I agree with you however, it should be more robust. It all kind of feels hollow and fake upon further review, but that's what the suspension of disbelief is for I suppose :P

Hufandpuf4278d ago

They should just make it so that the pillars have to take more hits to go down. A single person could take them down, whereas in the trailer there were like 4 tanks trying to take it down.

MWong4278d ago (Edited 4278d ago )

@ArchangelMike
That's because the skyscraper is a set piece of levolution. The other maps with multiple floors are like BF3 with 3 floors.

I could see what additional floors could do for that part of the map, if implemented correctly. Maybe have a firefight below the roof of the skyscraper and battle to the top floor.

As far as the beta being crap, I believe console players like with BF3 are playing an E3 build. If you look at the PC beta, it's much more polished, so we are just testing for stability.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 4278d ago
solidworm4278d ago

ITs a Beta and a crap one at that.

titletownrelo4277d ago

C'mon man, its a LOT better than the BF3 beta. Running towards the m-com, and falling off the face of earth into a parallel universe, lol. The only issue I've faced in the BF4 beta are related to graphics/textures and some animations.

SlyFamous024278d ago

Of course it is, because for some reason every one thinks that destruction makes a game better, sure it makes for pretty visuals but thats it, case in point BF3.

KwietStorm_BLM4278d ago

I don't know what you mean. Destruction doesn't make a game "better," but in the case of Battlefield, it's a part of the whole package, a significant part of it. BF3 aside, the destruction model in Battlefield changes your strategy and plan of attack. You can't just use that one game in the franchise, which everybody knows by now was scaled back with the destruction, DICE included, and then say case in point.

Abdou0234278d ago

It's not about visuals, it's about gameplay and strategy, it's very cruical to hold the skyscrapper at the beginning of the round, because it's easy to defend and you can easily spawn at it and jump to the other flags , but once it's taken dowf, that advantage is gone.

cell9894278d ago

mmmm no just no. Destruction DOES make it better, you can get reed of so many camping spots by just taking out an rpg and blasting that annoying sniper camping on a building, also beats having to go around a whole wall when you can just blast through it and get on with your life

theXtReMe14278d ago

I disagree with the article. Throughout the entire presentation of Battlefield 4, from the start, all they could talk about was destruction. Now, they are going back on that and saying that it's scripted. The developers, even in videos, talked about how you could take out a wall and kill the person behind it. Now, we find out that you cannot do that and there is nothing different from this generation to the next, in gameplay.

Then the article goes on to state that gamers do not need a change in gameplay, that they should be content in playing the same game they played for the past 20 years without any upgrades. I'm sorry, but destruction actually helps in the way we play games. It eliminates camping and gamers from sitting in one place too long spawn killing. It keeps everyone on their feet and make them realize that they arent safe wherever they go. Instead of just shooting your opponent in the face and hoping the same doesn't happen to you, you can shoot the support from a building and have it fall on them. Next gen, to me, isn't just about pretty graphics. It's about physics and changing the way we play a game, for the better.

Developers do everything they can to make the games look realistic, now they need to make them react realistically as they would in the real world. Soldiers are trained to use their environments to their advantage, something gamers cannot do because developers keep making games that forgo physics. They don't allow us to use our environment at all, except for cover. Which is the reason we have campers and spawn killers.

Multiplayer has been suffering for years from the been there, done that syndrome. I, for one, will not play another game in multiplayer ... unless that game allows us to use the environment ,via physics, to our advantage. Its the reason why I haven't played multiplayer in years, because I'm tired of the Quake style point-and-shoot gameplay. Games have grown up over the years, gotten more mature. But after reading this article, it's obvious that a lot of developers havent. They stayed the same, while gamers are the ones who are maturing. Sooner or later, It's going to catch up to developers and gamers are going to bore of the same gameplay they've been playing for so long and just stop playing those types of games. Or only buy games from developers who understand the need for physics in gameplay and how it can change any games landscape... for the better.

cell9894278d ago

not all destruction is scripted tho

Show all comments (25)
150°

Battlefield 1, Hardline, BF4 Servers Are Being Taken Offline by Cheaters; EA Silent on Issue

Cheaters & hackers have been causing grief on Battlefield 1, Hardline & BF4 servers, with nonstop DDoS attacks among other things. Unfortunately, EA has remained silent about it.

-Foxtrot1183d ago

Course they are silent, they are hoping people flock to 2042

gamesftw2501182d ago

Maybe it was a inside job then haha.

jeromeface1182d ago

wouldnt be the first time, titanfall 1+2 anyone?

PapaBop1182d ago

Not even if they paid me.. EA always do this with old games with less money potential, if this was Ultimate Team, they'd address and sort it faster than stories could spread. Why invest time in their products when they will just dump it in the following years? Then again EA never could see the forest for the trees.

Inverno1182d ago

I imagine after those games were given out for free a couple months back through Amazon, anything that makes people go to 2042 is a plus for them

XiNatsuDragnel1183d ago

They want people to go on 2042. My theory

excaliburps1182d ago

Nah. I think they can't do anything about it or they want to sink money into fixing it.

Pudge1028881182d ago (Edited 1182d ago )

EA owns all BF servers so yes, they can do something about it but they refuse to because they dont want ppl playing their old games instead of the new one. Its EA we’re talking about here

pr33k331182d ago

if this happened in 2042, they'd have something to say. which is weird, considering battlefield 1 has more players on steam right now.

Pudge1028881182d ago

Its so obvious that EA is doing this or hired ppl to mess up the games so that we’d be forced to have just 1 Battlefield working.

FPS_D3TH1182d ago

Honestly it’s probably the devs themselves. They did an update to bf4 way back that kinda made assault rifles doo doo in hopes that people would flock to BF1 cuz BF4 was too perfect

Show all comments (15)
60°

5 Great Shooter Games on Xbox Game Pass

The shooter genre is one of the most beloved videogame genres in the gaming community, and rightfully so. From DOOM Eternal to Battlefield 4, passing through The Outer Worlds, the Xbox Game Pass has a lot to offer when it comes to amazing shooter experiences. Come check out some great shooter games available on Xbox Game Pass!

Read Full Story >>
keengamer.com
MadLad1198d ago

There's a bunch of great shooters on gamepass; both legacy and new.

A recommendation I have is a work in progress preview title called Anacrusis. It's a lot of fun, and has a cool aesthetic.

90°

5 Games That Started Out As A Buggy Mess

KeenGamer: "Sometimes a game starts out as a buggy mess and we all just stop and think, “that definitely could have spent a bit more time in the oven”. This is the case for these 5 games which infamously marked their place in recent game memory."

Read Full Story >>
keengamer.com
KingofBandits1290d ago

"Games That Started Out As A Buggy Mess - A Bethesda and CD ProjektRed tale"