Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Under the Hood With Battlefield 4

Posted by Soulskill on from the measured-in-clock-cycles-per-round-fired dept.

MojoKid writes "EA took the wraps off Battlefield 4 this past week, offering players a chance to try an early beta. AMD has also been talking up Battlefield 4 in combination with their new Radeon R series line with a vengeance, highlighting the features of its new Mantle API and close partnership with DICE, Battlefield 4's developer. Sometimes, enough modest changes evolve into an entirely new product, and when you factor in the tessellation improvements, terrain deformation, Mantle API support, enhanced audio cues, and better particle effects, that's what BF4 is shaping up to be. And it appears likely the game is going to be a premiere title across all of the current and future consoles plus PCs. Battlefield 4 is going to be closely watched for a number of reasons; Mantle performance, comparisons between the Xbox 360 / PS3 and Xbox One / PS4 versions, and, of course, on its own merits."

77 comments

  1. robin hood? by noh8rz10 · · Score: 1

    I read the title as "under the robin hood with battle 4". this obviously made no sense! so i reread it and saw what they meant.
    Have a good discussion!

    1. Re:robin hood? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No thanks, I have a headache.

  2. Generic Shooter X by Stickerboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yay! It's got prettier particle effects than BF3! Glad that's $60 that would be well spent. "The blood spatter will be even cooler now!"

    --
    Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a day. Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
    1. Re:Generic Shooter X by future+assassin · · Score: 0

      LOTS of good blood splatter and bodily explosions here http://www.xonotic.org/

      --
      by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
    2. Re:Generic Shooter X by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Looks nice, I assume it's got enough players and that I would be owned appropriately.

      But it's not really the same kind of game.

    3. Re:Generic Shooter X by laxr5rs · · Score: 1

      Exactly... I tried the BF4 beta. It's the same game, just a little prettier. Guys will be out there trying to out kill each other; running around like chickens with their heads cut off. Wee.

    4. Re:Generic Shooter X by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      says the CoD fanboy.

    5. Re: Generic Shooter X by loufoque · · Score: 1

      CoD and Battlefield are different games? I never noticed.

    6. Re:Generic Shooter X by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also from TFA:
      "The audio engine appears to have been significantly boosted; sounds are sharper and gunfire is more satisfying."

      WTF is an audio engine? I guess they simply used higher bit rate encoding... but this article is pure bullshit, I can say so much after only reading up to that point. Yeah, new game, exactly the same as the predecessor just with most parameters pushed up a notch. *closes tab*.

      captcha: exceeds

    7. Re: Generic Shooter X by Barryke · · Score: 1

      Battlefield has vehicles. Which is why i enjoy BF, its a bit more arcade gaming that way. I dont want an infantry simulator,say CoD.

      IMHO BF3 dropped the ball though regarding vehicles, no fun being a driver there. The insane GPU specs didn't help either.

      --
      Hivemind harvest in progress..
    8. Re:Generic Shooter X by Bengie · · Score: 1

      WTF is a 3D engine? I guess they just used higher resolution textures.

    9. Re:Generic Shooter X by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't make yourself look stupid.

      One is a piece of software that vectorises and rasterises data in an interpretative way, and improving the software will change (and hopefully improve) the result.
      The other one simply unpacks data, improving the software will usually just improve the speed of decoding.

      Saying that "boosting" the "audio engine" makes the audio data sound better remains silly.

      captcha: bondsman

    10. Re:Generic Shooter X by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An audio engine can be anything from something that unpacks audio files and plays them one at a time (analogous to a graphics engine that loads a static image for an otherwise text based game), to one that does mixing of multiple different audio streams (analogous to a 2d sprite based graphics engine), to one that does 3d positioning of sound sources, echo/reverb and dynamic range tricks. It takes a bit of effort to do good 3d sound for headphones, modeling what delays each ear would get. It also takes a little work to get things to sound good when you have multiple things happening at the same time, and you want some of them to sound loud (possibly with tricks like lowering the volume of other things, etc.).

      I have no idea how much of that goes into BF4, but there is non-trivial effort that can go into audio playback for a 3D game if you want to do more than just loop audio files.

  3. Nice ad. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Any more awesome and innovative gameplay features you'd like to tell us about?

    1. Re:Nice ad. by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Also only the R9 290 and R9 290 X are actually new GPUs. The other are old designs.
      http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-r9-280x-r9-270x-r7-260x,3635.html

      I don't know whatever that means that only those got Mantle support.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mantle_(API)

      And then again I don't really expect cards based on those to perform like 9 times faster in BF4 anyway.

      There's benchmarks to be seen for how various (other) Radeon and Nvidia cards perform atm.
      http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/battlefield-4-graphics-card-performance,3634.html

  4. Battlefield 3.5 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    I played the beta quite a bit, but it felt much more like a rehash than a sequel, especially given the strategy they seem to be pursuing when it comes to DLC.

    If it's like BF3, a lot of the special effects and "audio cues" they spent all that time on are made for selling the game (making it look like a hollywood war movie) rather than for playing it long-term or adding strategic depth.

    1. Re:Battlefield 3.5 by Tukz · · Score: 1

      So it's BF:BC 2.2?
      BF3 was already BF:BC 2.1

      --
      - Don't do what I do, it's probably not healthy nor safe. -
  5. Graphics are the LEAST of BF3's problems by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 4, Informative

    Teamplay was obliterated in BF3 compared to BF2 and 2142. It's almost as if they intentionally removed the element that separated BF from CoD:

    * No commanders, therefore no one directing traffic
    * No commander assets and their perks
    * Smaller squads
    * No built-in voice chat, so communications are limited to text chats (and virtually ignored by most players).
    * Point scoring now rewards individual play. You get 500 pts for winning where rounds can score you 20K points. In older BF games, losers got 1/2 points.
    * They kept nerfing other vehicles (especially AA) to appease people who love flying jets while making jets far too powerful.
    * The one thing I loved about BF2142 was there were no jets; just 2 gunships. This really balanced the air and anti-air.
    * No real anti-griefing features (besides a high vote threshold) to deal with disruptive players.
    * Same old hacking

    EA said with BF3 "hey, how do we get the CoD players?" rather than asking the question "hey, how do we improve Battlefield?" Personally, I'm done with the franchise. Nothing more frustrating than trying to win a team game when 90% of players are stat whoring.

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    1. Re:Graphics are the LEAST of BF3's problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Every single BF game is the same. AA might stand for anti-aircraft but it's basically just one more thing pilots get to blow up. I keep hoping they'll add AA that can kill aircraft and requires ground vehicles and/or troops to counter.

    2. Re:Graphics are the LEAST of BF3's problems by LoneBoco · · Score: 5, Informative

      Did you mean this to be a reply to somebody else? This article is about BF4, and at least half of those complaints are fixed in the new game. Commander mode is back, squads are larger, there is in-game voice chat, you get a LOT more points for completing objectives, and air vehicles can easily be murdered via teamwork and RPGs.

    3. Re:Graphics are the LEAST of BF3's problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Read the subject line of their post. "Graphics are the LEAST of BF3's problems". The summary talks up improved graphics and not much else. TFA even has this quote:

      The first question people are going to have is, "Can I jump from BF3 straight into BF4?" The answer is absolutely yes. It's not just that the game is designed to be approachable, but that it plays almost exactly like its predecessor.

      Their post is perfectly valid based on the information provided here, if the game is just a prettier BF3 then it isn't fixing the problems of BF3. I see no mention of commander mode coming back, larger squad sizes etc. Care to provide a source?

    4. Re:Graphics are the LEAST of BF3's problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any of the BF4 site's, yes Commander is back!
      But I completely understand why he would be skeptical.

      We did also find out that the Server owner ( the guys leasing dedicated Server from a GSP/RSP) "sur charge" to EA to run a BF4 will go from .25 in BF3 to .37 ........and still no one to hold accountable.

    5. Re:Graphics are the LEAST of BF3's problems by LoneBoco · · Score: 1

      I think I see what he was trying to say now, it just confused me that he was ranting about BF3 in an article about BF4.

      Anyway, here are some sources for my claims:
      http://www.gameinformer.com/games/battlefield_4/b/pc/archive/2013/06/12/everything-we-know-about-battlefield-4-multiplayer.aspx
      http://www.gamereactor.eu/previews/78481/Battlefield+4+Multiplayer+Hands-On/

    6. Re:Graphics are the LEAST of BF3's problems by gman003 · · Score: 1

      EA said with BF3 "hey, how do we get the CoD players?" rather than asking the question "hey, how do we improve Battlefield?" Personally, I'm done with the franchise. Nothing more frustrating than trying to win a team game when 90% of players are stat whoring.

      Precisely. BF3 is just a CoD clone, and BF4 is aiming to be the same.

      The sad part is, it isn't even a good CoD clone. I bought it off the EA Humble Bundle, just to check it out. The singleplayer campaign is weak - the levels are perfectly linear (even CoD has better levels), the guns all work the same, the spectacle is weak (in a genre sometimes called "spectacle shooter"), the special sections are boring (MW1 gunship level? Fun. BF3 jet level? It's a turret level with seeker missiles) and even the writing is worse. Bad Company 2 was a better single-player game - it had some genuinely funny characters, and the story seemed deliberately silly, like they were poking a bit of fun at CoD and all the Clancy or Clancy-esque "military action thrillers".

      BF3 took the same hackneyed "[bad guys] have a [superweapon] and plan to blow up AMERICA" plot, and instead of playing it off as funny, they tried to do it straight-faced and seriously. Despite that, they still used the SAME GODDAMN MODEL for the superweapon - the "Carrington device" (nice bit of writing - in WW2 they wouldn't have called them EMPs, after all) became a suitcase nuke, despite being about the size of a large thermos with cooling fins. But hey, they made the enemy Iran this time! Slightly different shade of brown and sightly different accent!

      I didn't even bother with the multiplayer - my connection was spotty the one weekend I played it, and they don't seem to have an option for playing against bots. Seems I did not miss much by doing so.

    7. Re:Graphics are the LEAST of BF3's problems by Nemyst · · Score: 2

      Playing Battlefield for the singleplayer is like getting Playboy for the articles. There wasn't even any singleplayer before Battlefield: Bad Company, only multiplayer maps with crude, terrible bots. The campaign was added later, probably at the request of execs to "compete" with Call of Duty. The BC campaigns weren't half bad, but BF3 went full Modern Warfare and suffered for it.

      If your sole experience of the game is the campaign, then I'm sorry but you know nothing of the game. It's neither the draw nor the focus, and does not represent the rest of the game at all.

    8. Re:Graphics are the LEAST of BF3's problems by demachina · · Score: 1

      Pinnacle of PVP shooters was and still is BF2 Karkand Infantry only. They want the perfect game just fix:

      - Squad bug
      - C4 jumping
      - Team switching and balance
      - Tone down nade spamming a little, not a lot
      - Botting, glitching and assorted other hacks
      ⦠ship

      Overdone graphics add nothing to game play, they just increase game expense and hardware requirements. They are marketing, they don't make games fun.

      Endless fur balls shooting at each other like COD are just boring. Strategy and tactics is what makes PVP interesting, and being a better team than your opponents.

      Air and armor just aren't that much fun. Its really hard to maintain balance between players with that wide a gamut of capabilites. Infantry only is a blast because everyone is relatively equal and its ability that makes the difference.

      Karkand is a great map because it compels confrontation, has some room to manuever but not too much. Big maps like in PS3 result in endless running around trying to find a battle and when you find one the team are almost NEVER balanced so the play just sucks.

      Balanced team of evenly matched players in a properly sized map for the number of players is the secret to PVP success. Don't know why gaming companies have so much troublt figuring this out. The excitement and challenge is playing against other players not against gimmicky vehicls or weapons and not gawking at overdone graphics.

      Oh, and MY GOD DON'T PUT HEAD BOB IN YOUR GAME. IT IS JUST NAUSEA INDUCING INNER EAR TORTURE AND ADDS NOTHING TO YOUR GAME.

      --
      @de_machina
    9. Re:Graphics are the LEAST of BF3's problems by gman003 · · Score: 1

      The BC2 campaign (PC gamer, don't have BC1) was actually pretty damn fun. It was mostly a CoD clone, but it did enough differently (cover destruction, writing was a lot of witty banter and less drama and shouting) that it was entertaining.

      Also, I've put roughly 400 hours into BF2. Less than a quarter of that is in actual online multiplayer - rest is either LAN, or against bots (again, mods fix the bots pretty well). Is it the "right" way to play? Maybe not by your definition. But I'm having fun, which means it's "a" right way to play the game.

    10. Re:Graphics are the LEAST of BF3's problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I tried to play this beta for two weeks. 3 patches and no joy. theres a thread on the forums that is over 10,000 posts of GAME CRASHES ON LOAD SCREEN. I think there is more smoke and mirrors here and perhaps a desire to push the latest video card. I just wonder if i should have to dump other $500.00 just to make this game work better.

      EA has some serious work to do in the next two weeks before release or else this article is going to be buried under the 100 reivews of how crappy a launch it is.

      Bumper

    11. Re:Graphics are the LEAST of BF3's problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it the "right" way to play?

      The only right way to play BF3 is with a shit bucket.

    12. Re:Graphics are the LEAST of BF3's problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +5, offtopic.

    13. Re:Graphics are the LEAST of BF3's problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And, it should be noted, half of the "problems" buddy had with BF3 didn't actually exist. Well, maybe the pc version deserves his rage, I only played the beta for BF3 on pc, and stuck with the ps3 to avoid hackers.

      BF3 was entirely team based, depending on the game mode selected of course
      Commanders and commander assets suck, they do, if you want to play rise of nations, play it, I want to play BF
      Smaller squads? You simply can't manage squads bigger than 4 to 6, and it forces the cooperation aspect, of which the game is based entirely around
      No voice chat? Oh, sorry, I only played BF3 that was released in this universe, you know, the one that had voice chat right from beta? Maybe the pc version gimped it, I dunno, but the pc version did have that hyper command menu

      Point scoring does NOT reward individual play, sure, you get points for your kills, you do. BUT, you get more points from assists, saves, spots and marking, clearly he's never actually finished a round of BF3, clearly.
      They kept nerfing everything, they changed the stats on guns and vehicles about twice a month, why? because they were actually watching what people were using, and according to the devs, they'd redo the weapon specs to help people experiment with things. While being an ace jet an chopper pilot, I have to say, clearly he's never been in the air. In the early days, in an attack heli with a good gunner, and dual flares, you were literally unstoppable, the only time you went down is if you made a mistake, it was physically impossible for the enemy to take your chopper down. The AA and stingers / iglas are so over powered it's actually ridiculous. No more dog fights, no more straffing runs... you get in the air, 4 stingers are on their way, or the fantastic jet glitch with supersonic missiles that hit you before there is even a missile in flight indicator. The jets and helis and AA, or lack there of, requires you to work as a TEAM to take down the enemy, because it's not "screw you I'm a republican" call of duty.

      'No anti griefing? Really? Wow, true colors exposed.... dice went to great lengths to setup a complain system, you complain, they check the battle reports, they ban the cheaters.

      The huge mistake they did make, and will make with BF4, is renting servers to users while still allowing them to be ranked, even if the server has weird gimped up rules and a douche of an admin.

      I give it to him at the end tho, he's right, if your team sucks, you are wasting your time, and you can thank Call of Duty for not offering anything new, or useful, in the last 4 CoD games, that's why stat whore run and gun gimps and all up in BF3.

    14. Re:Graphics are the LEAST of BF3's problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well clearly you are an idiot. The single player part of battlefield, thrown in for CoD players who can't grasp an online only game, shouldn't have been there. It's horrible.

      But clearly you are an idiot.

      CoD = run and gun on your own camping headshot city.

      BF3 (or any of them really) = team based warfare with vehicles and TACTICS.

      But to judge a multiplayer team based game on the 3 second half assed single player, well, tutorial, is just idiotic. You missed the whole game by not playing.

    15. Re:Graphics are the LEAST of BF3's problems by myspys · · Score: 1

      Squads are 5 people, not a HUGE increase from 4 that BF3 had.

    16. Re:Graphics are the LEAST of BF3's problems by Ash+Vince · · Score: 2

      Playing Battlefield for the singleplayer is like getting Playboy for the articles. There wasn't even any singleplayer before Battlefield: Bad Company, only multiplayer maps with crude, terrible bots. The campaign was added later, probably at the request of execs to "compete" with Call of Duty. The BC campaigns weren't half bad, but BF3 went full Modern Warfare and suffered for it.

      If your sole experience of the game is the campaign, then I'm sorry but you know nothing of the game. It's neither the draw nor the focus, and does not represent the rest of the game at all.

      I have to admit, I fell for it :)

      I have bought BF3 and BF:Bad Company 2 just for the single player. I ended up playing a fair bit of Bad Company 2 but I never really liked it that much. As soon as Black Ops came out I jumped straight in.

      The thing with BlackOps and even more so with BlackOps2 is that it allows casual player to be halfway successful. You can join a server on your own and have a half decent game without being constantly murdered by some git in a helicopter or a clan who have forced your entire team back into spawn with concerted teamwork.

      Games that encourage teamwork are all very well, but the problem is that financially it is a bit of a disaster for the company that make them if they get known as being filled with decent clans who relentlessly punish casual players such that they never get any kills.

      When we had a solid clan playing BC2 on a friday night we would have the entrance to the enemy spawn constantly mined so as soon as they tried to get a tank out it blew up as we always had 2 engineers on. We also had a sniper, a guy on resupply duty (assault) and a few medics. We all generally put in at least an hours play a day as a minimum and had a few serving army peep in the clan to give us direction. If anyone joined the server for a casual game they got slaughtered and that simply cannot be fun.

      So what a surprise, more and more games are now moving to the CoD idea where they use things like matchmaking, small teams, and nerfed guns to try and make things playable for people who only play a few hours occasionally as that is where the mass market is so where games companies make more sales.

      --
      I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
    17. Re:Graphics are the LEAST of BF3's problems by Ash+Vince · · Score: 1

      Endless fur balls shooting at each other like COD are just boring.

      Actually, for some of us they are fun as hell. Charging round the map trying to react to incoming as fast possible, keeping moving at all time, racking up kills by never missing and getting accused of hacking twice a day even though we don't. I don't have enough time to play tactically any more as real life has taken over so reaction based, quick action shooters are all I can fit in a few games of now and then.

      (I play as nohax in case you ever see me online)

      --
      I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
    18. Re:Graphics are the LEAST of BF3's problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You come off as a fanboy faggot.

    19. Re:Graphics are the LEAST of BF3's problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's funny the kinda nerdrage you fanboys spew in any FPS articles. Guy didn't play game the same as you, HE KNOWS NOTHING, WHAT A NOOB!!!1

    20. Re:Graphics are the LEAST of BF3's problems by danbert8 · · Score: 1

      It was effective in 1942 if you actually bothered. The trick was to have at least as many AA gunners as enemy planes. It never works well with 1 AA gunner and 4 enemy bombers...

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    21. Re:Graphics are the LEAST of BF3's problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had this, then I updated my video drivers. Nvidia 550 ti windforce card can play this game well for about $160 if you can find it in stock. Also the fans are almost silent, quieter than any other fanned card I have owned.

    22. Re:Graphics are the LEAST of BF3's problems by master_kaos · · Score: 1

      THe fixed a lot of the stuff you mentioned. I didn't enjoy BF3 either because of the problems you listed but I played beta with my friends and almost all of them are resolved

      Commanders back
      Squads are 1 bigger now (5 people)
      Voice chat is in
      Point scoring is way more rewarding if you work as a squad as you get squad points now for completing objectives
      An engi+recon(which you should have if you are working together as a squad) makes taking down aircraft fairly easy, recon has a device that can paint a vehicle allowing any engi to lock onto the targeted vehicle.
      Since it beta I have no idea on griefing/hacking

    23. Re:Graphics are the LEAST of BF3's problems by master_kaos · · Score: 1

      Except it isnt a COD clone. YOu can instantly tell the COD players in BF from their playstyle and they lose horribly, BF has way more tactics and squad play. They did release one DLC (Close Quarters) that seemed like they were trying to appease the COD players

    24. Re:Graphics are the LEAST of BF3's problems by Ardyvee · · Score: 1

      That sounds like a fireteam and the squad leader (if we go by ShackTack's organization, which seems like a pretty good idea on paper and it seems to work). If I recall correctly in America's Army 3 you are basically a single squad with various 3 fireteams and a squad leader (I might be wrong about this, but it IS a squad). A squad in Operation Flashpoint was maximum 12 people (which gives you yourself, a medic, and 2 groups of 5 people, or 3 groups of 4 people).

      It really depends on what you consider a squad (to me 4 or 5 is too small) and what you are going to do with it.

      --
      I don't care if I'm wrong. I only care about everyone obtaining something from the discussion.
    25. Re:Graphics are the LEAST of BF3's problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AA can be partially effective in BF3, but it takes practice. Here's some advice:
      - missiles are useless 90% of the time, so don't rely on them for anything more than waving flies away for a minute.
      - mobile AA needs to be near map edges where you can dodge in and out of hills or trees and you limit your enemy approaches to mostly in front of you. If you drive it into the middle of the map you will have to track craft 360 around you and likely get taken out by C4 or a tank.
      - use the stationary AA near the airfields to learn how to lead your targets with your guns. It takes hours to get proficient. And it's boring since they learn where to fly that you cannot shoot them since all stationary emplacements are meant to cover only the runway and not the actual battle area of the map. There are always rocks in the way. Shoot down any trees blocking your field of view.
      - jets are heavily armored (actually your guns are very weak) so keep the fire on them.
      - stingers are more effective against helicopters than jets, but it takes 2. One shoots to get them to pop their flares and then the second shoots right after flares disappear for the kill. Take turns shooting first.

    26. Re:Graphics are the LEAST of BF3's problems by archont · · Score: 1

      You're saying you can't manage squads bigger than 4 to 6 people?

      That's odd. I'm not much of a BF3/4 player, though I did enjoy 2142, and I'm playing Planetside 2 a lot. Squad size is 12, though that's often not enough people to make a difference in big facilities, so to make an impact I lead platoons - 4 squads, total being 48 people. Sometimes that's not enough manpower in bigger fights, so several platoon leaders have to coordinate attacks to defeat entrenched opponents who know what they're doing. For example two squads approach from the front with tanks and shell the entrance, one squad "parachutes" into the back of the facility to destroy shield generators while the fourth squad os charged with hacking a base behind enemy lines and deploys mobile spawnpoints preparing for a pincer.

      I have few problems commanding 48 people and coordinating my actions with other platoons. When things get hectic I delegate squadleaders to do specific tasks with their 12-man squads. It's challenging, but very possible. Squad cohesion is high, the occasional lone-wolf oddball who doesn't listen gets booted and there's always fresh blood waiting to fill the gap.

      If 4-6 is the limit for you then maybe you're just bad at leadership - or maybe the players in general are just bad.

    27. Re:Graphics are the LEAST of BF3's problems by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing you didn't pick up on the context? This is an article about shiny new BF4 features and not fundamental changes to make the franchise what it used to be. If they're just going to keep pushing CoD-ified Battlefield, I'm done. I've been waiting to see if the trend will reverse and all I've heard about is some commander-mode tablet app.

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    28. Re:Graphics are the LEAST of BF3's problems by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

      My problem with infantry-only maps is they don't provide a counterbalance to snipers. Armor in Karkand is extremely challenging because in close quarters and on those narrow streets your vehicles are very vulnerable.

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    29. Re:Graphics are the LEAST of BF3's problems by tibman · · Score: 1

      I like the idea of match making but only when there is still the option to host/join a game as well. Match-making means very long waits as the game goes into its death. That only accelerates its death. Another option is a skill meter next to the server in the server list. Natural-Selection 2 does this and it's nice to pick your own skill level. If you join a low-skill server to crush all the noobs that will only last for 10 minutes or so because your presence will bump the meter up. You will quickly find someone around your skill-level on the opposing team. Kills/Assists/Deaths are also preserved on the teams list until the next game starts. So as people choose sides, you can quickly see if one side looks stacked.

      --
      http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
  6. Would love to have an opinion, but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Could never get logged into the beta servers, due to the Windows 8 - Punkbuster crashes.

    Thankfully, this has cemented my determination to never buy another EA game.

    As if Origin wasn't reason enough.

    1. Re:Would love to have an opinion, but.... by xQuarkDS9x · · Score: 1

      Could never get logged into the beta servers, due to the Windows 8 - Punkbuster crashes.

      Thankfully, this has cemented my determination to never buy another EA game.

      As if Origin wasn't reason enough.

      Wait didn't Punkbuster die a horrible death years ago when everyone realised it didn't do jack shit on half life engine servers that ran stuff like counter-strike and team fortress classic?

      --
      You must master your joystick like a fisherman masters bait! - Gimpy
    2. Re:Would love to have an opinion, but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      punkbuster is generally quake3 engine games

      goldsource (cs1.6, tfc) uses vac anticheat

      but you are correct, punkbuster is pretty crap

    3. Re:Would love to have an opinion, but.... by Lithdren · · Score: 1

      Sadly no, I was a fool and pre-ordered BF3, and sadly have since sworn the franchise off (did play BF4 beta...not worth it). Anyway...

      Punkbuster is built directly into BF3 and has given me nothing but problems. its actually the main reason I dont play BF3. It refuses to update automatically for some reason, and the only way to fix it is to manually update it through a horrible little download application. This will usually fix it for about 2-3 days then goes back to randomly kicking you from games because PB is not up to date, but wont give you an error message, you just get dropped. So whast that a PB issue, or was it a lag/server kick for ping/random drop/internet cutting out problem? Will take a few more attempts before I figure it out.

      Between that and never figuring out how to join games with a friend, I just gave up on BF3. It doesn't want to work, and I dont have the time or energy to babbysit it.

  7. Like all shooters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll complete the single player campaign in about 6-8h, then delete the game and move on.

  8. bring back bf1942 by n3r0.m4dski11z · · Score: 1

    Before EA realized it could make money with it. Desert Combat, jeepathon_2k, good times...

    --
    -
    1. Re:bring back bf1942 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oops jeepathon_2k was for counter strike...

    2. Re:bring back bf1942 by danbert8 · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Forget the complexities. 5 classes, no upgrades, and WWII era weapons. You know so you actually have to be good at the game to dominate. Managing to hit something with a sherman gun sideways at full speed while bouncing over the terrain took talent. Hitting something with a laser guided orbital missile... Not so much.

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
  9. Forget it by drkim · · Score: 1

    I had so much trouble getting hacked on Origin, and getting BF3 to run, I'm giving up on these guys...

    I want to spend my time playing; not dicking around with DRM.

  10. needs modding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Sorry won't be buying this one unless they offer mod support. I'm done being bled dry for low calibur DLC that should be community content.

    1. Re:needs modding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just wanted to say, I'm a game developer, and I hear you. The publishers don't want to give you the tools because DLC is lucrative, but times are changing fast. devs can work for the customers directly now, and some of my battle hardened comrades are striking out on their own to do just this. Imagine it: An engine that lasts for years and years, improved over and over without losing compatibility with any of the past levels. A dialog between the players and developers about what features to build next. A distributed online service that never goes down. User created content AND an aggregator to bubble good stuff up to the top. Professionally made new episodes of single player to bring batches of new high quality goodness to the games... Actually letting a game end of life on the development side with an infinite future of new free content. New engines that are actually all new tech, for new game series. It's too bad the Consoles addiction to planned obsolescence is so opposed to the desires of both the players and developers. Times are changing. The future is bright, the dark ages will be over soon.

    2. Re:needs modding by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      The most fun I had in the BF series was when I would play in tournaments that used mods, especially a BF2 mod (which I could remember what it was called-all I remember was the loading screen had a song from Black Hawk Down in it). It was great playing with people that actually knew how to play coordinated squad combat, and didn't have to worry about pubs. When they killed the opportunity for communities like that, I stopped playing. That, and BF3 was a buggy mess.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    3. Re:needs modding by drkim · · Score: 1

      ... Imagine it: An engine that lasts for years and years, improved over and over without losing compatibility with any of the past levels. A dialog between the players and developers about what features to build next. A distributed online service that never goes down. User created content AND an aggregator to bubble good stuff up to the top. Professionally made new episodes of single player to bring batches of new high quality goodness to the games... Actually letting a game end of life on the development side with an infinite future of new free content...

      Sounds like the Unreal Engine. (sigh...)

  11. Mantle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mantle. Mantle, mantle mantle. MANTLE! Mantle mantle? MANMANMANTLE!!!

    Say, "Mantle" one more time and don't sound like a shill. I dare you...

  12. highest point of the series by Tifer · · Score: 2

    was Battlefield 2142. I played all the Battlefield games starting at 1942, and I have to say it peaked with 2142. Everything since then has just been "post-2142" for me. Walker robots, commander-based teams, flying bases--that's all I need. That's all I ever needed, EA.

    1. Re: highest point of the series by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 1

      I thought it peaked with BC2.

      2142 was "fun", but not as much as BF2, so I ended up switching back. Different play styles I suppose.

      BF3 was fun with the expansions that finally made it feel like a BF2 successor (big, open vehicle maps), but the gunplay was never quite on par with BC2.

      BF4 brings back more powerful guns (though, they still screwed up giving the class with the most powerful guns the me pack and defrib), vehicles that are useful even without mods, 3D arena (a la 2142), and all the tactical stuff of BF2.

      Still doesn't have the charm of BC2, but snipers are much less powerful now, so I suppose it balances out.

      --
      while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
    2. Re:highest point of the series by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think battlefield 1942 was the best.
      Granted that's the only one I played.

    3. Re: highest point of the series by C0R1D4N · · Score: 1

      I loved bf2, played the shit out of it. Enjoyed grabbing a jeep, rushing to some deserted capturecpoint, taking it, hiding somewhere with my SAW and just holding it the whole round by myself.

      My experience in BF3beta was constantly spawning in a shopping mall in the line of fire and dying right away not knowing the layout of anythinf or where I was. I never bothered with it again.

    4. Re:highest point of the series by danbert8 · · Score: 2

      The problem with 2142 and all the modern games is the experience and upgrades system. If you don't buy the game at release and play it hardcore, you log into the multiplayer server armed with a staple gun, and everyone else has a 50 caliber gattling gun. Good luck ever getting good when you are at that much of a disadvantage. In 1942 whether you logged in for the first time or you'd been playing a thousand hours, you've still got the same health and the same loadout. I agree team elements could have been handy in 1942, but it was a pretty early game in the massive multiplayer FPS and even the command points structure was newish at the time.

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    5. Re:highest point of the series by Artemis3 · · Score: 1

      Those games were moddable and were the best. I couldn't care about the main game, its the mods where the fun was.

      Stuff like Desert Combat, Eve of Destruction, IS1982, Pirates, Galactic Conquest, most of which had sequels for BF2 and 2142.

      I couldn't care less for "yet another CoD" clone, but removing mods and forcing the origin drm made me skip the later ones entirely. And of course, this was a game about 64 players battling each other with vehicles and stuff, just for fun.

      I'm sure the only reason there were BF:V and later BF2 was because of the massive popularity of Eve of Destruction and Desert Combat back in the days of BF1942. Even Codename Eagle was more fun than the recent crap they now make.

      --
      Artix
      Your Linux, your init.
    6. Re:highest point of the series by Tifer · · Score: 1

      True, most players usually don't get the very best guns. It can be frustrating trying to unlock anything when you're at a disadvantage to begin with, but (though this doesn't validate the system completely) there's a certain charm to holding your own against superior firepower, and if you stick around long enough, you'll see that there's charm in HAVING superior firepower, too. Sorta like a yin yang, but with tea-bagging.

    7. Re: highest point of the series by tibman · · Score: 1

      I agree with you, BC2 was great! Skipped BF3 because it wasn't for sale on steam. Was hoping that if enough people didn't buy it they would put it up for sale on Steam. Might have to install Origin for BF4 : / Unless DayZ:SA comes out, then to hell with any other FPS for a while.

      --
      http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
  13. No mod support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    EA has forever lost my dollars, and I used to buy multiples of all the multiplayer BF games, strictly for the mods. I played and modded, it earned EA quite a tidy sum, and they turned around and spit in our(the modding community's) faces. BF3 and BF4 are eye candy, and reward non-teamplayers such as snipers and jet pilots. Just rename the series as it should be called RAMBOS: The special snowflake squads

  14. Is that the one with the dogs? by Torp · · Score: 0

    On further reading, apparently not. All "modern" 3d shooters are the same...

    --
    I apologize for the lack of a signature.
  15. Wii U by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Too bad we will not have the world of options given to us only by the game pad. Wii U is truly a badass system that gets no love.

    1. Re:Wii U by umafuckit · · Score: 1

      They're ending production of the Wii soon (http://kotaku.com/nintendo-says-wii-production-will-end-soon-1433163493) so hopefully that will focus attention more on the Wii U and improve the software situation. Now if only they'd quit the region-lock BS, I'd more interested.

      --
      soylentnews.org
  16. DICE by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    Isn't Slashdot owned by DICE now?

    Reaches for tinfoil hat...

  17. Yes, but Drones... by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    Seeing the USA produce and use more Drones (this game is basically USA USA USA!) will we see that?

    Because that is what I want, I want to play a guy who uses a computer, to fly a drone.

    I would be invincible! Except from heart disease, that fucker gets everyone...

    Mental Note: Make BF4 handle 'Heart Disease' or something equally inane like the Heart symbol.

    Mental Note 2: Quickly make a video game called "Best Friends 4: Wine Country" and release the same day. Make millions.