|
Post by dehotherguy on Oct 17, 2014 5:06:28 GMT -5
I'm not sure if people here play Battlefield or not, but despite the giant amounts of hate it's getting, I'm still genuinely looking forward to Hardline. Interestingly, it's being developed by Visceral, not DICE. Yeah, it's not anything insanely revolutionary, but it definitely looks like a lot of fun. I like how the series is tinkering with the police theme, and how it's a good blend of familiar Battlefield and some new ideas. To me, it's different enough to be its own game, not, as people like to claim, "just DLC for Battlefield 4."
As a lifelong Battlefield fan, I'm surprised that people who call themselves "true" fans are the first ones to ditch the series when it drops the ball (Battlefield 4's shaky launch), instead of being constructive and helping the devs make better decisions so that future titles are better. People need to realize that game devs aren't robots that do every little thing flawlessly, they're regular people with jobs, with their own artistic visions and goals when it comes to their projects. Gamer entitlement is something that's gotten really bad over the years, and while gamers definitely deserve to have a say in the products they pay money for, there needs to be a reasonable balance of gamers and devs communicating with one another, not just one side lording over the other.
Anyways, here's some footage of the game's Hotwire mode, which is basically a car chase game mode.
|
|
|
Post by mamajumbo on Oct 17, 2014 11:28:48 GMT -5
If it wasn't a yearly franchise they wouldn't get all the hate, while people are raging about a bugged battlefield 4 they already worked on their next project. I also have the same issue with assassin's creed where there is not a story at all about what happened with Desmond Miles.
|
|
|
Post by dehotherguy on Oct 17, 2014 12:46:48 GMT -5
The yearly release would be a problem if it was the same dev making each game, but this isn't the case. Visceral has been making the game a while before Battlefield 4 came out, and with the delay into next year, the game has at least as much development time as any other Battlefield game. On top of that, they've taken special care this time to make sure Hardline avoids the issues Battlefield 4 had, through the Community Test Environment for BF4. Whether the game works perfectly or not, It's definitely gonna work a hell of a lot better than BF4 did.
The delay itself is also a respectable one. After the beta ended, the devs looked thoroughly at fan reception, and delayed the game so that they could change a bunch of things to ensure a better experience.
There's literally nothing the devs can do without fans bitching and nitpicking. Even if their next game was the most polished, revolutionary, amazing game ever, fans would bitch it to the ground. They come up with excuses that I've never seen used in any other game with the same issues.
I'm not asking people to love the game no matter what. I'm asking them to be reasonable.
|
|
|
Post by The Karcolith on Oct 17, 2014 21:12:24 GMT -5
If it wasn't a yearly franchise they wouldn't get all the hate, while people are raging about a bugged battlefield 4 they already worked on their next project. I also have the same issue with assassin's creed where there is not a story at all about what happened with Desmond Miles. You care about Desmond? Assassin's Creed is about running around ye olde places and stabbing people, it just so happens Desmond has cool ancestors, which he can't live up to... On BF... I'm a fan of the series and will eventually get it. Joe and I used to play BF3 occasionally on 360.
|
|
|
Post by Lawnmower Joe on Oct 18, 2014 5:01:47 GMT -5
Man I loved BF3, but I can't afford BF4 and I've sworn off my Xbox 360 for a few months.
|
|
|
Post by mamajumbo on Oct 18, 2014 6:26:06 GMT -5
BF4 was such a flop in my country, they still sell it for 20 CHF, which is approximately 16 euros, or 20 dollars hahahaha. And fps shouldn't be played on a console. It's annoying to pay each month for the xbox live.
|
|
|
Post by The Karcolith on Oct 19, 2014 0:15:11 GMT -5
Don't bring the PC vs Console into this.
But I liked BF3 over BF4, something about BF4 wasn't right. It lacked something.
|
|
|
Post by dehotherguy on Oct 19, 2014 1:26:05 GMT -5
It could partially be the fact that we played Battlefield 3 in the past, giving us a bit of nostalgic bias (I could be wrong, of course). All the bugs and launch controversy aside, I felt Battlefield 4 was a solid game. I enjoyed both 3 and 4 thoroughly. But yeah, 3 for me was definitely more "OMG!!!" when it was announced, what with the massive graphical jump from BC2 along with other huge differences from past BF titles. But even so, Battlefield 4, though maybe not as insanely revolutionary as BF3 was when it was announced, was definitely different enough to be its own solid, exciting game.
|
|
|
Post by mamajumbo on Oct 19, 2014 4:49:54 GMT -5
In BC2, I felt like the whole map was destructible, you could take down everything, nowaday there are only specific buildings that can be destroyed or damaged. Sometimes I use an rpg at a wall, hoping that I might get inside or take down a high rised building to kill a sniper nest from the bottom. (especially in Shanghai, this is a sniper bitching area, people take helicopters to crash on rooftops instead of using the killing factor of the mounted gatling gun, pisses me off)
|
|
|
Post by dehotherguy on Nov 5, 2014 2:49:03 GMT -5
Hmmm, well to be fair, most of the buildings in BC2 were small shacks and houses, while BF4 has more skyscrapers and other large buildings, which, for various reasons, would be much harder to apply full destruction mechanics on. Besides, almost all of the smaller buildings are still destructible.
In that case, I'd say that map variety is very important, so that people who prefer certain types of maps (ex. The destructibility of smaller buildings vs the scale and verticality of larger buildings) have options. I personally think BF4 had a reasonable balance of that, with maps like Golmud Railway having lots of small buildings to level and Siege of Shanghai having the big epic skyscrapers people can go on top of.
And then there's the Levolutions, which, admittedly, are mostly flashy gimmicks. Buuuuuut, I think DICE was onto something, since a few of the Levolutions actually did change up the map in interesting ways, like the flood in Flood Zone that blanketed the bottom with water so that infantry couldn't walk there (my biggest gripe with it was that the Levolution was a bit too easy to trigger, and the effect on the map was there, but kinda underwhelming). I think if DICE works a bit more on the concept, Levolutions can actually be really impactful, meaningful changes on maps.
|
|
|
Post by dehotherguy on Dec 22, 2014 23:38:04 GMT -5
New trailer just came out.
|
|
|
Post by mamajumbo on Dec 23, 2014 5:03:22 GMT -5
I am waiting for the Witcher 3
|
|