Battlefield 4

[chortles 263]

At this point, if DICE is in fact factionalized the dominant faction is essentially EA as far as the overarching decisions are concerned.

[mr_centipede 31]

At this point, if DICE is in fact factionalized the dominant faction is essentially EA as far as the overarching decisions are concerned.

There's an error in your statement. There's no 'then' in your 'if' statement, which left me unable to comprehend the statement

[bangtail 0]

I dare suggest that this depends on what you mean by "modders"... the brouhaha over Steam Workshop seems to involve specifically content modders, whereas even if they pull out wholesale the Editor's current state (so long as it's not subsequently restricted) basically guarantees that there will be a modding scene to hold A3 up high, to somewhat take their place... you'd just likely to see it move proportionally more towards mission creation and less "assets content" (i.e. units, vehicles, weapons)... but right now, with the Editor being what it is combined with a post-DayZ swell of outside-of-the-existing-community interest and this "influx" (despite being accused of being "casuals") lending their own word-of-mouth promoting and as importantly their own how-to instructions (i.e. tutorial videos) to help market Arma 3 for BI... Arma 3's position seems secure. (Those who fanboyed Arma for years only to see these newcomers be more effective marketing tools for BI/Arma than the long-time loyalists are free to take offense at my assertion if they like.)

There is nothing wrong with newcomers, more interest in the game is not automatically a bad thing.

The only drawback imho, are the newcomers who would like the game turned into a CoD/BF clone.

I really don't see this happening.

There are going to be changes as it is a new game and not ArmA 2.5.

Some people are going to be resistant to those changes and some may well leave, that's just how it goes.

Personally, I don't really care for the fictional equipment but I don't see it as a huge problem as I have always bought these games due to the editor and the community that supports it.

Anyway, since this is a BF4 topic, we should probably stick to BF4 ;)

Edited April 5, 2013 by BangTail

[metalcraze 290]

Man that CoDkid is salivating over those 17 minutes of scripted cutscene so much it even made me think maybe I don't get something? Because I haven't felt a damn thing he's describing.

All I could see is an unbelievable cretinism of soldiers in every scene which goes like

1. Idiots do something really stupid (running in the middle of the street full of enemies, running through the open field, trying to board a chopper when there's a Mi-28 flying around, driving a car when there's Mi-28)

2. Because of that enemies gain an advantage quickly (although gunner of that Mi-28 is really bad and the chopper seems to shoot plastic bullets)

3. Idiots suffer and complain

4. GO TO 1

Edited April 5, 2013 by metalcraze

[Smurf 12]

That video could be just an tech demo if you ask me, gameplay wise it's just idiotic. Everything always must be way over the top, it's not even funny anymore.

Then you read this: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-03-28-the-big-battlefield-4-interview-dice-leaves-technology-behind

Really, read the whole answer after the question "Then, what is different about Battlefield 4 that improves the overall experience, as you describe it? What exactly have you done to change it for the better?"

It really got me confused.

[dmarkwick 261]

Well, I have to agree with Metalcraze here :) I didn't see anything outside of nice eyecandy that makes me want to play this game. It's about "go here", "do this thing", "now go here"... fine if that's your thing but it isn't mine. There are a few minor decisions to make, like whether to sneak around the left or the right.. but really I'm not seeing much of what I would call gameplay. I'd be more interested in how those cutscene elements can be made to work in a MP game...

[bangtail 0]

Man that CoDkid is salivating over those 17 minutes of scripted cutscene so much it even made me think maybe I don't get something? Because I haven't felt a damn thing he's describing.

All I could see is an unbelievable cretinism of soldiers in every scene which goes like

1. Idiots do something really stupid (running in the middle of the street full of enemies, running through the open field, trying to board a chopper when there's a Mi-28 flying around, driving a car when there's Mi-28)

2. Because of that enemies gain an advantage quickly (although gunner of that Mi-28 is really bad and the chopper seems to shoot plastic bullets)

3. Idiots suffer and complain

4. GO TO 1

It's all about 'pacing' /sarcasm off

[Bee8190 10]

There is nothing wrong with newcomers, more interest in the game is not automatically a bad thing.

The only drawback imho, is the newcomers who would like the game turned into a CoD/BF clone.

I really don't see this happening.

Making sure that arma stays on its right course is surely a good thing but I've always wondered where all the paranoia comes from. I mean yes, theres been some kill streak thread request/s and similar funny threads but far less that would warrant the said paranoia of turning arma series into COD/ BF.

The jump thread on the other hand is IHO perfectly valid and I'd support the idea if done right.

@Metalcraze - my absolute favorite (not!) scene is also the useless Mi28 and the pathetic ammo /cannon against the troops and even more so the SUV near end of the vid...hilarious...almost

Edited April 5, 2013 by Bee8190

[nodunit 397]

I mean yes, theres been some kill streak thread request/s and similar funny threads but far less that would warrant the said paranoia of turning arma series into COD/ BF.

I think the fear is there due to arma being one of the few games that have stayed true to its roots for better or worse , many around here seem to fear change period, sometimes without rational thought.

Jumping and stealth kills being perfect examples, you say these two things and everyone immediately assumed bunny hopping or one stab knife kills.

Very few gave it some consideration and thought as to how these things could work, especially in tandem with other systems and become realistic in their own right.

[froggyluv 2130]

@Chortles: DICE have sold out there PC gaming roots in terms of PC primary platform, large expansive maps and mod support for bigger payday EA-style chase the COD crowd. Plenty of hardcore, original BF fans have posted their frustration with the sell-out/greed mentality of DICE such as this post : http://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf3/forum/threadview/2832654625062595165/

and this one: http://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf3/forum/threadview/2832654347921946895/

Pretty well sums it up for me as well. Of course everyone wants to make money - some will do anything including betraying their original intent and ideals while others will stick to their guns and core beliefs with maybe, slight adjustments to useability etc...and accept that profits may be a little harder to come by but keep their integrity and can hold their chins up. Look at the graph earlier in this thread about the satisfcation (or lack of) rates of BF throughout the series -theres a reason for that. Certain DICE team members have stated they really want mod support and PC primary development -whats holding them back? Their EA overlord. :icon_evil:

[tet5uo 4]

They should have let them make Mirror's Edge 2 already. That game is screaming out for a re-make with the Frostbite tech.

EA would probably make them put gun-play in it again and ruin the second one too though.

[Haystack15 10]

Not really a remake with the frostbite engine. It just needed a new chapter. What it had technically was great.

That video could be just an tech demo if you ask me, gameplay wise it's just idiotic. Everything always must be way over the top, it's not even funny anymore.

Then you read this: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-03-28-the-big-battlefield-4-interview-dice-leaves-technology-behind

Really, read the whole answer after the question "Then, what is different about Battlefield 4 that improves the overall experience, as you describe it? What exactly have you done to change it for the better?"

It really got me confused.

Difficulty level set to "Showcase" mode

Edited April 5, 2013 by Haystack15
Forgot the "t" in "it" on the third sentence.

[jblackrupert 14]

Certain DICE team members have stated they really want mod support and PC primary development -whats holding them back? Their EA overlord. :icon_evil:

If you've ever been on the old EA UK forums you would have read a lot of comments from the DICE team members who do.

When several PC gamers who were part of the group that got invited to LA by EA/DICE for the BC2 demonstration didn't give the thumbs up and got their accounts banned

the good guys at DICE stepped in a got the bans overturned.

They are there but treading very carefully since the EA PR department is watching everything they do and say.

I used to play on a 2142 server with a couple of them regularly.

[chortles 263]

There is nothing wrong with newcomers, more interest in the game is not automatically a bad thing.

So why do the paranoid treat it that way? Other people getting to share in what was exclusively their special refuge? (As you can probably tell from this post and my forums sig, I am really, really not sympathetic to them.)

Making sure that arma stays on its right course is surely a good thing but I've always wondered where all the paranoia comes from. I mean yes, theres been some kill streak thread request/s and similar funny threads but far less that would warrant the said paranoia of turning arma series into COD/ BF.

is it that hard to believe that some people are deliberately trying to troll the seeming-paranoid-about-BF/COD because their seeming paranoia makes them look all the more vulnerable to trolling?

Besides, the idea of "staying on the right course" tends to fall into Internet fights over what Arma's "right course" is due to disagreement over what Arma "is" in the first place... hell, you sometimes even get certain people complaining that Arma 3 doesn't have "realism" because it was "hijacked" by the sandbox people. :rolleyes:

I think the fear is there due to arma being one of the few games that have stayed true to its roots for better or worse , many around here seem to fear change period, sometimes without rational thought.

Personally I thought that that "many around here seem to fear change period, sometimes without rational thought" is exactly why you see threads calling for kill streaks...

Back to EA/DICE/BF4...

@ froggyluv: again, considering what I said about "dominant faction" and "never in it for the art in the first place"... I believe that you're seriously mistaking it as "selling out", when it's more like the "never in it for the art in the first place" faction becoming ascendant (due to of course essentially being "the voice of EA" within DICE). It's not exactly a case of selling out when it's the "purists" vs. "never in it for the art in the first placers" and both just happen to be under the DICE banner. The "purists" are and remain there... we (or at least I, I don't know about you actually really getting it) just know that EA hasn't been listening to them for two years and the dominant faction is all too happy to turn the screws, so to speak... see jblackrupert's remark. You really have to stop thinking of DICE as a singular entity...

Heck, you actually acknowledge "their EA overlord" yet you bother wasting emotion on this series? Good grief, give it up already... there's no real going back for this series, so be like me and just turn your back on Battlefield.

As with DMarkwick I'd actually like seeing "how those cutscene elements can be made to work in a MP game..."

(Trivia: Apparently they were in fact sincerely intending PC primary development at first for BF3 but then EA did in fact cause the "primary development" change mid-way through.)

Incidentally... one of the more annoying things about this trend for me was how it essentially sabotaged Medal of Honor: Warfighter from the beginning by very overtly making it "the series that we'll do between Battlefield installments"... no amount of technical or gameplay innovation was going to overcome EA overtly treating it as 'the day job that we do to support our hobby' and everyone else without a vested promotional interest noticing this.)

[froggyluv 2130]

@Chortles: It really doesn't matter how you try and phrase it - you stated yourself that Dice intended one thing (exclusive PC platform building) and were beaten down by their captor *cough*, producer into changing the gameplan for profit. That is the epitome of selling out -DICE had a vision, their producer say no and they eat it. I know of another little shooter/milsim company that also fought for creative control against their producers, but they actually grew some balls, split and continued on to become the top milsim maker of the day. You say "turn your back on them" -that's EXACTLY what I did when I shunned them.

[chortles 263]

You still get it wrong... EA isn't their producer, EA is their customer...

And I was under the impression that "the split" was always about business, not content.

[froggyluv 2130]

Battlefield 3 (commonly abbreviated BF3) is a first-person shooter video game developed by EA Digital Illusions CE and published by Electronic Arts.

-Wiki

Artistic freedom was mentioned with the split.

[metalcraze 290]

You are saying it like poor DICE doesn't want more money. Selling to three platforms and then milking the game with a stream of crappy DLCs = much more profitable than selling to PC with mod support.

It isn't like DICE doesn't have managers and bosses who want their ferrari too.

[bangtail 0]

People sell out - that's just a fact.

Money is a powerful temptation and even people who get into things for all the right reasons often succumb to greed, it's human nature (unfortunately).

The people at DICE are no more immune to that than anyone else.

Case in point: John Carmack.

Carmack was a 'PC exclusive' and along with some genre defining games, he also found time to develop some amazing engine technology.

Then came RAGE and Carmack pulled a total 180.

We do not see the PC as the leading platform for games. That statement will enrage some people, but it is hard to characterize it otherwise; both console versions will have larger audiences than the PC version.

Carmack goes on to discuss the fact that while PCs are 10 times as powerful as consoles today, it’ll create “an inferior product†to expend “a tenth of the resources on a platform that’s 10 times as powerful.†So it makes more sense, he reasons, to develop for the lowest common denominator — the consoles — and focus on the effort of the development team in working on making the game fun. Instead of worrying about technology, he says, developing for consoles allows id to focus on gameplay, while the PC versions of games can be incrementally better. Developing primarily for PCs, on the other hand, makes for much weaker console games.

Allow me to translate - There is more money in developing for consoles.

I don't mind people selling out, that is their right.

I do mind them trying to dress it up as the pursuit of efficiency and fun where we don't have to worry about technology (it sounds like a wall of BS spoken by a man who is trying to justify his monetary pursuits).

And as far as him saying that developing for console's will allow for more 'fun' and 'focus on gameplay', if RAGE was anything to go by, that prophecy is in no danger of being fulfilled :rolleyes:

Edited April 6, 2013 by BangTail

[chortles 263]

froggyluv, I meant the BI/Codemasters split... I'd figured that it had always been more about money instead of creative differences. I remember Maruk admitting that BI didn't even want to do a sequel to OFP after developing Resistance, they wanted to do a Wild West RPG next. :p

You are saying it like poor DICE doesn't want more money. Selling to three platforms and then milking the game with a stream of crappy DLCs = much more profitable than selling to PC with mod support.

It isn't like DICE doesn't have managers and bosses who want their ferrari too.

Pretty much all of this, and it's become clear to me ever that post-DayZ-release BI -- and in particular Maruk -- have learned their own lessons too...

BangTail, that's just Carmack using the cost-benefit ratio (for him / for development) as a smokescreen for bad gameplay ideas in the first place that deserved to flunk whichever platform they were on. :p

[bangtail 0]

froggyluv, I meant the BI/Codemasters split... I'd figured that it had always been more about money instead of creative differences. I remember Maruk admitting that BI didn't even want to do a sequel to OFP after developing Resistance, they wanted to do a Wild West RPG next. :pPretty much all of this, and it's become clear to me ever that post-DayZ-release BI -- and in particular Maruk -- have learned their own lessons too...

BangTail, that's just Carmack using the cost-benefit ratio (for him / for development) as a smokescreen for bad gameplay ideas in the first place that deserved to flunk whichever platform they were on. :p

True, a bad game is a bad game, but isn't it a strange coincidence that id's first really bad game (and more importantly bad engine technology) just happened to coincide with their decision to move to primarily console development ;)

Edited April 6, 2013 by BangTail

[jblackrupert 14]

Commander mode is back.

Picture taken at a Gamestop: http://i.imgur.com/hlaAyJL.jpg

I think someone from DICE may have said this is happening also.

guess this will force them to spread the damn flags out this time and maybe bigger maps.

[chortles 263]

True, a bad game is a bad game, but isn't it a strange coincidence that id's first really bad game (and more importantly bad engine technology) just happened to coincide with their decision to move to primarily console development ;)

A strange coincidence, yes, but I'm of the believe that it was indeed just a coincidence. After all, as you said, "a bad game is a bad game". ;) And truthbetold it was released/developed before the... seeming-resurgence-in-the-public-eye of PC really took off and would have made him sound even more tone-deaf.

Actually witnessed an amusing back-and-forth exchange between three guys and a GameStop employee about what platform to preorder BF4 for on (they were set on the idea so no attempting to talk them out of it) which ended up seguing into a talk about building a PC, all three guys already taking the superiority of the PC as "the platform to get it on if money's no object" as a given (okay this was the best part, not even the guy thinking 360 was thinking that 360 was the best platform for BF4 :P) and the employee telling the guy with the 360 that the employee had built his own rig for around $1000 after rebates...

guess this will force them to spread the damn flags out this time and maybe bigger maps.

Pffft, "bigger maps" is relative, spreading the flags out is more important. Although, as someone said about one of the maps in (Aftermath? End Game?) when playing it in Conquest: "You can tell that this was made by someone who'd rather be making/playing Rush."

The return of three factions is interesting, but I'm not going to be happy until there's a three-way-fight map dammit! MAG showed how it could be done with Escalation matches! :D As for Commander Mode, gotta have a wait-and-see on what that entails, especially after all it was in BF3 was "pick a map objective for your team to get an EXP boost in the vicinity of"... does anyone remember how MAG's own "command" mode worked? (Though you only really got to see it in Acquisition, Interdiction and Domination, which were half of the six match types, otherwise for Suppression matches it was basically irrelevant, while in Sabotage and Escalation matches the only thing that could be done was Squad Leaders FRAGO-ing objectives for double EXP... so to be honest, in Sabotage when the first-line objectives were both up I'd see which of them was my squad's default one and then FRAGO the other so that my team could benefit from double EXP at either one.)

As for the rest of that flyer: preorder if you have to be playing at release, otherwise just wait for the inevitable Premium Edition. :rolleyes:

[John Spartan 89]

Hi lads, I haven't played BF since I tried BF2 [standard version]. I found that at the time as quite unrealistic run and gun shooter. Has anything changed since then, like now there are good deals on BF3 and expansions. As a hard-core ARMA series fan I was thinking is it worth getting in general? Maybe some BF3 veterans can tell me is there any much difference from BF2 > BF3 (not talking about graphics off curse)?

[chortles 263]

If you thought that BF2 was a quite unrealistic run and gun shooter then don't even bother wasting time on Battlefield 3 and just stick to Arma 2 and Arma 3.

By the standard that you used, BF3 is absolutely not worth getting, although I should point you in the direction of the Project Reality mod for BF2 if you're willing to look at a TvT "realism" mod; there is a Project Reality: Arma 2 version as well.