So it was officially announced today and I'll be the first to say I don't like this as Battlefield 3 came out not too long ago and I figured BF4 would be another year or two, especially since BF3 wasn't that much of a step up from BC2.
However, then I watched this video.
This video does contain mature language, viewer discretion is advised.
Game looks incredible. Supposed to come out Fall of 2013. Hopefully it looks close to that on the new consoles (PS4, new Xbox), that'd be impressive.
Last edited by 3 Justin 3; 03-27-2013 at 04:54 PM.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to 3 Justin 3 For This Useful Post:
People need to stop perpetuating the myth that BF4 is releasing on top of the heels of BF3. If BF4 releases as rumoured in the fall it will have been 2 years after BF3's release date. A two year cycle is fine with me and DICE did a heck of a lot more than most companies in supporting their game post launch. At any rate, I'd like to see them scrap the single player entirely and make more multiplayer maps.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to cDnStealth For This Useful Post:
I agree that 2 years is a suitable window for a release like this, however counting expansions/DLC, it really does seem a little crammed. There were 5 packs?
__________________
"Wake up, Luigi! The only time plumbers sleep on the job is when we're working by the hour."
Meh. Was equally impressed with the single player previews for BF3. That game was unplayable for me. Looks will only get you so far. It's like when Sega CD games were way better looking than their Genesis counterparts, but the games just blew.
The video was neat, but once again I find myself wanting to see some multiplayer. SP videos do nothing for me for the BF franchise.
Still haven't even played a single minute of BF3 or BF:BC2 single player. The closest I got was running through the coop missions in BF3 for the weapon unlocks.
I played the single-player mode in BF:3. Pretty standard FPS-fare. I don't know why I buy FPS games anymore. I always get worked up about them, then blow through single-player campaign, realize that each level is pretty much the same thing, and then suck at the multiplayer mode until I get bored and trade it in.
I, too, would joyously embrace another WW2-themed Battlefield title. I haven't played 1942 in many moons but the magic of that game has stayed with me, and as someone else has said on this board, WW2 shooters are more engaging than all of this modern poppycock. You still get your guns, your tanks, your planes, etc, but in my opinion a far more intriguing setting/historical context and what I thought were more epic battles.
It may be the WW2 buff in me surfacing, but there's just something about storming the beaches of Normandy or plowing through the Ardennes in a Tiger that can't be beat.
__________________ Is your cat doing singing?
The Following User Says Thank You to Max Cow Disease For This Useful Post:
I, too, would joyously embrace another WW2-themed Battlefield title. I haven't played 1942 in many moons but the magic of that game has stayed with me, and as someone else has said on this board, WW2 shooters are more engaging than all of this modern poppycock. You still get your guns, your tanks, your planes, etc, but in my opinion a far more intriguing setting/historical context and what I thought were more epic battles.
It may be the WW2 buff in me surfacing, but there's just something about storming the beaches of Normandy or plowing through the Ardennes in a Tiger that can't be beat.
the planes in all the modern Battlefield games suck. nothing beats a Zero/Corsair dogfight
The Following User Says Thank You to Hemi-Cuda For This Useful Post:
The problem with the air stuff is that the arenas have been to small for high performance jets.
I did enjoy flying the F-4 in BF Vietnam. There was nothing better then dropping a stick of napalm on an enemy position.
Getting really good with the attack helicopters though made you a game changer.
^ Pretty much this.
Good bombers/tank drives/artillery gunners in 1942 would help push your team forward.
Good heli pilots in Vietnam would turn the tide.
Good jet pilots in BF3 lets you retain air superiority so you can...blow up their jets? Most jet pilots in BF3 do dick all for their team and are basically playing a different game than everyone else.
Good bombers/tank drives/artillery gunners in 1942 would help push your team forward.
Good heli pilots in Vietnam would turn the tide.
Good jet pilots in BF3 lets you retain air superiority so you can...blow up their jets? Most jet pilots in BF3 do dick all for their team and are basically playing a different game than everyone else.
plus the balance is way out of whack in BF3. if you're in a helicopter, you absolutely destroy any infantry or armor and basically force someone to equip a stinger just to counter. in BF1942 it was more balanced with planes only being a threat against armor. they were still very powerful in the right hands, but it didn't offset the balance so badly that the opposing team were forced to change classes to compensate
plus the balance is way out of whack in BF3. if you're in a helicopter, you absolutely destroy any infantry or armor and basically force someone to equip a stinger just to counter. in BF1942 it was more balanced with planes only being a threat against armor. they were still very powerful in the right hands, but it didn't offset the balance so badly that the opposing team were forced to change classes to compensate
Well that's a not problem because a 72-2 (lol) jet on the other team will take out that heli in no time. Air-anything in BF3 is completely negligible because jets only exist to kill other jets and helis. Infantry/armor can more or less ignore them.
I eventually gave up on the battlefield multiplay or arena play because it basically becomes a game of small unit tactics with no coordination.
If your going to build a sandbox battle game then you need a lot of players on each side, and you need to specialize them. Your infantry are infantry, your tank drivers are tank drivers, your arty specialists are arty specialists, your heli pilots and fighter/bomber pilots are pilots.
You need to have a overly commander that gets a theater battlemap and coordinates units using call signs or unit identifiers. The biggest wasted units in 1942 were the naval assets. Everyone used them as pretty much spawn points and didn't move them, or use them for shore bombardments while being hunted by other naval units.
You could never effectively call for air support because there was no system for doing it and marking the map.
In Vietnam they had transport helicopters but I rarely saw people using them strategically to get units in behind enemy units.
To me it would be awesome to scout forward, find your enemy and call in arty and air support enmasse and send in armor and APC's loaded with troops to clean up.
Or hold your enemy and send a helicopter assault against their base.
Or have a sub properly hunting a aircraft carrier or calling in a battleship to engage it.
Instead what I always see is individual infantry men running around with no fire support getting squashed by snipers while the arty remains silent a individual tank makes a zerg rush for a flag, while some idiot jumps into a plane and promptly crashes it into the ground.
The game could be so much more with a coordinating aspect that assigns roles, can see the overall map from a RTS perspective, control his troops and use them strategically.
Instead its basically a first person shooter with other dudes.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
I eventually gave up on the battlefield multiplay or arena play because it basically becomes a game of small unit tactics with no coordination.
If your going to build a sandbox battle game then you need a lot of players on each side, and you need to specialize them. Your infantry are infantry, your tank drivers are tank drivers, your arty specialists are arty specialists, your heli pilots and fighter/bomber pilots are pilots.
You need to have a overly commander that gets a theater battlemap and coordinates units using call signs or unit identifiers. The biggest wasted units in 1942 were the naval assets. Everyone used them as pretty much spawn points and didn't move them, or use them for shore bombardments while being hunted by other naval units.
You could never effectively call for air support because there was no system for doing it and marking the map.
In Vietnam they had transport helicopters but I rarely saw people using them strategically to get units in behind enemy units.
To me it would be awesome to scout forward, find your enemy and call in arty and air support enmasse and send in armor and APC's loaded with troops to clean up.
Or hold your enemy and send a helicopter assault against their base.
Or have a sub properly hunting a aircraft carrier or calling in a battleship to engage it.
Instead what I always see is individual infantry men running around with no fire support getting squashed by snipers while the arty remains silent a individual tank makes a zerg rush for a flag, while some idiot jumps into a plane and promptly crashes it into the ground.
The game could be so much more with a coordinating aspect that assigns roles, can see the overall map from a RTS perspective, control his troops and use them strategically.
Instead its basically a first person shooter with other dudes.
A move towards a system like Natural Selection 2 has (top down RTS style commander position on each team that dictates spawn points, resource management, etc.) would do wonders for the franchise.
I'm still playing Battlefield Play 4 Free. Great game when you have 20 minutes and just want to fly a plane. I own all of the battlefield games and my absolute favorite is BF2. The Vietnam maps in BC2 are fun as well. I haven't played Battlefield 3 in about a year.
Battlefield 4
