I just took a look at BF4 recently.

[NormannTheDoorman]

Far from impressed. More disappointed if I could even find the words to describe what it is I saw and played.

It seemed like BF2 with BF3 graphics and BFBC2 destruction.

 

[deadpixel]

I've tried bf3 and bf4, I just dont like it, I hate the huge maps and everything feels clunky/clumsy. I transitioned from cs 1.6 to black ops 2 pretty nicely but i prefer games that dont have ADS, Id rather just point the cross hair at someones head with extreme accuracy and a nice 2 shot burst and pop it like a zit.

 

[Valentas]

You should try Stronghold crusader instead. Old but gold. I loved and still love strategy games. They are long to play but there you can engage your imagination in full, plus you are guaranteed to meet INTPs online playing it. I have two skype contacts from the time I played this game and we still talk. Not surprising, we all study CS.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I've only played the beta of BF4, it seemed solid but not too different from BF3 that I felt compelled to get it. The apparent buggy-ness of it just added to the disinclination, I can tell it was a rushed product based on DICE+EA's past release history.

Although I loved BC1's campaign, BC2 had the smoothest multiplayer controls + gameplay of them all.

 

[NormannTheDoorman]

I've only played the beta of BF4, it seemed solid but not too different from BF3 that I felt compelled to get it. The apparent buggy-ness of it just added to the disinclination, I can tell it was a rushed product based on DICE+EA's past release history.

Although I loved BC1's campaign, BC2 had the smoothest multiplayer controls + gameplay of them all.

BC2 had a charm to it that made it somewhat amusing to play. It was quirky and at times lighthearted if you played with the right people.

 

[Ex-User (9062)]

Good, you're learning!
It's all the same trite.

 

[NormannTheDoorman]

Good, you're learning!
It's all the same trite.

Which is why I've been yearning for some of the older games.


I like games similar World in Conflict. There isn't a part 2 and there is no reason for one. The multiplayer tactical scenarios are beyond ambiguous you can play it out in many ways.

The battlefield and environment changes almost every 10 seconds it's all about reacting and adapting.

 

[Ex-User (9062)]

"IMO" the reason why no game will ever satisfy you is because it is a surrogate activity for what you really want to do but are prevented from because of legislation and collective moral preconceptions.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

"IMO" the reason why no game will ever satisfy you is because it is a surrogate activity for what you really want to do but are prevented from because of legislation and collective moral preconceptions.

What do you mean? I don't think BF players actually want to kill people.

 

[Ex-User (9062)]

What do you mean? I don't think BF players actually want to kill people.

Of course not.
I'd rather suggest that these games tap into our evolutionary psychology to defend the tribe, whereas in actual reality there doesn't exist such a thing anymore.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlnxPOeyTbk

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Of course not.
I'd rather suggest that these games tap into our evolutionary psychology to defend the tribe, whereas in actual reality there doesn't exist such a thing anymore.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlnxPOeyTbk

You forget that progress in virtual realities can be as lasting as in life.
Another thing is that future virtual worlds may be as real as what you now sense in this physical reality.

Obsolete evolution vs technological progress that finds new branches for the evolution to catch on.

I can agree that games, that are not your own works, are in 99.5% a waste of time, from my experience.

 

[King_Be_Us]

What do you mean? I don't think BF players actually want to kill people.

For some background into my video games... I always turn to FPS games for satisfaction. I wouldn't call it the need to kill, but I feel amazing playing BF3. Being able to kick your adrenaline into high-speed to kill multiple opponents in enough time to plant the objective. Alternatively, I imagine that actually doing that could be satisfying... Sacrificing my soul to save my clan. I wouldn't imagine happiness otherwise.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

For some background into my video games... I always turn to FPS games for satisfaction. I wouldn't call it the need to kill, but I feel amazing playing BF3. Being able to kick your adrenaline into high-speed to kill multiple opponents in enough time to plant the objective. Alternatively, I imagine that actually doing that could be satisfying... Sacrificing my soul to save my clan. I wouldn't imagine happiness otherwise.

Most of my gaming time has also been on FPSes more than any other genre and I do think Salmoneus is accurate to an extent about primitive instincts. The latest Battlefields have some good simulation, the dynamic action and the detailed graphics activates your emotions/chemicals; I get certain feelings from playing those war/military types of games. I still think the actual experience of war and war video games are extremely different on various levels though.

 

[King_Be_Us]

War games are interesting... Especially how you play. You can be more team based, and act as if your opportunities allow for your team to advance, solo runs for high kills vs deaths per run, or a combination of both. Unfortunately... BF3 doesn't have mic enabling, but then again, I can foresee potential issues with mic abuse vs communicating.

Once I get my computer hooked up im a post my origin ID if anyone is interested.

 

[Cognisant]

I really liked 1942 despite the simplicity, Vietnam was more of the same but with a few gimmicks, Battlefield 2 was the last one I bothered to play, after that it the franchise was just another linear corridor mapped heavily cinematic CoD clone, although to be fair I like the historical accuracy of the first CoD game.

I loved how the huge maps in 1942 meant a sniper on a hill could spot a tank column coming up a mountain road, relay the coordinates to a bomber way overhead which would then blindly bomb that location and decimate the tanks, 1942 was epic.

 

[redbaron]

I loved how the huge maps in 1942 meant a sniper on a hill could spot a tank column coming up a mountain road, relay the coordinates to a bomber way overhead which would then blindly bomb that location and decimate the tanks, 1942 was epic.

Yeah, and now we have, "care packages."

 

[Cognisant]

I don't know what those are.

Although in Battlefield 2 crushing an enemy sniper with a supply crate is obscenely funny.

 

[redbaron]

I don't know what those are.

It's basically all of the cool vehicle combat and tactical possibilities from BF1942 reduced to, "press button, receive airstrike".

 

[Cognisant]

Bah, back in my day we counted ourselves lucky if we didn't die in the same artillery crater we spawned in, the guys in vehicles had to ferry troops into combat or we'd shoot them for treachery, and aircraft carriers actually moved.

Kids these days no nothing of war.

 

[NormannTheDoorman]

It's basically all of the cool vehicle combat and tactical possibilities from BF1942 reduced to, "press button, receive airstrike".

Which is why I love 1942.

You were the air strike. You were the artillery. You were the ships.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

As bad as DICE gets trashed for the bugs and other issues, I think they were really trying to bring back and improve the Battlefield aesthetic. In singleplayer although firefights are limited to mostly direct engagements, DICE included the weapon cache and "open" battlefields of BF: Bad Company which was missing in BF3. They also added a targeting feature to make it more tactical like the multiplayer.

I think the multiplayer is just a result of them trying to outdo themselves(within EA's schedules), which ended up having probably having more negatives than positives.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

EA has launched a free 1 week(186 hour) trial of Battlefield 4. It'll be free to download until the 14th, the timer starts when you first launch the game and doesn't stop.