I kind of have to disagree-CARNIFEX-[LOC] wrote:
BF3+expansions were an extended beta that many were so kind to pay for at each step of the way. It provided a flagship title to launch Origin with, to work out some of the kinks from Battlelog, and let them "perfect" the PC-console bastardization of the series.
The best BF4 CAN be is a "best of both worlds", which is essentially a guarantee of failure to meet expectations from the PC crowd. How many promises for BF3 were met upon release? That game was/is a botched mess to this day, and it was (supposedly) in development for longer than BF4 has been. I have extreme doubts about BF4 presenting anything further than what BF3 already has, which is to say...mediocrity.
And the parties responsible for envisioning Premium exclusivities should have their genitals slathered in honey and dipped in a hill of fire ants. Unfortunately, I'm sure that gem of a marketing plan was the first thing on the list of bullshit ideas to carry-over...
While I won't be defending BF3 as a whole I do not think Premium was nearly as bad as it COULD HAVE been. You were essentially paying 50 bucks for another 16 maps. The Special Forces expansion for BF2 was cheaper, yes, and it had much better value for your money, but as a whole I don't think Premium was all that bad. Even though I hated Close Quarters and I cannot play Armored Kill because I play it on console.
Here's a list of things BF4 could use the most:
Better netcode, hitreg (obviously)
Consistency of outcomes. If I've got the drop on someone, and have a better weapon suited to the range, I should kill them. I hated in BF3 the insane amount of bullet drop/suppression/realistic shooting effects. I know shifty a couple of years ago said something about "laser guns", but in my opinions that's what Battlefield always was, provided you do not shoot on full auto. In BF2 using the M4 or G36c or M16 or most "accuracte guns" for that matter, you could hit a target consistently at a much, much farther distance. In BF3 you basically have to calculate the speed/velocity of the bullet, the distance, the bullet drop, AND lead the target, for almost all engagements longer than what you'd find on the average call of cuty map. It's stupid, it's overly complicated, and not to mention the insane scope sway on EVERY gun has turned essentially every gun into a sniper rifle. If I aim and shoot somewhere, that's where the bullet should go. I don't mind a LITTLE bullet drop, like Bad Co 2., but for gods sakes get rid of the fucking scope sway and the stupid fucking suppression effects.
Better balancing between PC/console. One thing that blew my mind about BF3 was how instead of dividing the maps into 64/32/16 size maps, ala BF2, they instead created static and unchanging maps which were then modified depending on the platform. This meant the console versions sucked more then they had to, and the PC versions had to put up with the bullshit that was in there just for the consoles. Without maps such as Metro, Grand Bazaar, Seine River, the console versions of the game would have been empty ghost towns. I don't think it has anything to do with the players, its purely what the machines are capable of. I'd like them to bring back, at the very least, large/small versions of the maps. It just makes sense.
Destruction to me is a one way street. Either you go all out, and making almost every structure in the game destructible, or you don't. BF3 also sucked imo because the destruction was promised to be in the game but it turned out to be 1/10th of what it was in Bad Co. 2. I don't care about all the haters of destruction, it was and is the only original thing any multiplayer FPS game has done in the past 6-7 years. Just because you have destruction doesn't mean it has to be a giant orgy of explosions and fire -- Bad Co 2 suffered from that perception imo because the assault class got the ammunition drop.
Last edited by Spearhead (2013-03-21 15:22:50)
