Lol should have elaborated on that a bit better I - #89485598 added by rohze at EA making a very true statement.

Reply+34

(04/11/2013)[-]

>Take BF3
>Add more lens flare and dubstep
>Continue some 4 hour long campaign no one gives a **** about
>Recycle multiplayer
>Super awesome pre-order premium exclusive bonus - get a few extra weapons when you pay more, or maybe get an extra skin for a gun!
>BF4

#114 to #27 - anon id: a408274e

Reply0

(04/11/2013)[-]

To be fair, it runs on Frostbite III, whereas BF3 runs on Frostbite II.

#122 to #114 - rohze

Reply+2

(04/11/2013)[-]

I'm not even joking when I say that BF4 looked exactly the same as BF3. Especially the knife takedowns and Russian models being directly ripped from BF3.

#89 to #27 - anon id: 98dee1e5

Reply0

(04/11/2013)[-]

No way man, we get 5 NEW CAMOS (one per 5 randomly selected guns out of 50, so of the 10% chance the gun you wanted gets selected, there's an 80% chance it will be a camo you didn't want, assuming you wanted any of them, considering they're all **** anyway).

$120 well spent, take that Arma III.

#41 to #27 - darkfuzion

Reply-1

(04/11/2013)[-]

Yes, pretty much. I had swear a screw in my table went loose when the theme for BF4 played when I saw the trailer.

#31 to #27 - mythicdragoon

Reply-7

(04/11/2013)[-]

and this is different from CoD...how?

#135 to #31 - ninjastarthrow

Reply0

(04/11/2013)[-]

It's not.

#77 to #31 - ronyx

Reply0

(04/11/2013)[-]

As a matter of fact it's not different from CoD. EA saw that they could turn BF series into a cowmilk like the CoD franchise. After BF:BC2 they realize they could just **** out a spray and pray fps game that could appeal to most CoD players. That is why BF3 became CoD with better graphics and that's why BF4 will be BF3 with new maps, vehicles and guns, basically a 60 dollar DLC.

#33 to #31 - sniffythebird

Reply+12

(04/11/2013)[-]

>Most modern FPS games these days

#34 to #33 - mythicdragoon

Reply-4

(04/11/2013)[-]

didn't answer the question

#35 to #34 - sniffythebird

Reply+5

(04/11/2013)[-]

I don't get how people said MW3 was the same as MW2. I played the effing **** out of 2, and found 3 to be so different and stupid I just couldn't play it much at all.

Same for BO 1 and 2. Yeah, they're on the same engine and ****, but the feel of the gameplay changes a lot. That isn't the case with Battlefield. Apart from being able to sprint diagonally and having some smoother animations, BF3 was just like BFBC2. BF4 looks like just another DLC for BF3, except that it adds some more sun glare / lens flare and a more modern look to the whole shebang.

#64 to #35 - coolcalx

Reply-4

(04/11/2013)[-]

what didn't you like about MW3, as opposed to MW2?
I actually preferred 3 to 2

#169 to #64 - sniffythebird

Reply0

(04/11/2013)[-]

What rohze said + how the perks, classes, guns + attachments work. I just felt MW3 was more unbalanced than MW2, every kind of class setup just felt weird. Yeah, MW2 had one many army noobtubes and commando, but then the worst gametype was to play ground war, which is not what you should do in MW2. Free for all in MW2 was near flawless except for boosters (which I actually kinda liked, because it was fun hunting them down), or people getting lucky with killstreaks.

#177 to #169 - coolcalx

Reply0

(04/11/2013)[-]

how was 3 more unbalanced than 2?

2 was awful because of all the noobtubes (which you mentioned) and mostly the UMP being way overpowered, which they fixed in 3.

also, I love how I'm getting thumbed down for asking a question, and then making an obviously subjective statement.

#121 to #64 - rohze

Reply0

(04/11/2013)[-]

For me as a PC gamer it was the hit reg, mouse acceleration, and the horrible ******* graphics. I don't mean to be a graphics whore but it was probably the ugliest game I have ever played and coupled with the terrible reg, it was just bad. At least in my opinion.

#178 to #121 - coolcalx

Reply0

(04/11/2013)[-]

I have it for the PS3, so none of that is applicable to me.
the graphics (on the PS3) are much better on 3 than on 2, and the hit registration worked fine on the PSN servers.

this is probably why I liked it and you didn't.

I've never played the PC version, but can you not change the mouse acceleration? I've been able to do that on literally every PC game I've ever played.

#186 to #178 - rohze

Reply0

(04/12/2013)[-]

No it was a very bad console port and didn't even have dedicated servers. The reason for the bad hit reg is that as a PC gamer we're used to server side hit reg inside of client side/host. There were a few 3rd party mouse accel fixes I believe but they didn't work 100% of the time.

#189 to #186 - coolcalx

Reply0

(04/12/2013)[-]

does BF3 have the same server problem?

#193 to #189 - rohze

Reply0

(04/12/2013)[-]

No, but BF3 does have an issue with its server-side + client-side hybrid netcode. It really doesn't work well at all but almost all of the Battlefield games since 1942 were notorious for having atrocious hit reg problems and over-all general network issues. BF3 does technically have dedicated servers but mod tools were never released (which is a huge no no to do with PC shooters) and you could only get "EA" ones which are servers that EA has approved of, which is okay but doesn't allow for a large selection of providers.

#194 to #193 - coolcalx

Reply0

(04/13/2013)[-]

"all of the Battlefield games since 1942"

you have no idea how confused I was when I read this. I was trying to figure out how video games existed in 1942.

mfw

#195 to #194 - rohze

Reply+1

(04/13/2013)[-]

Lol should have elaborated on that a bit better I apologize.