Most reviews I have read all say BF4 is a fantastic game, has great action, wonderful maps, etc... But I just don't think it's the game it should be. I haven't played it that much yet, but to me, it just doesn't feel like Battlefield. I did a bit of searching, and came across this video:
After watching it, I have to agree with most of the points, especially (and I think the reason it doesn't feel like battlefield) the map design. The maps, to me, feel too cramped, and I think there is too much action.
This is trailer for BC2, I think is a good example (although quite unrealistic) of what a Battlefield game is supposed to be.
But BF4 just doesn't seem like it.... For me, as I have said, its the map design - there doesn't really seem to be that much tactical gameplay - everytime I try to flank, or move away from the action, or advance to some cover up ahead I wind up getting shot from behind, and these kinds of things remind me of the 'no where is safe' kind play that you get in COD.
Maybe it's just because I haven't learn't the maps very well, but I never really felt like this in BF3. I play battlefield, and not COD because I'm a fan of the freedom that you get, but in BF4, it just seems like that isn't really there... So what does everyone else think? Am I crazy? Or is BF4 turning into EA's COD?
I'm enjoying the game. Some of the maps are a bit cramped and so the game play is a bit faster but I don't mind too much. I don't think it's a bad game but it's not a great Battlefield game.
I play with a group of friends and we seem to play with a tactical style just fine. Mind you I'm the overwatch/sniper so I'm not usually in the middle of the fight I'm in some corner picking off people and giving my friends cover. The game could be better but it's still fun to me.
I 100% agree with you that Battlefield is turning into EA's Cod. The maps are getting smaller and smaller and the game play is getting faster and faster.
I've only played the BF4 beta and play BF3 quite a bit. I really like the BF3 maps for their openness and variety of options in terms of strategy. Some maps are more fast-paced than others, but you get used to the different maps as you learn them and you learn where the more "calm" locations are.
You should try Dayz if you want a more realistic experience, save for the zombies. It's best if you can play with a group of friends who know the map (which is massive by the way, twenty-some-odd square km's.) and know where to find the good gear.
You should try Dayz if you want a more realistic experience, save for the zombies
Why not just play ArmA 2 without DayZ if someone's looking for a more "realistic experience"? But anyway, yeah, I don't really like BF3 or 4 and have no reason to play either because of PlanetSide 2. Like I've mentioned elsewhere, it may not have a lot of content, and there's certainly a lot of problems with it, but it's free and the biggest combined arms game in terms of how many players you can have.
Are you playing some of the 'bigger' maps on conquest/conquest large? To be quite frank I consider some of the maps even TOO big as unless you have a vehicle it's going to take forever to get anywhere. I find the only levels that get 'cramped' or such would be Lockers?
I'm not playing anything because I'm not interested in BF4 as I've stated before. Only played the beta to see if my computer could handle it. But I have played a bit of 3 and the maps seem too small to me, compared to some of the maps on 1942. If they seem too big to you, it's probably because the maximum number of players is only 64. Like I said, not interested in playing Battlefield, because it's still based in the modern era, I'd rather have a sequel to 2142, and sorry, but it can't compare to how many players PlanteSide 2 can have on a continent, which is around 1000+. Don't quote me on the population limit though, because it has been lowered/raised too many times and there's no official number.
I'll have to try PS2 again... last time I tried to play, it didn't run well (even on low settings) with my 7950 + 8350, but I think I read somewhere that its optimized better now; or it could just be my crap internet too, but I couldn't get above 25FPS.
Im enjoying the game and im playing on a shit rig atm.
I cant even imagine the fun i will have with it once i get my rig in the next week or so playing 1080p ultra 60 FPS, compared to the current 720p low 35 FPS
I haven't actually played Arma 2. Only Dayz and I know that my friends and I have an absolute blast playing it. We have wars against other people, build bases etc. The realistic elements of the game present more interesting challenges to the game vs the typical FPS.
DropBear, you shouldn't be having any problems running PS2 with a 7950 and 8350. When I tried that game I ran it maxed at 1080p no sweat with a 7950 and i5-4570.
Yeah, I know, it ran better on my 3 year old non-gaming laptop than my PC though LOL, I think it just doesn't particularly like AMD, though, they've probably fixed any issues now i'd say.