Opinion: worst battlefield

#1 Edited by robokill (1049 posts) -

Pros: things blow up

Cons:

terrible map design

terrible community (and I mean terrible, worse than COD)

constant glitching, freezing, crashing and general bugginess

simply not fun the majority of the time

There was a time when battlefield games were about huge maps and sprawling battles, that is no more. This is a claustrophobic buggy mess where you'll get shot in the back 9 times out of 10, I highly recommend all pc gamers do not buy it, I regret spending the money and it would undoubtedly be the last battlefield game I ever play. The game is a grind from the very start, you get useless weapons and it's mostly just not fun.

#2 Posted by Dubetime (282 posts) -

"constant glitching, freezing, crashing and general bugginess"

I would love the game if it didn't freeze every 10 min.I'm unable to play because of freezing.

The map design is better than Battlefield 3 in my opinion.It reminds me of battlefield bad company 2.

#3 Posted by IntenseGamingAZ (469 posts) -

2142 was the last good Battlefield.

#4 Posted by killaz18 (285 posts) -

More confined which i didn't like at first, but now i am really liking it because less time wasting. Never tryed conquest yet(im a rush guy), I do wish rush had 3 really big maps though like the older BF's and then it'd be perfect. Spawning after dying in rush should be alot longer , too.

The big popular problem amongst fps games is...Death...It is meaningless in all these fps games which I REALLY HATE. Death should be a consequence and be more then just a # on your stats and not just a lucky way out....and then spawning immediately after knowing where your killer is and then gaining advanced knowledge to plan ahead some type of cheap cod tactic; that pathetic cat an mouse game which is a joke in fps games....It's cod like BS not needed here!

Has anyone ever played Brother in Arm's: Hells Highway multiplayer?That game was such a blast!!!!! Because when you died....you were dead...Made the shoot outs so great. I know there is a mode like this in BF4 but it sucks...It's alright but could be way better.

These developers need my help. Or...maybe i just await a true socom!

#5 Posted by Myzz617 (2026 posts) -

I have brother in Arms but really never played it online. There were too many other games to enjoy when that game came out so it has been a dust collector. I have to say that BF is the closest I have seen any game come to being SOCOM like. I value that someone feels the same. With the new commander mode they took a slice from MAG and me personally I love RTS games so this game is a great one if you ask me. In regards to the LAG and other junk, I think they will fix it eventually. It happens with any game, thats what patches are for and new DLC will bring you new maps and what more BF fans want. No reason to be negative about it DICE is much better than IW or their other partners who made it like COD. Sitting out a whole match kind of does suck so maybe there should be a ticket count per player rather than team ticket count depending on the mode and game type you are playing. There should be more strategy to BF than Kill, Die and Kill again. I do agree constant spawning is a PITA much like Campers are.

#6 Edited by killaz18 (285 posts) -

That's a damn good idea for a mode...players having their own ticket count.

And sitting out a whole match does suck...That's why when you go back into the fight you will be far more careful, strategic, and will want to work with your teammates for once lol. That's the whole point of needing death consequences in a fps game...It will bring out greater aspects and elements and excitement in a war game.

Without the sour....How would you know what sweet is....

#7 Posted by wrlxx333x2 (10 posts) -

Its nice to know I am not the only one who thought this game was an utter disappointment. The controls were so sticky and complicated with these useless weapon tutorial pop-ups made this game very annoying to play. The gameplay was so basic and bullets never seemed to meet their targets, it was rushed and just simply boring. Not to mention the graphics were so unpolished that it made this game almost cheaply done with gameplay that I would call redundant and primitive compared to other first-person shooters.

And lets talk about the interaction between NPCs and the main character, you hardly have any NPC that actually does something without you being there, during the "cutscenes" they never look you in the eye and have these pre-determined movements so its very unrealistic, and don't even try going up a ladder or stairs without getting pushed out of the way first by other NPCs.

The plot is a whole other story, its dry, its been done before and doesn't bring anything new to the table, and I felt like nothing tied in creatively.

Overall this game was disappointing especially with all of the hype it got before release, I would not recommend this game to anybody.

#8 Posted by sixty7velle (1032 posts) -

I really enjoyed bf3. Then I quit playing in favor of Skyrim for a few months and never got back in to it. 2142 was by far the last great bf game, but it had its launch issues too. Bf2 was probably the only one in the series that was complete at launch.

I actually think the map design in Bf3 was better than Bf4. Don't get me wrong, I'm really enjoying the new layouts and learning how to play them, Metro was probably one of the most fun Infantry maps I've played. As for actually liking BF4 as a game, it's good enough until something better comes out. To me, it feels like bf3 with better graphics, more destructibility, worse optimized, and many more bugs.

Maybe we will see 2143 here soon.