Never played battlefield series.

#1 Posted by H_M_1 (1149 posts) -

Hey guys. I was just wondering how the battlefield series was, I know the 4th one looks slick. My specific question is how is the multiplayer compared to COD? I'm not great at online games generally. Is it like a one man show or more team based? Thanks

#2 Edited by GTR12 (8886 posts) -

@H_M_1:

Don't get 4, its trash.

#3 Posted by crewe8 (670 posts) -

I've been a bf player for about 4 years, converted from cod.. Bf is a lot more team based, but some players don't seem to get it and it can feel like your on your own. As I haven't played cod since black ops 1, I can't really comment on how that is now.

#4 Posted by CRUSHER88 (1149 posts) -

You will have a hard time switching from COD to BF. They really are different games in terms of feel and just the scope of the games. BF4 was pretty brutal at launch but it sounds like they have fixed most of the stability problems. I'd say its worth checking out if you can get it on sale. If not, maybe just wait for the new BF: Hardline coming out this year. There is an open beta launching this fall for it too.

#5 Edited by XOne_ShotX91 (151 posts) -

I have both Ghosts and Battlefield 4 and I love both but theyre very different games. Ghosts is lone run and gun and Battlefield is teamwork. Yes, you have players in Battlefield who dont work well with others but when youre in a squad that is actually working together then it is awesome.

I prefer Battlefield but like another use said above, it's hard to switch. I'll play Call of Duty for a while and kick ass, then I go to Battlefield and Ill do horrible. Same with vice versa.

Also, dont get Battlefield unless you have a high end PC or X1/PS4. It's made for high end pc's and new-gen consoles. I had it on Xbox 360 and it was horrible. Very dull and bland looking, bad frame-rate, buggy gameplay. I got rid of it but when I got my Xbox One I decided to buy it again and see how it was on next-gen and it was a very big, very noticable difference.

#6 Edited by sukraj (21585 posts) -

is the battlefield 4 campaign any good.

#7 Posted by GTR12 (8886 posts) -

@sukraj said:

is the battlefield 4 campaign any good.

Not really, BF was never good at story telling, hate saying this, but COD stories might be better.

#8 Posted by sukraj (21585 posts) -

@GTR12 said:

@sukraj said:

is the battlefield 4 campaign any good.

Not really, BF was never good at story telling, hate saying this, but COD stories might be better.

I think i'll stay well clear of it then.

#9 Posted by XOne_ShotX91 (151 posts) -

@sukraj: It's not excellent, but it's a huge step up from Battlefield 3 though. Call of Duty is a better campaign though.

#10 Posted by sukraj (21585 posts) -

@sukraj: It's not excellent, but it's a huge step up from Battlefield 3 though. Call of Duty is a better campaign though.

thanks for the comment i think i'll wait for the next COD game.

#11 Posted by XOne_ShotX91 (151 posts) -

@sukraj: You can, but if you like chaotic (in a good way) and in depth multiplayer gameplay, then I wouldnt pass it up. This basically sums it up, in my opinion. If you want multiplayer, go with Battlefield. If youre a single player guy, then go with Call of Duty. Have fun with whatever you pick though. Ill be picking both Hardline and Advanced Warfare up.

#12 Edited by daviddiorio (31 posts) -

What are you going to be playing it on if you get it? If you have either of the next gen consoles get Battlefield 4, 32v32 players is amazing and they have fixed most of the issues they were having at launch. However, I'm not sure how well the PC version is running at the moment. The campaign is just ok and it is really short, you should be able to finish it in about 5-6 hours. Multiplayer is great and yes depending on the team you are playing with there is a lot more team work than COD.

#13 Posted by cejay0813 (603 posts) -

@GTR12: I wouldn't say it was "trash"

It just wasn't finished. I'm having way better experiences now than I did at launch. Sad I know but that speaks for something

#14 Posted by pyro1245 (273 posts) -

get 1942. lets play some Desert Combat mod! Woooooo

#15 Posted by sukraj (21585 posts) -

@sukraj: You can, but if you like chaotic (in a good way) and in depth multiplayer gameplay, then I wouldnt pass it up. This basically sums it up, in my opinion. If you want multiplayer, go with Battlefield. If youre a single player guy, then go with Call of Duty. Have fun with whatever you pick though. Ill be picking both Hardline and Advanced Warfare up.

I'm more into Single Player so i'll be picking up Call of Duty advance warfare lol

#16 Posted by XOne_ShotX91 (151 posts) -

@sukraj: In that case, I dont blame you there, lol.

#17 Edited by Odd1ne (8 posts) -

I enjoyed it didn't like it as much on the 360 as only max 32 players just got battlefield today looking forward to some 32on32 multi player

#18 Posted by PS4hasNOgames (979 posts) -

its ok. not the best fps, not the worst...I would say black ops is better, and mw2 is better as well.

#19 Posted by MondasM (1183 posts) -

i enjoyed the single player portion of bf4 more than cod: ghosts... if you are into cod mp, you'll die a lot in bf series until you get the hang of the game's mechanics and players... :)

#20 Posted by laujonat (9 posts) -

like many of the posters on this thread, i made the switch from COD to BF. I've been playing BF4 for a bit now and to be honest..I just want the storyline to end so I can get my trophies. There's nothing too compelling or moving about the story you go through.

Online play CAN be fun if you have friends or meet people who actually play BF the way it's meant to be played...IN TEAMS PEOPLE. But a lot of people seem to go Rambo and think they can go on single rampages like in COD making the game less fun.

Overall..I'm waiting for a new FPS installment that'll set higher standards for COD and BF. But in my opinion, BF is still more fun than COD.

#21 Posted by nechiken (93 posts) -

If you're looking for single player, play BF Bad Company 1. All the Battlefields after that have trash tier linear campaigns.

As for multiplayer, listen to someone else cause I've never gotten into it.

#22 Posted by DuaIFace (492 posts) -

I thought it hilarious that DICE/EA put weapons you could only get in the campaign, to then later use in multiplayer, just so that people would play the campaign. LMAO---if that doesn't tell you how forgettable the campaigns are for this series, I don't know what would.

#23 Posted by lonewolf604 (8509 posts) -

Well first off, BF4 is a fun game, but don't fall for how its marketed. I'm sure BF2 was a lot slower paced, but BF4 is practically like COD, except with vehicles and bigger maps. In my opinion, the action gets too ridiculous sometimes. A game like Red Orchestra is a lot more realistic in tone and feel.

And don't fall for the teamwork nonsense. While the game is built around teamwork (like capping flags/areas) you can get by and do well without team work. You will get plenty of people being lone wolves.