Battlefield 4 thoughts

  • 147 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for SPYDER0416
#51 Posted by SPYDER0416 (16736 posts) -

Anyone worried about it being a linear retread of BF3, worry no more (though haters be hatin' anyways).

Game Informer listed 18 things they know about BF4, and my personal favorites: 

- Battlefield 3's campaign was criticized for its painful linearity. For the follow-up, DICE is sticking more to its expertise, introducing open micro-sandboxes that incorporate vehicles and allow players to engage the enemy in whatever manner they choose. You could hop in a jeep to get to the hot zone, or move carefully on foot from cover to cover. You could take out all the tangos yourself, or call in a support strike from a helicopter. You could hang back and take out enemies with a sniper rifle, or equip a shotgun and get up close and personal. These action bubbles will often be book-ended by cinematic set piece moments.

You don't have full control over your squadmates, but you can order them to engage enemies or offer suppressing fire, which would allow you to flank the enemy while they are pinned down.

The sandboxes are also more dynamic and interactive than the static ones in previous Battlefield games. If you walk to close to a parked car, you may set off a car alarm and alert nearby enemies to your presence. If you move too quickly through a forest, a flock of birds make fly away en masse, signaling to enemies that they should go investigate the area.

On the downside no co-op, but everyone whining that it's just like a new linear DLC retread has no idea what they are talking about, especially in the face of this and the fact that the game was literally just announced and revealed. Like, it isn't out for a while you whiners.

Avatar image for slabber44
#52 Posted by slabber44 (985 posts) -

[QUOTE="slabber44"]

I just don't get why they just can't support their games for more than 1 year! This is why I can't stand BF and CoD series, but as long as everyone keeps jumping on every new release it will never change. Don't complain after release if it's more of same ole stuff.

Wasdie

For more than one year? By the time BF4 comes it BF3 will be 2 years old.

  Well if your happy with spending $60 every other year for basically the same gameplay and some minor graphic upgrades then that's your choice and I respect that. I don't see why they can't just upgrade and add content to a game already released instead of releasing a "supposively" new game every other year. Looking at the trailer I think they could've done that with a DLC or patch to BF3 instead of a whole new game. Like I said earlier, to each their own. Just don't say it's ok now then turn around after purchasing and start complaining about the lack of new content or same ole rinse and repeat by DICE.

Avatar image for Wasdie
#53 Posted by Wasdie (53231 posts) -

  Well if your happy with spending $60 every other year for basically the same gameplay and some minor graphic upgrades then that's your choice and I respect that. I don't see why they can't just upgrade and add content to a game already released instead of releasing a "supposively" new game every other year. Looking at the trailer I think they could've done that with a DLC or patch to BF3 instead of a whole new game. Like I said earlier, to each their own. Just don't say it's ok now then turn around after purchasing and start complaining about the lack of new content or same ole rinse and repeat by DICE.

slabber44

Exactly how much do you want them to change it? Basing you entire view of the game off of a trailer purely intended to show off how pretty the game is and how awesome it can be is really skewing your view. That said most sequels aren't total remake of the series, they never have been.

If it was a whole new franchise then I would expect something different, which is exactly what was wrong with Medal of Honor for the last 2 games, but if I'm buying the newest game in the series I don't expect a radical revolution in gameplay. More of the same with refinements and improvements where they are logical.

If you buy sequels you do the same thing. 

Even worse it's not every year. BF3 was 2011, BF4 is 2013. That's 2 years, more than enough time to get my money's worth out of the last one and ready for a new game in the series. 

You're speaking nonsense if you just say this is DLC. The whole point of a sequel is lost on you.

Avatar image for _SKatEDiRt_
#54 Posted by _SKatEDiRt_ (3117 posts) -

Looks good looking forward to multiplayer. i suppose frostbyte 2 isnt so bad afterall. 

Avatar image for JigglyWiggly_
#55 Posted by JigglyWiggly_ (24578 posts) -
[QUOTE="Iantheone"][QUOTE="JigglyWiggly_"] multiplayer will be unchanged mainly, which is exactly how I want it.

Cept it needs server side hit detection, voip and commander. Then its perfect

server side hit detection? no client side is the best why do people on gamespot like games where good players get punished for having good aim aff
Avatar image for James161324
#56 Posted by James161324 (8315 posts) -

[QUOTE="James161324"]

It looks pretty, but from what i have seen it seems where it ends. It looks like bf3.5 

Wasdie

Everybody keeps saying that without actually saying what they were expecting for BF4.

Seriously. What are sequels if they aren't new versions of the previous game? Do you want them to reinvent the wheel each release?

I'm just bored of generic grey colored MMS. 

Avatar image for CUDGEdave
#57 Posted by CUDGEdave (2590 posts) -

Looks a bit naff too be honest.

Avatar image for MrUnSavory1
#58 Posted by MrUnSavory1 (777 posts) -

Same Crap Diffrent Year

Avatar image for bonafidetk
#59 Posted by bonafidetk (3911 posts) -
Unless the multiplayer is a big step up from BF3 I will pass (and I play BF3 quite a bit now and then). If BF4 is a glorified map pack then I wont bother.
Avatar image for abuabed
#60 Posted by abuabed (6606 posts) -
It looks great to put it in few words..
Avatar image for Elann2008
#61 Posted by Elann2008 (33028 posts) -
[QUOTE="JigglyWiggly_"][QUOTE="Iantheone"][QUOTE="JigglyWiggly_"] multiplayer will be unchanged mainly, which is exactly how I want it.

Cept it needs server side hit detection, voip and commander. Then its perfect

server side hit detection? no client side is the best why do people on gamespot like games where good players get punished for having good aim aff

I have no clue lol. client side hit detection is good in BF3. Some servers are laggy though even though you have good ping (50 and under ping). Well, that's a good day for me. Admins need to do a better job and kicking high ping players. I've seen way too many high ping players.
Avatar image for Cyberdot
#62 Posted by Cyberdot (3928 posts) -

Looks really good, if the campaign is strong I might buy it.

Avatar image for Ben-Buja
#63 Posted by Ben-Buja (2803 posts) -

Visuals are great, gameplay looks exactly like the 100 other military FPS games.

-Linear

-Tiny playable areas/corridors

-Stupid cannon fodder enemies

-Russian bad guys

-Cinematic set pieces

I also think it's a disgrace that there are so many FPS out there, but actual bullet impacts on enemies are just bad in so many of them. I mean, all you do is shoot people in them, and they don't even get that right.

Only game recently I can think of that did it right is Max Payne 3 and thats not even a FPS lol

Avatar image for Wasdie
#64 Posted by Wasdie (53231 posts) -

Visuals are great, gameplay looks exactly like the 100 other military FPS games.

-Linear

-Tiny playable areas/corridors

-Stupid cannon fodder enemies

-Russian bad guys

-Cinematic set pieces

I also think it's a disgrace that there are so many FPS out there, but actual bullet impacts on enemies are just bad in so many of them. I mean, all you do is shoot people in them, and they don't even get that right.

Only game recently I can think of that did it right is Max Payne 3 and thats not even a FPS lol

Ben-Buja

Yes it's linear but the environments opened up a fair bit, it wasn't just corridors. They confirmed that Russians are in the game for the first level, the rest of it is pretty much Chinese. When did Cinematic set pieces become such a bad thing?

Whining about bullet impacts is extremely nitpicky, seriously nitpicky. 

You can be uninterested, but hyperbole and cynicism is just dumb. 

Avatar image for DarthOro
#65 Posted by DarthOro (25 posts) -
the first scene was amazing, i really felt it and tha detail of the faces was awesome, though when the gameplay kicked in i was like 'meh' just some improvements here and there, some gameplay, same animations... but it was pretty cool anyways
Avatar image for Bruin1986
#66 Posted by Bruin1986 (1629 posts) -

Visuals are great, gameplay looks exactly like the 100 other military FPS games.

-Linear

-Tiny playable areas/corridors

-Stupid cannon fodder enemies

-Russian bad guys

-Cinematic set pieces

I also think it's a disgrace that there are so many FPS out there, but actual bullet impacts on enemies are just bad in so many of them. I mean, all you do is shoot people in them, and they don't even get that right.

Only game recently I can think of that did it right is Max Payne 3 and thats not even a FPS lol

Ben-Buja
As far as the "Russian bad guys" being an issue...the studios don't really have many options to choose for bad guys. That is, BELIEVABLE bad guys. If you are going to make a military shooter with one side being the United States, you only have a few options for the opponents. Today, that would be either China or some sort of Super Middle East Coalition. Russia really isn't that believable. South America, Australia, Africa, Europe...none of those provide reasonable or feasible opponents. A United European Coalition would be a strong opponent but completely unbelievable from a lore/political standpoint.
Avatar image for yellosnolvr
#67 Posted by yellosnolvr (19302 posts) -
really should have been 2143
Avatar image for sniper_99
#68 Posted by sniper_99 (2820 posts) -
Don't really care much about SP, I'll reserve judgement until I see how MP plays out
Avatar image for SPYDER0416
#69 Posted by SPYDER0416 (16736 posts) -

I like that the gun had the Medal of Honor styled dual sight system. I hope they have something similar for the multiplayer and various sights (like the AVOG/Red Dot Sight in Black Ops II) to take advantage of it, plus a sniper scope that lets me switch zoom would be nicely implemented with it.

I'm really sad they completely ditched co-op since I thought the co-op in BF3 was better than the single player, and since Bad Company the series has been screaming for it considering you're always fighting these big battles with several AI buddies at your side that could easily be controlled by real people.

But if they bring back the weapon selection of the BF series, in combination with truly fun open levels (and not the empty, boring ones in Crysis 3, but the more lively ones from BC1 and Crysis 1) than I will be happy.

Avatar image for Angry_Mushroom
#70 Posted by Angry_Mushroom (708 posts) -
I'm pretty excited. Looks pretty excellent and very beautiful. Hopefully it won't murder my computer allowing me to run my cards for about a year or two more with near max settings. I'm looking forward to how the multi-player will play out.
Avatar image for Iantheone
#71 Posted by Iantheone (8242 posts) -
[QUOTE="Elann2008"] I have no clue lol. client side hit detection is good in BF3. Some servers are laggy though even though you have good ping (50 and under ping). Well, that's a good day for me. Admins need to do a better job and kicking high ping players. I've seen way too many high ping players.

Its terrible. I would be fine if there was a ping restriction on servers so you wouldn't get people with 300+ ping. I wouldnt care about the hit detection if server owners actually kicked and banned people with high ping. Its just annoying getting killed from around corners are unloading half a mag into a guy before you even get hit markers.
Avatar image for Ben-Buja
#72 Posted by Ben-Buja (2803 posts) -

Yes it's linear but the environments opened up a fair bit, it wasn't just corridors. They confirmed that Russians are in the game for the first level, the rest of it is pretty much Chinese. When did Cinematic set pieces become such a bad thing?

Whining about bullet impacts is extremely nitpicky, seriously nitpicky. 

You can be uninterested, but hyperbole and cynicism is just dumb. 

Wasdie

I hope you're right about the size of the playable area, but I disagree that bullet impacts are unimportant or that criticizing the lack of detail is just whining. When a game revolves all around you looking down your sights, shooting at enemies, I want it to look as realistic as possible, and I think It could make gunplay more satisfying.

I'm not entirely uninterested, we haven't even seen the multiplayer yet. I just think it would be nice if they tried something different in the single player as I'm majorly a SP kind of gamer.

Edit: Just read some info about the campaign. It actually does sound like they took the complaints to heart, and tried to open the game up a bit in so called micro sandboxes, similar to Crysis 2 & 3.

Maybe you were right, and I was too quick to judge the game just by this segment.

Avatar image for slabber44
#73 Posted by slabber44 (985 posts) -

[QUOTE="slabber44"]

  Well if your happy with spending $60 every other year for basically the same gameplay and some minor graphic upgrades then that's your choice and I respect that. I don't see why they can't just upgrade and add content to a game already released instead of releasing a "supposively" new game every other year. Looking at the trailer I think they could've done that with a DLC or patch to BF3 instead of a whole new game. Like I said earlier, to each their own. Just don't say it's ok now then turn around after purchasing and start complaining about the lack of new content or same ole rinse and repeat by DICE.

Wasdie

Exactly how much do you want them to change it? Basing you entire view of the game off of a trailer purely intended to show off how pretty the game is and how awesome it can be is really skewing your view. That said most sequels aren't total remake of the series, they never have been.

If it was a whole new franchise then I would expect something different, which is exactly what was wrong with Medal of Honor for the last 2 games, but if I'm buying the newest game in the series I don't expect a radical revolution in gameplay. More of the same with refinements and improvements where they are logical.

If you buy sequels you do the same thing. 

Even worse it's not every year. BF3 was 2011, BF4 is 2013. That's 2 years, more than enough time to get my money's worth out of the last one and ready for a new game in the series. 

You're speaking nonsense if you just say this is DLC. The whole point of a sequel is lost on you.

I do understand the meaning of a "sequel". What I don't understand is why they charge $60 plus additional cost for DLC's for basically the exact same game with minor tweaks. I'd be more understanding if they did that and changed settings, weapons, etc... As is though I think they should charge more around $40, but that will never happen because BF series is a cash cow for EA and DICE. Like I said, I respect your opinions on this and hope you enjoy it. I will not buy it and hopefully you'll respect my opinion also.
Avatar image for Wasdie
#74 Posted by Wasdie (53231 posts) -

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Yes it's linear but the environments opened up a fair bit, it wasn't just corridors. They confirmed that Russians are in the game for the first level, the rest of it is pretty much Chinese. When did Cinematic set pieces become such a bad thing?

Whining about bullet impacts is extremely nitpicky, seriously nitpicky. 

You can be uninterested, but hyperbole and cynicism is just dumb. 

Ben-Buja

I hope you're right about the size of the playable area, but I disagree that bullet impacts are unimportant or that criticizing the lack of detail is just whining. When a game revolves all around you looking down your sights, shooting at enemies, I want it to look as realistic as possible, and I think It could make gunplay more satisfying.

I'm not entirely uninterested, we haven't even seen the multiplayer yet. I just think it would be nice if they tried something different in the single player as I'm majorly a SP kind of gamer.

Edit: Just read some info about the campaign. It actually does sound like they took the complaints to heart, and tried to open the game up a bit in so called micro sandboxes, similar to Crysis 2 & 3.

Maybe you were right, and I was too quick to judge the game just by this segment.

That's the problem with these promos, unless you're really analyzing them, they come off as generic military shooters. They do this because they are far more exciting than trying to show the sandbox elements or how the destruction can be used to manipulate the game environment in each encounter.

Those experiences, and the whole of multiplayer, are best saved for demos where the press can sit down and physically play it. They make for terrible videos yet fantastic gameplay. Watching somebody play a game of Crysis or Far Cry 3 is extremely boring because it's not action, it's a lot of thinking. It's very fun for the player doing all of the thinking and acting but not fun to show off. 

Avatar image for Wasdie
#75 Posted by Wasdie (53231 posts) -

I do understand the meaning of a "sequel". What I don't understand is why they charge $60 plus additional cost for DLC's for basically the exact same game with minor tweaks. I'd be more understanding if they did that and changed settings, weapons, etc... As is though I think they should charge more around $40, but that will never happen because BF series is a cash cow for EA and DICE. Like I said, I respect your opinions on this and hope you enjoy it. I will not buy it and hopefully you'll respect my opinion also.slabber44

Your idea of a sequel still doesn't make sense. You're expecting the games to be really different from a gameplay mechanics point of view. Instead what a good sequel does is refine the predecessor's gameplay and expand upon it giving the player a whole new set of levels and challenges. The core elements of the original game will still be there 100%.

DLC is just a small addition to something that already exists. A few maps and a weapon or two are good enough for DLC. Giving a whole new single player campaign along with a whole new set of maps ontop of changing specific gameplay mechanics all while upgrading the graphics is not just DLC, it's a full game within the franchise. 

Changing the setting and the weapons are all just superficial. BF4 is changing the setting and the weapons though, it's just not a radical change. The vast majority of the game will take place in China, we just saw the opening level which sets the stage for what appears to be a US led China invasion. Going to be fun stuff. 

I would love them to charge $40 for new games but that's just not going to happen when the budgets are as large as they are here. 

Avatar image for psn8214
#76 Posted by psn8214 (14930 posts) -

Yes it's linear but the environments opened up a fair bit, it wasn't just corridors. They confirmed that Russians are in the game for the first level, the rest of it is pretty much Chinese. When did Cinematic set pieces become such a bad thing?

Whining about bullet impacts is extremely nitpicky, seriously nitpicky. 

You can be uninterested, but hyperbole and cynicism is just dumb. 

Wasdie

Since when did DICE add you to their payroll, might I ask? Don't get me wrong, I totally get where you're coming from and I would agree that all of the cynicism and hyperbole is rather trite at this point, but c'mon... do you really have to jump down the throats of everyone that posts something that isn't 110% positive? I don't think lame bullet impacts is "extremely, seriously nitpicky" at all. Imagine how much better the guns in a game like, say Black Ops II, would feel if they actually registered a meaningful impact on opponents... 

Avatar image for Wasdie
#78 Posted by Wasdie (53231 posts) -

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Yes it's linear but the environments opened up a fair bit, it wasn't just corridors. They confirmed that Russians are in the game for the first level, the rest of it is pretty much Chinese. When did Cinematic set pieces become such a bad thing?

Whining about bullet impacts is extremely nitpicky, seriously nitpicky. 

You can be uninterested, but hyperbole and cynicism is just dumb. 

psn8214

Since when did DICE add you to their payroll, might I ask? Don't get me wrong, I totally get where you're coming from and I would agree that all of the cynicism and hyperbole is rather trite at this point, but c'mon... do you really have to jump down the throats of everyone that posts something that isn't 110% positive? I don't think lame bullet impacts is "extremely, seriously nitpicky" at all. Imagine how much better the guns in a game like, say Black Ops II, would feel if they actually registered a meaningful impact on opponents... 

The only reason why Call of Duty's bullet impacts feel good is becuase they give you both visual and audio cues apart from the actual bullet meeting the flesh. DICE doesn't want something so artifical.

I've always had a problem with that. It makes the guns feel more satisfying, but at the same time it feels artifical. Killzone 2 and 3 are the only games I've ever played where landing hits on somebody really felt great without feeling artifical.

I guess I do sound a bit aggressive, that's really not my intent. 

Avatar image for mitu123
#79 Posted by mitu123 (155055 posts) -
[QUOTE="Iantheone"][QUOTE="Elann2008"] I have no clue lol. client side hit detection is good in BF3. Some servers are laggy though even though you have good ping (50 and under ping). Well, that's a good day for me. Admins need to do a better job and kicking high ping players. I've seen way too many high ping players.

Its terrible. I would be fine if there was a ping restriction on servers so you wouldn't get people with 300+ ping. I wouldnt care about the hit detection if server owners actually kicked and banned people with high ping. Its just annoying getting killed from around corners are unloading half a mag into a guy before you even get hit markers.

This, well said.
Avatar image for _SKatEDiRt_
#80 Posted by _SKatEDiRt_ (3117 posts) -

[QUOTE="Ben-Buja"]

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Yes it's linear but the environments opened up a fair bit, it wasn't just corridors. They confirmed that Russians are in the game for the first level, the rest of it is pretty much Chinese. When did Cinematic set pieces become such a bad thing?

Whining about bullet impacts is extremely nitpicky, seriously nitpicky. 

You can be uninterested, but hyperbole and cynicism is just dumb. 

Wasdie

I hope you're right about the size of the playable area, but I disagree that bullet impacts are unimportant or that criticizing the lack of detail is just whining. When a game revolves all around you looking down your sights, shooting at enemies, I want it to look as realistic as possible, and I think It could make gunplay more satisfying.

I'm not entirely uninterested, we haven't even seen the multiplayer yet. I just think it would be nice if they tried something different in the single player as I'm majorly a SP kind of gamer.

Edit: Just read some info about the campaign. It actually does sound like they took the complaints to heart, and tried to open the game up a bit in so called micro sandboxes, similar to Crysis 2 & 3.

Maybe you were right, and I was too quick to judge the game just by this segment.

That's the problem with these promos, unless you're really analyzing them, they come off as generic military shooters. They do this because they are far more exciting than trying to show the sandbox elements or how the destruction can be used to manipulate the game environment in each encounter.

Those experiences, and the whole of multiplayer, are best saved for demos where the press can sit down and physically play it. They make for terrible videos yet fantastic gameplay. Watching somebody play a game of Crysis or Far Cry 3 is extremely boring because it's not action, it's a lot of thinking. It's very fun for the player doing all of the thinking and acting but not fun to show off. 

Call me weird but id rather watch gameplay videos than TV... ALL DAY LONG

Avatar image for psn8214
#81 Posted by psn8214 (14930 posts) -

Killzone 2 and 3 are the only games I've ever played where landing hits on somebody really felt great without feeling artifical.

Wasdie

It didn't work terribly well in the multiplayer though, although I would agree shooting someone in the singleplayers of those games was absolutely incredible. You really felt like they were taking round after round, and it looked very dynamic and natural.

Avatar image for mitu123
#82 Posted by mitu123 (155055 posts) -
really should have been 2143yellosnolvr
That game is long overdue.D=
Avatar image for JigglyWiggly_
#83 Posted by JigglyWiggly_ (24578 posts) -

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="Ben-Buja"]

I hope you're right about the size of the playable area, but I disagree that bullet impacts are unimportant or that criticizing the lack of detail is just whining. When a game revolves all around you looking down your sights, shooting at enemies, I want it to look as realistic as possible, and I think It could make gunplay more satisfying.

I'm not entirely uninterested, we haven't even seen the multiplayer yet. I just think it would be nice if they tried something different in the single player as I'm majorly a SP kind of gamer.

Edit: Just read some info about the campaign. It actually does sound like they took the complaints to heart, and tried to open the game up a bit in so called micro sandboxes, similar to Crysis 2 & 3.

Maybe you were right, and I was too quick to judge the game just by this segment.

_SKatEDiRt_

That's the problem with these promos, unless you're really analyzing them, they come off as generic military shooters. They do this because they are far more exciting than trying to show the sandbox elements or how the destruction can be used to manipulate the game environment in each encounter.

Those experiences, and the whole of multiplayer, are best saved for demos where the press can sit down and physically play it. They make for terrible videos yet fantastic gameplay. Watching somebody play a game of Crysis or Far Cry 3 is extremely boring because it's not action, it's a lot of thinking. It's very fun for the player doing all of the thinking and acting but not fun to show off. 

Call me weird but id rather watch gameplay videos than TV... ALL DAY LONG

good gameplay videos, specifically when k1llsen strikes lightning http://www.twitch.tv/zootlive/b/383028702?t=1h32m
Avatar image for feverberries
#84 Posted by feverberries (281 posts) -
really should have been 2143yellosnolvr
this. but i'm buying it anyway. Dice knows how to make good multiplayers. 2143 would've been way better, though.
Avatar image for kraken2109
#85 Posted by kraken2109 (13271 posts) -

I hope it has voice chat built in this time, can't believe 3 didn't have it.

Avatar image for SKaREO
#86 Posted by SKaREO (3161 posts) -
Origin title. I'll pass, thanks.
Avatar image for rmfd341
#87 Posted by rmfd341 (3808 posts) -

I hope it has voice chat built in this time, can't believe 3 didn't have it.

kraken2109
Man, these days chat is a must. I couldn't believe it when I saw that ME3 multiplayer didn't have a chat system of any kind.
Avatar image for _SKatEDiRt_
#88 Posted by _SKatEDiRt_ (3117 posts) -

Origin title. I'll pass, thanks.SKaREO

I wish I could man up and say this but Im a sucker for a battlefielde

Avatar image for Elann2008
#89 Posted by Elann2008 (33028 posts) -
[QUOTE="kraken2109"]

I hope it has voice chat built in this time, can't believe 3 didn't have it.

rmfd341
Man, these days chat is a must. I couldn't believe it when I saw that ME3 multiplayer didn't have a chat system of any kind.

Yup. Like Wasdie said, I'm ready with my pitchfork and torch if DICE doesn't incorporate in-game VOIP this time. x)
Avatar image for Wasdie
#90 Posted by Wasdie (53231 posts) -

[QUOTE="SKaREO"]Origin title. I'll pass, thanks._SKatEDiRt_

I wish I could man up and say this but Im a sucker for a battlefielde

Nothing is wrong with Origin. Certain features of Origin are actually better than Steam and overall Origin is in a much better state than Steam was 2 years into its life. 

The Origin store even has good deals from time to time.

Avatar image for nutcrackr
#91 Posted by nutcrackr (13029 posts) -
Origin title. I'll pass, thanks.SKaREO
no problems, see you next year buddy!
Avatar image for SPYDER0416
#92 Posted by SPYDER0416 (16736 posts) -

[QUOTE="_SKatEDiRt_"]

[QUOTE="SKaREO"]Origin title. I'll pass, thanks.Wasdie

I wish I could man up and say this but Im a sucker for a battlefielde

Nothing is wrong with Origin. Certain features of Origin are actually better than Steam and overall Origin is in a much better state than Steam was 2 years into its life. 

The Origin store even has good deals from time to time.

Yeah the only reason Origin seems to be getting hate now would be from Steam fanboys.

At the start it wasn't great, the download errors were way too common and it didn't offer anything better than Steam while taking up space, but now anyone who misses out on great games just because they don't want to install Origin is being foolish.

Avatar image for kraken2109
#93 Posted by kraken2109 (13271 posts) -

[QUOTE="_SKatEDiRt_"]

[QUOTE="SKaREO"]Origin title. I'll pass, thanks.Wasdie

I wish I could man up and say this but Im a sucker for a battlefielde

Nothing is wrong with Origin. Certain features of Origin are actually better than Steam and overall Origin is in a much better state than Steam was 2 years into its life. 

The Origin store even has good deals from time to time.

What does origin do better than steam (no hate, curious)
Avatar image for Iantheone
#94 Posted by Iantheone (8242 posts) -
[QUOTE="kraken2109"] What does origin do better than steam (no hate, curious)

I get better download speeds off of Origin for one, as do quite a few people
Avatar image for max-hit
#95 Posted by max-hit (179 posts) -

 

All battlefield 3 expansions were multiplayer packages and nothing more. It's not possible to say anything about it from a single player trailer. Battlefield is a multiplayer game; don't let anyone tell you different.

Avatar image for Wasdie
#96 Posted by Wasdie (53231 posts) -

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="_SKatEDiRt_"]

I wish I could man up and say this but Im a sucker for a battlefielde

kraken2109

Nothing is wrong with Origin. Certain features of Origin are actually better than Steam and overall Origin is in a much better state than Steam was 2 years into its life. 

The Origin store even has good deals from time to time.

What does origin do better than steam (no hate, curious)

Download speeds can be quicker, the in-game HTML browser is better. Those are about it. It has no community features, but the store is up to par with Steam's in terms of build quality and usability. 

Steam is overall better, but Origin isn't bad like people make it out to be.

Avatar image for kraken2109
#97 Posted by kraken2109 (13271 posts) -

[QUOTE="kraken2109"][QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Nothing is wrong with Origin. Certain features of Origin are actually better than Steam and overall Origin is in a much better state than Steam was 2 years into its life. 

The Origin store even has good deals from time to time.

Wasdie

What does origin do better than steam (no hate, curious)

Download speeds can be quicker, the in-game HTML browser is better. Those are about it. It has no community features, but the store is up to par with Steam's in terms of build quality and usability. 

Steam is overall better, but Origin isn't bad like people make it out to be.

I guess download speeds depend where you live, steam maxes my 60mbps fine, and the browser isn't perfect but I've never really had problems with it. Maybe i should try origin's to compare. I mainly use steam for the community features.
Avatar image for SPYDER0416
#98 Posted by SPYDER0416 (16736 posts) -

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="kraken2109"] What does origin do better than steam (no hate, curious) kraken2109

Download speeds can be quicker, the in-game HTML browser is better. Those are about it. It has no community features, but the store is up to par with Steam's in terms of build quality and usability. 

Steam is overall better, but Origin isn't bad like people make it out to be.

I guess download speeds depend where you live, steam maxes my 60mbps fine, and the browser isn't perfect but I've never really had problems with it. Maybe i should try origin's to compare. I mainly use steam for the community features.

I think the point is that right now it gets hate for no reason except from people who are stubborn or Valve fanboys. It's just another way to enjoy great games, some of which can only be enjoyed that way, and with the occasional good Origin deal it's worth having.

Avatar image for nutcrackr
#99 Posted by nutcrackr (13029 posts) -
I'm a valve fanboy and think Origin is pretty decent. In fact I encourage EA because of the competition they bring. Origin is a lot better than when it was EA Link / EA downloader.
Avatar image for BattleSpectre
#100 Posted by BattleSpectre (7989 posts) -

I still haven't even played BF3 yet lol. BF4 looks impressive though from what's already been shown so let's see how it pans out. I don't like multiplayer (maybe it's because i suck at it so much) so i hope the campaign is decent.