I wouldn't trade it in for 300 dollars off the Xbox One... because I don't want it anyway.

@soundwavenld:

It's CoD with robots.

Everyone hates CoD, according to... everyone?

So WHY should this be an anticipated item? Again, people are just not making any logical sense here.

Sarcasm and spite aside, I don't hate CoD. I'm just bored with it because it's been essentially the same game over and over with no real changes for the past several years. I like their core systems, the tight shooting, etc. Infinityward made some excellent games. So to transfer that core spirit to a new title and really mix it up is ideal for me.

In other words, I'll probably Titanfall for the PC. Can't be any worse than what DICE has done to BF4. Need a good shooter again.

@k41m:

Wildstar - PC

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsBPaxhEu1M

Elder Scrolls Online - PC

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlEipFtHw7o

Warlords of Draenor - PC

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enV3nB8_OQU

The Division - PC

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCp8CdAB8fc

I own a PS4 but I'm honestly at a point where I could care less about any console releases right now. This is a pretty weak generation for them.

What happened to this franchise? (Warning Incoming Rant!)

I played BF2 almost non-stop for years. It was addictive. Even 2142 was highly enjoyable despite some glaring issues. Then DICE suddenly shifts gears hardcore towards console players and produces Bad Company. Bad Company then helps to produce BF3 and ultimately BF4. An outright moved focus from team-based game play to a very CoD-esque modernization of the series it would seem.

Now my games consist of me mostly being mowed down with an SMG/carbine variant by a guy sprinting in circles within a given area. Which is almost identical to every CoD game I've ever played. They've taken the slower, more methodical game play of BF2 and put it on crack in 4. Teams do not have NEARLY the same efficiency as they once did and certainly not in infantry fights.

Guns are questionable in just about every sense though and lack the reliability of their counterparts in CoD. I am not kidding when I say it feels like many of the weapons (and especially the DMR before the update) are utilizing an RNG based system to try and artificially "balance" out the game. The only weapon types that by and large seem to counter this are the SMG/Carbine types -- it's pretty weird when you can be picked off by these "close-range weapons", repeatedly, half a football field away, and your DMR is missing shots despite your aim never once deviating off the center-point of their body. Even though your first and second shot might have landed with the same technique.

It only gets worse when you try to utilize longer range scopes. For some reason the more powerful the scope on anything but a sniper rifle = less accurate over distance. This makes no sense. I shouldn't be able to use a red-dot sight or even irons and pick off targets clear across the map while my acog or more powerful variant is wildly inaccurate on top of being extremely "bouncy". Apparently bullet-drop and timing is only really calculated at greater quantities when a more powerful scope is added to your weapon.

So, why bother then with anything besides close-range scopes unless you're using a bolt-action rifle?

Map designs have gotten worse and worse to boot. Operation Locker, I mean, really? That is such a non-Battlefield map it's painful. Even though it is a pure infantry fight (which can be a fun change of pace) it's still heavily reliant on "zerg" tactics and controlling choke-points. Why would you design such a map? That kind of design at this time in FPS history would be considered shoddy and poorly thought out, even by current CoD map standards.

The only aspect of BF4 that feels solid at all is vehicles. However, Battlefield is about many angles on the field of war. They have utterly failed to deliver on infantry combat more so than ever, tore down team-play for a more CoD orientated pace of sprint-pop-sprint, and don't get me even started on how vapid and pointless the commander feature is.

It's a neat, pretty, exciting package on the surface... empty and shallow on the inside. A description that ironically can be applied to EA itself.

So why then does this game remain more popular than ever? Why is that while people trash something like CoD as if it's the worst thing to happen to humanity, they continue to advocate and support a dumbing down of an originally team-orientated game to be more like CoD (but with less quality in the underlying core mechanics)? It makes absolutely no sense to me.

I'd love some further thought into this trending towards CoD'isms while the game is more hated than ever.

P.S. - Support vehicles were actually useful once upon a time besides for crashing into a party and hoping you didn't get blown up before arriving.

[QUOTE="Lionheart08"]

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

No, it's not. No other gaming platform compares. 

BluRayHiDef

PCs are only good for MMOs and Porn.

PCs are versatile. The keyboard and mouse are the best forms of control for First Person Shooters, and there's always the option of using a controller for third-person games. PC also sports the best graphics and best performance. They offer what consoles do and more. Consolites, eat your heart out.

[QUOTE="GodModeEnabled"]I can't think of any console game this gen that had dedicated servers, hence my question on the difference but yeah Blops 2 was P2P.CarnageHeart

Warhawk and MAG spring to mind though I'm sure there are others.

EDIT: MS was once hoping the Xbone would sell hundreds of millions of units so I'm sure their Xbone promotional budget will be larger than the GDP of most countries. A more substantial exclusivity agreement I read about today is temporary exclusivity for CoD DLC (EA and MS are very cozy nowadays).

I can't imagine why they'd spend the money on that. Pay money to make exclusive games, don't pay for shit like this.rragnaar