Battlefield 4... Yey or Ney ? Spare your 2 cents

lahcen86

Hi Folks,

So I've noticed recently there is a lot more talk of BF4 (set for a late end of year 2013 release) from DICE as of late. What do you guys think about the next installment and what it could bring to the table ?

One of the latest rumors, one even pushed by DICE themselves, is that BF4 will utilize 80% of the current frostbite2 engine. As apposed to 30 to 40% used by BF3. I know I know.... its all conjecture at this stage but you get what I mean.

Im just interested to see what the community would like to see introduced in BF4. Anything you'd like to see taken out even ? Or tweaks to the current game that would put that proverbial icing on the cake !

Lets hash this thing out right here !

Outkast_IRE

I would like it to move back away from the Call of duty type crap that they have been introducing, all these unlockable weapons and ****e...

Dont get me wrong a few unlockables for each class is grand but the amount of ****e is unbelievable.
Also "Premium" if someone bought the game for €50 or whatever bringing out premium afterwards is total BS.


I would like to see capture the Flag and a return to WW2

lahcen86

Outkast_IRE wrote: »

I would like it to move back away from the Call of duty type crap that they have been introducing, all these unlockable weapons and ****e...

Dont get me wrong a few unlockables for each class is grand but the amount of ****e is unbelievable.
Also "Premium" if someone bought the game for €50 or whatever bringing out premium afterwards is total BS.


I would like to see capture the Flag and a return to WW2

Im almost 100% certain that it will be a modern conflict, so you can say bye bye to WW2. Id love it too mate, maybe they will have a period map or two with some cool WW2 weapons, wishful thinking but it would be awesome.

As for the unlockables in BF3, im happy to have so much to work for. Its not like it gets in the way of game play IMO.

Dcully

Better weapons sounds as a lot of them sound too similar in BF3 imo.
Never underestimate the value of sound for immersion.
Well designed maps is a must.
Id also love some form of WW2 in the frostbite engine.

mickydcork

I presume it'll be a next-gen release?

For the xbox 720 or whatever they will call it.

Lord Nikon

I wouldnt change too much, maybe some added weapons and stuff.

Proper ghilly suits for snipers.
Flashbang grenades.
Tripwire - which can be lenghtened with experience.

Blazer

I wouldn't believe a word out of DICE's mouth..80% frostbite my ass..
Weren't they talking about the crossbox in Aftermath and giving the impression you'd have to scrounge for parts knowing full well it was complete bollix.
I hate EA more and more every day with their god awful patching and as to what they've done with Fifa...muthafrakkers..:mad:
And besides..regardless of how awesome the game will be the whiners will destroy it as usual.

Akrasia

Blazer wrote: »

I wouldn't believe a word out of DICE's mouth..80% frostbite my ass..
Weren't they talking about the crossbox in Aftermath and giving the impression you'd have to scrounge for parts knowing full well it was complete bollix.
I hate EA more and more every day with their god awful patching and as to what they've done with Fifa...muthafrakkers..:mad:
And besides..regardless of how awesome the game will be the whiners will destroy it as usual.

Was the last part of your post supposed to be ironic?

Schwiiing

i want bf4 to be bf3 without supression, ludricious amount of guns and stupidly huge patches.

i do want arica harbour, the M24 from bfbc2 and maybe an M107.

Yousef

I think there should be something in there for everyone (yes, even COD players). As far as I'm concerned, the less resources they spend on the storyline, the better. In 2013, multiplayer is what consumers purchase these shooters for anyway...it's the main selling point so Dice should transfer the majority of their team to focus on multiplayer.

The thing that really irked me about BF3 was that they presented the game but held some of their ideas back at launch. It was like saying, "here is the game, we're going to hold back AC-130's, dirt bikes, capture the flag mode, the crossbow, quads in addition to other things and make you pay for them further down the line". This kind of content should be available as standard, out-of-the-box at launch.

Here's an idea that I had for BF4...hear me out because I think it could be a great success if implemented.

We all know about multiplayer matches that we have come to know and love. But what about a new concept of multiplayer campaigns? We could have battles that had historical significance. For example, take D-Day in WW2. You and 31 others storm the beaches of Normandy in boats. 32 on the opposing team are Nazi's in the machine gun nests at the top of the beaches shooting down. Dice could include NPC's whether wounded on the ground or shooting at the opposing teams NPC's for immersion effect. Of course, no NPC's can harm real players. Once the Americans make their way up the beaches and blow up the machine gun nests, another part of the map opens up and the fight continues in the countryside. Again, once the Nazi's are pushed back, another part of the map opens. It would be a massive game of tug-of-war. You could include these tug-of-war game types in DLC and use lots of different historical battles.

For example look at this. Yeah, crap drawing I know... :P



Here are some pics for visualisation.

hidinginthebush

^
Um, you mean rush with historical battles? That would be cool alright. Like the start of medal of honour on the ps2, totally ripped from saving private Ryan, but great fun!

Blazer

Akrasia wrote: »

Was the last part of your post supposed to be ironic?

yeah saw that after saving it too lazy to go back in and edit..was hoping no one would spot it..a bikkie for you young man.:D

Will I Amnt

I'll be happy enough if it comes without input lag or other bullshìt problems on PS3.

Joeface

if they add the following it will be worth while

Time lapse on large ticket servers. say 800 up .
Proper night mode where you need night vision not the blue tint they currently offer.

Expand on aftershock in epicenter and make the maps dynamic . level a building means map changes completely .

Reduce the number of weapons.
Re look at some of the DC mod maps and add these city maps , some were bloody awesome.

none of this will happen ...but one can dream.

BlitzKrieg

We all know about multiplayer matches that we have come to know and love. But what about a new concept of multiplayer campaigns? We could have battles that had historical significance. For example, take D-Day in WW2. You and 31 others storm the beaches of Normandy in boats. 32 on the opposing team are Nazi's in the machine gun nests at the top of the beaches shooting down. Dice could include NPC's whether wounded on the ground or shooting at the opposing teams NPC's for immersion effect. Of course, no NPC's can harm real players. Once the Americans make their way up the beaches and blow up the machine gun nests, another part of the map opens up and the fight continues in the countryside. Again, once the Nazi's are pushed back, another part of the map opens. It would be a massive game of tug-of-war. You could include these tug-of-war game types in DLC and use lots of different historical battles.

Multiplayer campaigns have popped up a few times in a few variants in online games, the most common being the winner of one such match dictated where the next match was played, but in what you are describing it is more of a mix between the current Rush and Assault mode ala Unreal Tournament (which I believe had a D-day like map

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5B9rhrFR7k

(not to mention bf1942 had a d-day map too)

But the closest I guess to what you are discribing would be the splash damage games Enemy Territory Quake wars which gave players a series of objectives that opened up the map more and more and wasnt simply a matter of capturing points or blowing up mcoms, you had to construct a bridge, capture key structures, take down power plants, quite a variety of things. There was a great video that walked through one of the levels that I cant find right now but its very close to what you are describing.

Now I wouldnt say it bombed (in fact I believe it won a fair bit of acclaim at the time), but their next title Brink toned back on the objective designed maps opening up in the way you have it above, instead I believe (havnt played it) they designed it to more dynamic with objectives popping up on your command wheel and the objectives were simplified a lot more and I dont think the maps open up the way they did in quake wars or in Rush.

Now I like splash damage's design methodology, giving context to a lot of gameplay and making objectives unique really does add to the experience, but it can be frustrating at times and then on top of it, it can be more prone to cheap tactics. D-Day was thrown into a lot of games and a lot of custom maps/mods for half life and quake etc were made based off omaha beach post saving private ryan, and if one thing became clear about the classic beach scenario...it is very difficult to actually make it work in an online game and usually ends up broken)

Hell Dice themselves started the original Rush design with a much more complicated set up that had context with the titan mode in 2142 and they've simplified it more and more with each passing iteration.

Even between BC2 and BF3 Rush took a big hit in the context element, In BC2 all the rush maps had this sense of progression coupled with little npc touches of bombing runs or similar all leading up to a little cinematic if you win or lose, these were surprisingly absent from all of BF3's rush maps except strangely very briefly in metro where after the first segment an airstrike opens up the next underground segment. To be simple, BC2 did better Rush maps then BF3 but BF3 did better conquest maps, both due to size and also they were better designed for the most part. Caspian boarder is a shockingly weak Rush map, despite the obvious map elements that are never really taken advantage of.

why Dice simplified rush over each iteration?

possibly because of the frustration and cheapness I described earlier that can happen a lot in public games over modes like titan in 2142. Or its because these modes don't translate well to the competitive scene and DICE needed to distil it down to a set up that could play well in a 4v4 or 8v8 set-up.

I always get the feeling that the battlefield series wants to be looked on as a competitive gaming platform (like counter strike and COD) but it also carries a lot of players who just want the fun of the big battlefield games. And they keep trying to please both and can only get halfway.



As for Battlefield 4...I dont know, I'd like a few spin off titles or add on packs that could take the basics of battlefield in very different directions, but I wouldnt suggest either for battlefield 4 purely because it would be a massive risk to the franchise.

But if EA and DICE ever wanted to test new ideas, here's one

Battlefield combined arms. Break up the 2 team set up into 3 team v 3 team set up and recognise that armour and jets are completely separate to infantry, thus every 64 player server would now divide 32 per side 24 of each side would be infantry 4 would be armour and 4 would be air support.

The most basic fundamental changes should be to the spawning mechanics, remove all ability to spawn on captured points, now players can either spawn on their squad leader, a squad radio beacon or in vehicles which have open slots, so apc/blackhawk vehicles become a core backbone of any match as they will keep players in the fight, no apc like vehicle and players are forced to respawn back at the homebase forcing them to make their way back to the points. Vehicles can spawn at specific capture points but not all of them, much like the ac130 cap point.

I also think some shake up on the capture system would be interesting, so for example there is always one cap point that is the airspace over a certain distance in the centre of the map at a specific height that is called the air control point, which goes to the team that had their aircraft in that space last, so when playing air that would be a key objective, but playing infantry/armour it would only be an icon telling you if your side controls the air or not, it should affect the tickets like the other points, but also works in easily communicating to the rest of the team how the opposing teams airforce is made up off. Also if there is going to be a AC-130 like artillery unit it would be tied to that point as in needing to hold it with your air force for a specific length of time to spawn one.

Treat most vehicles like you treat classes/weapons with a large variety that get unlocked as you progress with a class in each area. Humvees etc would remain as they currently are.

So in armour it would be MBT, IFV, Support.

and in air it would be Air Superiority, CAS, Support.

It would require huge tweaks both to how vehicles work firstly.

MBT's (which will include tank destroyers) would get a major nerf against infantry and would be encouraged more to engage at long ranges and in high speed, their role would be to knock out other vehicles.

IFV would be the best vehicle to counter enemy infantry and support your own infantry, because they will be able to carry AOE abilities like the medics heal or supports ammo, they also can act as spawn locations, which is important in the changing of things.

Support would be artillery and AA.

For Air

Air Superiority would be aircraft designed to take down other aircraft, I think in this version, these will have the speed boosted and their ability to d*ck on land targets toned down greatly

Close Air Support would be aircraft designed to hit vehicles and would include a number of helicopters in here

Support would be the scout helicopters and transport helicopters, maybe even UAV and the AC130 (acting as a heavy fortified moving spawn point rather then the air atillery it is atm)

The basic premise is that you will always have 8 vehicles, 4 land and 4 air in the game and they can be changed up as needed in the battle, have a strong jet player on the opposing side, have 2 players go AA and lock him out of key areas. You can also go MBT heavy which would give you a lot of punch, but every player who dies is forced to respawn back at their homebase (cant spawn in MBTS) so it means you hit hard but you wont be able to keep up the pressure. Of course some balancing would need to be teethed out, most obviously the gunships, but I think if you give the option for the other team to play stronger more dangerous jets it might keep gunships in check.

You could even tone it down to a competitive level with 8v8 games and having 2 players on each team being able to choose their vehicle of choice, again the choice of one going a spawn vehicle to help the team and the other a heavy hitter would be the balanced choice.

Of course there'll be issues, people skulking around in battlelog looking for a server with a free jet or tank slot. Infantry would need to be rebalanced to deal with larger armour presence (I think every class should have at least 1 AT solution of sorts, which they do at the moment except for assault, so I'd be tempted to move AT mines to Assault and see how that works) Maps would need to be scaled larger to consider the longer range for MBTs and the heavier vehicle presence, I dont think we need more cap points, in facting having less but spreading them out gives greater focus on keeping spawn routes open for other teams. I also think the 3 roles should be almost treated like completely different games, with their own scoreboards, objective icons and colour scheme (Red for armour, green for infantry, blue for air?)

I dont think this is an idea for battlefield 4 because its more of a step sideways to try a new design on the elements already in the game rather then a progression in the route DICE have laid out.

ktulu123

I would like more jets & more thing to do with C4

iColdFusion

I'd like to see some jungle maps like Vietnam had and a full on naval mode would be cool too; cruisers/attack boats/jets fighting over islands. [although this may be because I was watching Battleship last night ]

shockinsocky

ld love to see some more snow,jungle maps anyway,but what about with every bf4 game you get a remasterd version of bfbc 2 vietnam.maybe even an expanded co-op campaign(i loved it in bf3 but was too short)aswell oh and more sidearms to.:D

Hercule

a non-sh1t engine - i for one detest the frostbite engine(s) and their stupid rubberbandy nonsense - Add to that the fact that by the time it is released it will only run well on the absolute latest generation hardware.

ManMade

Moar vehicles! Also put helicopters back to BF2 setting. Bring back quads on all maps. There are none on the maps I play. I don't play enough to know if there are any.

Also what are premium players?

shockinsocky

premium is something you buy that entitles you to all the epansions for "free"
it costs 50 euro though:p

dan_ep82

I'd like to see more environmental destruction. (collapsing 4-5 story buildings,drive tanks through a building,bigger ground deformation)

More guns,same attachments,or same amount. I like more choice,just not gimmicks

Give recon some sort of anti armor,even if its just 1 C4.

Better character models,especially the recon class.

Better sounds,I know there good but I'd like when a tank fires close by you almost feel it.

Bigger squads

Alpha melee attacks


I actually dont have that many problems with BF3,those I do I consider small,I think its a great game. Still I'm expecting to be promised the world and delivered Co. Louth while just about keeping to their word.

aindriu80

Yeah I say. However the problem I have is with the actual game and the controller. Neither of them do what I want them to do. BF3 is a good game but maybe a new console and controller for BF4? There is not enough fun packed into it, it's repetitive and not enough control when playing.

Hunterbiker

I like BF3 (I play on Console) but it can be BF€ with all the addons.

The next generation will no doubt follow this model too - I only hope that you still get a lot of good stuff with the standard game rather than having to think about buying BF4 Platinum / Gold plated / Premium versions...

Chorcai

Over the next year or two I think games will be free to play with very basic items, ie: pistol, knife, 1 main gun.. everything else you pay X for, like x4 scope .99€, new gun 1.99€ kinda like TF2.

dreamers75

Hercule wrote: »

a non-sh1t engine - i for one detest the frostbite engine(s) and their stupid rubberbandy nonsense - Add to that the fact that by the time it is released it will only run well on the absolute latest generation hardware.

Frostbite is a pretty fcuking awesome gaming engine, not sure what gripes you have with it. But its a solid engine will keep Dice in money for years.

Would prefer more Exp Packs than a full out sequel, seeing as MOH has been canned (until Respawn take it over....seriously didnt see that coming). BF3 is still a pretty decent game so moving to a new game this quickly will hurt it imo.

Its not a COD game with its every year release ****e, at least we got 2 years out of it if it does go that way.

mozattack

I have a question...

BF4 Beta is set to be on PS3 (hence the deal with MOH Warfighter) so does that not automatically mean it will be a PS3 game and not a PS4 game?

I see no point in having a PS3 version, would prefer if they waited for PS4.

What do we know here?

PhlegmyMoses

It disappoints me that I don't get beta access despite sinking money into Premium and paying for a server, yet if I bought an inferior game which costs less than I have already paid, I'd have got in no bother.

the_syco

I hope BF4 is set in the 1960-1980 era, where there are nice toys, but nothing over the top stupid. Location could be a fictional American state, and using full frostbite engine the ability to completely level buildings to block roads should exist.

Have the usual guns from that era, but nothing too high-tech, so scopes and limited night vision goggles.

mozattack

mozattack wrote: »

I have a question...

BF4 Beta is set to be on PS3 (hence the deal with MOH Warfighter) so does that not automatically mean it will be a PS3 game and not a PS4 game?

I see no point in having a PS3 version, would prefer if they waited for PS4.

What do we know here?

Anyone know this?

PhlegmyMoses

mozattack wrote: »

Anyone know this?

If the PS4 is out they will almost certainly release BF4 on it as well as the PS3. Until the PS4 is announced, you won't get your answer, basically.

BlitzKrieg

mozattack wrote: »

I have a question...

BF4 Beta is set to be on PS3 (hence the deal with MOH Warfighter) so does that not automatically mean it will be a PS3 game and not a PS4 game?

I see no point in having a PS3 version, would prefer if they waited for PS4.

What do we know here?

Just look at battlefield modern combat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlefield_2:_Modern_Combat

It was developed at the end of the ps2/xbox lifecycle and when the 360 was released they put out an updated version on that.


It'll be the same for battlefield 4.

Also considering that EA have put the MOH franchise to bed again after the poor sales of warfighter they will not want to delay BF4 just for the new generation, they'll want to put a new battlefield out at the end of this year or next year to stay competitive. Unless they got a new franchise in the works to replace MOH, which I dont think they do (unless they are hoping Army of two can?)

Besides unless sony/microsoft offer them lots of money to focus on bf4 being an exclusive launch title for the next gen they'll have no reason to wait, the uptake of a new generation will never match the numbers already in the current gen so there is no good reason to wait for the next generation. There will be a large market of players who will not migrate to the next generation for at least a year after its release. And of course sony/microsoft wont want to give them lots of money cause they know they'll get an updated version anyway and the value of launch exclusives has decreased much since the the psone era. Just look at the Wii U, it got updated versions of Mass effect 3 and arkham city, but very few launch exclusives outside of nintendos own titles (I think zombiU was the only major title?)

PhlegmyMoses

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Besides unless sony/microsoft offer them lots of money to focus on bf4 being an exclusive launch title for the next gen they'll have no reason to wait, the uptake of a new generation will never match the numbers already in the current gen so there is no good reason to wait for the next generation. There will be a large market of players who will not migrate to the next generation for at least a year after its release.

Agreed with everything you've said there Blitz, apart from this part. Gimpy advertising and marketing bods will tell you that the early adopters of new tech are usually what they call "core gamers." A game like Battlefield is exactly the kind of game the core gamers, who buy the new console on launch day, would play. It's why new consoles always have an FPS at launch. Halo: Combat Evolved was released with the first Xbox on launch day, and so was Resistance with the PS3.

BlitzKrieg

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

Agreed with everything you've said there Blitz, apart from this part. Gimpy advertising and marketing bods will tell you that the early adopters of new tech are usually what they call "core gamers." A game like Battlefield is exactly the kind of game the core gamers, who buy the new console on launch day, would play. It's why new consoles always have an FPS at launch. Halo: Combat Evolved was released with the first Xbox on launch day, and so was Resistance with the PS3.

Both are 1st party properties owned by microsoft and sony who's goal is to intice core gamers to the new platform. As I said BF4 will probably be a launch title on both consoles, but it wont be where EA will launch BF4

EA as a third party publisher wont care as much about enticing players to the new platform as much as casting as wide of a net as possible in their initial release, which will be to have a release on the current generation rather then relying on core gamers moving to a new platform.

To maximise profit for EA what I will guess they will do is release BF4 for ps3/360/pc in the next 12 months, my guess is battlefield 4 will be out before the end of this year

Then they will push a premium package over the following year when the new consoles hit that christmas offer battlefield 4 premium as a whole package as a launch title.

So my guess would be if sony and microsoft stick to how consoles are normally released (and not do a SEGA) then the ps4 and new xbox will be announced this year with plans to release christmas 2014. One of them might opt to wait til the following year rather then go head to head, if sony is smart it wont be them, if mircosoft is smarter they should announce the new xbox before sony announce the new playstation this month and steal their thunder and essentially force sony to go last this generation again. If they go head to head I predict a woeful future for one of them perhaps to the point that one might bow out of the console race altogether.

Battlefield 4 beta will come out in september this year with battlefield 4 hitting late october, early november. Premium will be confirmed from the get go this time and the following year a number of packages will be released.

In a practical world instead of replacing MOH, EA will offer a much more substantial series of add ons for premium so you could see up to six DLC drops for BF4, though they may not all be developed by DICE (danger close might develop 3 add on packs for bf4 while DICE do the other 3) and this will stretch over the year 2014 and when the new consoles hit DICE will offer BF4 with all the premium content as a single stand alone at launch for the new generation with the added bonus of delivering PC standard in graphics and gameplay.

Thats the widest net EA can throw if they want to focus on battlefield 4 without resorting to heavier microtransactions ala dead space 3 (which I hope the really negative feedback will keep them from doing that)

PhlegmyMoses

Yeah, I agree that EA couldn't give a fiddlers what console does well and will release on all platforms, new and old. I just suspect that there would be a high uptake in BF4 for a new console, purely because the kinds of people who buy new consoles at launch play games like BF4. I have a feeling that Sony, at least, will announce their release date for Christmas 2013. I just wonder whether DICE's talk of using the Frostbite 2 engine to close to its full potential is because they are working with dev kits of the new consoles, thus giving them more scope for the power they can use. After all, the primary platform for the BF series these days is consoles.

BlitzKrieg

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

Yeah, I agree that EA couldn't give a fiddlers what console does well and will release on all platforms, new and old. I just suspect that there would be a high uptake in BF4 for a new console, purely because the kinds of people who buy new consoles at launch play games like BF4.

They may be the majority of players who uptake a new console, but the number of people who buy a new console vs the number of people who already own one is a david vs goliath sort of ratio, the ps4/next xbox would have to pull in ridiculous sales to warrant EA to focus the BF4 launch for the new platforms. There is nothing I can think of either could do that would pull in those numbers, even if they buried the hatchet and joined forces to release one super console it still wouldnt pull in the numbers at launch to match a release on the current generation of a triple A title.

Battlefield 3 managed 3.5 million in its first week, with a further 500k estimated for digital PC sales.

The Wii U at launch sold 1.8 million units in its first month and it did better then both the 360 and ps3 (source http://www.qj.net/wii-u/news/wii-us-launch-numbers-look-good-next-to-xbox-360-ps3.html)

EA would need every single person who bought a new console to buy 2 copies with it of BF4 just to match their BF3 sales.

It does not make sense financially to put BF4 as a next generation exclusive. In fact there wont be any major franchise outside of the ones owned by sony and microsoft that will be next generation exclusive until well into the following year after the consoles launch, least of all Call of Duty & Battlefield.

I have a feeling that Sony, at least, will announce their release date for Christmas 2013.

Possibly but personally I doubt it, it wouldnt be a blunder on the same scale as Sega with the sega saturn cause at least they would have E3 between here and then to drum up interest in the line up, but even the Wii U waited a year between announcement and launch. It's pretty standard to announce one year before launch, really the only oddity here is its a bit earlier in the year then expected. Perhaps sony are aiming to actually have more then 500 000 consoles made for launch day, or perhaps go for a soft launch and release earlier in 2014 and let the numbers build leading to the christmas period. Let the core gamers carry the console initially.

But christmas 2013 is a long shot.

Junco Partner

I was thinking that maybe it might be cool if in four they might put something in where you could maybe switch out an attachment mid life. For instance say you're on attack on rush and your playing support with a lmg on a bipod stopping the defenders from defusing and then boom the mcom goes and your team moves forward. you could then switch out your bipod for a foregrip and have a bit of accuracy with the lmg as ye push forward. If you're on assault and have a RDS and then would be able to switch to a 3x scope for mid distance engagements. I know this has the potential to make the game unbalanced but i also think it would be a cool way of adapting on the fly as the match changes.

BlitzKrieg

Maybe they'll bring danger close in to work on some parts of it so you could get those awesome double scopes from warfighter in bf4

and also maybe a mode that uses the buddy system from it too?

MajesticDonkey

Exclusive early BF4 footage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbTdcEjyv_8

mozattack

BlitzKrieg; excellent answers above. Best posts I have seen on boards.ie in long time.

What you say makes 100% sense so I will calm my excitement for BF4 on PS4 and accept it will be "just" a PS3 game so.

(not sure what the point is then really - surely they could just do more DLC until BF4 is on PS4? - they have taken in $100m from DLC thus far, so?)