Battlefield 4 Stinks

[Huw the Poo]

Of course RPS gave a poor review - they didn't get an advanced press copy.

Well, that's the most moronic thing I've read around here for a while.  ::)

[JudgeDredd]

If you want to feel better about BF4, go play COD: Ghosts.

lol

[JudgeDredd]

;D

Unfortunately, and maybe unfairly, that's exactly how I picture most people who play INSERT ONLINE GAME NAME HERE as behaving and one of the reasons I do not play online

Having said that, it seems like it can't be a reason because the thought itself doesn't seem reasonable...but that is why I stay away from online gaming...voice comms made it worse imo.

[JudgeDredd]

Of course RPS gave a poor review - they didn't get an advanced press copy.

Well, that's the most moronic thing I've read around here for a while.  ::)

I hope(ed) it was a joke...kind of a piss take

[Apocalypse 31]

Of course RPS gave a poor review - they didn't get an advanced press copy.

Well, that's the most moronic thing I've read around here for a while.  ::)

I hope(ed) it was a joke...kind of a piss take

It was sarcasm. RPS is legit, and it was a joke on them.

However, I think it could apply to a number of other gaming review sights.

[GJK]

So should I stick with BF'42 then??  Still my favorite.

[Huw the Poo]

Apologies...clearly my sarcasm detector is broken today.

[Apocalypse 31]

So should I stick with BF'42 then??  Still my favorite.

Do you play it modded?

[GJK]

Just with the "blood" mod.

[Yskonyn]

Im curious as to which parts you disagree with, and if you can make me see what I am missing.

It took me a while, sorry, but here goes:

I do agree that its a bad thing the servers have problems, resulting in lag and crashes and the client suffers from frequent freezes and crashes too.
That does stink, but will be patched. In fact, a client patch is due today and the servers has seen ongoing patches since launch and the situation has improved.

I also do agree that the SP is weak. The individual scenes are very well done though, I just find it weak from a story point of view. Its incoherent and fails to deliver the story well.

What I definately do not agree with is claiming the game has weak shooter gameplay.
You might call it BF3.5 on the surface, but look at the package; a SP campaign, 6 or 7 multiplayer modes which offer wildly varying gameplay, 3 factions with weapons and vehicles.
The so called Levolution is not just a gimmick; parts of the map radically change during the match with awesome animations most of the time. This has never been done before.
The Destruction is again turned up a notch to give an even more realistic sense of Destruction. Perhaps minor things for you, but pretty awesome from a technical point of view.

Sure the main gameplay is still good old battlefield. But that is what we want, right? What should have been made better or what should have been added or changed in your view to make it better?

I am very happy with the given formula. It BF as I know it, just bigger and more awesome.

Just as a sidenote; I am a PC BF player, not a console one. If you are then I can see where you are coming from.

[son_of_montfort]

I like BF4 and do not think it sucks. Remember, the RPS "review" is about single-player, which is like reviewing World of Warcraft based solely on PvP arenas or something. I'm having philosophical differences with RPS at the moment, largely centered around their incessant need to try to be "cute" rather than informative, but their opinion still holds a lot of weight for me. That being said, everyone expects the solo game for BF4 and CoD: Ghosts to be largely tacked on and short.

I did not play BF3, so BF4 is a nice entry into a formula that I feel is stronger than BF2.

[Huw the Poo]

The RPS article is not even remotely a review.  Walker makes the very clear point that the single player game should not be somehow free from criticism because "everyone plays multiplayer" (which is bollocks), and that the single player experience, due to DRM , is shocking.

If I were at all interested in the game, I'd be glad that RPS is one of the few websites to have the balls to discuss it.  They would have saved me some money.

[JudgeDredd]

I bought BF3 - but decided to abstain from BF4 for several reasons...
1. It didn't look like a good enough step for the price
2. I don't multiplayer - only dabble if at all - so a weak single player isn't any good for me
3. I didn't like buying into Origin...I decided not to do it anymore

Just the reasons I used to justify saving me £40  :D

*Man what is it with me and saving money all of a sudden!!*

[Yskonyn]

All fair reasons, just not much foundation for a general exclamation of : "Battlefield 4 stinks".
Parts of it do, but as a whole the game is solid. But if you're not a multiplayer shooter kinda guy you have no business with BF to begin with; that doesn't make the game bad.

[JudgeDredd]

All fair reasons, just not much foundation for a general exclamation of : "Battlefield 4 stinks".
Parts of it do, but as a whole the game is solid. But if you're not a multiplayer shooter kinda guy you have no business with BF to begin with; that doesn't make the game bad.

Nope. The guy at work loves it multiplayer. Quite a few crashes, but when he plays, it's a blast apparently.

He is a big fan of MP though...loves it