Battlefield 4 Stinks

[son_of_montfort]

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.

Yes, but to discuss the single play as its own entity and judge it without taking into account both the nature of the game and the whole package is a very strange reviewing practice. That would be like booting up a predominately solo play game and writing a column to discuss its multiplayer mode. BF4 is marketed as a massive online FPS arena game, with a solo campaign largely there for "practice." When you boot it up, it takes you to the MP list, not the solo campaign list. A consumer who buys BF4 and doesn't play multiplayer is a poorly educated consumer.

That being said, the solo campaign is not notable. I enjoyed the first mission, but was not "wowed" enough to want to continue with the other missions. I'm also irritated that some of the unlocks are contingent upon playing the solo campaign.

I'm not ruffled by the DRM. The game is basically an entry-point to server-based MP, so I wouldn't expect the solo campaign to be DRM free.

[bboyer66]

Singe player be damned. Could care less.

THe RPS review basically detailed a bug that I encountered the first time I tried playing multiplayer. Yes I applaud them for even trying the single player route.

In response to Yskonyn :

You nailed it, should have been called BF3.5

Yes 3 Factions with no differences other than uniforms and vehicle skins.

Destructible buildings were done in Bad Company II, this is hardly some revolution.

Once again the biggest problem is they fucked up the commander mode. The commander used to be able to give orders to squads directly and a good portion of the players would actually follow because it was easy to see what he wanted. Now all I see the commander doing is shooting cruise missiles and dropping supplies. If your lucky you have a squad leader giving orders but 90% of the time they do not. Like I said before every game goes like this. Capture flag.... move and capture next flag..... go back and recapture original flag that fell since no one is defending it................. repeat.

The other thing is the number of maps. With Shanghai down I think it was a whopping 4-5 map rotation. Ridiculous for a game that you pay over 60 dollars for. But dont you worry for another 40 dollars you can get all the future maps (expansions).

You also said it is bigger, hell no it aint. Go play some of the old BF2 maps. They were frickin huge. Planetside 2 is an example of the route BF could be going with maps over 10K X 10K, and hundreds if not thousands playing against each other on the same huge map.

When everything is working in BF4, its a typical MP shooter experience. Not much different from BF3 but still decent. The problem is it rarely is not hiccuping with glitches and crashes. Plus the fact that it costs 60 dollars, with very few maps. Another 40 for future maps. Just equal BF4 Stinks. Save your money and go play Planetside 2 for free.

[Huw the Poo]

Yes, but to discuss the single play as its own entity and judge it without taking into account both the nature of the game and the whole package is a very strange reviewing practice.

It wasn't a review!

RPS were simply saying that trying to play the single player portion of the game is a nightmare due to the DRM.  They're doing what responsible gaming sites with integrity should be doing.  And with all due respect, I wonder whether you read it fully?

And yes, BF4 is considered, by the hardcore die-hard fans, to be a multiplayer game, it's single-player there for only the silly people. But what die-hard fans tend to forget is that they aren't everyone else, and the single-player game was created – at vast expense – for people to play. Except then the bullshit gets involved and what a miserable experience it is to try to.

I think you're underestimating the number of people who genuinely want to play through the campaign.  I would, if I bought it.

Oh, and...

A consumer who buys BF4 and doesn't play multiplayer is a poorly educated consumer.

Well that's just bollocks, and borderline insulting.

[Apocalypse 31]

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

Those are my EXACT 3 reasons, as well.

[undercovergeek]

well i bought it tonight from the supermarket after intense peer pressure. I have Bad Company II, i have BF3, i would say to all intents and purposes its 3 with new maps, gun names with some very minor adjustments to what can be played MP - but for me it isnt about the new assault rifle or the much reduced number of vehicles - its sitting next to a colleague or two, sharing beers and shooting each other in the face - and for that it gets 10/10

in much the same way that different people take different things from books, films and even the tool box - this game fulfils a specific purpose for me and it does that job just fine

[son_of_montfort]

Yes, but to discuss the single play as its own entity and judge it without taking into account both the nature of the game and the whole package is a very strange reviewing practice.

It wasn't a review!

Remember, even their "reviews" are called "Wot I Think," so I would hardly call any of their impressions "formal." I still think that having a specific impressions column on one aspect of a game is slightly odd. If BF4 is not above criticism, is RPS also not above criticism?

A consumer who buys BF4 and doesn't play multiplayer is a poorly educated consumer.

Well that's just bollocks, and borderline insulting.

I fail to understand why that statement is either "bollocks" or "insulting." I certainly wasn't trying to offend you here.

BF4 is tacitly advertised as a FPS multiplayer arena game. To buy it solely to play the single player campaign would be a very poor use for $60. That would be like booting up DOTA 2 and getting angry because playing against bots wasn't satisfying or World of Warcraft and being angry you can't solo the Dungeons. Both are marketed as being primarily for multiplay, just like the majority of the BF4 experience.

[JudgeDredd]

Yes, but to discuss the single play as its own entity and judge it without taking into account both the nature of the game and the whole package is a very strange reviewing practice.

It wasn't a review!

Remember, even their "reviews" are called "Wot I Think," so I would hardly call any of their impressions "formal." I still think that having a specific impressions column on one aspect of a game is slightly odd. If BF4 is not above criticism, is RPS also not above criticism?

A consumer who buys BF4 and doesn't play multiplayer is a poorly educated consumer.

Well that's just bollocks, and borderline insulting.

I fail to understand why that statement is either "bollocks" or "insulting." I certainly wasn't trying to offend you here.

BF4 is tacitly advertised as a FPS multiplayer arena game. To buy it solely to play the single player campaign would be a very poor use for $60. That would be like booting up DOTA 2 and getting angry because playing against bots wasn't satisfying or World of Warcraft and being angry you can't solo the Dungeons. Both are marketed as being primarily for multiplay, just like the majority of the BF4 experience.

I can't speak for BF4...and to be fair to you that is what you specifically referred to.

However, I could, and will, argue that by that you are including the BF series - as they are about the multiplayer game for a lot of people but I can assure you, point blank, that I did not buy BF2 or BF3 for it's multiplayer game. I seldom play multiplayer and if you were to see my "stats", you'd see I'm something like a Corporal...after buying BF3 on release. That shows you how much of my money on buying the game went to (for me) the multiplayer game.

I bought it PURELY for the single player campaign which I thought was superb. And had I not done any reading (and had I not been fed up with Origin), I may well have bought BF4 based on the fact that BF3 had such an excellent single player campaign.

Battlefield is most certainly not about the multiplayer option for all players. I grant you the vast majority might be likely to buy it for that - but I did not and I really don't think it's fair to suggest it either - especially given BF3's campaign was so good.

And I did not think the £35 I spent on BF3 was wasted at all. The campaign wasn't particularly long, but it was an excellent story and worth every penny

[spelk]

Not wishing to join in the melee, but wishing to say a few things about why I like the Battlefield franchise as a whole.

These things:

1) Classes
2) Environmental effects
3) Command
4) Vehicle specialisation

It's just about the only psuedo military FPS shooter that allows large scale conflict, with specialist classes working together to exert their influence on the map.

Most of the modern shooters nowadays, promote the lone wolf, perk/skill hybrid expert. Quick reactions, intimate map knowledge and ultra min-maxing on the weapon/skill build. You get an army of COD people suped up to the max, to be an effective one man killing machine. If you don't put the effort in to train your twitch reflexes and tweak your hybrid builds, you get creamed. Small maps, fast paced endless zerging spawn/death cycles, until one side gets a team perk to really land the smackdown and accelerate the winning snowball. Everyone comes out of it with an andrenalin soaked hard on, or a red mist of hate and frustration swirling around their inside their head. It's just head junk for ego strokers most of the time.

At least Battlefield manages an attempt to confer some sort of fireteam organisation and a commander role. Classes interlink in subtle ways, and support is mixed in with offence plus you have specific counters for various weapon systems and vehicles. The fact that the majority of Battlefield players are just disenchanted COD players is just a shame. The endless flag catpure, abandon, recapture cycle is unfortunate, but mainly happens when you have fireteams and commanders that don't understand the power of holding a key site - or the utility of distraction attacks, or bottlenecking the enemy, tying their attention, whilst the capture clock ticks over. It's also true that most fireteam leaders don't mark up objectives - and thats a crying shame because it really focuses the gameplay - dynamically. The fact that it doesn't happen often is more down to the player population than the game itself. The facility to do it is there. Similarly commanders rarely set up any sort of grander scale tactical approaches, but some do.

I enjoy Battlefield, because it gives the player tactical options, class based co-opertaive bonuses, specialise vehicular weapon systems and the ability to affect combat through fireteam leaders and commanders (if that control and obedience to it is applied). Some games are frustrating as playing a twitch hybrid strokefest, but alot of them deliver an experience much more than your average FPS. It is an evolution though, and so far, BF4 has delivered as much excitement as I had with BF3 - with the larger environmental effects (typhoon washing up destroyers on island shores, or skyscrapers tumbling into rubble laden wastelands) stealing the show in certain situations.

[son_of_montfort]

Fine fine... Huw and JudgeDredd, some people buy BF4 for the solo campaign. IMHO, the BF games have been marketed primarily for their MP and, particularly with BF, it is not a solo game with a MP option but the other way around, a MP game with a solo option.

Also, purely my opinion, but there are cheaper and better alternatives for a solo-play FPS game than BF4.

[JudgeDredd]

Oh I agree SoM that they are primarily marketed and generally alot of people will buy them for the multiplayer.

My "wee" disagreement was just that they have provided a good solo campaign (most notably for BF3) and therefore people who liked the BF3 campaign (moi) might likely jump the gun and buy BF4 based on that.

I did manage to hold off, mainly because I just don't get £45+ worth of gaming out the games - and why? 'cos I don't do MP the way the vast majority (I would guess) do.

But some people (including me if it was cheaper and I didn't mind Origin) would've dropped the cash simply based on the excellent solo campaign of BF3 (and from what I gather be disappointed).

[Nefaro]

I play shooters for multi-player (the little that I do these days) but all I'm seeing in BF4 is a rebranded BF3 primed for a new round of overpriced DLC buffoonery.

Have fun with that.  :-\

[Skoop]

I'm having fun with it, I don't play very many shooters but the battlefield series scratches that itch for action shooter. 

If you play in smaller groups or try to find friends to fill up a squad, you might find a better tactical experience and less lone wolfing going on.

Another tip, try looking into 21CW if you want to take tactical to another level.  Not sure if they have migrated to BF4 yet but something to think about if you want more coordinating during play.

[bboyer66]

I play shooters for multi-player (the little that I do these days) but all I'm seeing in BF4 is a rebranded BF3 primed for a new round of overpriced DLC buffoonery.

Have fun with that.  :-\

Exactly

[son_of_montfort]

I play shooters for multi-player (the little that I do these days) but all I'm seeing in BF4 is a rebranded BF3 primed for a new round of overpriced DLC buffoonery.

Have fun with that.  :-\

Considering I never bought BF3... I'm glad to have this latest "patch."  ;)

[Nefaro]

I play shooters for multi-player (the little that I do these days) but all I'm seeing in BF4 is a rebranded BF3 primed for a new round of overpriced DLC buffoonery.

Have fun with that.  :-\

Considering I never bought BF3... I'm glad to have this latest "patch."  ;)

I bought BF3 early this year.  Played for a bit.. it was okay.  My biggest complaint was that there were only one or two huge outdoor maps in the BF2 tradition.  Then they wanted you to pay $30 for each "expansion" which didn't have much in each of them.