{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Edytowany przez użytkownika MNMNPJNA2:
1/7/2014 3:30:26 AM
13
Of course, all of this rant is implying that everything went perfectly in development. Which it didn't. EA rushed Dice before they could finish what they wanted.
If you've just bought BF4, of course it's going to be buggy especially on next gen. It just came out! It was a rushed development game, and it's not like they aren't working on fixing it. EA is a money hog. Dice, not as much. I've also read that you think they've taken out map destruction, large maps, and "vehicular mayhem", which makes me question wether or not you actually played the game. Have you even seen the trailers?
There's a friggin tower that falls over if you shoot the pillars of it enough! There's all sorts of levloution, I don't exactly know why you think there's no more vehicle mayhem, where yesterday, I rolled through a house in a tank, and ran over two snipers. Oh, and they never took out the destruction engine?
English
-
What do you mean "of course it's going to be buggy"? I don't mean to be sarcastic, but when a game is launched, that sort of suggests it is, you know, complete. I am not expecting perfect polish, but I am expecting only minor bugs, not enormous server problems. I was referring to the campaign when I said the game lacked massive playspaces and destruction. Yes, there is destruction and you are given a few large playspaces, but they seem like afterthoughts to an already boring and poorly written single player.
-
You yourself said games are going to be buggy. If I'm not wrong, it says something about how all large games (such as Skyrim) cannot have all the hugs taken out of it? Battlefield 4 was rushed, as I've already said, so much of the campaign and a lot of the multiplayer, went unfinished.
-
Okay, but is that acceptable? Is shipping a rushed product, i.e., a product that developers know is not finished, for $60 an ethical practice? Either way you swing it, rushed development or insufficient polish near the end, it is unacceptable.
-
I never disagreed with you there, just showing you it isn't [i]that[/i] broken of a game. It just has a short single player and a little buggy of a multiplayer.
-
The multiplayer is a little buggy now, but, at launch, it was virtually unplayable. Server crashes plagued BF4 across platforms. It is much better now, but still needs work. It's not about having a short or long single player. I am tired of single player campaigns being judged by length. It may have been short, but, much more importantly, it was a poorly written, poorly conceived mash-up of US soldiers shooting foreigners. Despite the fact that CoD is also a mash-up of shooting foreigners, it at least manages to make the gameplay somewhat engaging. BF4's campaign is a chore to play through. It isn't fun; it isn't well written; it is an absolute insult to the intelligence of the players and the triple A game industry.
-
Here's something to think about, what if the only reason campaign is in Battlefield is to [i]compete[/i] with Call of Duties campaign much like how the Co-Op in Battlefield 3 was put in to compete with Call of Duties survival and such? If you want single player games, go ahead and find some by all means. I don't think that ranting to [i]me[/i] about how large gaming companies don't put in any great single player games *cough* Far Cry 3 Splinter Cell Ghost Recon *cough*
-
Edytowany przez użytkownika Plasma Prestige: 1/8/2014 5:48:51 AMI'm sure that is the only reason the campaign is there. However, it is such a waste of effort if what they produce is ultimately a worse experience than CoD. Given that the standard of quality in CoD campaigns has not been very high lately, it is saying a lot when another campaign cannot even match that. I think you are missing my point. I recognize that BF is a multiplayer game first and foremost. I don't expect a moving narrative that spans 12 hours. Even if they only make a six hour campaign, make those six hours worth my time. That is all I ask. If you include single player in a game, even if it is marketed as a multiplayer experience, I will expect, at the very least, decent writing. While I have not finished Far Cry 3, I really liked the story I did see. It wasn't perfect or a great example of narrative in our medium as a whole, but it tried, and its numerous successes showed that the developers really tried to make an engaging experience. You never exit the first person perspective, which makes the game tremendously immersing; the game's mechanics serve as metaphor (a topic that Extra Credits on Youtube discusses). Bad writing in games is not just because of the lack of talent (although that is responsible as well), it is also because of an obvious lack of effort.
-
So basically you're saying that because Battlefield has a crappy campaign, and it's supposed to be a multiplayer game, that it should still have decent writing, even though people 9 times out of 10, will skip the campaign to play the multiplayer? Now, I don't skip campaigns, I make it my goal to play through them before I even [i]touch[/i] multiplayer. But I saw Battlefields campaign as kind of an intro or tutorial before you get into multiplayer, just because it introduces you to every aspect of the game (except piloting) that you might need to use in game.
-
He is saying that it should be decent enough to play. If not, scarp it and work on what works. I'd love a better BF campaign. Maybe the next game will have a better one if they can get some good writers in.
-
Edytowany przez użytkownika MNMNPJNA2: 1/8/2014 10:36:33 PMI played it? It's just like any other cheesy war movie out there. I'm not hating on Battlefields campaign, I've just not cared about it enough to complain about its writers.
-
I was talking about him. Also, the reason why you don't care is because they don't write it well. If they wanted multiplayer only they can do that and it will be fine. I bet they could make an amazing multiplayer worth 60 bucks.
-
I agree on the end part, but I'm fairly sure they still would just slap a shitty campaign in there and ship it out just because it had to market with Call of Duty. I'm not saying they should, it's what they're doing.
-
Wish they would make it a good campaign though. There's been rumors about something called BF5: Armageddon which I heard might fall in the same category as BF3's Aftermath DLC. But that's a rumor...
