I wish the youtube influeners would stop talking crap and just wait till the trailer drops.
Again i am pretty excited
If its going to be 64 v 64 that is a pretty epic battle.
@FearNoTears wrote:
PC pro tip, buy a laptop or console, because PC was on it's way out starting in BF3 and finished in BF4. Unless you support the game changing and being nurf under your feet to accommodate whiners for 4 years.
I've read this a few times and I don't know what is trying to be said.
BF3 was the last BF worth building a PC for. It's like BF3 was a adults games, but once they added rules it became a children's game. Crying in game is nothing new, but nurfing the game for the whiners is new, which I notice happening none stop in BF4. I don't recall them nurfing BF3 when I piled the med train to the roof.
@Teal_Pipo_Fredo wrote:I don't feel the excitement. Have become apathetic. Video games don't anymore excite me as they used to. My fantasy bubble has collapsed. I am pretty sure whatever class-loadout system they come up with will be teared down by community for being too limiting as role play esque if it has any resemblance of it or it will be repetition of past having only four dimensions and watered down level of characteristics. Boredom -_-
More and more of us just realize that the triple A games these days are made for the investors and the executives instead of the end users.
That is why you and more and more of us feel that way. Video games used to be magic to us.
@UP_Hawxxeye wrote:
@Teal_Pipo_Fredo wrote:I don't feel the excitement. Have become apathetic. Video games don't anymore excite me as they used to. My fantasy bubble has collapsed. I am pretty sure whatever class-loadout system they come up with will be teared down by community for being too limiting as role play esque if it has any resemblance of it or it will be repetition of past having only four dimensions and watered down level of characteristics. Boredom -_-
More and more of us just realize that the triple A games these days are made for the investors and the executives instead of the end users.
That is why you and more and more of us feel that way. Video games used to be magic to us.
This is perhaps a tad too cynical but I don't disagree entirely certainly in the way a game generates extra revenue.
I suspect, unless they play, investers and executives won't care about game mechanics.
In my sweet stealthy spot that I've found I'm feeling pretty confident that no one has seen me at all .
That's when I'm startled to see a scary little Q-UGV spying on me , 'wagging' its little radar dish tail .
"Aren't you excited to see me?" it asks , "because , my Master is extremely excited to see you" .
If the BF kitchen is currently full of expert cooks and chefs , I think it's best to just let them work .
They know the tried-n-true staple foods , they have an idea what spices they'll use this time .
What they don't need is the pounding of cutlery on the tables out in the dining hall .
If a 'tank berm' of dissent was inadvertently built from the last release , they have two options :
Climb up and over it to roam the same old new land beyond it , or
Elevate this new land beyond it so that it is not a berm at all .
I'm excited to think that this second option is what they've gone for .
@Noodlesocks wrote:I'l be honest, the sound of 64v64 sounds horrible. Game can already feel a bit claustrophobic at times with 64 players. I can only imagine what it will be like with so many people concentrated around 50m x 50m objective areas. Planetside 2 can feel like a monotonous grind when objectives have a lot of players fighting over them and I'd be concerned the next Battlefield might end up feeling the same.
That being said I know very little of how they plan on handling a higher player count or even if they even will increase the player count. I'm just afraid that it is going to end up a situation where more simply isn't better.
The way that people play conquest right now where almost no one is leading their squad anywhere so they consist of individuals running around by themselves or sitting somewhere on the map like they aren't in a squad at all is the reason why the 64 player game modes are terrible. Every match is usually a large mass of players on a team stuck in one place on the map accomplishing nothing with almost no objectives controlled. Which is usually the end result of teams with lackluster squad/team play. More players on the servers is not going to fix this.
Most of the times when I play Battlefield 1 when in a squad of five people I am fighting for the objective on my own. This has become the normal way to play battlefield as team play is not a priority for many playing. DICE should put more of an emphasis on leadership * this next game isn't just a bunch of easy to make filler assignments and challenges that detract from team play like Battlefield 1 and Battlefield V has.
