Battlefield 4

[Thorondor123]

128 players plz.

but since it's a console port again, unlikely to happen ofcourse -_-

They already have higher maximum player numbers for PC in BF3.

Yeah but they ditched that because "not fun enough".

Ditched what? PC version supports 64 player, console versions support 24.

[Yustax]

128 players in PC. Thats what he meant. And the "not fun enough" is an actual quote from DICE when they tested the game with 128 players.

[THeTA0123]

BF3 might not be fun with 128p because its to arcadish for it IMO.


And well, let the GOOD NATTY EXPLAIN why!

[Natty]

Because they don't want to make a 128 player game?

Doesn't take a genius to figure that out, does it?

Go ask Ridley Scott why there were no dragons in Prometheus... Ridley would look at you and explain with slow words

- "well little guy.... you see, I didn't want to make a movie about dragons...
is that answer enough for you?"

[Hjaldrgud]

BF3 might not be fun with 128p because its to arcadish for it IMO.

This.

Anyways, the Battlefield franchise as evolved away from the original concept that I liked so much. It is good to see the commander and voip up again, but will it be enough? I fear a new dumbed down spray 'n pray ultrafast paced shooter will be made.

Which would have been kinda okey. I can understand that EA/dice wanted their share of the Cow of Derpy crowd, but the dumbed down fast version of Battlefield should only have existed in the Bad Company series. This would have been perfect. Then they could have had an original Battlefield series wih semi serious gameplay close to BF42 and BF2 with their standard armies, specialized classes, faction locked weapons etc, while Bad Company could have been it's retarded bastard son that had experience, hats, bling, weapon unlocks and what not. Now, in this universe, we now got two series that is both the same.

[Sander93]

Still, IMO 64 is too low. Something in the reach of 80 would be cool.

One commander and two platoons of 20 players devided into some squads of 4-6 players each.
If they took BF2's tactical/teamwork system and improved it, it could become one hell of a game.


Since most people are stats whores, they should introduce big ass teamwork scores for following orders and cooperating with other squads. Commander says attack this flag: if you succeed you get rewarded the same as 10 kills or whatever. Staying together you get a +10% bonus per player close to you for every point you earn. Hell, they could even try to introduce a system that keeps track of the squads/platoons on the map and tracks if they attack the same flags or targets - giving them cooperation bonusses along the way.

IMO they should really focus on gameplay (and teamwork!) enhancing mechanics instead of fancy unlocks and stupid skins. Teamwork and proper gameplay has always been what set Battlefield apart from CoD and MoH.

[Zoologic]

Finally, a game with potentially proper, realistic, and sensible female character attire. Sexy (women in uniforms are) but not slutty like most other games.

China and Russia! Yay! Finally! We can slowly forget political correctness for China.

Also, please include US Coast Guard or police department, they are one of the most underrepresented factions in FPS games. Let's imagine US home defense scenario. Archie and all the Constitutionally-aware US citizens can fight as their own home state troopers and PDs. 

[Natty]

original Battlefield series wih semi serious gameplay close to BF42 and BF2 w

lol, BF2 and bf42 were "serious" games? dont know if didnt play or if memory clouded by nostalgic romantisicm 
also; BF3 is the most original  BFgame to date. Some people confuse this whole "real" aspect. They belive that "real" BF fans only liked bf42 and perhaps BF2

Want me to let you in on a lil' secret? Real battlefield fans play all BF titles... that's kind of the definition of being a fan. They played BC1, Bf1943, BF Heroes, BFP4F, BC2, BF3, BF2142 and they all loved it. Those are the fans. The Battlefield players community.

they should introduce big ass teamwork scores for following orders

People dont play shooter games to take orders from others. Commander can work well of course but forget the whole teamplay-forced "orders" and stuff, really... clans can do that or people renting servers with passwords on for some semi-military "role-playing"... IMO a game like Battlefield dont need the players bringing bunch of role-play stuff in to it. Gamers cant make the game better by pretending to "order" each other stuff. If there are mechanics in place like healing someone or giving someone a ride, then that's all the "role play" you need

"I" (my avatar) healed "you" (pressed left-mouse button to drop a medbox) = actual ingame event
"I am your leader and I order you to go there" = just happening in your teamspeak

Anyways, the Battlefield franchise as evolved away from the original concept

Yep evolution is fantastic and Im very excited to see what  new levels of innovations are brought in the next title 

[HadrianBT]

2Natty:

Well, let others argue about your latter points, but the first one about true fans is totally wrong. You know, a lot of people now hate Putin, our president, and for a good reason. So what they say?

"Come on, if you are real patriots of your country, you MUST love him, because he is now your current presinent!".

I think that this logic is flawed. However, I could be wrong

[LuckyOne]

Still, IMO 64 is too low. Something in the reach of 80 would be cool.

One commander and two platoons of 20 players devided into some squads of 4-6 players each.
If they took BF2's tactical/teamwork system and improved it, it could become one hell of a game.


Since most people are stats whores, they should introduce big ass teamwork scores for following orders and cooperating with other squads. Commander says attack this flag: if you succeed you get rewarded the same as 10 kills or whatever. Staying together you get a +10% bonus per player close to you for every point you earn. Hell, they could even try to introduce a system that keeps track of the squads/platoons on the map and tracks if they attack the same flags or targets - giving them cooperation bonusses along the way.

IMO they should really focus on gameplay (and teamwork!) enhancing mechanics instead of fancy unlocks and stupid skins. Teamwork and proper gameplay has always been what set Battlefield apart from CoD and MoH.

Now this is something I would really like to see, and I'm sure others would too... Situations like in the BF 2 trailer when one moment everything is peaceful and the next moment all hell breaks loose! Situations and excitement like in the tournaments where you desperately fight to hold a flag agains a whole bunch of tanks and infantry storming in, while artillery is pounding you... Now that's Battlefield, not the "hey let's run around like headless chickens and earn some fraggz, cuz that's what the cool kidz do!"

That would bring a true revolution of FPS instead of trying to cram as many medals, and shiny unlocks for statwhores and call it "innovation".

But of corse, that's not where money lies so no real chance of that happening for the next decade or so, unit people get bored of generic add-ons... Still some progress is being made and I like what some games are trying to achieve (hint: NS2, Planetside 2).

Also Natty I think you are confusing Battlefield "fans" with the so called "iSheep" that also think that every new product from Apple is amazing, even if it only sports a slightly bigger screen and a somewhat better camera, and even if it's totally outclassed by competition in terms of price, performance and features...

[Ts4EVER]

Is this even confirmed?

[LuckyOne]

Is this even confirmed?

No but this is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guEkrrfDpZI&feature=related

[Sander93]

People dont play shooter games to take orders from others.

Gamers cant make the game better by pretending to "order" each other stuff.

If you played Battlefield 2 even once you'd know that whichever team had the best squads with the best gameplay would easily win the match. One squad 6 of six guys with a proper squadleader could take over the entire map. Think of a USMC squad at Dragon Valley taking over the PLA's airfield and helicopter base.

I'm not mentioning PR like roleplaying (''grenadier and LMG gunner set up here, medic and riflemen go there'') anywhere, all I'm talking about is promoting cooperation between squads and squadmembers way more than they ever did before. Because a group of people working together will ALWAYS outclass a bunch of random individuals. The squad system was what made Battlefield 2 stand way above all other FPS of its era, and IMO they should really get to work on making the perfect mix of gameplay and teamwork.

The only problem in BF2 was that this teamwork had to be brought in by the players themselves, because there was nothing more rewarding about it than going off alone. Battlefield 2's system was already quite good, and about enough for what you'd want in a public game. But it simply showed no visual (as in scoreboard wise) reward for actually using the system. Which is why, should BF4 get a simular system again, I would love to see HUGE, and I mean HUGE bonussus for teamwork.

[Natty]

Is this even confirmed?

I dont think so, but you know how forum trollz users are. As soon as anyone regardless of source or not, posts something about the game they love, they need to storm the forums and pick holes in it, desperately trying to find flaws and bad things they can whine about.

Im sure if EA deposited 1000$ to each and every Origin users account, you'd still see people whining about....something.... like "d'uuuh!11! why only 1000$?? I need 1,500$ to buy all teh gamez I wantz!".... "They juz do dis so I shall buy moar games from them d'uh huh"



I would wait for official word from DICE what future games will be like if I were you.. hey. it will save you heart-aches, headaches and pointless threads being made on teh netz.

If you played Battlefield 2 even once you'd know that whichever team had the best squads with the best gameplay would easily win the match

known fact. But it doesnt mean all the rest of the players on that server are having a good time 
Game design is not about giving players the absolute best tool to "win" with. It's about giving everyone a pleasant experience.

Ever seen a BF2 server being "hi-jacked" by claners? It's ugly.. a "1337" clan hopping in on a server, making a squad, locking it. Then completely steamroll and annihilate the rest of the enemy team. With medics, SL spawn, helis etc 6 guys can keep a whole other team pinned down.
Why would a maker of a game want that possible in their game? I'd rather make it harder (not impossibe, but harder) for those things to happen, so everyone can have fun.

One squad 6 of six guys with a proper squadleader could take over the entire map. Think of a USMC squad at Dragon Valley taking over the PLA's airfield and helicopter base.

Yea, exactly the problem I high-lighted

Rest of your argument: Yes, in clan play. Games should offer a competitive platform where claners can play ultra-competitive like you explain. It's not for the "FFA" public servers.
A bit like a friendly game of football among friends on a sunday shouldn't be turned in to the finals of the world cup, you know? Would you glide-tackle your mate so he is knocked unconscious on a fun sunday-game? Probably not.

Game designers job is to maintain/manage this balance. So the game feels edgy and challenging, but still is light and casual enough so players can enjoy it as they please.
"winning" doesnt really matter in public play, does it?

[Sander93]

I care about winning or being the best, that's why I play games. That's the challenge for me.

Don't really care about the lower 50% of the player base who are barely capable enough to find the Download button let alone ever achieve something. This is why I never enjoyed BF3 so much as I did enjoy BF2, because it severely limits good players.

Hitboxes are so big even someone playing with his mouse upside down could get a kill, and vehicles require incredibly carefull play to be good. I always liked how in BF2 the vehicles were pretty balanced themselves, but could just as well become ultimate killing machines when the right person was operating it.

For someone who always wants to end at the top like me, it made the game's pace very slow. Instead of rushing in and simply killing everyone I met like I did in BF2, I now have to move from cover to cover to have a glance  of hope at staying alive. In a chopper, I have to stay near cover (to block AA) all the time, and the same goes for whenever I'm in a tank. You always have to stay at the edge of the battle, picking targets of opportunity, or you will die.

And dying is no fun, at least not for me. But playing incredibly passive agressive is boring too.


Getting to actually know what you're doing, and becoming above average should be something rewarding IMO. If a group of random players in a random players get together in a squad and operate like they're in a clan, they should be rewarded. Not left unnoticed.