Speaking of controls, the key binding for Gadget One doesn't work in Multiplayer. It's really annoying because I set my Defib to Q so I can do it faster, then click on my mouse wheel to get back to my primary. In the Beta, there were 3 gadget slots in the keyboard shortcuts, and for some reason nothing worked in gadget one. It seems like they removed the third option, but didn't assign anything back to one.
Less than half hour here and I'm quite certain I will wake up very late tomorrow
************
First impressions:
I need hardcore servers. Shooting somebody 50 times is no fun.
Laggier than BF3
Large maps. Lots of running, little killing.
Shooting seems more realistic. Takes time to get used to.
EU server just opened and you have lvl 20-23 coming and using some weird stuff to their advantage. Not fun.
That's for now
***************
Day two is not so bad (edited )
Crash to desktop in 3 out of 5 matches. (***Installed Beta drivers from AMD and didn't crash so far)
Getting used to it and already like it more than BF3.
On 13.11 I can play high settings like a champ (7950).
**** after 2h lag came back to the point that had to lower settings to MED.
Not sure what's going on.
been playing since Tuesday. liking it and good fun when the servers work. seems everyone's servers are either lagging like mad or crashing straight out.
Hopefully the lads at dice get a hold of it soon as its pretty dire trying to play it just now.
But it will be my game of choice to play when i feel like gaming.
I actually bought it last night and was trying to play. Glad to see I'm not the only one having these lag issues. At the moment it seems like a mess but I'm sure that's just because it just came out.
I'm quite amazed at how well it runs on my PC though, I was expecting it to run like shit haha.
can anyone tell me if it runs better than the beta did?
It runs MUCH better than the beta did for me. During the beta I was getting around 40 FPS on High settings at 1280x720 and around 60 FPS at low settings at 1280x720.
Now I'm getting constant 60 at high settings at 1920x1080. This game looks beautiful and it's incredibly fun to play when it works.
On the other hand, PRE-LOADING COD GHOSTS RIGHT NOW. I wish they didn't force everybody to download the 4K textures. The filesize is like 40GB simply because the game has 4K textures for people who play at 4K (which I probably won't do for another 5-10 years.)
It runs a lot better than the beta. I get a FPS between 40-60 with my GTX 570 at 1920x1200 with a mixture of high and ultra settings, with SSAO and low AA. I can turn them up even more for campaign, but multiplayer is a little more jittery so I kept a few settings down.
Yeah it runs miles better than the beta. I could hardly run the beta on high and now I can play Ultra on 144hz 80+ fps. I'm loving every second of this game (outside the server crashes, rubberbanding and sound glitches). Which are slowly going away.
To rank up fast,.....
1. Avoid rush, play TDM and conquest
2. Always play in a squad with mics. Aviod lone wolf wannabees.
3. And last, and i know its lame, but it gets the job done,......BOOST!
I'm curious if someone at DICE could shed some light on this, and why there is a flat out refusal to appease BF3 players, who wanted continue to support the BF line.
I'm curious if someone at DICE could shed some light on this, and why there is a flat out refusal to appease BF3 players, who wanted continue to support the BF line.
Actually, if i read their precise wording, DICE said "similar" controls. not "Exact". So, they never really promised what people seem to be stating.
Maybe I received it wrong, but the promise I was told about, was received second hand. That was before the game was released. The recent DICE post was after the release. The game controls did not change from the beta, which means they did not offer a BF3 configuration.
I'm a pc user, so i don't care about console controls. But i must say the game is like an early access... full of bugs, glitches, crashes...
Something funny i found in the campaign is to see almost all enemies/tanks appearing in front of me like ghosts. The need to fix the scripting ASAP. There are some ways to avoid the save spots and that's horrible.
I previously had some random crashes (game closing without error messages). The other day there was a small patch, and now i have a horrible stuttering and a huge drop of fps in areas where i had 80+ fps (now 62 minimum).
AMD users have reported several issues like red screens, so i don't recommed to buy the game until they resolve all the huge list of problems. I'm not happy with this new battlefield. Let's hope if playing COD:Ghosts i feel better, because paying a lot for a game and be unable to play it decently has no excuse.
So whats with the constant crashes, freezing, sound cutting out, unlocks showing up 3 times, disappearing sometimes, gamemodes not ending and inability to party up using battlelog like you could in BF 3?
Is this game even finished? Did it even go through QA?
Not to mention the abysmal singleplayer, I played a bit and just gave up as it's pretty much as awful as the one in BF 3.
When the game actually works it's very hit and miss, the "levelution" looks impressive but serves close to no purpose at changing up gameplay in the maps I've played, it's severely underused or simply used in the wrong place.
Driving physics still feel wonky and vehicles don't really feel like they have a presence on the battlefield other than blocking bullets or blowing up or blowing you up.
The maps I've played so far are rather dull, where are the proper night maps like we had in Bad Company 2? Rush maps with a sense of scale to them like BF 3 and BC 2.
The unlocks are the same shit again too, same scopes and sights for every single weapon, I've yet to see things like maybe a barrel magazine for an 870MCS or something else especially made for each gun.
Right now I keep asking myself why I just can't use the acog I unlocked on the previous rifle when the one I just got has the same damned rail.
Movement is filled with rubberbanding despite my ping being 30 and server ping being 40, also had many times where my character is just launched into space or forward after stepping on some tiny rock or rubble.
Sorry if this is coming off as extremely harsh but I was putting off buying this because of the bad experiences BF 3 gave me but friend convinced me otherwise.
I guess on the good side I can mention incredibly well done art and lighting and sound that is within it's own class for sure, and when it all comes together and works alright it's some of the best fun you can have, but that doesn't happen often enough.
I wish they'd just nix spending time and money on a singleplayer campaign and focus everything on making some awesome MP shit, I still think bringing back Titan mode in some form would elevate this game above BF 3 and it's competitors.
I guess it'll get better as it goes, I just hope the DLC wont fracture the community as badly as it did in BF 3 and force everyone to buy premium again if they want a large pool of players.
I find that server crashes are random but some servers have much much less frequent.
I now play on a UK server and today (sick in bed so have all day to blow things up) not only it didn't even crash once, there were no bugs, glitches or rubber banding. Only bad ass game play
Things seem stable enough for the PC version. Some odd bugs here and there, right now there is a bug that resets your rank to ZERO, although battlelog says otherwise...
My friend seems to be having a lot of trouble getting the game to work on his PC. The beta ran pretty decently on his GTX 680 but his game crashes during every match (I've yet to be able to finish a single match with him so far.)
I'm hoping this launch day mess ends soon, I'd be pretty pissed off if I were in his position though.
The PC issues you guys are describing, is exactly why I moved to consoles. I use to talk up how great PCs were, until I realized I was paying to upgrade it every time a new game came out. Even that couldn't guarantee a smooth game. Despite hardware dwindling down to a few manufacturers, the games continue to get buggier. Especially when they release 'betas' and never release a patch before going gold.
BF4 is doing exactly what I was worried about. BF3 was buggy, then they VERY slowly fixed things, but kept users in the dark. They tried diverting the attention toward upcoming DLCs, which honestly felt like they were receiving all the development time. Now, BF4 comes out, and what do I see? the same responses to EVERYTHING DICE posts; "fix this game".
At least this time, they are being a bit more open. In case you guys missed it, they have a blog post acknowledging many of the problems, and talking about how they are addressing them. Unfortunately there seems to be a huge netcode bug, which is something I often struggle with on BF3, so I don't have faith it'll ever be resolved.
The PC issues you guys are describing, is exactly why I moved to consoles. I use to talk up how great PCs were, until I realized I was paying to upgrade it every time a new game came out. Even that couldn't guarantee a smooth game. Despite hardware dwindling down to a few manufacturers, the games continue to get buggier. Especially when they release 'betas' and never release a patch before going gold.
This seems like quite flawed reasoning to me.
You can buy mid-ranged parts and upgrade every 2-3 years without missing anything. If you're upgrading for every game then you can't be buying that many games. And even IF you're upgrading every time that's only because you want to be able to max a game outhow exactly does buying a console fix this? You're just taking away the option for higher graphics settings and then concluding that you've solved a problem.
And obviously PC's are useful for more than just games; hence the increased initial hardware cost (games are generally cheaper on PC though) makes sense.
Any empirical evidence that games are 'getting buggier'?
so for the most part im able to run the game on pc flawlessly.. except for one really annoying bug ive come across time and time again that boots me from a game if i deploy too quickly. like if im mashing deploy and i hit it just as the timer hits 0.. i crash. its weird but ive since learned to be more patient.
apparently you aren't playing very many games, if you don't realize that games are getting worse.
Agreeably, I didn't buy very many games, but I typically budget around $100-$150 for a video card. Every year or so, I'd upgrade, because the game would require it (direct x support, or more vram), or it just couldn't handle the game. And of course, there would be CPU and memory upgrades scattered in there (which also sometimes required a new video card to match the graphics port). So you may say, why not pay more for a video card, and have it last longer? Well, that may help, but you start paying as much as a console. And console games, many times, are more stable, because of the set hardware.
My guess is that I've been buying PC games much longer than you. Back when there were more than 2 processor manufacturers, and probably a dozen video card manufacturers, with their own chipsets. Games back then, would maybe get a patch. As the internet got more prevalent, developers seemed to do less testing, but it still felt like they were trying to make a solid game. Now, it feels like a release date is determined, and the game gets released on that date, finished or not. In the instance of BF4, they have introduced bugs that were in BF3 (and fixed). That's a major development flaw.
And yes, I still maintain a PC, because I'm a software developer, but the number of people who own PCs has been dwindling... especially desktop PCs.
Anyway, I don't want to turn this thread into a PC vs Console battle, because I don't feel the need to defend either. My point was that many of the BF4 issues/complaints have been with PC players. That's not to say the consoles don't have bugs too, but this has been the most PC bugs I've heard in a while. I'd rather lose some detail, and have a more stable environment, and save more $.
Out of curiosity what games have forced you to buy a new GPU just because of directX versions? If you're upgrading every few years anyway this seems unlikely to cause problems. I can't imagine there would be many dx11 (or whatever) exclusive titles; it makes sense to make your game available to the greatest number of people, so backwards compatibility is key (another reason why I prefer PC gaming—I can still play games from the 90's or earlier.
If games are getting buggier that would be a consequence of increasing complexity; but of course what counts as being acceptable by this standard and what is unacceptably buggy because of other reasons (budget, bad development/management/QA) is ambiguous without hard data.
Is there evidence that the number of PC owners has been dwindling? I recall hearing something along those lines awhile ago but I can't remember the specifics. Are you sure it wasn't PC sales decreasing? (In which case that only proves that pre-built PC sales are dwindling, a vast number build their own, which I doubt there is significant data on)
Whether or not games get support totally depends on the developer. Killing Floor (2009) by tripwire interactive gets significant updates still. If it were a console game where they had to pay fees to push updates out perhaps this wouldn't be the case.
Occasionally a release will have some bad bugs, sure, but on average, the majority of AAA PC releases are very solid.... and I have played pretty much every major release in the past 5 years, for PC.
About upgrading... an 8800GTX that released in 2007 supported DirectX10, which makes it capable to play even a DX11 exclusive title, just without tessellation and what not. Sure, you would have to play on the lowest settings on most recent games, but it would play them.
8800 GTX playing Crysis 2 maxed out. Very choppy, but that is to be expected.
Crysis 2 came out in 2011, and the 8800 GTX came out late 2006. That's five years without actually needing to upgrade, especially since it'd probably play Crysis 2 decently at lowered settings. My laptop GPU is nearly maxing out BF4 at 1080p with a smooth frame rate, and it is a year and a half old...
That shows you how to unpark your cores for gaming basically, my increase was about 10-15 fps.
A free 10-15 FPS? That's pretty significant, thanks for sharing! I just unparked my cores, haven't tested in-game yet. I suspect this could also help with render times in Xnormal and similar programs, maybe even increase Zbrush performance?
Out of curiosity what games have forced you to buy a new GPU just because of directX versions? If you're upgrading every few years anyway this seems unlikely to cause problems. I can't imagine there would be many dx11 (or whatever) exclusive titles; it makes sense to make your game available to the greatest number of people, so backwards compatibility is key (another reason why I prefer PC gamingI can still play games from the 90's or earlier.
If games are getting buggier that would be a consequence of increasing complexity; but of course what counts as being acceptable by this standard and what is unacceptably buggy because of other reasons (budget, bad development/management/QA) is ambiguous without hard data.
Is there evidence that the number of PC owners has been dwindling? I recall hearing something along those lines awhile ago but I can't remember the specifics. Are you sure it wasn't PC sales decreasing? (In which case that only proves that pre-built PC sales are dwindling, a vast number build their own, which I doubt there is significant data on)
Whether or not games get support totally depends on the developer. Killing Floor (2009) by tripwire interactive gets significant updates still. If it were a console game where they had to pay fees to push updates out perhaps this wouldn't be the case.
Ok, I'll follow up one more time, but as I said, I don't want to derail this thread.
As I also pointed out, I've been gaming much longer. My directx reference was because I used to play games that used OpenGL. There was another graphics engine before that, but I can't remember the name. Yes, directx is now the norm, but I'm referring to changes over time. Even after DirectX dominated the market, the graphics ports kept changing, from PCI, to AGP, to PCI-Express. Thank god it's finally settled for a bit, but during those transitions, upgrading your CPU, often meant a new mobo, which meant a new video card, to match the new port.
Something you need to remember, I moved to consoles about 5 years ago, so the PC changes you're trying to describe are more current, and not obviously don't coincide with my point... which was why "I" stopped playing on PC.
As for declining sales, google it up a bit. Here's a quick article I found, which still tries to keep a positive spin on where the market is heading: http://www.pcworld.com/article/2044307/the-pc-fights-back-u-s-sales-decline-is-slowing.html People are using tablets and smartphones more these days, which is why mobile gaming has become such an interest for game development.
And I'm not saying ALL games are riddled with bugs. I'm saying there has been an increase, over time, of games that have bugs. Yes, the games are more complex... that's part of my point. They have grown more complex, but it seems as though they are still getting the same amount of development time scheduled to them. I don't know about you, but I see a lot more claims these days, from people feeling like they are playing a beta version of a game. Yeah, I know some people just throw that around, but there are definitely games getting released, that are not complete.
But more directly to this thread, BF3 was NOT complete. It was filled with bugs, and missing features, that arrived later. Now, we get to BF4, and we have the same bugs, with more added on. Yes, they'll fix them, and eventually the game will be acceptable, but how many times can you do that before gamers are turned off by your brand? My original point, in this thread, was that I'm reading a lot of complaints about PC related bugs this time, mostly to very specific hardware. With the console, I no longer need to worry about hardware differences. The bugs console players are seeing in BF4, are core code issues, and not hardware. The consoles don't need to worry about punkbuster randomly detecting something, and shutting down the game (as it did to me in BF3). I loved PC gaming, but once I warmed up to the controllers, I was glad to get away from the issues.
I got a good 10 FPS out of that CPU unparking registry fix, everyone should give it a try. BF4 is really fluid now, although it was still pretty good without it.
Ok, I'll follow up one more time, but as I said, I don't want to derail this thread.
This all seems pretty relevant to BF4's status as one of the few PC releases that takes advantage of the latest PC hardware, while still being able to run on much lower hardware.
Played BF3 since it was released. Your comment that it was not complete is just opinion, because if someone who made it says it was complete, then it was complete. Sure, the completed product may have not been to your liking, but that isn't relevant other than the fact that you disliked the game.
Have you played BF4 on PC for any extended period of time? Aside from the disconnection bug, it's an awesome game that is a lot of fun. It's far beyond being 'acceptable'. It is great.
You also linked to an article that only talks about prebuilt PC's, when a large majority of people make their computers as it has become much more straight forward.
Any serious gamer doesn't game on a mobile device. Mobile devices are specifically catered for the casual market.
You're talking about PC gaming longer than 5 years ago. That still doesn't make sense, as Half Life 2 was released in 2004, which was 10 years ago. That's when the 7000 series of Nvidia cards were out; PC gaming was relatively stable even then. I remember I had a 7600GS 256mb to play Half Life 2. Worked just fine, although that card couldn't max out HL2. HL2 supported DirectX9, which survived without DX10 exclusive games for over 6 years... about the length of the current console cycle anyways.
With PC gaming, you can plug in any old PC game and play away. Consoles can't do that.
You now just have a persistent bias against PC gaming and will only focus on the negative anecdotal evidence to support your view, ignoring the fact that the majority of AAA PC releases are very solid, in addition to the fact that not all console AAA releases are bug-free either, with patching that has become the norm in that space as well.
Consoles become less and less attractive as they have ditched backwards compatibility, rarely have sales on new games, all games are at $60, and I say this as someone who has owned the Genesis and all of the Playstation consoles.
Played BF3 since it was released. Your comment that it was not complete is just opinion, because if someone who made it says it was complete, then it was complete. Sure, the completed product may have not been to your liking, but that isn't relevant other than the fact that you disliked the game.
Have you played BF4 on PC for any extended period of time? Aside from the disconnection bug, it's an awesome game that is a lot of fun. It's far beyond being 'acceptable'. It is great.
I agree, if it's about my thoughts on BF3/4, than it's relevant to the conversation. Continuing to get attacked on my opinion of the state of PC gaming, is not the subject of this thread though.
My opinion on BF3s completion is not just an opinion. If it was not incomplete, then it would not have received patches. The BF3 patches were beyond just adjusting weapons. And just to be clear, when I say 'incomplete', I'm not referring to the inclusion of maps, or assets. I'm referring game freezing, sound dropping out, VOIP missing, no rented servers (I was actually fine with this), etc. Just because YOU enjoyed it, doesn't mean the game was complete either. I enjoyed the game too, and I originally played it on the PS3, and we had constant audio dropouts (for long periods), game freezes that went on for half a year, horrendous in-game chat, and holes in the maps. Most of the original patches kept changing weapon balance, instead of fixing things. I eventually bought the PC version too, but that was after everything had been pretty much patched. My real issue was punkbuster proving itself as a poorly written piece of software (detecting 'illegal' applications, but not reporting what that app is, even in a cryptic message for the developers to understand).
You also linked to an article that only talks about prebuilt PC's, when a large majority of people make their computers as it has become much more straight forward.
Any serious gamer doesn't game on a mobile device. Mobile devices are specifically catered for the casual market.
A majority of "PC gamers" build their PCs. Most consumers buy prebuilt PCs, and that was the question I was answering with my link. The decline of PCs. I still build my PC. The whole point is, consoles are typically the main focus of most new game development. If you disagree with me on this, have a look at the PC game section next time you're at a store, then stroll over to the console section. Honestly, I hope the new steam machines will reverse this trend.
And I agree, serious gamers won't use a mobile platform. I only have games on my mobile devices, that are time killers. Again, I really referring to the trends of media consumption, and where things are going. When these consumers want something slightly more 'serious', they go to consoles. The way I see it, only the VERY serious gamers stick with PCs.
You're talking about PC gaming longer than 5 years ago. That still doesn't make sense, as Half Life 2 was released in 2004, which was 10 years ago. That's when the 7000 series of Nvidia cards were out; PC gaming was relatively stable even then. I remember I had a 7600GS 256mb to play Half Life 2. Worked just fine, although that card couldn't max out HL2. HL2 supported DirectX9, which survived without DX10 exclusive games for over 6 years... about the length of the current console cycle anyways.
Once again, you're focused on video card tech. First of, 5 years is a rough estimate. I still gamed on my PC with some of my old games, but started buying new on the console. 5 years ago wasn't when I last upgraded my PC for a game. It was probably much more before that. I 'think' the last PC game I bought, before getting BF3, was Tribes:Vengeance. And I should say, I was a bit soured by the lack of mod support in games at the time, which was one of the big advantages I always felt PCs had.
With PC gaming, you can plug in any old PC game and play away. Consoles can't do that.
Really? Throw in an old leisure suit larry for me. You still have a 3.5" drive, right? Good luck with a Windows 3.1 developed game.(I understood your point, just messing with you here). Sure, consoles aren't backwards compatible (which I'm not a fan of, since they still use optical drives), but then again, I'm not paying nearly as much for a console, and if I paid for a game, I likely have the console, so if I'm THAT desperate to play it, I can always plug it back in. I think this is a very irrelevant point you made here
You now just have a persistent bias against PC gaming and will only focus on the negative anecdotal evidence to support your view, ignoring the fact that the majority of AAA PC releases are very solid, in addition to the fact that not all console AAA releases are bug-free either, with patching that has become the norm in that space as well.
Consoles become less and less attractive as they have ditched backwards compatibility, rarely have sales on new games, all games are at $60, and I say this as someone who has owned the Genesis and all of the Playstation consoles.
I think you clearly have this backwards. You have a bias against consoles, apparently because they ditched backwards compatibility. You aren't truly trying to understand my original points, you just see this as an opportunity to show some loyalty to PCs, and attack me. I don't have anything against PCs. I'd love to see them regain the market strength they once had.
My whole point is, it feels like there has been a growing trend of PC games that aren't properly tested. If the game isn't done, don't release it. That's what I'm getting at. And that isn't even limited to PCs, I mentioned it about PCs, because they are more vulnerable, because of the additional hardware configurations. And before you misunderstand anymore, I'm not saying ALL games do this. There ARE companies that will push a date back, to make sure a game is proper. Then there are other companies that would rather release a broken game, and use the sales to pay for further development.
I've been using a radeon 5770 for 3 years, and now, my GTX 680 is going to have 2 years of use. I don't plan to buy a newer graphic card until 5 or more years (I updated my PC when it had 7+ years).
With the 680 i play all in ultra nowadays, but i'm not worried about playing games at high quality like with the radeon 5770. Furthermore, games won't be better in the upcoming years because ps4 and xbone are not better than a i5 with a GTX 660. COD:Ghosts runs at 720 with the xbone... so imagine how shitty is to play that game in a 50" TV.
And here, at home, we are still using a GTX 285 with more than 5 years with an older pc.
BF4 is one of the few games i play with issues/problems. With the other games i play i have zero issues (and i can say i play A LOT, because this year i surpassed 700+€ wasted on PC games).
People are pissed off for that reason, an unfinished game, and more paying more money compared to other games... (EA Games are very very expensive) much cheaper games and with almost zero issues (all games have bugs). We can't blame all the PCs because Dice didn't do the job well as usual. This is not a PC platform issue, this is a DICE issue.
In contrast to BF4, BF3 runs perfectly.
And if we talk about patches... ps3 and xbox 360 also have the same games with the same bugs or more bugs, example: skyrim. I could put more games, but i would be derailing a lot in this thread.
I don't have hope with the steamboxes, i'm sure they will be very expensive. At the end, the people will end buying the most affordable steam boxes, so they will running games like if they purchased a pre-built pc with a simple and cheap GTX 660. And Linux... err no thanks, i have enough with the shit of android (that's my opinion).
And i'm agree with the point, if a game is not done, don't release it. I prefer a delayed game, than an unfinished game, like ubi did with WatchDogs.
Any serious gamer doesn't game on a mobile device. Mobile devices are specifically catered for the casual market.
And computers were once business machines with no intention of entertainment. And the current most popular PC game is Candy Crush. Please try to not be an elitist that garners his self-worth from disparaging other people/platforms.
signed, ~someone who's working on a serious mobile game.
Playing it a bit and enjoying it. Running into some audio issues on some maps, but for the most part it is solid for me on PC. Overall it looks pretty good, nice work dudes!
I really dig the field upgrades with squads. It isn't make or break but it definitely adds a little more tension when you are the last man
I remember my old Geforce 9600GT lasted me for many years up until the release of BF3. It worked fine on BF3 but my CPU was bottlenecking me so I figured I'd upgrade everything at that point.
You don't have to upgrade for every new game, but PC gaming, like any other platform, has its fair share of problems.
Personally, I'm willing to look past those problems for the benefits: cheap games during steam sales, true competition in games like CSGO, dedicated servers for hosting games (which are now just becoming a thing on consoles), mod support, etc.
Consoles are great too though, you don't really have to deal with problems most of the time, you get a solid looking game, you have a bigger and more social community in some games, and you get great exclusives.
The best position to be in is to just own every major platform. I plan to use my PC exclusively for early next-gen but I plan to buy a PS4 and XB1 (AND Wii-U) at some point.
I am definitely not saying BF4 is perfect, or that PC gaming in general is. I just believed the issues stated with PC gaming were a little exaggerated, as every platform has an issue with rushed games that release with terrible bugs. That is not exclusive to the PC.
The sound issues in BF4 for PC are very strange, where sound will randomly cut out in vehicles, games will randomly crash... however, the experience is still something I cannot get from a console. Also can't forget the sales like NegevPro has mentioned, such as the WBgames humble bundle that has 6 games.
I am happy that BF4 seems to run much smoother overall than BF3, though. I could only run BF3 on High settings, now I am running most settings on Ultra at 1080p. It's pretty insane.
If I want a different experience, I have a PS3 for that. I also plan to get a PS4 and a WiiU, not sure about X1 though, probably not. Not feeling the exclusives there yet, that may change though.
And computers were once business machines with no intention of entertainment. And the current most popular PC game is Candy Crush. Please try to not be an elitist that garners his self-worth from disparaging other people/platforms.
signed, ~someone who's working on a serious mobile game.
A Facebook game isn't really applicable in this context, as that is most definitely catered to the casual market.
Seems you took my comments a little too personal. I never attacked or put down any other people or platforms, not sure where you're getting that, but it most definitely wasn't from anything I wrote. I also own a PS3 and enjoy many console exclusives on the platform, and have also worked on a major PS4 release.
The elitist label was unnecessary, however I did jump the gun on my mobile comment though, you're right, not cool. What company do you work for?
whats with that frikkin 3d-glasses-looking effect they've added?!
who approved that look?.. are they mad? (yes)
Loving BF4 but yeah, that effect is SUPER annoying, to the point that I missed a few kills because of it... From my understanding, it has something to do with the commander being active in your area or something? (I could be completely wrong, though).
It's an emp feature. "This is when the Commander in the other team uses EMP. It's as designed but will be removed in the next patch based on the feedback from the community."
Replies
************
First impressions:
I need hardcore servers. Shooting somebody 50 times is no fun.
Laggier than BF3
Large maps. Lots of running, little killing.
Shooting seems more realistic. Takes time to get used to.
EU server just opened and you have lvl 20-23 coming and using some weird stuff to their advantage. Not fun.
That's for now
***************
Day two is not so bad (edited
Crash to desktop in 3 out of 5 matches. (***Installed Beta drivers from AMD and didn't crash so far)
Getting used to it and already like it more than BF3.
On 13.11 I can play high settings like a champ (7950).
**** after 2h lag came back to the point that had to lower settings to MED.
Not sure what's going on.
Hopefully the lads at dice get a hold of it soon as its pretty dire trying to play it just now.
But it will be my game of choice to play when i feel like gaming.
I'm quite amazed at how well it runs on my PC though, I was expecting it to run like shit haha.
Now I'm getting constant 60 at high settings at 1920x1080. This game looks beautiful and it's incredibly fun to play when it works.
On the other hand, PRE-LOADING COD GHOSTS RIGHT NOW. I wish they didn't force everybody to download the 4K textures. The filesize is like 40GB simply because the game has 4K textures for people who play at 4K (which I probably won't do for another 5-10 years.)
To rank up fast,.....
1. Avoid rush, play TDM and conquest
2. Always play in a squad with mics. Aviod lone wolf wannabees.
3. And last, and i know its lame, but it gets the job done,......BOOST!
Im waiting for PS4 version
I'm curious if someone at DICE could shed some light on this, and why there is a flat out refusal to appease BF3 players, who wanted continue to support the BF line.
Actually, if i read their precise wording, DICE said "similar" controls. not "Exact". So, they never really promised what people seem to be stating.
Something funny i found in the campaign is to see almost all enemies/tanks appearing in front of me like ghosts. The need to fix the scripting ASAP. There are some ways to avoid the save spots and that's horrible.
I previously had some random crashes (game closing without error messages). The other day there was a small patch, and now i have a horrible stuttering and a huge drop of fps in areas where i had 80+ fps (now 62 minimum).
AMD users have reported several issues like red screens, so i don't recommed to buy the game until they resolve all the huge list of problems. I'm not happy with this new battlefield. Let's hope if playing COD:Ghosts i feel better, because paying a lot for a game and be unable to play it decently has no excuse.
Is this game even finished? Did it even go through QA?
Not to mention the abysmal singleplayer, I played a bit and just gave up as it's pretty much as awful as the one in BF 3.
When the game actually works it's very hit and miss, the "levelution" looks impressive but serves close to no purpose at changing up gameplay in the maps I've played, it's severely underused or simply used in the wrong place.
Driving physics still feel wonky and vehicles don't really feel like they have a presence on the battlefield other than blocking bullets or blowing up or blowing you up.
The maps I've played so far are rather dull, where are the proper night maps like we had in Bad Company 2? Rush maps with a sense of scale to them like BF 3 and BC 2.
The unlocks are the same shit again too, same scopes and sights for every single weapon, I've yet to see things like maybe a barrel magazine for an 870MCS or something else especially made for each gun.
Right now I keep asking myself why I just can't use the acog I unlocked on the previous rifle when the one I just got has the same damned rail.
Movement is filled with rubberbanding despite my ping being 30 and server ping being 40, also had many times where my character is just launched into space or forward after stepping on some tiny rock or rubble.
Sorry if this is coming off as extremely harsh but I was putting off buying this because of the bad experiences BF 3 gave me but friend convinced me otherwise.
I guess on the good side I can mention incredibly well done art and lighting and sound that is within it's own class for sure, and when it all comes together and works alright it's some of the best fun you can have, but that doesn't happen often enough.
I wish they'd just nix spending time and money on a singleplayer campaign and focus everything on making some awesome MP shit, I still think bringing back Titan mode in some form would elevate this game above BF 3 and it's competitors.
I guess it'll get better as it goes, I just hope the DLC wont fracture the community as badly as it did in BF 3 and force everyone to buy premium again if they want a large pool of players.
I now play on a UK server and today (sick in bed so have all day to blow things up) not only it didn't even crash once, there were no bugs, glitches or rubber banding. Only bad ass game play
It usually takes them a good month or two before their games run smooth.
Only BF game I didn´t buy was 2042, but all the others were just as buggy as this on release.
I'm hoping this launch day mess ends soon, I'd be pretty pissed off if I were in his position though.
BF4 is doing exactly what I was worried about. BF3 was buggy, then they VERY slowly fixed things, but kept users in the dark. They tried diverting the attention toward upcoming DLCs, which honestly felt like they were receiving all the development time. Now, BF4 comes out, and what do I see? the same responses to EVERYTHING DICE posts; "fix this game".
At least this time, they are being a bit more open. In case you guys missed it, they have a blog post acknowledging many of the problems, and talking about how they are addressing them. Unfortunately there seems to be a huge netcode bug, which is something I often struggle with on BF3, so I don't have faith it'll ever be resolved.
This seems like quite flawed reasoning to me.
You can buy mid-ranged parts and upgrade every 2-3 years without missing anything. If you're upgrading for every game then you can't be buying that many games. And even IF you're upgrading every time that's only because you want to be able to max a game outhow exactly does buying a console fix this? You're just taking away the option for higher graphics settings and then concluding that you've solved a problem.
And obviously PC's are useful for more than just games; hence the increased initial hardware cost (games are generally cheaper on PC though) makes sense.
Any empirical evidence that games are 'getting buggier'?
Agreeably, I didn't buy very many games, but I typically budget around $100-$150 for a video card. Every year or so, I'd upgrade, because the game would require it (direct x support, or more vram), or it just couldn't handle the game. And of course, there would be CPU and memory upgrades scattered in there (which also sometimes required a new video card to match the graphics port). So you may say, why not pay more for a video card, and have it last longer? Well, that may help, but you start paying as much as a console. And console games, many times, are more stable, because of the set hardware.
My guess is that I've been buying PC games much longer than you. Back when there were more than 2 processor manufacturers, and probably a dozen video card manufacturers, with their own chipsets. Games back then, would maybe get a patch. As the internet got more prevalent, developers seemed to do less testing, but it still felt like they were trying to make a solid game. Now, it feels like a release date is determined, and the game gets released on that date, finished or not. In the instance of BF4, they have introduced bugs that were in BF3 (and fixed). That's a major development flaw.
And yes, I still maintain a PC, because I'm a software developer, but the number of people who own PCs has been dwindling... especially desktop PCs.
Anyway, I don't want to turn this thread into a PC vs Console battle, because I don't feel the need to defend either. My point was that many of the BF4 issues/complaints have been with PC players. That's not to say the consoles don't have bugs too, but this has been the most PC bugs I've heard in a while. I'd rather lose some detail, and have a more stable environment, and save more $.
If games are getting buggier that would be a consequence of increasing complexity; but of course what counts as being acceptable by this standard and what is unacceptably buggy because of other reasons (budget, bad development/management/QA) is ambiguous without hard data.
Is there evidence that the number of PC owners has been dwindling? I recall hearing something along those lines awhile ago but I can't remember the specifics. Are you sure it wasn't PC sales decreasing? (In which case that only proves that pre-built PC sales are dwindling, a vast number build their own, which I doubt there is significant data on)
Whether or not games get support totally depends on the developer. Killing Floor (2009) by tripwire interactive gets significant updates still. If it were a console game where they had to pay fees to push updates out perhaps this wouldn't be the case.
[ame="
That shows you how to unpark your cores for gaming basically, my increase was about 10-15 fps.
http://www.theverge.com/2013/10/30/5045830/steam-65-million-active-accounts-6-million-concurrent-users
Occasionally a release will have some bad bugs, sure, but on average, the majority of AAA PC releases are very solid.... and I have played pretty much every major release in the past 5 years, for PC.
About upgrading... an 8800GTX that released in 2007 supported DirectX10, which makes it capable to play even a DX11 exclusive title, just without tessellation and what not. Sure, you would have to play on the lowest settings on most recent games, but it would play them.
8800 GTX playing Crysis 2 maxed out. Very choppy, but that is to be expected.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiC58OM0uOI
Crysis 2 came out in 2011, and the 8800 GTX came out late 2006. That's five years without actually needing to upgrade, especially since it'd probably play Crysis 2 decently at lowered settings. My laptop GPU is nearly maxing out BF4 at 1080p with a smooth frame rate, and it is a year and a half old...
A free 10-15 FPS? That's pretty significant, thanks for sharing! I just unparked my cores, haven't tested in-game yet. I suspect this could also help with render times in Xnormal and similar programs, maybe even increase Zbrush performance?
As I also pointed out, I've been gaming much longer. My directx reference was because I used to play games that used OpenGL. There was another graphics engine before that, but I can't remember the name. Yes, directx is now the norm, but I'm referring to changes over time. Even after DirectX dominated the market, the graphics ports kept changing, from PCI, to AGP, to PCI-Express. Thank god it's finally settled for a bit, but during those transitions, upgrading your CPU, often meant a new mobo, which meant a new video card, to match the new port.
Something you need to remember, I moved to consoles about 5 years ago, so the PC changes you're trying to describe are more current, and not obviously don't coincide with my point... which was why "I" stopped playing on PC.
As for declining sales, google it up a bit. Here's a quick article I found, which still tries to keep a positive spin on where the market is heading: http://www.pcworld.com/article/2044307/the-pc-fights-back-u-s-sales-decline-is-slowing.html People are using tablets and smartphones more these days, which is why mobile gaming has become such an interest for game development.
And I'm not saying ALL games are riddled with bugs. I'm saying there has been an increase, over time, of games that have bugs. Yes, the games are more complex... that's part of my point. They have grown more complex, but it seems as though they are still getting the same amount of development time scheduled to them. I don't know about you, but I see a lot more claims these days, from people feeling like they are playing a beta version of a game. Yeah, I know some people just throw that around, but there are definitely games getting released, that are not complete.
But more directly to this thread, BF3 was NOT complete. It was filled with bugs, and missing features, that arrived later. Now, we get to BF4, and we have the same bugs, with more added on. Yes, they'll fix them, and eventually the game will be acceptable, but how many times can you do that before gamers are turned off by your brand? My original point, in this thread, was that I'm reading a lot of complaints about PC related bugs this time, mostly to very specific hardware. With the console, I no longer need to worry about hardware differences. The bugs console players are seeing in BF4, are core code issues, and not hardware. The consoles don't need to worry about punkbuster randomly detecting something, and shutting down the game (as it did to me in BF3). I loved PC gaming, but once I warmed up to the controllers, I was glad to get away from the issues.
This all seems pretty relevant to BF4's status as one of the few PC releases that takes advantage of the latest PC hardware, while still being able to run on much lower hardware.
Played BF3 since it was released. Your comment that it was not complete is just opinion, because if someone who made it says it was complete, then it was complete. Sure, the completed product may have not been to your liking, but that isn't relevant other than the fact that you disliked the game.
Have you played BF4 on PC for any extended period of time? Aside from the disconnection bug, it's an awesome game that is a lot of fun. It's far beyond being 'acceptable'. It is great.
You also linked to an article that only talks about prebuilt PC's, when a large majority of people make their computers as it has become much more straight forward.
Any serious gamer doesn't game on a mobile device. Mobile devices are specifically catered for the casual market.
You're talking about PC gaming longer than 5 years ago. That still doesn't make sense, as Half Life 2 was released in 2004, which was 10 years ago. That's when the 7000 series of Nvidia cards were out; PC gaming was relatively stable even then. I remember I had a 7600GS 256mb to play Half Life 2. Worked just fine, although that card couldn't max out HL2. HL2 supported DirectX9, which survived without DX10 exclusive games for over 6 years... about the length of the current console cycle anyways.
With PC gaming, you can plug in any old PC game and play away. Consoles can't do that.
You now just have a persistent bias against PC gaming and will only focus on the negative anecdotal evidence to support your view, ignoring the fact that the majority of AAA PC releases are very solid, in addition to the fact that not all console AAA releases are bug-free either, with patching that has become the norm in that space as well.
Consoles become less and less attractive as they have ditched backwards compatibility, rarely have sales on new games, all games are at $60, and I say this as someone who has owned the Genesis and all of the Playstation consoles.
My opinion on BF3s completion is not just an opinion. If it was not incomplete, then it would not have received patches. The BF3 patches were beyond just adjusting weapons. And just to be clear, when I say 'incomplete', I'm not referring to the inclusion of maps, or assets. I'm referring game freezing, sound dropping out, VOIP missing, no rented servers (I was actually fine with this), etc. Just because YOU enjoyed it, doesn't mean the game was complete either. I enjoyed the game too, and I originally played it on the PS3, and we had constant audio dropouts (for long periods), game freezes that went on for half a year, horrendous in-game chat, and holes in the maps. Most of the original patches kept changing weapon balance, instead of fixing things. I eventually bought the PC version too, but that was after everything had been pretty much patched. My real issue was punkbuster proving itself as a poorly written piece of software (detecting 'illegal' applications, but not reporting what that app is, even in a cryptic message for the developers to understand).
A majority of "PC gamers" build their PCs. Most consumers buy prebuilt PCs, and that was the question I was answering with my link. The decline of PCs. I still build my PC. The whole point is, consoles are typically the main focus of most new game development. If you disagree with me on this, have a look at the PC game section next time you're at a store, then stroll over to the console section. Honestly, I hope the new steam machines will reverse this trend.
And I agree, serious gamers won't use a mobile platform. I only have games on my mobile devices, that are time killers. Again, I really referring to the trends of media consumption, and where things are going. When these consumers want something slightly more 'serious', they go to consoles. The way I see it, only the VERY serious gamers stick with PCs.
Once again, you're focused on video card tech. First of, 5 years is a rough estimate. I still gamed on my PC with some of my old games, but started buying new on the console. 5 years ago wasn't when I last upgraded my PC for a game. It was probably much more before that. I 'think' the last PC game I bought, before getting BF3, was Tribes:Vengeance. And I should say, I was a bit soured by the lack of mod support in games at the time, which was one of the big advantages I always felt PCs had.
Really? Throw in an old leisure suit larry for me. You still have a 3.5" drive, right? Good luck with a Windows 3.1 developed game.(I understood your point, just messing with you here). Sure, consoles aren't backwards compatible (which I'm not a fan of, since they still use optical drives), but then again, I'm not paying nearly as much for a console, and if I paid for a game, I likely have the console, so if I'm THAT desperate to play it, I can always plug it back in. I think this is a very irrelevant point you made here
I think you clearly have this backwards. You have a bias against consoles, apparently because they ditched backwards compatibility. You aren't truly trying to understand my original points, you just see this as an opportunity to show some loyalty to PCs, and attack me. I don't have anything against PCs. I'd love to see them regain the market strength they once had.
My whole point is, it feels like there has been a growing trend of PC games that aren't properly tested. If the game isn't done, don't release it. That's what I'm getting at. And that isn't even limited to PCs, I mentioned it about PCs, because they are more vulnerable, because of the additional hardware configurations. And before you misunderstand anymore, I'm not saying ALL games do this. There ARE companies that will push a date back, to make sure a game is proper. Then there are other companies that would rather release a broken game, and use the sales to pay for further development.
With the 680 i play all in ultra nowadays, but i'm not worried about playing games at high quality like with the radeon 5770. Furthermore, games won't be better in the upcoming years because ps4 and xbone are not better than a i5 with a GTX 660. COD:Ghosts runs at 720 with the xbone... so imagine how shitty is to play that game in a 50" TV.
And here, at home, we are still using a GTX 285 with more than 5 years with an older pc.
BF4 is one of the few games i play with issues/problems. With the other games i play i have zero issues (and i can say i play A LOT, because this year i surpassed 700+€ wasted on PC games).
People are pissed off for that reason, an unfinished game, and more paying more money compared to other games... (EA Games are very very expensive) much cheaper games and with almost zero issues (all games have bugs). We can't blame all the PCs because Dice didn't do the job well as usual. This is not a PC platform issue, this is a DICE issue.
In contrast to BF4, BF3 runs perfectly.
And if we talk about patches... ps3 and xbox 360 also have the same games with the same bugs or more bugs, example: skyrim. I could put more games, but i would be derailing a lot in this thread.
I don't have hope with the steamboxes, i'm sure they will be very expensive. At the end, the people will end buying the most affordable steam boxes, so they will running games like if they purchased a pre-built pc with a simple and cheap GTX 660. And Linux... err no thanks, i have enough with the shit of android (that's my opinion).
And i'm agree with the point, if a game is not done, don't release it. I prefer a delayed game, than an unfinished game, like ubi did with WatchDogs.
But you know... this is EA $$$$$$$$$$$
And computers were once business machines with no intention of entertainment. And the current most popular PC game is Candy Crush. Please try to not be an elitist that garners his self-worth from disparaging other people/platforms.
signed,
~someone who's working on a serious mobile game.
Playing it a bit and enjoying it. Running into some audio issues on some maps, but for the most part it is solid for me on PC. Overall it looks pretty good, nice work dudes!
I really dig the field upgrades with squads. It isn't make or break but it definitely adds a little more tension when you are the last man
You don't have to upgrade for every new game, but PC gaming, like any other platform, has its fair share of problems.
Personally, I'm willing to look past those problems for the benefits: cheap games during steam sales, true competition in games like CSGO, dedicated servers for hosting games (which are now just becoming a thing on consoles), mod support, etc.
Consoles are great too though, you don't really have to deal with problems most of the time, you get a solid looking game, you have a bigger and more social community in some games, and you get great exclusives.
The best position to be in is to just own every major platform. I plan to use my PC exclusively for early next-gen but I plan to buy a PS4 and XB1 (AND Wii-U) at some point.
The sound issues in BF4 for PC are very strange, where sound will randomly cut out in vehicles, games will randomly crash... however, the experience is still something I cannot get from a console. Also can't forget the sales like NegevPro has mentioned, such as the WBgames humble bundle that has 6 games.
I am happy that BF4 seems to run much smoother overall than BF3, though. I could only run BF3 on High settings, now I am running most settings on Ultra at 1080p. It's pretty insane.
If I want a different experience, I have a PS3 for that. I also plan to get a PS4 and a WiiU, not sure about X1 though, probably not. Not feeling the exclusives there yet, that may change though.
A Facebook game isn't really applicable in this context, as that is most definitely catered to the casual market.
Seems you took my comments a little too personal. I never attacked or put down any other people or platforms, not sure where you're getting that, but it most definitely wasn't from anything I wrote. I also own a PS3 and enjoy many console exclusives on the platform, and have also worked on a major PS4 release.
The elitist label was unnecessary, however I did jump the gun on my mobile comment though, you're right, not cool. What company do you work for?
[ame="
So I guess the world just floats on water. Those walls should be extending much deeper than that, or just a solid floor to the map.
I just spent 50 minutes on a airport waiting for my brother, on 3G commanding squads in BF4 online.
LOVE IT!
who approved that look?.. are they mad? (yes)
What?
Loving BF4 but yeah, that effect is SUPER annoying, to the point that I missed a few kills because of it... From my understanding, it has something to do with the commander being active in your area or something? (I could be completely wrong, though).