#1 Edited by Deathstriker (307 posts) -

Maybe I'm missing something since I haven't had a TON of time with the game, but it looks like you can't make squads (with friends before joining a room) and you can't go through your loadout while in the MP main menu (only in the middle of a game). Am I missing these VERY basic features that have been around for the last 8 years+, or did Dice not include them? If it's the latter then they should really stop wasting time/money on a campaign and only do versus along with a co-op/horde/onslaught mode.

Edit: I forgot to mention that "browse server" seems to hang forever so I usually have to do quick match... yes, I am playing on console (gasp!).

#2 Posted by GreggD (4475 posts) -

@deathstriker: If you are playing on PC, you can change your loadouts from the Battlelog site, which acts as the front-end for the multiplayer. Also, you can create squads before entering a game, this also needs to be done via Battlelog. If you're playing on a console, this should all be at the menus.

#3 Edited by Veektarius (4540 posts) -

@deathstriker: You can totally alter your loadout through the browser-based launcher. I don't know about forming squads. I think that you will generally be assigned to the same squad as any others from a party that you joined while in the browser, but I don't believe that will necessarily make a new squad rather than assigning you to one that is already populated.

Edit: I did assume PC because that's the only sane choice.

#4 Edited by Franstone (1085 posts) -

I know there is an option to automatically add friends to squad which can be set in game options once the game has loaded.
I've just been dragging friends to the drop zone once I start joining a server.
Can't for the life of me remember if it's working correctly or bugged.
As far as adding to a squad in battlelog, I'm not sure, haven't checked but now I will.

Edit: On PC

#5 Edited by Deathstriker (307 posts) -

To add more info, I am playing on console.

@veektarius said:

@deathstriker: You can totally alter your loadout through the browser-based launcher. I don't know about forming squads. I think that you will generally be assigned to the same squad as any others from a party that you joined while in the browser, but I don't believe that will necessarily make a new squad rather than assigning you to one that is already populated.

Edit: I did assume PC because that's the only sane choice.

Basically everyone I've seen (Battlefield Youtube guys and game critics) have said that the PC version and next-gen are basically the same, so that's a silly thing to say. I'll be going next-gen in a couple of weeks.

#6 Posted by Humanity (8714 posts) -

Maybe I'm missing something since I haven't had a TON of time with the game, but it looks like you can't make squads (with friends before joining a room) and you can't go through your loadout while in the MP main menu (only in the middle of a game). Am I missing these VERY basic features that have been around for the last 8 years+, or did Dice not include them? If it's the latter then they should really stop wasting time/money on a campaign and only do versus along with a co-op/horde/onslaught mode.

Ever since they merged with Battlelog the menu's for multiplayer on consoles have been a convoluted mess, so basically since BF3. I haven't played BF4 yet but I do recall having very similar problems to yours at the launch of BF3. I would never know if my friend and I would even end up on the same team, much less the same squad. It's probably somewhere in there, buried beneath the menu's.

#7 Posted by GreggD (4475 posts) -

To add more info, I am playing on console.

@veektarius said:

@deathstriker: You can totally alter your loadout through the browser-based launcher. I don't know about forming squads. I think that you will generally be assigned to the same squad as any others from a party that you joined while in the browser, but I don't believe that will necessarily make a new squad rather than assigning you to one that is already populated.

Edit: I did assume PC because that's the only sane choice.

Basically everyone I've seen (Battlefield Youtube guys and game critics) have said that the PC version and next-gen are basically the same, so that's a silly thing to say. I'll be going next-gen in a couple of weeks.

Slightly hyperbolic, for sure, but not entirely untrue. The PC version is still the best version, but at least the PS4/X1 versions will have the benefit of full headcount in multiplayer and 60fps.

#8 Edited by Deathstriker (307 posts) -

@greggd said:

@deathstriker said:

To add more info, I am playing on console.

@veektarius said:

@deathstriker: You can totally alter your loadout through the browser-based launcher. I don't know about forming squads. I think that you will generally be assigned to the same squad as any others from a party that you joined while in the browser, but I don't believe that will necessarily make a new squad rather than assigning you to one that is already populated.

Edit: I did assume PC because that's the only sane choice.

Basically everyone I've seen (Battlefield Youtube guys and game critics) have said that the PC version and next-gen are basically the same, so that's a silly thing to say. I'll be going next-gen in a couple of weeks.

Slightly hyperbolic, for sure, but not entirely untrue. The PC version is still the best version, but at least the PS4/X1 versions will have the benefit of full headcount in multiplayer and 60fps.

Several Battlefield guys I watch (LevelCap for example) have said the PS4 and X1 versions perform like high-end PCs and all versions are more or less the same. These are PC guys and they're jobs are to basically play Battlefield for people to watch, so I'll go with their word rather than random gamers online who haven't play all the versions in question. I just see PC elitism in the prior post, not logic.

#9 Posted by Veektarius (4540 posts) -
@greggd said:

@deathstriker said:

To add more info, I am playing on console.

@veektarius said:

@deathstriker: You can totally alter your loadout through the browser-based launcher. I don't know about forming squads. I think that you will generally be assigned to the same squad as any others from a party that you joined while in the browser, but I don't believe that will necessarily make a new squad rather than assigning you to one that is already populated.

Edit: I did assume PC because that's the only sane choice.

Basically everyone I've seen (Battlefield Youtube guys and game critics) have said that the PC version and next-gen are basically the same, so that's a silly thing to say. I'll be going next-gen in a couple of weeks.

Slightly hyperbolic, for sure, but not entirely untrue. The PC version is still the best version, but at least the PS4/X1 versions will have the benefit of full headcount in multiplayer and 60fps.


Actually I had forgotten about the trade-in deals for next gen systems, so I was just comparing PC against last (current?) gen consoles, whose version really is a pale imitation.

#10 Posted by GreggD (4475 posts) -

@greggd said:

@deathstriker said:

To add more info, I am playing on console.

@veektarius said:

@deathstriker: You can totally alter your loadout through the browser-based launcher. I don't know about forming squads. I think that you will generally be assigned to the same squad as any others from a party that you joined while in the browser, but I don't believe that will necessarily make a new squad rather than assigning you to one that is already populated.

Edit: I did assume PC because that's the only sane choice.

Basically everyone I've seen (Battlefield Youtube guys and game critics) have said that the PC version and next-gen are basically the same, so that's a silly thing to say. I'll be going next-gen in a couple of weeks.

Slightly hyperbolic, for sure, but not entirely untrue. The PC version is still the best version, but at least the PS4/X1 versions will have the benefit of full headcount in multiplayer and 60fps.

Several Battlefield guys I watch (LevelCap for example) have said the PS4 and X1 versions perform like high-end PCs and all versions are more or less the same. These are PC guys and they're jobs are to basically play Battlefield for people to watch, so I'll go with their word rather than random gamers online who haven't play all the versions in question. I just see PC elitism in the prior post, not logic.

They're talking about the gameplay, for sure. Not graphics. PC already has the better looking version (provided you have the hardware to run it, which isn't too big a stretch these days). I've seen final build comparison screens, it does look better. Call it what you want, but it's not elitism. If two versions of the same game have identical features and framerate, but one happens to looks better, wouldn't you say it's superior? There's nothing wrong with the X1/PS4 versions, I'm just looking at the broader picture. If I could only afford a console and not a high-end PC, you bet your ass I'd jump all over that kind of proposition.

#11 Posted by Deathstriker (307 posts) -

@greggd said:

@deathstriker said:

@greggd said:

@deathstriker said:

To add more info, I am playing on console.

@veektarius said:

@deathstriker: You can totally alter your loadout through the browser-based launcher. I don't know about forming squads. I think that you will generally be assigned to the same squad as any others from a party that you joined while in the browser, but I don't believe that will necessarily make a new squad rather than assigning you to one that is already populated.

Edit: I did assume PC because that's the only sane choice.

Basically everyone I've seen (Battlefield Youtube guys and game critics) have said that the PC version and next-gen are basically the same, so that's a silly thing to say. I'll be going next-gen in a couple of weeks.

Slightly hyperbolic, for sure, but not entirely untrue. The PC version is still the best version, but at least the PS4/X1 versions will have the benefit of full headcount in multiplayer and 60fps.

Several Battlefield guys I watch (LevelCap for example) have said the PS4 and X1 versions perform like high-end PCs and all versions are more or less the same. These are PC guys and they're jobs are to basically play Battlefield for people to watch, so I'll go with their word rather than random gamers online who haven't play all the versions in question. I just see PC elitism in the prior post, not logic.

They're talking about the gameplay, for sure. Not graphics. PC already has the better looking version (provided you have the hardware to run it, which isn't too big a stretch these days). I've seen final build comparison screens, it does look better. Call it what you want, but it's not elitism. If two versions of the same game have identical features and framerate, but one happens to looks better, wouldn't you say it's superior? There's nothing wrong with the X1/PS4 versions, I'm just looking at the broader picture. If I could only afford a console and not a high-end PC, you bet your ass I'd jump all over that kind of proposition.

The videos I've watched were talking about graphics. I never said the PC version wasn't better, it is with an ultra-high system, but for most gamers it'll be close to the same experience across all three systems... that's coming from people who have played all 3 systems and not like us, who've just seen screenshots and stuff. The other guy's post said it was "insane" to play BF4 on console, which is a silly and elitist thing to say (without question). I'm not interested in PC gaming because my friends are on XBL/PSN, I like controllers, and the PC has no great exclusives, so I see no reason to switch over.

#12 Posted by jArmAhead (169 posts) -

@greggd said:

@deathstriker said:

To add more info, I am playing on console.

@veektarius said:

@deathstriker: You can totally alter your loadout through the browser-based launcher. I don't know about forming squads. I think that you will generally be assigned to the same squad as any others from a party that you joined while in the browser, but I don't believe that will necessarily make a new squad rather than assigning you to one that is already populated.

Edit: I did assume PC because that's the only sane choice.

Basically everyone I've seen (Battlefield Youtube guys and game critics) have said that the PC version and next-gen are basically the same, so that's a silly thing to say. I'll be going next-gen in a couple of weeks.

Slightly hyperbolic, for sure, but not entirely untrue. The PC version is still the best version, but at least the PS4/X1 versions will have the benefit of full headcount in multiplayer and 60fps.

Several Battlefield guys I watch (LevelCap for example) have said the PS4 and X1 versions perform like high-end PCs and all versions are more or less the same. These are PC guys and they're jobs are to basically play Battlefield for people to watch, so I'll go with their word rather than random gamers online who haven't play all the versions in question. I just see PC elitism in the prior post, not logic.

A) You sorta seem a bit pissy, but maybe that's me reading into it.

B) The PC has a lot of advantages. More controller options, including the vastly superior mouse and keyboard (seriously, playing an FPS with a mouse is a world of difference on it's own), and much sharper visuals in terms of resolution and just plain visual fidelity. And I know that the next gen versions drop some frames even on X1 and PS4, and even in MP, as a number of lucky individuals have said as much. In fact I believe Digital Foundry even did a video showing it although that may have been SP only for the video part anyway. My PC on the other hand runs it flawlessly with everything but MSAA maxed out.

That said, the next gen versions will certainly be competitive with the PC version and totally awesome. But you can't say a game that can't manage 60 at 900 vertical pixels is better than one doing it at higher settings and 1200 vertical pixels, no matter how close they are. And there are other advantages of the PC version that get more into the PC gaming lifestyle, so I'll let that be, but still. The PC version is certainly the one to get if you can.

Also, those guys are still just dudes on the internet. If you think playing a game on YouTube all the time makes someone an expert on games or even that particular game, you're dead wrong. They are good at what they do but that doesn't mean they have more answers than some nobody on the internet.

For you, the difference may not be important, but for a lot of people, PC is the only way for games like Battlefield. I can't imagine playing BF on a controller. If you want a great example of why, try playing something like Bulletstorm and look at the difference in what you can pull off with a mouse vs a controller. Assuming you're about as comfortable with either one, you'll probably be able to pull off way more on the mouse. I know I was able to, and it made the game that much more enjoyable. And in Battlefield, I can switch over to my controller for flying or driving around or whatever, then back to KB and Mouse in a second when I hop out and need to get back to fighting on my feet.

Saying "Whatever, you're just biased" is a bit silly because, well, so are you. You're biased to not care about the PC stuff, just like some of us are biased to really care about those things. No one's saying you can't enjoy the console versions of the game or anything :)

#13 Posted by Deathstriker (307 posts) -

@deathstriker said:

@greggd said:

@deathstriker said:

To add more info, I am playing on console.

@veektarius said:

@deathstriker: You can totally alter your loadout through the browser-based launcher. I don't know about forming squads. I think that you will generally be assigned to the same squad as any others from a party that you joined while in the browser, but I don't believe that will necessarily make a new squad rather than assigning you to one that is already populated.

Edit: I did assume PC because that's the only sane choice.

Basically everyone I've seen (Battlefield Youtube guys and game critics) have said that the PC version and next-gen are basically the same, so that's a silly thing to say. I'll be going next-gen in a couple of weeks.

Slightly hyperbolic, for sure, but not entirely untrue. The PC version is still the best version, but at least the PS4/X1 versions will have the benefit of full headcount in multiplayer and 60fps.

Several Battlefield guys I watch (LevelCap for example) have said the PS4 and X1 versions perform like high-end PCs and all versions are more or less the same. These are PC guys and they're jobs are to basically play Battlefield for people to watch, so I'll go with their word rather than random gamers online who haven't play all the versions in question. I just see PC elitism in the prior post, not logic.

A) You sorta seem a bit pissy, but maybe that's me reading into it.

B) The PC has a lot of advantages. More controller options, including the vastly superior mouse and keyboard (seriously, playing an FPS with a mouse is a world of difference on it's own), and much sharper visuals in terms of resolution and just plain visual fidelity. And I know that the next gen versions drop some frames even on X1 and PS4, and even in MP, as a number of lucky individuals have said as much. In fact I believe Digital Foundry even did a video showing it although that may have been SP only for the video part anyway. My PC on the other hand runs it flawlessly with everything but MSAA maxed out.

That said, the next gen versions will certainly be competitive with the PC version and totally awesome. But you can't say a game that can't manage 60 at 900 vertical pixels is better than one doing it at higher settings and 1200 vertical pixels, no matter how close they are. And there are other advantages of the PC version that get more into the PC gaming lifestyle, so I'll let that be, but still. The PC version is certainly the one to get if you can.

Also, those guys are still just dudes on the internet. If you think playing a game on YouTube all the time makes someone an expert on games or even that particular game, you're dead wrong. They are good at what they do but that doesn't mean they have more answers than some nobody on the internet.

For you, the difference may not be important, but for a lot of people, PC is the only way for games like Battlefield. I can't imagine playing BF on a controller. If you want a great example of why, try playing something like Bulletstorm and look at the difference in what you can pull off with a mouse vs a controller. Assuming you're about as comfortable with either one, you'll probably be able to pull off way more on the mouse. I know I was able to, and it made the game that much more enjoyable. And in Battlefield, I can switch over to my controller for flying or driving around or whatever, then back to KB and Mouse in a second when I hop out and need to get back to fighting on my feet.

Saying "Whatever, you're just biased" is a bit silly because, well, so are you. You're biased to not care about the PC stuff, just like some of us are biased to really care about those things. No one's saying you can't enjoy the console versions of the game or anything :)

Controller vs. keyboard/mouse is still a personal preference no matter how you try to slice it. I'd rather sit on my couch or lay in bed and play than sit at a desk... that's what I do 40+ hours a week at work already, no thanks. I never said the next-gen versions were better and that no one one should play them on PC, so I don't even know why you're going there. Yeah, I do trust guys like LevelCap who've played every version of the game and are insanely knowledgeable about BF... they're like the NFL guys who can name all the stats from a Bears game that happened in 1997. They're not infallible, but I would say experts.

I don't even like that this turned into a PC vs. console debate... my point was simply that playing on PC is not the "only sane option", since that's what the other poster said. If someone disagrees with that then oh well... hopefully the rest of the posts here are on-topic.

#14 Posted by Seppli (10251 posts) -

Customization on PS3 version is indeed a hassle, and doesn't seem to be possible outside of an active round - and even then, only the vehicle types available on that map to your team are customizable. On the plus side, once the menu's in your muscle memory - it's pretty snappy.

Really hope next gen consoles will give full access to Battlelog. A Battlelog app for Vita would be cool too.

P.S. Anybody know if I can use the Vita as keyboard for my PS4? That'd be neat.

#15 Posted by Deathstriker (307 posts) -

@seppli said:

Customization on PS3 version is indeed a hassle, and doesn't seem to be possible outside of an active round - and even then, only the vehicle types available on that map to your team are customizable. On the plus side, once the menu's in your muscle memory - it's pretty snappy.

Really hope next gen consoles will give full access to Battlelog. A Battlelog app for Vita would be cool too.

P.S. Anybody know if I can use the Vita as keyboard for my PS4? That'd be neat.

That's really weird considering BF3 had those features. It needs to be updated in current gen and already there in next-gen.

#16 Posted by Snail (8574 posts) -

@deathstriker said:

I'm not interested in PC gaming because my friends are on XBL/PSN, I like controllers, and the PC has no great exclusives, so I see no reason to switch over.

?????!!!!!!!

What.

I don't mean to jump into this PC vs. console discussion, but you sir, are sorely mistaken there! Seriously, you're missing out (if you really believe that), so let me try to elucidate here.

The PC is a great platform for exclusives, particularly of the indie ilk, but definitely also for big-studio titles.

The PC is an open platform, which makes it ideal for indie projects. Just jump into the Steam website and check how many indie games there are that you can't find on consoles! I'm not even trying to convert you here, since you can probably play them in your work computer, as the vast majority of these indie titles are not particularly graphically intensive.

As for those "AAA titles": are you going to sit there and tell me that Starcraft isn't a great franchise? Or Total War? Or Civilization?

Seriously, considering the amount of PC-exclusive games that Giant Bomb covers, I'm surprised that an active user would have this opinion. All the talk of flight simulators, FTL on last year's GoTY, Patrick's "Worth Playing" and "Spookin' With Scoops", Brad's DOTA playing (but DOTA sucks), random "I saw this game for 10$ on Steam and I bought it" Quick Looks, and dumb shit like FMV games and Surgeon Simulator on Unprofessional Fridays, and you dare say something like that?!

To say that the PC has "no great exclusives" is to utter a complete non-truth.

#17 Posted by Flacracker (1575 posts) -

@snail: It is funny how for pretty much every UPF game they all have to shuffle around to get to the PC in the back.

#18 Edited by jdh5153 (1034 posts) -

How do you join a game with a friend on the PS3? It seems impossible. On Xbox all I'd have to do is invite to party and go...I guess I should've gotten it for 360 instead. There's literally no option to start a party or join a game with a friend

#19 Posted by Nethlem (377 posts) -

In the spawn screen there is a button along the lines of "manage team" or something like that, click that to get to the squad management, there you can switch/create/lock squads.

At least it works like that on the PC version.

#20 Posted by Oi_Blimey (86 posts) -

@deathstriker:

I don't really care about the pc vs console debate. But talking pure horsepower pc is much better. Consoles are hooked up to 1080p tv. PC (expensive ones) can have monitors with much higher resolution (2560x1660 for example) and runs smoothly.

#21 Posted by graboids (204 posts) -

so on console there really is no way to squad up with friends and then join a game together? spent over an hour tonight trying to get me and one friend in the same game and it either wouldn't let us invite each other or one of us would lock up. Saw no way to join each other in a squad before joining a game like you could in previous BF games.

I'm on 360 btw.

#22 Posted by Deathstriker (307 posts) -

@snail said:

@deathstriker said:

I'm not interested in PC gaming because my friends are on XBL/PSN, I like controllers, and the PC has no great exclusives, so I see no reason to switch over.

?????!!!!!!!

What.

I don't mean to jump into this PC vs. console discussion, but you sir, are sorely mistaken there! Seriously, you're missing out (if you really believe that), so let me try to elucidate here.

The PC is a great platform for exclusives, particularly of the indie ilk, but definitely also for big-studio titles.

The PC is an open platform, which makes it ideal for indie projects. Just jump into the Steam website and check how many indie games there are that you can't find on consoles! I'm not even trying to convert you here, since you can probably play them in your work computer, as the vast majority of these indie titles are not particularly graphically intensive.

As for those "AAA titles": are you going to sit there and tell me that Starcraft isn't a great franchise? Or Total War? Or Civilization?

Seriously, considering the amount of PC-exclusive games that Giant Bomb covers, I'm surprised that an active user would have this opinion. All the talk of flight simulators, FTL on last year's GoTY, Patrick's "Worth Playing" and "Spookin' With Scoops", Brad's DOTA playing (but DOTA sucks), random "I saw this game for 10$ on Steam and I bought it" Quick Looks, and dumb shit like FMV games and Surgeon Simulator on Unprofessional Fridays, and you dare say something like that?!

To say that the PC has "no great exclusives" is to utter a complete non-truth.

I was referring to no great exclusives that I want to play.. I'd rather eat a shoe than play Total War lol. I'm not all that into RPGs/sims, and indie games are rarely good to me... Bastion was the only one I liked a lot. There are some smaller titles like Trine that I enjoyed and thought were cool, but nothing major like The Last of Us, GTA V, etc that I just HAD to play. I'm not saying it's a bad platform, I'm just not interested in it and the top games that I like are often console exclusive (God of War, MGS, .Naughty Dog stuff, Gears, Infamous, etc). It seems like many PC gamers have the idea that console gamers either can't afford to PC game or they're not tech savvy/hardcore enough to do so, when many of us just have no interest in it.

#23 Posted by Verendus (348 posts) -

Yes, missing some of the features is pretty annoying, but I haven't really bothered to complain about it. I'm pretty sure majority of these will be patched when BF4 releases on next-gen.

#24 Posted by Slaegar (686 posts) -

This has exploded into an accidental PC vs. Console debate, but slightly on topic I've gotta say the jump from Battlefield 4 on PS3 to PS4 or Xbox 360 to Xbox Won when people upgrade is gonna freak them out. I wonder if they will still be interested in their "cinematic experience" of 30 fps after that.

Looks like the multiplayer in Battlefield 4 spends a lot of time at 44 fps on consoles PS4 (Xbox One's online/multiplayer seems to be on fire) which is a shame, but not unexpected, its pretty tricky to account for all the craziness in multiplayer.

#25 Posted by Deathstriker (307 posts) -

@verendus said:

Yes, missing some of the features is pretty annoying, but I haven't really bothered to complain about it. I'm pretty sure majority of these will be patched when BF4 releases on next-gen.

Yeah, it's not a deal-breaker but one of the two biggest shooters of the year not having basic features that have been around since the PS2/Xbox days does feel lazy and sloppy.

#26 Edited by Seppli (10251 posts) -

@slaegar said:

Looks like the multiplayer in Battlefield 4 spends a lot of time at 44 fps on consoles PS4 (Xbox One's online/multiplayer seems to be on fire) which is a shame, but not unexpected, its pretty tricky to account for all the craziness in multiplayer.

It looked more like a solid 60 FPS to me, with relatively frequent dips down to 50ish FPS, and very seldomly below that. At least in those Eurogamer videos.

Edit: Just watched again. Lancang Dam had some kind of Level of Detail bug (according to Gamestar/Gamepro) in the preview code that was shown, and it should run at a much more stable 60 FPS at release. The second map in the video runs at pretty much locked 60 FPS.

#27 Posted by Xeiphyer (5593 posts) -

Well, those issues don't exist with the PC version of course, but yeah on consoles its really jarring.

For a game so focused on squads and cooperation, not being able to set up a squad before joining a game seems completely insane. My friend and I spent 2 hours trying to get into the same match on launch day, and every time we want to play together since then its one person joins a game, and the other taps join over and over until a spot opens up and you make it in. I can't imagine trying to play with 4 friends, it just wouldn't be possible.

I hope they patch in the ability later, because frankly its bullshit. Multiplayer focused game lacking basic multiplayer features. Features that the previous game had, and that the PC version has. Not a dealbreaker, but its pretty disappointing.

#28 Posted by Verendus (348 posts) -

@deathstriker: You knew what you were getting in to after playing the beta. We all did.

#29 Posted by Deathstriker (307 posts) -

@verendus said:

@deathstriker: You knew what you were getting in to after playing the beta. We all did.

You're assuming I played the beta and a beta isn't indicative to the full game. It's not like I regret buying the game, I'm just calling out their lazy/silly omissions.

#30 Edited by SarcasticMudcrab (146 posts) -
#31 Posted by Verendus (348 posts) -

@deathstriker: As long as people are buying AAA games day 1, they'll be half-ass made. This is hardly news for anyone.

#32 Edited by Deathstriker (307 posts) -

@verendus said:

@deathstriker: As long as people are buying AAA games day 1, they'll be half-ass made. This is hardly news for anyone.

Yeah, because BF4 missing simple features that BF3 had is excusable and expected... it seems like you're being snarky for no reason.

#33 Posted by HoboZero (172 posts) -

@greggd: This thread got really off topic. Can you explain how you were able to make a squad before launching the game? I have been up and down the Internet and can't find an answer to this anywhere. How are you doing this?

#34 Posted by GreggD (4475 posts) -

@hobozero: Oh man. Well, I haven't played the final version of BF4 on consoles, but if memory serves, BF3 required you to press Back/Select to bring up the friends menu, and then you could send out invites for a squad. I would imagine it works the same here, and hopefully it does.

#35 Edited by MariachiMacabre (7039 posts) -

Bought it for my PS4 and noticed you can only edit loadouts in game. Have they explained why or are they going to patch it because having to go to the test range to change my stuff is really silly.

#36 Edited by ep_driver (432 posts) -

@mariachimacabre: nice to know I can at least do it from the test range instead of in the middle of a match and my team being down a player. I'm pretty surprised they removed it from the multiplayer menu. I couldn't believe it to the point that I searched every menu and battlelog (on ps4) to find it thinking it HAD to be in there. Seems to common sense to just leave it there like it was in BF3.

#37 Edited by ati2de (2 posts) -

Picked it up for PS4 and its pretty odd they removed some of the stuff going from BF3 to BF4. Its a complete hassle to join just one of my friends games. You can create a party on the OS level but cant all join a room at the same time. You cant create a squad in the main menu. You cant even wait in a server queue if your friends game is full, which usually results in me having to mash the X button over and over again until a spot finally opens up.

The server issues i can deal with because its its a console launch, and a battlefield game (so its supposed to mess up on release, lol) but its just sucks that they went completely backwards when it comes to playing in a party with friends.

#38 Posted by SSully (4117 posts) -

Bought it for my PS4 and noticed you can only edit loadouts in game. Have they explained why or are they going to patch it because having to go to the test range to change my stuff is really silly.

It has to be because they ran out of time. Its pretty obvious they rushed to get this out before call of duty, and doing all that they did for all of these systems led to some shit being left undone.

Don't be surprised if you see a patch in a month or two that fixes all of this and is touted as a new feature.

#39 Posted by Missacre (566 posts) -

PC has no great exclusives, so I see no reason to switch over.

Yeah, you might want to word that a little differently next time. I'm pretty sure PC has way more good exclusives than all the consoles combined.

#40 Posted by Guided_By_Tigers (8060 posts) -

Its also missing some basic score calculations......it still doesn't count ribbons toward your score hopefully they patch that soon.

#41 Posted by Deathstriker (307 posts) -

@missacre said:

@deathstriker said:

PC has no great exclusives, so I see no reason to switch over.

Yeah, you might want to word that a little differently next time. I'm pretty sure PC has way more good exclusives than all the consoles combined.

No, I worded it just fine. I can't think of one PC exclusive that I'd like to play. Big games like Crysis and Battlefield usually make their way over and even the smaller ones like Trine too. The best games this year (TLOU and GTA) were console exclusive and that's usually the case every year. I'm not saying PC gaming is bad, it just doesn't interest me at all.

#42 Posted by Missacre (566 posts) -

@missacre said:

@deathstriker said:

PC has no great exclusives, so I see no reason to switch over.

Yeah, you might want to word that a little differently next time. I'm pretty sure PC has way more good exclusives than all the consoles combined.

No, I worded it just fine. I can't think of one PC exclusive that I'd like to play. Big games like Crysis and Battlefield usually make their way over and even the smaller ones like Trine too. The best games this year (TLOU and GTA) were console exclusive and that's usually the case every year. I'm not saying PC gaming is bad, it just doesn't interest me at all.

Well, just because PC games don't interest you doesn't mean there aren't any good ones. I play exclusively on PC and I think there isn't anything worth playing on consoles, but that doesn't mean that there aren't subjectively good games on them. Also, TLoU and GTA are a complete matter of opinion. TLoU looked pretty cliche and overrated, and GTA is coming to PC in a few months, so we'll get the better version anyway. If I seem biased, it's because you are too.

#43 Edited by Deathstriker (307 posts) -

@missacre said:

@deathstriker said:

@missacre said:

@deathstriker said:

PC has no great exclusives, so I see no reason to switch over.

Yeah, you might want to word that a little differently next time. I'm pretty sure PC has way more good exclusives than all the consoles combined.

No, I worded it just fine. I can't think of one PC exclusive that I'd like to play. Big games like Crysis and Battlefield usually make their way over and even the smaller ones like Trine too. The best games this year (TLOU and GTA) were console exclusive and that's usually the case every year. I'm not saying PC gaming is bad, it just doesn't interest me at all.

Well, just because PC games don't interest you doesn't mean there aren't any good ones. I play exclusively on PC and I think there isn't anything worth playing on consoles, but that doesn't mean that there aren't subjectively good games on them. Also, TLoU and GTA are a complete matter of opinion. TLoU looked pretty cliche and overrated, and GTA is coming to PC in a few months, so we'll get the better version anyway. If I seem biased, it's because you are too.

Me saying "I'm not saying PC gaming is bad, it just doesn't interest me at all" covers all that. Obviously what I say I like is my opinion, so good job missing the point.

#44 Edited by Missacre (566 posts) -

@missacre said:

@deathstriker said:

@missacre said:

@deathstriker said:

PC has no great exclusives, so I see no reason to switch over.

Yeah, you might want to word that a little differently next time. I'm pretty sure PC has way more good exclusives than all the consoles combined.

No, I worded it just fine. I can't think of one PC exclusive that I'd like to play. Big games like Crysis and Battlefield usually make their way over and even the smaller ones like Trine too. The best games this year (TLOU and GTA) were console exclusive and that's usually the case every year. I'm not saying PC gaming is bad, it just doesn't interest me at all.

Well, just because PC games don't interest you doesn't mean there aren't any good ones. I play exclusively on PC and I think there isn't anything worth playing on consoles, but that doesn't mean that there aren't subjectively good games on them. Also, TLoU and GTA are a complete matter of opinion. TLoU looked pretty cliche and overrated, and GTA is coming to PC in a few months, so we'll get the better version anyway. If I seem biased, it's because you are too.

Me saying "I'm not saying PC gaming is bad, it just doesn't interest me at all" covers all that. Obviously what I say I like is my opinion, so good job missing the point.

Well, you're just a hostile little guy, aren't you? We're done here.