#1 Edited by Seppli (10251 posts) -

It's official. I'm going to start killing kittens. Why? Because I just can't kill the sun. Just look at this image taken from the official Battlefield Blog...

Seeing shit in first person shooters is overrated. Crippling lighting however is the new hotness.

Good god man. DICE really wants me to quit Battlefield for good. Gameplay relevant lighting is nice, crippling lighting, to the point of having worse visibility on daytime maps than on nighttime maps however...

GRRRRR (I can only growl how I feel about this, words fail to express my deep felt hatred!)

Why the fuck hasn't DICE gotten any competition? Fuck!

#2 Posted by big_jon (5725 posts) -

I am not pleased that Battlefield is getting pumped out so fast now but the idea of getting to play this game in true HD glory with more than 24 players on the Xbox One is something I am really looking forward to.

#3 Posted by zombie2011 (4972 posts) -

I think your overreacting. It's a screenshot, Halo 3 had insane amounts of light blooms or whatever they are called and it didn't effect gameplay at all. It just looks nice, why don't you wait to see the game before passing judgment.

#4 Posted by ArtelinaRose (1850 posts) -

I think your overreacting. It's a screenshot, Halo 3 had insane amounts of light blooms or whatever they are called and it didn't effect gameplay at all. It just looks nice, why don't you wait to see the game before passing judgment.

Halo is a much different style of game and the levels were made so you were never really looking directly at the sunshine in a situation where you would not want to, nor has Halo ever really been a series that force feeds you its graphics. Battlefield, however...

#5 Posted by Alexander (1721 posts) -

@big_jon said:

I am not pleased that Battlefield is getting pumped out so fast now but the idea of getting to play this game in true HD glory with more than 24 players on the Xbox One is something I am really looking forward to.

Has it been confirmed that Xbox Live will support 64 players?

#6 Edited by Seppli (10251 posts) -

@zombie2011 said:

I think your overreacting. It's a screenshot, Halo 3 had insane amounts of light blooms or whatever they are called and it didn't effect gameplay at all. It just looks nice, why don't you wait to see the game before passing judgment.

I'm looking at BF4 as the first direct sequel in Battlefield history, so I wasn't very hopeful to begin with, in terms of overall direction. I just hoped DICE would tone the insane lighting the fuck down. Precedent in BF3 is screen filling, all obstructing sunglare - getting my blood to boil over with rage instantaneously.

BF3 got me foaming from the mouth with vilest hatred too often to be anything but unhealthy. The shit visibility, caused by many factors, but not by a small degree it's the retarded lighting from the sun, being the main culprit. So no - I'm not overreacting to this screenshot, as it shows the exact opposite direction of where I wished BF4 would be going towards. To more discreet and natural, minimally-obstructive lighting, rather than this nuclear explosion in my face, burning the cornea off my eyeballs.

Consider my face molten. Drained of all hope. Droopy lifeless eyes full of sadness. The 1000 yard stare. There goes Battlefield once again. To ultra-cinematic realism. See the world through the lens of a J.J. Abrams movie camera. This direction is to the detriment of overall playability and control. Muddyng the clarity of all visual feedback. It's to detriment of my enjoyment of Battlefield. Time to break a kitten in half.

#7 Edited by big_jon (5725 posts) -

@alexander said:

@big_jon said:

I am not pleased that Battlefield is getting pumped out so fast now but the idea of getting to play this game in true HD glory with more than 24 players on the Xbox One is something I am really looking forward to.

Has it been confirmed that Xbox Live will support 64 players?

No but the thing has like 10 times the bandwidth capabilities of the 360 and the Cloud stuff implies that all the games will now run on dedicated servers, so It's a safe bet. Even the Tested podcast was saying this.

#8 Posted by Hailinel (24673 posts) -

@big_jon said:

@alexander said:

@big_jon said:

I am not pleased that Battlefield is getting pumped out so fast now but the idea of getting to play this game in true HD glory with more than 24 players on the Xbox One is something I am really looking forward to.

Has it been confirmed that Xbox Live will support 64 players?

No but the thing has like 10 times the bandwidth capabilities of the 360 and the Cloud stuff implies that all the games will now run on dedicated servers, so It's a safe bet. Even the Tested podcast was saying this.

A safe bet is not the same thing is "It can and will."

Online
#9 Edited by Seppli (10251 posts) -
@big_jon said:

@alexander said:

@big_jon said:

I am not pleased that Battlefield is getting pumped out so fast now but the idea of getting to play this game in true HD glory with more than 24 players on the Xbox One is something I am really looking forward to.

Has it been confirmed that Xbox Live will support 64 players?

No but the thing has like 10 times the bandwidth capabilities of the 360 and the Cloud stuff implies that all the games will now run on dedicated servers, so It's a safe bet. Even the Tested podcast was saying this.

According to a recent investor call, an EA exec let it slip, that indeed the next gen version will supposedly support 64 players.

Playercount is overrated anyways. It's not like Planetside 2 has better moment to moment gameplay because of it. After a certain point, all a high playercount causes is problems. Pacing problems. Balancing problems. At some point the contribution of the individual becomes too inconsequential for it to remain rewarding.

From my experiences the sweetspot for any competitive online multiplayer game is somewhere between 24 and 48 players, depending on map and mode. Everything above becomes too random. Guess that explains why I hate BF3 so much as well, for all I play is 64 player Conquest.

#10 Edited by big_jon (5725 posts) -

@hailinel said:

@big_jon said:

@alexander said:

@big_jon said:

I am not pleased that Battlefield is getting pumped out so fast now but the idea of getting to play this game in true HD glory with more than 24 players on the Xbox One is something I am really looking forward to.

Has it been confirmed that Xbox Live will support 64 players?

No but the thing has like 10 times the bandwidth capabilities of the 360 and the Cloud stuff implies that all the games will now run on dedicated servers, so It's a safe bet. Even the Tested podcast was saying this.

A safe bet is not the same thing is "It can and will."

When did I say it can and will?

#11 Edited by YoThatLimp (1906 posts) -

BF3 killed my love for battlefield, BF4 is a wait and see and not a must buy for me these days.

#12 Edited by Seppli (10251 posts) -

If only you knew how these sunglares work in BF3. Depending on your angle to the sun, you are literally blind. The screen shows nothing but sunglare and lensflare. That is until you go ADS (Aim Down Sight). It's counter to every fiber of my being. Going ADS makes me momentarily *scope blind*, if you will. As a veteran shooter player, the correct way of playing is to acquire targets outside of ADS, center on target, go ADS and then proceed to fire controlled bursts at the enemy. Nothing in BF3 organically supports this way of playing. From TTK, to recoil, to suppression, to visibility, to whatever. Argh! And how is staring at the sun less blinding than just generally looking in its direction anyways?

God I hate BF3's overall direction so much, I really hoped BF4 would show a trend reversal of sorts. All signs point to the oppsite.

#13 Posted by mrpandaman (866 posts) -

@seppli said:

If only you knew how these sunglares worked in BF3. Depending on your angle to the sun, you are literally blind. The screen shows nothing but sunglare and lensflare. That is until you go ADS (Aim Down Sight). It's counter to every fiber of my being. Going ADS makes me momentarily *scope blind*, if you will. As a veteran shooter player, the correct way of playing is to acquire targets outside of ADS, center on target, go ADS and proceed to fire controlled bursts at the enemy.

God I hate BF3's overall direction so much, I really hoped BF4 would show a trend reversal of sorts. All signs point to the oppsite.

Not to sound snide or anything... but are you getting this all from that that screenshot (and from the previous game)?

Watching the gameplay video they put out it makes sense that if you're in an area where the sun shines very brightly it obscures your vision if you could see it. But I don't really know firsthand how it works in BF3 like you do. They should just have sunglasses as one of your equipment loadouts.

#14 Posted by ZeForgotten (10397 posts) -

@seppli said:

If only you knew how these sunglares worked in BF3. Depending on your angle to the sun, you are literally blind. The screen shows nothing but sunglare and lensflare. That is until you go ADS (Aim Down Sight). It's counter to every fiber of my being. Going ADS makes me momentarily *scope blind*, if you will. As a veteran shooter player, the correct way of playing is to acquire targets outside of ADS, center on target, go ADS and proceed to fire controlled bursts at the enemy.

God I hate BF3's overall direction so much, I really hoped BF4 would show a trend reversal of sorts. All signs point to the oppsite.

Not to sound snide or anything... but are you getting this all from that that screenshot (and from the previous game)?

Watching the gameplay video they put out it makes sense that if you're in an area where the sun shines very brightly it obscures your vision if you could see it. But I don't really know firsthand how it works in BF3 like you do. They should just have sunglasses as one of your equipment loadouts.

Oddly enough I've never had a single problem with this, apparantly, super huge amount of sunglare that appears in BF3, ever.
Then again I don't actively seek out the sun at all and just go for captures and/or kills instead.

What weirds me out though is stuff like dirt coming up on your screen or some asshole running up to you and throwing jam into your eyes. now that's just rude.

Having been in a jungle in the real world sunglare is actually a thing so that "screenshot" actually looks pretty good to me.

#15 Edited by Seppli (10251 posts) -

@mrpandaman said:

@seppli said:

If only you knew how these sunglares worked in BF3. Depending on your angle to the sun, you are literally blind. The screen shows nothing but sunglare and lensflare. That is until you go ADS (Aim Down Sight). It's counter to every fiber of my being. Going ADS makes me momentarily *scope blind*, if you will. As a veteran shooter player, the correct way of playing is to acquire targets outside of ADS, center on target, go ADS and proceed to fire controlled bursts at the enemy.

God I hate BF3's overall direction so much, I really hoped BF4 would show a trend reversal of sorts. All signs point to the oppsite.

Not to sound snide or anything... but are you getting this all from that that screenshot (and from the previous game)?

Watching the gameplay video they put out it makes sense that if you're in an area where the sun shines very brightly it obscures your vision if you could see it. But I don't really know firsthand how it works in BF3 like you do. They should just have sunglasses as one of your equipment loadouts.

The whole overexposed lighting/shadows, and desaturated colours debate has been going on since before the launch of BF3. There's several post-FX injectors out there somewhat alleviating the situation, but they are considered hacks due to the obstructive nature of BF3's direction in this regard.

DICE itself caved for a sec, and announced they would introduce a console command that would deactive some of the filters causing grievance. They backpaddled on that though. Anyways - I really hoped the whole debate would cause DICE to reverse the trend. It seems not to be so.

As for how this type of sunglare works in BF3. Imagine a situation where you fight against the sun. I get how that would somewhat influence visibility. We already had that in BF:BC 1 & 2 & Vietnam and BF1943. It somewhat blurred the outlines of enemies to the point of making them a little harder to make out at range. Giving a slight advantage to combatants with the sun in their back.

In BF3 the sunglare fills your entire screen. Completely. You see nothing other than sunglare. To the point of not seeing enemies standing right in front of you. It's beyond stupid. Beyond grievous. It's the worst thing to ever happen in gamedesign. Criterion's NfS Most Wanted has the same crazy sun effects, blinding to the point of literally blinding the player for several seconds. In a highspeed arcade racing game. What the fuck!

I can't stress enough how much I hate this direction, and it's becoming more and more prevalent. I call it cinematic ultra realism. Making games look like they are real life shot through movie cameras, exaggerating lights and shadows to point of being obstructive. It's completely unnatural and forced. It's the newest tool in game engines. The cutting edge designer's newest plaything. And right now, there's a trend to overdo it to the point of ruining perfectly good games. At least for the instant when the effect insists to flash onto the screen and kill all visual feedback. A grievous sin in a mostly visual interactive medium.

#16 Posted by ArtisanBreads (3828 posts) -

OP.... geez relax.

Excited to see what's going on with the multi myself.

#17 Edited by Seppli (10251 posts) -

@zeforgotten said:

@mrpandaman said:

@seppli said:

If only you knew how these sunglares worked in BF3. Depending on your angle to the sun, you are literally blind. The screen shows nothing but sunglare and lensflare. That is until you go ADS (Aim Down Sight). It's counter to every fiber of my being. Going ADS makes me momentarily *scope blind*, if you will. As a veteran shooter player, the correct way of playing is to acquire targets outside of ADS, center on target, go ADS and proceed to fire controlled bursts at the enemy.

God I hate BF3's overall direction so much, I really hoped BF4 would show a trend reversal of sorts. All signs point to the oppsite.

Not to sound snide or anything... but are you getting this all from that that screenshot (and from the previous game)?

Watching the gameplay video they put out it makes sense that if you're in an area where the sun shines very brightly it obscures your vision if you could see it. But I don't really know firsthand how it works in BF3 like you do. They should just have sunglasses as one of your equipment loadouts.

Oddly enough I've never had a single problem with this, apparantly, super huge amount of sunglare that appears in BF3, ever.

Then again I don't actively seek out the sun at all and just go for captures and/or kills instead.

What weirds me out though is stuff like dirt coming up on your screen or some asshole running up to you and throwing jam into your eyes. now that's just rude.

Having been in a jungle in the real world sunglare is actually a thing so that "screenshot" actually looks pretty good to me.

Tastes differ of course. That said, I know only one game that caused this much controversy amongst its fans with its lighting. Battlefield 3. Just type in sunglare in the official forums. Besides suppression blur, it's likely to be most common grievance players level against Battlefield 3. Kill the sun! Kill the sun! Kill the sun!

I don't know man, I've been in plenty jungles and forrest and whatnot. Stared at the Wintersun in the snow. Hell - I've even been to the far North in Summer. I've never been blinded by the sun to the point of not seeing the hand in front of my face. That's the kind of glare we're speaking of. I don't understand how anyone can be okay with it. Sometimes I'm playing. Get blinded. Instantly start raging and shoot at the fucking sun like a lunatic. Can't help it. I hate it so much.

#18 Edited by big_jon (5725 posts) -

Not sure why everyone is telling the OP to calm down, BF3 had so many poor design decisions and I agree with him, the more that they go in that direction the less pleased I will be with the whole thing. BF3 had very solid gunplay, aside from some balance issues but the vehicle combat, and glare on the screen, combined with all the lock on crap and a lot of shit maps made it largely unfavorable to a lot a hard core BF fans lime the Op and myself who put hundreds of hours and tens of thousands of kills into the game.

#19 Posted by ZeForgotten (10397 posts) -

@seppli: Oh sure, no doubt that tastes differ.
But the only time I've ever had the sun fully blind my view in BF3 is when I'm in a jet flying straight for it, as I said, I'm not actively seeking out the sun to have a staring contest with it so I never run into a situation where it just blinds me. Only thing weird is how dirt, that comes into my eyes, apparantly stays there for a while like I'm wearing glasses, when none of the classes I play actually wear any form of glasses.

As for the image(Which I still very much doubt is a screenshot, unless that soldier-dude-guy-brah in it just loves doing that pose every chance he gets to be in front of a camera) If the sun is that low and coming through the trees and shining that bright (depending, of course, on stuff like which part of the world you're in) you'll get blinded by it while looking straight at it. My guess is though, having not played the game, that you're not gonna be looking up a whole lot in that jungle.

#20 Edited by Seppli (10251 posts) -

@zeforgotten:

Found a video on youtube on the topic. Those are not even great examples. Almost the entire first section before the big base jump attacking on Demavend Rush for example. Excruciating. Anyways - give the video a go. I can't stand playing, coming up with a plan of action, and then realizing that my angle of approach is unviable because of sunglare.

#21 Edited by Alexander (1721 posts) -

@seppli said:

Playercount is overrated anyways. It's not like Planetside 2 has better moment to moment gameplay because of it. After a certain point, all a high playercount causes is problems. Pacing problems. Balancing problems. At some point the contribution of the individual becomes too inconsequential for it to remain rewarding.

From my experiences the sweetspot for any competitive online multiplayer game is somewhere between 24 and 48 players, depending on map and mode. Everything above becomes too random. Guess that explains why I hate BF3 so much as well, for all I play is 64 player Conquest.

I'd have to disagree with you there. As someone who went from the 360 to PC version of Battlefield 3 I can tell you the 24 player limit gimped the game in conquest mode. Huge maps and 12 people on each side was ridiculous, not to mention there are fewer control points, the higher player count is everything to Conquest mode. Whether you think 48 is preferable, that's still twice the limit on consoles.

#22 Posted by ZeForgotten (10397 posts) -

@seppli: I know that the sun exists, I'm just saying I've never had a problem with it.

#23 Edited by Seppli (10251 posts) -

@alexander said:

@seppli said:

Playercount is overrated anyways. It's not like Planetside 2 has better moment to moment gameplay because of it. After a certain point, all a high playercount causes is problems. Pacing problems. Balancing problems. At some point the contribution of the individual becomes too inconsequential for it to remain rewarding.

From my experiences the sweetspot for any competitive online multiplayer game is somewhere between 24 and 48 players, depending on map and mode. Everything above becomes too random. Guess that explains why I hate BF3 so much as well, for all I play is 64 player Conquest.

I'd have to disagree with you there. As someone who went from the 360 to PC version of Battlefield 3 I can tell you the 24 player limit gimped the game in conquest mode. Huge maps and 12 people on each side was ridiculous, not to mention there are fewer control points, the higher player count is everything to Conquest mode. Whether you think 48 is preferable, that's still twice the limit on consoles.

Of course there's maps where 24 is too few. That's why I gave a range. The point I wanted to make is that there's diminishing returns for higher playercounts. The 1000s of players of Planetside 2 don't make for more intense moment to moment gameplay experiences.

There's lots of people who clamour for 128 or more players. Not me however - out of experience, there's just no upside to such a thing. The pacing and balancing challenges become insurmountable by gamedesign at some point. It may be okay for mil-sims, but for a game I'm playing *for the win*, the gameplay just suffers too much and gains nothing of value by ever-higher player numbers.

@zeforgotten

P.S. Here's another fun little video on the topic of BF3 sunglare. It's a bit better at proving my point.

#24 Edited by ZeForgotten (10397 posts) -

@seppli: I get you, you have a problem with the sun. (second video proved to me that, yes, looking at the sun is a bad idea. Especially the last clip.. not the baby-sun-thing. Action would take place down near the objectives, not in that hot mess we call a sun)
All I was saying was: I never had a problem with it.
Meaning when I spot a guy(literally, Q, spotted) I can shoot him dead even with the sun straight in my face. xp pops up, on to the next sack of meat wishing for bullets.

#25 Posted by JouselDelka (967 posts) -

I hate that sun, but I actually love it. It makes me feel like I'm in real life because the sun is always aiming in some direction with its death rays.

@big_jon said:

I am not pleased that Battlefield is getting pumped out so fast now

  • BF1942 - 2001
  • BF Vietnam - 2003
  • BF2 - 2005
  • BF2142 - 2006
  • BC1 - 2008
  • BF Heroes - around this time
  • BF 1943 - around this time
  • BC2 - 2010
  • BF3 - 2011

It's always been this way and it's always been quality stuff. The only worry a BF fan would have is the game getting CODified, and that worry died out with Battlefield 3 and its splendid expansions.

BF4 is going to be fantastic, but BF3 will do me well for another year. I won't be buying BF4 until the second or third map pack is out.

#26 Edited by Tarsier (1060 posts) -

is there a petition against browser based voice chat and dusty particles all over the 'camera' in the first person shooter BF4? cuz if there is, im not signing it, i dont give a shit any more

#27 Posted by churrific (479 posts) -

Actually, sunglasses as equipment loadout: I think that's kind of novel and clever. In fact, a whole animation of me taking out my sunglasses, putting them on, combing up my hair to its fullest height, and then yelling "Go home and be a family man!" before I shoot a guy dead seems ok to me.

#28 Posted by GS_Dan (1403 posts) -

Oh you guys.

#29 Posted by Darson (451 posts) -

I think it's way too soon for a core series Battlefield sequel. "Next gen" or not, it's still going to be the same shit and I'm still enjoying BF3.

#30 Posted by Funkydupe (3316 posts) -

Xpxpxpxpxp-ping-rank-up-xpxpxpxpx-achievement-xxpxpxxpxpxpxppzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.......................

#31 Edited by Seppli (10251 posts) -

@darson said:

I think it's way too soon for a core series Battlefield sequel. "Next gen" or not, it's still going to be the same shit and I'm still enjoying BF3.

BF4 is a direct iteration of what DICE did with BF3. It's the first time DICE actually does such a thing. At least from my point of view, DICE never did a straight-up follow-up to any of its prior BF games. Even BF:BC 2 was quite a departure in comparison to BF:BC 1. I think they're kinda unhappy with how BF3 turned out themselves. It certainly was rushed to release in an unfinished state, more so than ever before.

As far as I'm concerned, if it's BF3 tweaked to suck less, respectively to be as good as it could have been cutting out and/or replacing all the things that held it back (shit visibility due to overexposed lighting and too dark shadows, obstructive useless UI, suppression blur/deviation nonsense resulting in broken gunplay balance, reliance on lock-on weaponry especially against ground vehicles, lacking destructibility), BF4 will be well worth my while.

At best, I too enjoy BF3 a lot. At worst, it makes my guts go black with hatred. DICE has so many easy tweaks to reduce the depth of the frustration, whilst simultaniously increasing the heights of joy - I absolutely need for BF4 to be the better BF3 - in order for DICE to redeem themselves for all their horrid misssteps they've made with it.

#32 Edited by Darson (451 posts) -

@seppli said:

@darson said:

I think it's way too soon for a core series Battlefield sequel. "Next gen" or not, it's still going to be the same shit and I'm still enjoying BF3.

BF4 is a direct iteration of what DICE did with BF3. It's the first time DICE actually does such a thing. At least from my point of view, DICE never did a straight-up follow-up to any of its prior BF games. Even BF:BC 2 was quite a departure in comparison to BF:BC 1. I think they're kinda unhappy with how BF3 turned out themselves. It certainly was rushed to release in an unfinished state, more so than ever before.

As far as I'm concerned, if it's BF3 tweaked to suck less, respectively to be as good as it could have been cutting out and/or replacing all the things that held it back (shit visibility due to overexposed lighting and too dark shadows, obstructive useless UI, suppression blur/deviation nonsense resulting in broken gunplay balance, reliance on lock-on weaponry especially against ground vehicles, lacking destructibility), BF4 will be well worth my while.

At best, I too enjoy BF3 a lot. At worst, it makes my guts go black with hatred. DICE has so many easy tweaks to reduce the depth of the frustration, whilst simultaniously increasing the heights of joy - I absolutely need for BF4 to be the better BF3 - in order for DICE to redeem themselves for all their horrid misssteps they've made with it.

I agree, though I feel that is mainly a move that Bro of Duty seems to do every year. I fear that there just won't be enough innovation in such a short amount of time. While DICE is an EA-buttfucked developer, they have actually consistently maintained the standards of their product and I don't want BF3's success to get in the way of making a better game rather than churning out another quick success But I don't blame them, whether they do it "for the love of games" or not, when it comes down to it, it's all about the money. And they'll make the bucks regardless.

On a somewhat unrelated note, I really wish they made a Bad Company 3 THEN Battlefield 3 because all these BroBoxers think Battlefield 3 is a direct sequel to Bad Company 2. That makes me sick.

#33 Posted by Clonedzero (4200 posts) -

I just wanna know if BF4 on the next-gen consoles has the full player count. My PC is in a bad way, and only for gaming. (my video card is messed up, runs fine unless im playing games, then it heats up faster than taylor swift in JC penny) I also intend to buy a next gen console (leaning towards PS4 but E3 could change my mind). So the consoles having full player counts would be HUGE.

Since i've been a huge BF fan since 1942.

#34 Posted by MikkaQ (10288 posts) -

It just seems weird that they go out of their way to simulate something no solider has to deal with because of the invention of sunglasses/goggles.