#1 Posted by squirrelnacho (329 posts) -

I haven't played it yet, but I was wondering how things like movement, weapon accuracy, and recoil were modeled compared to BF3 and Call of Duty. BF3 seemed like it always had a lot more recoil, requiring you to fire in short bursts to get long range accuracy, which was a nice change from the fast and frantic Call of Duty MP. It certainly wasn't on par with Arma, but it seemed like it was trying to in some ways find the middle. How does it compare to BF3 and Call of Duty?

#2 Posted by Devildoll (831 posts) -

atleast from what i've played in the beta, i feel that the infantry are slightly slower and more clunky than in BF3.

But the beta is very inferior to BF3 in terms of polish, i'd wager that atleast the clunky part can change, come retail.

#3 Posted by Duder_Me (302 posts) -

I've been through scenarios where firing in short bursts was necessary from far distances. Also, the map in the beta isn't very good. The only fun part is when the tall building collapses. I've had way more fun playing on the Arica Harbor map in the Bad Company 2 beta on the PlayStation 3 way back in 2009.

#4 Edited by chiablo (847 posts) -

@duder_me: usually with battlefield games, they showcase the best map in the demo/beta. In bad company 2, I could have just played that snow map indefinately. If this is the best map in BF4, I'm glad I didn't pre order.

#5 Posted by Mcfart (1426 posts) -

@chiablo said:

@duder_me: usually with battlefield games, they showcase the best map in the demo/beta. In bad company 2, I could have just played that snow map indefinately. If this is the best map in BF4, I'm glad I didn't pre order.

hey man they gotta DLC the best maps

gotta pay top dolla for quality

#6 Edited by GreggD (4444 posts) -

The gunplay feels on par with BF3. Your character sprints slightly slower, though.

#7 Posted by Vuud (1441 posts) -

I've only been able to play a couple matches but to me it feels nearly identical to BF3.

#8 Edited by JasonR86 (9379 posts) -

Arcade-y?

#9 Posted by MAGZine (435 posts) -

@jasonr86: lacking realism; more action/run-and-gun focused.

see: ARMA vs BF2 vs BF3 vs COD

Realistic ---------------------> Arcadey

#10 Edited by Sammo21 (3031 posts) -

@chiablo: I actually feel the opposite, that there were better maps than what is shown in the beta.

#11 Posted by Sammo21 (3031 posts) -

@jasonr86: Maybe he means more fast paced and easier, like Call of Duty? I like both franchises because they excel at different styles, but COD is definitely easier to master.

#12 Edited by Seppli (9746 posts) -

They reintroduced a hint of inertia to player movement. It's a little less like Unreal Tournament, and a little more like Bad Company 2. I like it a lot better this way.

#13 Edited by Tru3_Blu3 (3154 posts) -

More arcade-y? Without a doubt.

Guns, at least the beginning ones, have very little in the way of gun kick and recoil. So much so that bipods are now questionable than necessary. Hipfire also seems more accurate than in BF3; I've been able to spray the beginning LMG at close-ranges and actually obtain kills. BF4 definitely seems to be a much easier game, and that could be because of how two-sided the beta's only map is, or how sharp and clear the UI and visuals are compared to BF3.

I do think BF4 is just a better game for this reason, simply because I don't yell at my screen every time I lose or when I die, thus playing TDM instead of the iconic Conquest. I just think the only way to truly enjoy BF3, is if you have actual friends to play it with. I seem to not require that in BF4 to enjoy it.

#14 Posted by MAN_FLANNEL (2460 posts) -

I haven't played battlefield 3 (I think I played the beta), but for how much people were talking about that sky scraper falling down, it's really lame. It kills anyone on it or near it when it starts to fall (you can't ride it down) and it's basically just an animation that masks the transition to rubble. It's not impressive at all and looks pretty crappy (maybe it looks good on PC). And after it falls down, there are no textures on the ground lol. I know it's supposed be dust, but it literally is just flat gray on the streets.

Anyways it's definitely not COD. Plenty of kick and bullet drop. I felt the auto aim was way off tho. At times it seems non-existent, and at others when I aimed down the sights it pushed my cross hairs across the screen to a dude I wasn't try to aim at and ended up dying because of it.

#15 Posted by JasonR86 (9379 posts) -

@sammo21: @magzine:

I guess I'm just being obstinate. When I think arcade shooter, I think this...

I guess I would ask, does this feel like Quake? But I'm a brat so just ignore me everyone.

#16 Posted by Andorski (5111 posts) -

I haven't played battlefield 3 (I think I played the beta), but for how much people were talking about that sky scraper falling down, it's really lame. It kills anyone on it or near it when it starts to fall (you can't ride it down) and it's basically just an animation that masks the transition to rubble. It's not impressive at all and looks pretty crappy (maybe it looks good on PC). And after it falls down, there are no textures on the ground lol. I know it's supposed be dust, but it literally is just flat gray on the streets.

Anyways it's definitely not COD. Plenty of kick and bullet drop. I felt the auto aim was way off tho. At times it seems non-existent, and at others when I aimed down the sights it pushed my cross hairs across the screen to a dude I wasn't try to aim at and ended up dying because of it.

I'm guessing that the building falling animation is placeholder for now, since it is a beta. It would be really sad to see that crappy transition in the real game.

#17 Posted by Verendus (348 posts) -

Yes. Guns have almost no recoil, but my guess they will get some on final release. They want to game appeal to people new to franchise and making the game more arcady, faster kill times, more auto-aim and no recoil makes it easier for them to learn the ropes.