#1 Posted by xbenblasterx (11 posts) -

As I've previously mentioned I'm pretty new to the world of PC gaming and well I've yet to experience any true competitive online play beyond Fifa 14, well I actually managed with quite some success to win a few games of Battlefield 4 this evening... and well now I'm damned hooked aint' aye not only does this game look incredible! But the only play is fast paced and simply brutal.

utter carnage! is all I can say. Its something I never quite experienced on the past console iterations of the game I've played.

Uh well just some Bf4 lovin' hell it could probably use it,

Finding it a little lonly online however so if u'd like to join me any time hit me up my Origin name is- Falcofighter all welcome!

#2 Edited by DonPixel (2585 posts) -

I love it! yet the best battlefield ever IMO. However, the game being this broken in all platforms is inexcusable I wish DICE/EA some sort of economical repercussion, they need to learn a lesson.

Rushing the a release in this state because of marketing, is unethical and abusive towards your costumer base.

#3 Posted by Colourful_Hippie (4354 posts) -

Yup, it's a great, fun game. Too bad that it's broken though

#4 Edited by fleabeard (183 posts) -

It's a great game until it crashes.

@donpixel: There are reports showing EA's stock price took a small dive after their announcement of halting projects to fix the game.

#5 Edited by MariachiMacabre (7096 posts) -

When it works, it's fantastic. When it works.

#6 Posted by captain_clayman (3321 posts) -

It's great, the destruction is on par, maybe even better than what was available in bc2. Huge step up from bf3 which I thought was kind of a downgrade. Also, the PS4 version has been pretty solid for me. Maybe I'm just really lucky but other than crashing after matches (which was only in the first week or so after launch) and the occasional audio glitch, the game has been performing super well and I haven't had a lot of stability issues after they patched it a couple times.

#7 Posted by marc (505 posts) -

It's great, when it works

#8 Edited by csl316 (8704 posts) -

It's awesome. I had one day where it was busted, but it's been running fine ever since on PS4 (well, aside from losing campaign data). Heck of a game. Haven't played the series since BC2.

#9 Edited by ReCkLeSs_X (460 posts) -

Honestly, the crashes aren't frustrating for me because I have so much fun with it.

#10 Edited by slyspider (1234 posts) -

I feel like the general consensus is that its freaking awesome and fun but broken for some people

#11 Posted by TheManWithNoPlan (5529 posts) -

I've had he'll of a good time with the game. The only problems I've experienced are my campaign saved data being deleted twice and the occasional multilayer boot. The multiplayer's problems have been fairly manageable, so it hasn't bothered me too much.

#12 Edited by Colourful_Hippie (4354 posts) -

I feel like the general consensus is that its freaking awesome and fun but broken for some many people

#13 Edited by Abendlaender (2808 posts) -

If the game works it is amazing.

#14 Posted by SSully (4195 posts) -

I think its fantastic. I am playing on PS4 and have very few crashes and never have trouble finding a server. I use quick match and usually play rush, so that might be part of it I guess?

#15 Posted by Tru3_Blu3 (3208 posts) -

I fucking love this game. It can be infuriating, but it isn't enough to stop me from playing.

#16 Edited by VACkillers (1063 posts) -

Yep damn good game, the singleplayer campaign absolutely blows though, almost a complete waste of time including it into the game and I have absolutely no idea why DICE keep ramming a fucking campaign down our throats and people for the most part only really care about the MP side of thigns anyway, bring back the sandbox BOTS for the MP maps forget the damn campaign. That said, the graphics of the game, the high quality of fidelity on the campaign was great with some of the action sequences. Without a doubt you can definitely tell DICE spent more time of the MP Maps this time around compared to BF3 and the gameplay is better off for it with some very addicting gamemodes as well, loving the new obliteration bomb mode, lot of fun kind of a mix of counter striker and something else. The Levolution was something that was much talked about and frankly i didn't give a shit about it what so ever, I was going to buy BF4 because it just simply didn't seem worth it, or much different than BF3 but once you ACTUALLY start playing it, it quickly becomes quite clear it is a far superior game than BF3 ever was in the MP games and I am quite glad I picked it up on black Friday for the PC at gamestop for a mere $25 and it was a hard-copy too, no downloading 25GB for me! I feel bad for people who spent a lot of money on the BF3 premium because you really didn't a long time to play to final one before BF4 came around really and without a doubt the BF4 stuff is going to be better and more flushed out with the test that was BF3.

Graphicly way better, it may just be suttle differences but make such a big impact, just looking at the fidelity of the ground, and the environment as well as the character models, absolutely impressive! and the levolution really makes it a completely different game to BF3. Now I've seen gamespots review of the new expansion China Rising and there doesn't appear to be ANY Levolution in any of the new maps, and one of the gamespot members actually liked it and I can see his point of view where Levolution could attract some of the more natural gameplay away, but for me this is exactly what makes BF4 stand out from BF3, otherwise its just new maps for BF3.

Not sure if I'll ever get premium, i never did with BF3 because it just simply wasn't worth it, and its almost the same price as the full game and i got 2 expansions free as it was anyway during a couple holidays this year but for those wondering if this is actually worth getting over BF3 simple answer is yes it is and you will find it hard to find good servers on BF3 now, which makes me even more disappointed with DICE taking away the BOT support for this game as new BFs roll out, making the older games literately impossible play MP anymore on them, they then become a paper weight you'll never touch again, bots eliminate this and makes the game viable still when MP is completely dead for the game.

#17 Posted by Casey25 (139 posts) -

Time to voice my grievances with the game, so pardon the wall of text or read the TL:DR. I enjoy it, but I think it has some design/balance problems. This is coming from a non-"pro" but reasonably experienced bf player.

These are my problems with the air vehicle and map balance.

Mobile AA can deny 70% of the airspace of a map, and on certain maps like Lancang dam there is amost no cover at all from the enemy AA. The nerf to active radar was a step in the right direction, but I don't like how doubling the cooldowns on countermeasures makes scout heli with 2 repairs the only really useful air vehicle.

The attack chopper is underwhelming because it's fragile with no air repairs, and it can't compete against other air threats as heatseekers do much less damage and have a long replenish cd. it has become exclusively an air anti-ground vehicle unit, as jets, scout choppers, and transport choppers make it their bitch with their sustain and more reliable damage when crewed.

The fact that stingers do more damage than heatseekers means a scout helicopter with a stinger is the only reliable air to air option. Don't get me wrong, I love teaming up in a scout chopper and destroying pretty much everything my squad comes across and racking up countless repair points, but I don't like that crewed scouts are so op compared to the poor humbled attack chopper. Transport choppers can hit scout choppers hard if they get the first passenger stinger hit and lots of minigun focus but most people just use it to get onto a rooftop and then bail.

I casually enjoyed BF2 and the Bad Company games, and my favorite part of the BF series is large scale vehicle-inclusive conquest because this is the gameplay style most flattering and characteristic of the franchise in my opinion. I appreciate that DICE are experimenting with naval and urban combat in the launch maps, but I wish there were more maps akin to the Armored Kill expansion in BF3, so I hope a future expansion fills that void.

Another issue I have with bf4's maps stems from the modular design in terms of gameplay. Since DICE accommodate conquest, rush, squad deathmatch, domination, and other game modes into their maps, it feels like this hurts the overall quality of the maps. They have to make the central close/medium range part for domination/deathmath/whatever that often times blocks itself off from the rest of the map. Then they either just make a straight line up and back for rush or scatter points to make multiple hot zones of activity.

I'm not really an expert map designer, all I'm saying is they didn't really put out any new classics in the launch maps this time around. You know usually a shooter will have a few greats (lockout and zanzibar from halo 2, Carentan and Toujane? from CoD2, Gridlock from Gears, Wake Island from previous bfs) and then a bunch of decent maps and maybe a few flops. But there isn't really a shining star of the BF4 launch maps, and while I like what i see from the first two expansions, I think I'm going to wait to see what the third and maybe fourth expansion looks like and wait for a 10 or 20 dollar discount before going for premium.

I like the occasional meat grinder of operation locker/metro style only in small bits, as the repetition and mindless spamming of known weak points gets dull after a while. Rush can be fun but success seems to depend on learning the best single spots to mortar/cover/snipe and repeatedly using/abusing that tactic, whereas conquest has much more freeform adaptation. Also rush matches seem to end way too fast in bf4 in what little i played.

TL:DR Air/anti-air combat needs balancing; the launch maps are unique with naval and urban combat but the game needs more/better large scale vehicle-based conquest maps; and non-conquest game modes seem kinda repetitive.

#18 Posted by Mageknight (122 posts) -

Yeah, I'm really loving it. I loved BF3, and it's BF3+, so naturally I'd enjoy it, I suppose! As Casey pointed out there are definitely places where DICE could do some re-balancing; they were good about that in BF3, but then they had less fires to put out. Hopefully they look at balance some point down the line.

(I actually think the game needs *less* large vehicle maps; I'm getting pretty tired of spawning, running out, and getting blasted by an LAV 1km away! Those close bits help encourage infantry-infantry combat in an interesting way - I think Shanghai is a good example of a well-constructed BF map because it has those parts while still keeping interesting vehicle gameplay!)

#19 Posted by Casey25 (139 posts) -

Yep damn good game, the singleplayer campaign absolutely blows though, almost a complete waste of time including it into the game and I have absolutely no idea why DICE keep ramming a fucking campaign down our throats and people for the most part only really care about the MP side of thigns anyway, bring back the sandbox BOTS for the MP maps forget the damn campaign. That said, the graphics of the game, the high quality of fidelity on the campaign was great with some of the action sequences. Without a doubt you can definitely tell DICE spent more time of the MP Maps this time around compared to BF3 and the gameplay is better off for it with some very addicting gamemodes as well, loving the new obliteration bomb mode, lot of fun kind of a mix of counter striker and something else. The Levolution was something that was much talked about and frankly i didn't give a shit about it what so ever, I was going to buy BF4 because it just simply didn't seem worth it, or much different than BF3 but once you ACTUALLY start playing it, it quickly becomes quite clear it is a far superior game than BF3 ever was in the MP games and I am quite glad I picked it up on black Friday for the PC at gamestop for a mere $25 and it was a hard-copy too, no downloading 25GB for me! I feel bad for people who spent a lot of money on the BF3 premium because you really didn't a long time to play to final one before BF4 came around really and without a doubt the BF4 stuff is going to be better and more flushed out with the test that was BF3.

Graphicly way better, it may just be suttle differences but make such a big impact, just looking at the fidelity of the ground, and the environment as well as the character models, absolutely impressive! and the levolution really makes it a completely different game to BF3. Now I've seen gamespots review of the new expansion China Rising and there doesn't appear to be ANY Levolution in any of the new maps, and one of the gamespot members actually liked it and I can see his point of view where Levolution could attract some of the more natural gameplay away, but for me this is exactly what makes BF4 stand out from BF3, otherwise its just new maps for BF3.

Not sure if I'll ever get premium, i never did with BF3 because it just simply wasn't worth it, and its almost the same price as the full game and i got 2 expansions free as it was anyway during a couple holidays this year but for those wondering if this is actually worth getting over BF3 simple answer is yes it is and you will find it hard to find good servers on BF3 now, which makes me even more disappointed with DICE taking away the BOT support for this game as new BFs roll out, making the older games literately impossible play MP anymore on them, they then become a paper weight you'll never touch again, bots eliminate this and makes the game viable still when MP is completely dead for the game.

The singleplayer is worth its cost for a few reason's I'm guessing.

It's an eye-catcher. Remember the big reveal where they basically showed the first mission? That attracted a lot of attention from a broad audience. Some people like single player games, and even those who know battlefield is all about the multiplayer would be attracted to the visuals.

It's an easy extended demo/trailer. They basically were able to focus their resources on the first mission, and in return they had a functional game level and a gameplay trailer that marketed a lot of the game's strenghts. It showed off the details they could put on models, the great lighting, the destruction, etc. The game's marketing department also tries to put out trailers showcasing the game's multiplayer, but the obvious scripting and "d00d lemme tell u about my only in battlefield moment trademark" stuff they put out seems kinda corny to me.

Also, CoD does it, so better stay on par with them. The single player is still a modern military shooting gallery, even if the in-game cinematic moments are cool.

Some Levolution events are hard to utilize, and some still crash the game/cause major slowdown, so they are often times discouraged. But hey they look cool, even if they're sometimes just gimmicks.

I picked up bf3 when i got a pc rig a few months after it launched for around 20 dollars. Then i got premium half off at some big sale around Armored Kill and Aftermath. CQ was not my cup of tea, but AK, and what followed were generally pretty interesting maps. I prefer smart timing on purchases so i don't have to pay for 2 games in 1. Got bf4 at launch for 42 bucks and with any luck I'll get the experience I hope for on sale next year if the last 3 expansions are what I'm looking for.

Bf3 seemed relatively well tested compared to launch bf4, so I have to disagree on the "bf3 was a test" comment.

#20 Posted by jArmAhead (315 posts) -

@casey25: I actually really like how difficult it is for air to be effective. Air should be a much smaller part of the over all BF experience. BF3's air was a million times worse because most aircarft could infinitely avoid death short of being run down by a jet. Guys on the ground where therwfor at the mercy of others most of the time. Occasionally you got a good mobile AA up that could rip things up, but generally from the ground air was just a nusence that just popped counters and ran away until counters were back. And I've been plenty useful with aircraft. Nothing is more satisfying than navigating the sharp turns around and about skyscrapers in an attack chopper, and it's done a great job at obliterating ground targets, mainly vehicles, which is the main purpose of aircraft like that: shock and awe, anti-armor, and taking out reinforced positions. All of which I can pull off with an attack chopper.

I feel like if you have a good team that works together to shore up the kinks in each other's armor, the game's balance makes a lot more sense. Once players learn that they need to focus a little less and open up to the broader picture, things will change. Or if they do, anyway. And if not, get a couple of squads of friends and play that way. I like that there are more weaknesses in the various roles in BF4. It was a little silly how self reliant you could be in almost any role in BF3, especially certain vehicles. Now I feel that vehicles have been taken down a peg, especially in the sky. Partly because of balance and partly because of map design. As a result the ground game feels a little less death soaked from vehicles ripping you apart. That's a good thing in my mind, and having to work hard to really succeed shouldn't, IMO, be seen as a failure of game design but a success. I wish they had gone farther with it, like making the infantry a little less capable alone. They could all have interesting challenges to succeeding but instead they all just sort of have those problems solved for them. Snipers don't need to worry about getting into position, assault doesn't need to worry about constant encounters with enemies and taking lots of damage, support doesn't need to worry about ammo, etc. I wish they would take cues from real life, ie make the riflemen carry the extra ammo for the MGs, maybe make the support guys heal, have the engineers be important for getting snipers where they need to go, and making snipers more intelligence focused (as in intel, not "street smarts" or whatever). But I can understand that that is probably more for a taste thing more than anything else for me and I still really like all of the aspects and roles of combat in the game so I'm not too worried. I just think making teamplay a necessity would be a lot more interesting.

I also think the maps are all really awesome. They are more varied, interesting, and challenging in ways that they haven't been in the past. Especially the new naval stuff breaking up maps has been a lot of fun.
I also think I've seen a lot more vehicular action in general, despite the lack of larger scale environments, because of that map design philosophy of breaking things up a little more.

I'll agree that conquest is the only really excellent mode, but that's the mode that needs to be good so who cares if the others aren't quite as satisfying?

#21 Posted by Demoskinos (14851 posts) -

When its not being awful and glitchy then yeah its pretty damn good actually. Shame they are having such trouble with it because I think this would actually be the year where they could convince some Call of Duty players to switch over since CoD is so bad this year.

#22 Edited by spraynardtatum (2977 posts) -

It's a beta. Looking past all the kinks of it being a really buggy and glitchy beta it's fun. Currently it can suck a tail pipe though.

Buy Premium everyone. EA and Dice need all the extra money they can get to fix their broken game.

#23 Edited by Sackmanjones (4708 posts) -

I've had minimal issues with the game the past week or two and yeah, this is one hell of a shooter. Hopefully they fix it quickly and get more people on board because it is probably the best multiplayer shooter out there at the moment. This just feels like battlefield and it takes everything wrong with 3 and straightens it out. Commander mode is fun to use, next gen consoles have on par player counts and nearly on par graphical fidelity with PC. It has made the ps4 share function worth using, multiple times a match there are things that happen that I want to archive and show everyone and since the ps4 is constantly recording you can do that. Of course there is the hurdle of only supporting facebook but once the youtube compatability is patched in, there is gonna be some fantastic moments on there.

Also, for people who keep saying Conquest is the only good mode, I would highly suggest trying Obliteration. It is basically the bomb rush mechanic mixed with a conquest style map and it is utterly fantastic.

#24 Posted by spraynardtatum (2977 posts) -

It's a broken mess and shouldn't have been released yet.

Buy Premium and make sure to get early access to the broken China Rising map pack that causes more issues.

It's a great broken game.

#25 Edited by webnet (9 posts) -

@sackmanjones: It's a lot of fun it's just horribly broken. Joining matches leading to crashes as well as when levelution are triggered. It's hard to recommend a game that I can't even play because of the bugs.

#26 Posted by soulcake (285 posts) -

If it doesn't crash its a great game. Obliteration is my new favorite mode.

#27 Posted by Intro (1207 posts) -

Yeah I'm liking it. Just upgraded my CPU too so it's been running great.

#28 Posted by Christoffer (1824 posts) -

I love it, but a combination of crashes and other games have kept me away from it for a while. But it was the same deal with BF3, once I got into it I REALLY got into it.

#29 Posted by jkz (4028 posts) -

I really love it. Played a lot until I got the guns and such I wanted and really got a feel for it. Now I'm letting it be for a little while they patch things up and get it running; but then Battlefield's a pretty long-haul game for me. I tend to play any iterations I get into in bursts for a good year

#30 Posted by 2HeadedNinja (1623 posts) -

Alright ... good to know I'm not the only one who thinks like that. I already liked the scout heli in BF3 but in 4 with the 25mm cannon that thing is a beast. I'm an average player at best, but I have >600 kills with it already.

Compared to that the attack helicopter is a joke. It's slow and sluggish, I have rarely seen it in the air for more than 60 seconds. On most maps there is just nowhere to escape the constant barrage of stingers and AA you get flying at you. I have yet to find a way to use that helicopter efficient especially on open maps where there is no cover at all.

With the scout you are at least fast, there is a chance to escape locks or survive some hits and land to repair yourself. If you have one or two people to repair you that thing becomes almost unkillable unless you are doing stupid things.

@casey25 said:

Mobile AA can deny 70% of the airspace of a map, and on certain maps like Lancang dam there is amost no cover at all from the enemy AA. The nerf to active radar was a step in the right direction, but I don't like how doubling the cooldowns on countermeasures makes scout heli with 2 repairs the only really useful air vehicle.

The attack chopper is underwhelming because it's fragile with no air repairs, and it can't compete against other air threats as heatseekers do much less damage and have a long replenish cd. it has become exclusively an air anti-ground vehicle unit, as jets, scout choppers, and transport choppers make it their bitch with their sustain and more reliable damage when crewed.

The fact that stingers do more damage than heatseekers means a scout helicopter with a stinger is the only reliable air to air option. Don't get me wrong, I love teaming up in a scout chopper and destroying pretty much everything my squad comes across and racking up countless repair points, but I don't like that crewed scouts are so op compared to the poor humbled attack chopper. Transport choppers can hit scout choppers hard if they get the first passenger stinger hit and lots of minigun focus but most people just use it to get onto a rooftop and then bail.

#31 Posted by Missacre (566 posts) -

All this "it's fun when it doesn't crash," "if it works, it's great" business is just sad. Honestly, it's like you guys are letting EA and DICE fuck you over. It's their fault too, for rushing out a broken product. They could've taken a couple more months to get the game to not crash at the start screen, but they just had to make that money, and you guys just handed it over. I don't think you would buy a car that won't run, so I don't see why you're paying money for a broken game.

#32 Posted by Christoffer (1824 posts) -

@missacre said:

All this "it's fun when it doesn't crash," "if it works, it's great" business is just sad. Honestly, it's like you guys are letting EA and DICE fuck you over. It's their fault too, for rushing out a broken product. They could've taken a couple more months to get the game to not crash at the start screen, but they just had to make that money, and you guys just handed it over. I don't think you would buy a car that won't run, so I don't see why you're paying money for a broken game.

Evidently, new cars can also have malfunctions. You fix it, swear a bit, and move on. I tend to not look at busted games as the end of the universe.

#33 Posted by Missacre (566 posts) -

@missacre said:

All this "it's fun when it doesn't crash," "if it works, it's great" business is just sad. Honestly, it's like you guys are letting EA and DICE fuck you over. It's their fault too, for rushing out a broken product. They could've taken a couple more months to get the game to not crash at the start screen, but they just had to make that money, and you guys just handed it over. I don't think you would buy a car that won't run, so I don't see why you're paying money for a broken game.

Evidently, new cars can also have malfunctions. You fix it, swear a bit, and move on. I tend to not look at busted games as the end of the universe.

I don't know where you're buying your cars, but all of mine ran perfectly the moment I bought them, and still run flawlessly.

#34 Posted by Pezen (1607 posts) -

I haven't had this much fun in a competetive shooter since BF2. Not sure what changed between this and BF3 in terms of gun handling but things just handle better somehow. Maybe it's nothing and I'm projecting on the game. But yeah, actually contemplating premium for once.

#35 Edited by VACkillers (1063 posts) -
@casey25 said:
@vackillers said:

Yep damn good game, the singleplayer campaign absolutely blows though, almost a complete waste of time including it into the game and I have absolutely no idea why DICE keep ramming a fucking campaign down our throats and people for the most part only really care about the MP side of thigns anyway, bring back the sandbox BOTS for the MP maps forget the damn campaign. That said, the graphics of the game, the high quality of fidelity on the campaign was great with some of the action sequences. Without a doubt you can definitely tell DICE spent more time of the MP Maps this time around compared to BF3 and the gameplay is better off for it with some very addicting gamemodes as well, loving the new obliteration bomb mode, lot of fun kind of a mix of counter striker and something else. The Levolution was something that was much talked about and frankly i didn't give a shit about it what so ever, I was going to buy BF4 because it just simply didn't seem worth it, or much different than BF3 but once you ACTUALLY start playing it, it quickly becomes quite clear it is a far superior game than BF3 ever was in the MP games and I am quite glad I picked it up on black Friday for the PC at gamestop for a mere $25 and it was a hard-copy too, no downloading 25GB for me! I feel bad for people who spent a lot of money on the BF3 premium because you really didn't a long time to play to final one before BF4 came around really and without a doubt the BF4 stuff is going to be better and more flushed out with the test that was BF3.

Graphicly way better, it may just be suttle differences but make such a big impact, just looking at the fidelity of the ground, and the environment as well as the character models, absolutely impressive! and the levolution really makes it a completely different game to BF3. Now I've seen gamespots review of the new expansion China Rising and there doesn't appear to be ANY Levolution in any of the new maps, and one of the gamespot members actually liked it and I can see his point of view where Levolution could attract some of the more natural gameplay away, but for me this is exactly what makes BF4 stand out from BF3, otherwise its just new maps for BF3.

Not sure if I'll ever get premium, i never did with BF3 because it just simply wasn't worth it, and its almost the same price as the full game and i got 2 expansions free as it was anyway during a couple holidays this year but for those wondering if this is actually worth getting over BF3 simple answer is yes it is and you will find it hard to find good servers on BF3 now, which makes me even more disappointed with DICE taking away the BOT support for this game as new BFs roll out, making the older games literately impossible play MP anymore on them, they then become a paper weight you'll never touch again, bots eliminate this and makes the game viable still when MP is completely dead for the game.

The singleplayer is worth its cost for a few reason's I'm guessing.

It's an eye-catcher. Remember the big reveal where they basically showed the first mission? That attracted a lot of attention from a broad audience. Some people like single player games, and even those who know battlefield is all about the multiplayer would be attracted to the visuals.

It's an easy extended demo/trailer. They basically were able to focus their resources on the first mission, and in return they had a functional game level and a gameplay trailer that marketed a lot of the game's strenghts. It showed off the details they could put on models, the great lighting, the destruction, etc. The game's marketing department also tries to put out trailers showcasing the game's multiplayer, but the obvious scripting and "d00d lemme tell u about my only in battlefield moment trademark" stuff they put out seems kinda corny to me.

Also, CoD does it, so better stay on par with them. The single player is still a modern military shooting gallery, even if the in-game cinematic moments are cool.

Some Levolution events are hard to utilize, and some still crash the game/cause major slowdown, so they are often times discouraged. But hey they look cool, even if they're sometimes just gimmicks.

I picked up bf3 when i got a pc rig a few months after it launched for around 20 dollars. Then i got premium half off at some big sale around Armored Kill and Aftermath. CQ was not my cup of tea, but AK, and what followed were generally pretty interesting maps. I prefer smart timing on purchases so i don't have to pay for 2 games in 1. Got bf4 at launch for 42 bucks and with any luck I'll get the experience I hope for on sale next year if the last 3 expansions are what I'm looking for.

Bf3 seemed relatively well tested compared to launch bf4, so I have to disagree on the "bf3 was a test" comment.

Sorry for the late response here but good reply and can totally respect your point of view and most of the stuff I agree with ya, just to clarify though I was more talking about the Premium stuff and unlock stuff that came with BF3 as a test run rather then the game itself, should have made that clearer really but otherwise from a launch perspective BF4's launch was just terrible I agree, with the PC version I haven't experienced any crashes at all since I got it on black friday for $25 not even for the Levolution levels and I'm also hoping BF4 Premium will be on sale or something too..

#36 Posted by BIGJEFFREY (5055 posts) -

played bata on pc, but playing on xbox 1. It's pretty good, i'm so damn MLG.

Online
#37 Posted by Subjugation (4720 posts) -

I'm enjoying it in between crashes.

#38 Edited by Korolev (1709 posts) -

Oh it's a pretty good game - just happens to be unstable at the moment. I wish they'd fix it.

I have it for the PC and it looks amazing, but I have difficulty playing it because PC players treat that game seriously. Very, very seriously. There are people who memorize the maps completely, know exactly what locations to snipe from, there are people who have virtually memorized all the spawn locations and work in very co-operative teams and if you're just a relatively casual player who doesn't spend 10 hours a day playing it, you are going to have a very unpleasant time. I'm thinking of doing what Jeff does and getting it for the consoles simply because snipers aren't as good on the consoles since they don't have a mouse. It's very, very hard to play on the PC - the competitiveness of Battlefield players is just too high for me.

#39 Edited by Sammo21 (3281 posts) -

I am on PS4 and I think its great and looks great. If they can make sure its stable then I love it even more. Had they included a more...sane way to play with friends then I'd like it more. Right now the server browser is kind of inane.

#40 Posted by big_jon (5732 posts) -

Aside from the issues I really do love it, I'm playing it on Xbox One, reached rank 71 last night. I'm pretty annoyed at the map packs though, premium seems like a bit of a waste this time around.