Familiar Game
Enjoy with Android APP
Download
Menu

A good experience when it works, a worthy competitor to the Call of Duty franchise.

This topic contains 0 replies, has 0 voices, and was last updated by  bangothebuck 1 year ago.

Viewing 1 post (of 1 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1551

    bangothebuck
    Member

    Battlefield 4

    Rating: 3.5 – Good

    A good experience when it works, a worthy competitor to the Call of Duty franchise.

    Battlefield 4 was coined as the COD killer. This was supposed to be the game that was finally going to out perform the Call of Duty series. When you look at Battlefield from afar or watch the trailers it really looks leaps and bounds ahead of Call of Duty. With incredible graphics, large scale maps, vehicle combat, and much larger lobbies the multiplayer seemed to be in another league compared to any FPS in recent years. When the multiplayer was first revealed it looked amazing, with realistic physics and graphics, interactive environments and the increase of lobby size for console versions it looked like it was the game to beat. After playing it extensively online, and beating the campaign I can say it is a fantastic amount of fun, when it works.

    The multiplayer is full of intense moments. A bulk of my time was spent on team death match, rush and a few rounds of conquest. Where team death match lacks in vehicle combat and large-scale firefights it makes up for with frequent combat. Team death match also lacks a little when it comes to destructibility. DICE came up with the term levolution, which references scripted destruction events triggered by the player that changes the scale of the map, in team death match these events do not happen. I think that team death match is perfect for players who may be looking to jump ship from the COD series because has a lot of fast paced action compared to conquest or rush. Some experienced Battlefield players use team death match as a warm up to get into a groove for the game types that require a bit more strategy.

    My second favorite game mode was rush. A great comparison is from a Call of Duty perspective is demolition, but after the two points are destroyed to more pop up in a different section of the map. With rush comes vehicle comments and slightly more players. Rush contains the firefights and the strategy that some players crave. The levolution is there but to a lesser degree. This is because as you progress through the objectives the locations change. So a collapsed building eventually is left out of the playable map. My one problem with rush is that your entire experience can be ruined by poor team mates and a lack of cooperation. Often I would find myself performing pretty well by my own standards yet we would be destroyed. In team death match you are able to have a little more control as far as winning and losing the match. However for the true large scale experience you need to play conquest.

    Conquest mode has 64 players and huge maps and a plethora of vehicles. A frequent complaint about conquest mode is that it is hard to find enemies and some people claim that they can play an entire match and not get a single kill. There is an easy way to avoid this. Option A) is the spawn on the control points, Option B) spawn on your squad. Such a great thing about conquest is that, when it is done right, it feels like multiple different battles are going on. You can easily go to different points and find 16 people in a massive firefight with vehicles, explosions, and debris covering the screen. Once you add levolution things really can get it interesting. Skyscrapers collapse, levels flood, entire sections of the map change. Although EA and DICE marketed these as completely natural occurring events they are actually just scripted events that happen almost every round. Even if they were misleading it still adds a lot to the game.

    The entire multiplayer experience is amazing but only when it works. There has been a lot of press on EA and DICE for the building amount of issues with the servers and multiplayer components of the game. It is very difficult to get into lobbies of certain game modes. Team death match has almost always worked for me, where conquest is a constant struggle. It is not possible to “party up” from the main menu so in order to play with friends you have to join their game as spots open and hope you get on the same team, then join their squad. For a game so heavily based on the online aspect it is amazing that there are so many basic problems. So much so that it can be argued to have been sold as an unfinished project. I was holding out for the issues to be sorted out so I occupied myself by playing the campaign.

    The single player component to FPS games is generally just disc filling space; this stereotype stays true with Battlefield 4. It is incredibly short even for FPS standards. The story lacks any real plot driven moments. It may look pretty at times but not enough to cover up its flaws. It’s the same thing every mission, you and your squad of 3-4 others just mow down waves of enemies with little to no effort. It gives you no real reason to play and the only reason I ever did so was due to server issues with online. It can easily be skipped over and you aren’t missing anything.

    After looking at everything Battlefield 4 brought to the table it is pretty clear that once all of the issues are fixed it could be a staple in any collection, especially with the limited amount of games for next gen (now current gen) systems. What cannot be seen is how well it will hold up as more games are released. Hopefully they are able to fix the issues before it becomes forgotten by the less hardcore fan base and known as the game that was barely playable at launch instead of what it was meant to be.

Viewing 1 post (of 1 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.