Game trailers thread

[Garteal]

And I didn't even have to ask this time. Yes, thank you.
Now that your formatting is fixed, your posts are a joy to read.

Yeah. I agree with everything you said. The singleplayer in these games are laughable.
Hopefully the multiplayer will be worthwhile.

Battlefield 4 is coming too soon. From the little I've seen so far, it doesn't have to be a new title. I guess the reason they do that is for the next-gen consoles. (and to milk more customers with overpriced DLCs)

(03-29-2013, 03:41 AM)NaturalViolence Wrote: That EA is simply trying to copy the success of CoD by copying the CoD formula itself in all of their fps.

And they're being successful. Battlefield 3 sold nearly 4x as much as Bad Company 2 according to VGChartz.

(03-29-2013, 03:41 AM)NaturalViolence Wrote: And I hope this fad dies before it gets any stronger.

Too bad that won't happen. EA is just getting started.

(03-29-2013, 05:12 AM)Anti-Ultimate Wrote: am i the only one that prefers a nice artstyle over nice graphics (except if they look too bad)

Ofcourse not. But I do appreciate nice graphics, especially nowadays since we're finally moving to the 'next-gen'.

[NaturalViolence]

Garteal Wrote:And I didn't even have to ask this time. Yes, thank you.
Now that your formatting is fixed, your posts are a joy to read.

I really don't see how it's so hard for you to read text that isn't separated into paragraphs but oh well.

Garteal Wrote:And they're being successful. Battlefield 3 sold nearly 4x as much as Bad Company 2 according to VGChartz.

VGChartz results tend to be quite inaccurate. Especially since they don't include digital sales. I would recommend not using them for data points. And no I can't recommend a better source because the fact of the matter is these companies rarely give out the data that we need to make an accurate prediction.

Garteal Wrote:Ofcourse not. But I do appreciate nice graphics, especially nowadays since we're finally moving to the 'next-gen'.

Now if only they could stop covering up their beautiful art assets with shitty post-processing filters.....sigh. And they lash out at anyone who tells them how annoying the color tint and lens flare effects are so I don't think they are going away anytime soon. I guess it's still a step up from the long list of graphics problems that BC2 had (horrible shadow aliasing and dithering, horrible aliasing in general which could not be removed, over the top bloom that was still there even when you disabled bloom in the graphics settings, and so on).

BF3 looks AMAZING with those post-processing filters removed. It makes me so mad to think of what could have been. The game became progressively worse in the graphics department from alpha to beta to release as they added more filters. And now the only way to remove them is with an injector which might get you banned in multiplayer (because they refuse to provide an option for it).

Garteal Wrote:Yeah. I agree with everything you said. The singleplayer in these games are laughable.
Hopefully the multiplayer will be worthwhile.

Indeed. Nobody really cares about the singleplayer (myself included obviously). Which is why so many people question why they even have single player campaigns now. My guess is that it's required to publish a retail game on the xbox360 (since xbox live subscriptions cost money and not everyone has one).

Coming from a major BF fan since BF: Vietnam (2004) I was slightly disappointed with the multiplayer in BC2 and very disappointed with BF3. Any remaining trace of the original gameplay style has now been removed. Tactical and strategic gameplay elements are nowhere to be found now. I bought BC2 simply because I thought BF3 was going to be a proper sequel to BF2 and I needed something to tide me over. So even though I felt BC2 was very watered down I accepted it for what it was. With BF3 they just straight up lied about everything from beginning to end and acted like asshats after the game was released. They destroyed what was left of their community.

Garteal Wrote:Battlefield 4 is coming too soon. From the little I've seen so far, it doesn't have to be a new title. I guess the reason they do that is for the next-gen consoles. (and to milk more customers with overpriced DLCs)

Honestly that part doesn't upset me too much. The development schedules have always been rapid. In fact they used to release new games every year with expansion packs almost every season. So if anything it has slowed down. I didn't really mind though because back then I always felt that I was getting my moneys worth. They still managed to consistently release products that felt complete, large in scope, and unique.

My problem is it looks like they didn't really change much from BF3. And I hated BF3 (ok maybe hated isn't the right word, it was mediocre).

[Garteal]

Quote: I really don't see how it's so hard for you to read text that isn't separated into paragraphs but oh well.

Since we both don't like unformatted text, I really don't see how it's so hard for you to write your text with paragraphs but oh well.

Quote:Coming from a major BF fan since BF: Vietnam (2004) I was slightly disappointed with the multiplayer in BC2 and very disappointed with BF3.

I only played the multiplayer beta on the PS3, but from what I remember, all the tactical, teambased and strategic gameplay elements were gone by then.
Battlefield 3 obviously made it worse by not fulfilling everyone's expectations by being a proper sequel to BF2.

Quote: They destroyed what was left of their community.

Sadly in contrary... Since Battlefield is basically an arcade shooter now, all the COD players have moved over to BF3. The community is bigger than it was ever before.

Quote:Honestly that part doesn't upset me too much. The development schedules have always been rapid. In fact they used to release new games every year with expansion packs almost every season. So if anything it has slowed down. I didn't really mind though because back then I always felt that I was getting my moneys worth. They still managed to consistently release products that felt complete, large in scope, and unique.

Yeah, you're right. It's just that all the DLCs came so fast and were being shoved in your face due to most servers playing them now. Same with Premium.
I still only own the original game and have no plans of getting any DLC/Premium.

Quote:My problem is it looks like they didn't really change much from BF3. And I hated BF3 (ok maybe hated isn't the right word, it was mediocre).

Yeah, the gameplay looks pretty much the same. I really do hope they will give the PC community a proper sequel to BF2. I highly doubt it though.
How I miss being the commander and call an artillery at a bunch of enemies.

[NaturalViolence]

Garteal Wrote:Sadly in contrary... Since Battlefield is basically an arcade shooter now, all the COD players have moved over to BF3. The community is bigger than it was ever before.

Ok I should have written that differently. Their original community/fans/whatever you want to call them. There.

Garteal Wrote:Yeah, the gameplay looks pretty much the same. I really do hope they will give the PC community a proper sequel to BF2. I highly doubt it though.
How I miss being the commander and call an artillery at a bunch of enemies.

>That first time I booted up BF2
>Take commander position
>Hear alpha squad leader say "What are your orders sir?" over voip
>Sit there stunned in silence, I could not believe I was being called sir in an online fps
>"Commander? Are you there?"
>Still stunned
>"Do you have a mic?"
>Me: "Um....yes."
>"Well?"
>Look at map
>Me: "It seems that they are focusing on the town center. Flank the church from the right and you should be able to take them by surprise."
>Sees him change his squad order to attack church
>Other squads begin reporting in and asking for orders
>Think to myself "So this is what it must feel like to be Hitler. This feels pretty nice."
>Next few games
>Everyone has a mic, every uses it, everyone is polite and articulate, people help each other, coordinate strategies, and follow or suggest orders rather than questioning them, leaders ask ground troops for input in decision making, squads have to fight together to survive since each class offers something different yet useful to the group
>Teams with good strategies that follow orders generally win regardless of skill
>Think to myself "this is the most wonderful thing I have ever experienced"

I used to play with a community called tacticalgamer. Their servers were setup with a 1 minute warmup time at the beginning of each game (a time period where you can't spawn into the battlefield yet) so that each team had time to plan the upcoming match (kind of like tf2 except unlike tf2 we didn't spend it fooling around). And we really did use the entire time to plan things out. Squad leaders must follow commander orders and squad members must follow squad leader orders otherwise you get kicked (or temporary ban after 3 times). Everyone must be in a squad within 30 seconds of joining or the server would auto-kick them. Everyone must respond to their leaders via voice chat or squad chat (for squad members/leaders), commander chat (for commandors/squad leaders), or team chat (for other squads). Not responding is also a kickable offense. Despite these rules the 4+ servers were almost always full or near full.

Dice now claims that they removed features like commander mode and squad voip because they're annoying and people don't like to use them. I say that's BS. They were a big part of what defined the earlier games. It pains me to know that I will probably never experience this again. But it pains me even more to know that future generations will never know what this was like. They will be forever trapped listening to 15 year olds screaming in rage over voip while mindlessly running around in a meatgrinder map racking up kills to see who has the biggest epeen.

Also the map designs and conquest mode in BF3 are pretty bad compared to the earlier games. And the unlocks aren't very creative. Nor is the DLC.