walller wrote:well im playing bfbc2 and bf3 just bought it... well i have played cs for very long time but the graphics improvement are very well but i would say 1 thing are you comparing CS HL with BF3 !!!!!!!!!!!
... it isnt that kind of game man .. bfbc2 and bf3 are more good well i see that the graphics improvement is not that good but any way BF4 Freaking TOWERS !!!!! FALLLLLL AND DESTROY !!!!!
There is no "more good well" first of all, and second - no offense but you're exactly Battlefield 4's marketing target. If you think that a falling skyscraper looks awesome, think about it for just a second.. alright, bear with me here:
How does that help anyone and is anything but pointless 10 seconds of eye candy?
In BC1 and 2, you could destroy portions of the buildings to take tactical advantage of it. In Battlefield 3, all that changes thanks to the Frostbite 2 engine which apparently renders better graphics for the price of indestructible buildings with retarded destructible portions. Why would I not want to take down a warehouse and everyone with it but instead want to blast through a concrete 1 floor building that will change the field with little to none.
Also, Graphics improvement? Please, are you really saying that the graphics matter that much as to be a valid point in whether the game is good? If anything, Battlefield seems to depend more on its graphical advantages over other games and less on the squad and teamwork, as well as the ability to *AHEM* voice chat in-game on PC, which is a freaking MUST for a game like this where no one is reading the chat or it's filled with COD kids whining about someone using M16 while they themselves use something of the likes of AEK or M416. Seriously, I wouldn't read it either, not to mention how hidden and stupid it is with that blue background and white text in it.. Worst.. choice of color.. ever.
+ If we have to compare Half-Life or Counter-Strike to BF3, we will have to compare Singleplayer - Multiplayer. In terms of Story, Battlefield has never had the upper hand, sorry to burst your bubble but it's true, same goes for Medal of Honor which didn't have me feeling the game at all. In terms of multiplayer, it obviously excels in the categories it's trying to reach unlike CS which is rather an old-school barebones shooter. But think about it too:
The gameplay in Battlefield 3 turned more into COD than anything, Medal of Honor as well. The hit detection in BC2 may have been partially broken to some's poorer connections but it was never bad. I liked burst firing across the map and calculating how far and how long would I have to keep it up to take down the target.
In CS, it all depends on reaction and speed. The hit detection has always been top notch and the 1-hit headshot with almost any weapon proves how rewarding skill is rather than spraying with a recoilless weapon.
So there you have it. Why do I play Battlefield then rather than HL/CS to all you trolls out there?
I dunno, I just like the game but in no way does it deserve to be treated like it's some god-like achievement of PC gaming. I may sound like a huge fanboy, but where Half-Life, Counter-Strike and pretty much all VALVe games fire, they always hit. It's just how the company is and how it differs from caring about its community. Steam is an incredible distribution software, enough to even get its own console soon (SteamBox/Piston). And not to mention the addition of SDK for every Source game out there to allow players to modify and further increase the lifespan and replayability of a game, not to even mention the custom campaign mods or even Multiplayer mods (a good example - Goldeneye Source, Insurgency, and of course who can forget - GMOD). There's a reason for VALVe to be loved by all and their games to keep getting GOTYs, however "often" they may release, whereas EA won the Worst Company award for a 2nd time now. PEACE ! (to all you TL;DR idiots, save your comment cause I at least provide valid arguments that should be seen at least once and could save you some money if you think about it)
