Battlefield: Hardline

[Arkaign]

I can't even bring myself to really investigate this game. I sense a low quality product. Its like a spidey sense, and its tingling.

I know you moon, and you would hate this piece of garbage, and rightfully so.

Hopefully it teaches EA a lesson about whoring out major IPs onto third-rate crap. BF4 had a bunch of technical glitches/issues, but beyond those at least BF4 was a GOOD game. The issues derailed BF franchise from a meteoric rise, and now Hardline will be a stain on the brand.

Maybe BF5 or BC3 can salvage it and bring it where it needs to be.

 

[BrightCandle]

Hopefully it teaches EA a lesson about whoring out major IPs onto third-rate crap. BF4 had a bunch of technical glitches/issues, but beyond those at least BF4 was a GOOD game. The issues derailed BF franchise from a meteoric rise, and now Hardline will be a stain on the brand.

The frustrastion with BF4 is that there is clearly a good game under a bundle of technical issues that when fixed will be much more enjoyable.

With Hardline the frustration is that there isn't a good game there at all, neither technically nor gameplay wise. Its just a game mode for BF4 and not a very good one.

 

[PricklyPete]

The frustrastion with BF4 is that there is clearly a good game under a bundle of technical issues that when fixed will be much more enjoyable.

With Hardline the frustration is that there isn't a good game there at all, neither technically nor gameplay wise. Its just a game mode for BF4 and not a very good one.

Well I just held off on buying BF4 until recently and stuck with BF3. My friends and I finally moved to BF4 and the game has been running great...especially with the last round of updates (x360).

Battlefront and/or BF5 will probably be my reason for picking up a next-gen console, but I will wait a few months minimum until they get the bugs worked out.

The game is freak'n awesome when functioning properly.

 

[Childs]

I'm saying it's only a 10-15 dlc because it looks like they took BF4, modified a couple of BF4 city maps, changed the skins on the players, and viola! New game. Battlefield:Hardline. Even the name sounds like a dlc or expansion pack.
It definitely doesn't look like it warrants a $70 price tag...

You could say the same for every game in a franchise. In Call of Duty's case, they literally recycle the same level design.

Never got one for pc?

I got one for PC last week, then a few days one for PS4. I did sign up twice, but the first time the servers were slammed so maybe something got screwed up.

 

[maevinj]

You could say the same for every game in a franchise. In Call of Duty's case, they literally recycle the same level design.



I got one for PC last week, then a few days one for PS4. I did sign up twice, but the first time the servers were slammed so maybe something got screwed up.

Yes and that is why I don't buy Call of Duty games.

Does Battlefield Bad Company sound like like a dlc or expansion pack too?

You don't have any legitimate arguments. If multiple games share resources like an engine, it doesn't link them. Do you know how many games came out of the Source engine that look similar because of it? 100s?

BF, like most games, is about new maps, some new modes sometimes, and some refinements. This is taking the tanks/helis out of the equation and creating a different dynamic. If there are enough maps, it will be a game that caters to a subset of BF, if not the entire BF fanbase, with the expansion of more infantry based game fans.

Battlefield: Bad Company 1 wasn't available on PC. Battlefield: Bad Company 2 was. It used a different engine than Battelefield 2142(Which should have been an expansion). And it's not just about sharing the engine. Day of Defeat and TF2 use the source engine, but feel completely different. The look and feel of Battlefield:Hardline is almost exactly like BF4 except with different skins. There's still helicopters in it. Also removing tanks and substituting police cars, armored vehicles is still the same. BF4 has infantry only maps currently. Day of Defeat and TF2 use the source engine, but feel completely different. Listen, I'm not telling you people not to buy, I'm just saying I'm not buying. It looks like an expansion pack at best. If EA still allowed a mod community, somebody would have had this out already.

 

[dremic]

BF4 and Hardline to me are what convinced me BF will never be the same.

Bad company 2 was so good too. How disappointing.

 

[BrightCandle]

I miss the gameplay from Battlefield 2. Since the new era of Battlefield 3 and Bad company 2 I feel a lot of chaos has been added and a lot less strategy is involved. The games gained a huge gallop of call of duty and lost a whole lot of the battlefield essence. They have been heading more this way for a while, and its still a fun(ish) game but its not really battlefield anymore, its just EA Call of Duty.

 

[Childs]

Listen, I'm not telling you people not to buy, I'm just saying I'm not buying. It looks like an expansion pack at best. If EA still allowed a mod community, somebody would have had this out already.

If the whole game was literally what we got in the beta, and nothing more, than thats one thing, but its just one map with two modes. Saying 2142 is an expansion kinda implies the term is used a little too liberally IMO. By that kind of thinking every iterative game is an expansion, cause some dude in his basement with an SDK and enough time can do similar things. Like umm...Desert Combat vs BF2.

If the single player really sucks, then thats a different story. I will reserve judgement though, based the fact that there is single player and the studio making it traditionally made single player focused games. Its not like I was wow'd by the beta either. The beta doesn't really show anything, so I'm kinda surprised people have such a strong opinion one way or the other.

 

[sze5003]

If the whole game was literally what we got in the beta, and nothing more, than thats one thing, but its just one map with two modes. Saying 2142 is an expansion kinda implies the term is used a little too liberally IMO. By that kind of thinking every iterative game is an expansion, cause some dude in his basement with an SDK and enough time can do similar things. Like umm...Desert Combat vs BF2.

If the single player really sucks, then thats a different story. I will reserve judgement though, based the fact that there is single player and the studio making it traditionally made single player focused games. Its not like I was wow'd by the beta either. The beta doesn't really show anything, so I'm kinda surprised people have such a strong opinion one way or the other.

The video on single player states there are different ways to do each mission which is kind of cool. I wonder how that will be implemented. At least I'm more interested in that aspect than the online part so far.

 

[Childs]

The video on single player states there are different ways to do each mission which is kind of cool. I wonder how that will be implemented. At least I'm more interested in that aspect than the online part so far.

Maybe it will be like Far Cry 3. I'm more interested in the single player as well, since I can't bring myself to play BF multiplayer. That premium package sure went to waste...I was tired of BF4 after the first DLC.

 

[shadow9d9]

I miss the gameplay from Battlefield 2. Since the new era of Battlefield 3 and Bad company 2 I feel a lot of chaos has been added and a lot less strategy is involved. The games gained a huge gallop of call of duty and lost a whole lot of the battlefield essence. They have been heading more this way for a while, and its still a fun(ish) game but its not really battlefield anymore, its just EA Call of Duty.

Less strategy in what way? It adds in my book. You now can swim underwater, which adds strategy. You now can take down helicopters as infantry. You now can affect change in some levels(levolution), have more ways to modify your weapons. You have to actually strategically revive people, because if they die again, you can't just spam them back to life like in previous games. You have to charge your paddle if you want them to get more than 20 health. This timing has to be taken into consideration when reviving. There are way more anti tank weapons to choose from. Way more strategy. Shall I continue?

 

[shadow9d9]

Yes and that is why I don't buy Call of Duty games.


Battlefield: Bad Company 1 wasn't available on PC. Battlefield: Bad Company 2 was. It used a different engine than Battelefield 2142(Which should have been an expansion). And it's not just about sharing the engine. Day of Defeat and TF2 use the source engine, but feel completely different. The look and feel of Battlefield:Hardline is almost exactly like BF4 except with different skins. There's still helicopters in it. Also removing tanks and substituting police cars, armored vehicles is still the same. BF4 has infantry only maps currently. Day of Defeat and TF2 use the source engine, but feel completely different. Listen, I'm not telling you people not to buy, I'm just saying I'm not buying. It looks like an expansion pack at best. If EA still allowed a mod community, somebody would have had this out already.

The look and feel of a game that uses the same engine... Do you not realize what you are saying? Of course it LOOKS and FEELS like a game of the same engine(a relatively new engine)!

Day of Defeat and TF2 are not in the same series. Try comparing games that use the Source engine and their sequels/spinoffs. Try Counter-Strike Source and Global Offense. Left for Dead 1/2. Portal 1/2. They all "feel" the same and look the same. That doesn't make them all DLC/Mods.

You have no argument. No one cares if you buy the game or not, but your argument is nonexistent.

The game is catering to mostly infantry, which was sorely neglected in BF4. This changes the dynamics of the game. Period. If you want to look at superficial details, then yes, it shares the same engine. The game itself has a completely shifted focus and that changes the gameplay.

Should all sequels/spinoffs be priced at $10? How about Starcraft 2's expansions? Standalone expansions? You act like this is something unique to this game when it is all over the place and completely accepted by gamers. If you have an argument, it has to be used to broadly cover the whole spectrum. You can't single this out as special when it isn't.

 

[TeknoBug]

Buying Bad Company 1 was the very reason why I got the XBox 360, I was that big of a BF fan back then, today I wouldn't think twice about Hardline, what a horribly thought out game. Both BC1 and BC2 were among the most fun I've had in a BF game since BF1942/Desert Combat.

 

[shadow9d9]

Buying Bad Company 1 was the very reason why I got the XBox 360, I was that big of a BF fan back then, today I wouldn't think twice about Hardline, what a horribly thought out game. Both BC1 and BC2 were among the most fun I've had in a BF game since BF1942/Desert Combat.

Playing a FPS with a controller...I won't comment.

As for BC2, the maps were miniscule. It was a cute distraction and knifing was like a mini game... Helis were also overpowered. It was a mini BF. BF2 was the best. 2142 was decent, but Titans were laggy and repetitive. BF4 has the most refinements, looks the best, and keeps VOIP in game for everyone, which BF3 lacked.

 

[TeknoBug]

Playing a FPS with a controller...I won't comment.

As for BC2, the maps were miniscule. It was a cute distraction and knifing was like a mini game... Helis were also overpowered. It was a mini BF. BF2 was the best. 2142 was decent, but Titans were laggy and repetitive. BF4 has the most refinements, looks the best, and keeps VOIP in game for everyone, which BF3 lacked.

Yes I don't like using a controller for FPS games but that was the only way to access BC1.

Maps in BC2 were HUGE and probably some of the biggest in any BF game, even some of the BC1 maps were and helis in BF3 were more powerful than BC2's, even BC2: Vietnam's heli was worse (strafing nonstop in the poorly designed Vietnam maps), I never had issues with the BC2 heli. And again about VOIP, playing BF4 since last November when it came out, I only have heard ONE person talk on VOIP and I had to respond by saying "you're the first person I've heard talk on this thing" and someone else said the same thing, most servers I join advertises Vent or TS3 servers to join.

For me BF2 was OK, I stayed off 64 player maps because of jets, 32 player maps were the sweet spot and Daqing Oilfields was my favorite to play on.

 

[shadow9d9]

Yes I don't like using a controller for FPS games but that was the only way to access BC1.

Maps in BC2 were HUGE and probably some of the biggest in any BF game, even some of the BC1 maps were and helis in BF3 were more powerful than BC2's, even BC2: Vietnam's heli was worse (strafing nonstop in the poorly designed Vietnam maps), I never had issues with the BC2 heli. And again about VOIP, playing BF4 since last November when it came out, I only have heard ONE person talk on VOIP and I had to respond by saying "you're the first person I've heard talk on this thing" and someone else said the same thing, most servers I join advertises Vent or TS3 servers to join.

For me BF2 was OK, I stayed off 64 player maps because of jets, 32 player maps were the sweet spot and Daqing Oilfields was my favorite to play on.

I remember BC2 to be tiny maps with 3 bases max.

Yes, BF3 helis were outrageous. That, and without voip, made the game awful.

So, you are saying that you have chosen to remain silent, and then you are surprised that other people are silent too? Seriously?

I regularly talk, and once I do, not only do other people start talking, but the ones that don't talk back, still respond. If I point someone to their left, they will look. If I tell them to stop moving so I can repair, they will stop. Cooperation and teamwork will not be fed to you. Take initiative.

" most servers I join advertises Vent or TS3 servers to join."- This creates the haves and the have nots, in games without built in voip. The ones that go OUT of the game, log in, connect, etc, will have a HUGE advantage over casual gamers. By building it into the game, other players benefit(as explained above) and have an equal opportunity. Additionally, TS and other outside voice apps, break the game rules, which is squad only based communication. It is made like that for a reason. Just gives the people using the outside app an even BIGGER advantage over the common player. What do you expect people that join random servers to do? Look up a new IP every time and go out of game, fumble around, and connect? Not reasonable or fair or level.

48 player maps seem to be the sweet spot for BF4.