The "Sony Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I love Battlefield games. I really do. I used to love Call of Duty, at least I did when Modern Warfare came out. CoD:MW was the reason I bought an Xbox 360. I played that game into the ground, and then did the same with Modern Warfare 2. However things started to feel a little stale and so I found myself trying Battlefield Bad Company 2 and Battlefield 1943. I wouldn’t say I fell in love with them straight away, as I struggled with some of the differences (such as the relatively huge maps). However I did grow to love them, even so far as actually enjoying the campaign in BC2.
Then Battlefield 3 came along and blew my mind. The campaign was ok-ish but it was the multiplayer that I was really after. By the time BF3 came out I was well into the bigger maps, the destructible environments, the vehicles and the phrase “PTFO!!”. There was a quorum of regular Battlefield players with whom I would regularly meet up with online, and many an hour was lost playing Conquest and Rush.
The maps were brilliant too. From the open world of Kharg Island and Caspian Border to the rat runs in Operation Metro and Grand Bazaar. And that’s not even mentioning my favourite map of the lot, Damavand Peak, which had a good balance of long, mid and close quarters play, a mixture of vehicles and that ‘Only In Battlefield’ moment when you jumped off the cliff to get to the next base in Rush. The exhilaration was intoxicating.
Things weren’t always smooth, though. You see EA messed up with the servers. Players could rent/buy their own team servers and play by their rules, which is fine. However EA massively cut the number of standard servers available, making it very tricky to find a balanced game. Servers also became unreliable, often resulting in game crashes and a lot of rebooting. Players were told to save the servers they liked as favourites, as if trial and error was an acceptable approach to finding a multiplayer game. EA did not comment on server reliability, though.
After several weeks/months the problems were rectified. EA started to provide more of their own servers, meaning it was easier to find a game that wasn’t heavily biased towards the owners (I remember playing on one, Caspian Border only server where the rule was basically ‘no locking onto aircraft’ and the owners just flew around in helicopters the whole time. I got kicked and banned, eventually, from that one >:¬)). They also improved server reliability, so players like me could once again play unfettered.
The DLC was also pretty good. DICE seemed to e trying some new things which, although not to everyone’s tastes, was refreshing. Close Quarters had us running around offices, hotels and warehouses in a sort of Call of Duty kind of way. A lot of people argued that it wasn’t Battlefield, but I kind of liked it. Armored Kill was more but not solely vehicle based, and End Game was more like tradition DLC with a few new twists. Over the course of two years it managed to keep feeling fresh, and that’s why I kept going back to it.
So it was no surprise to find myself eagerly anticipating the arrival of Battlefield 4. Unfortunately it is my birthday just after the release date of all BF games, so in this case (like all cases) I had to wait until 6th November to play the game. I am nearly 40 by the way. =)
What was extra special was that my wife had also bought me a Playstation 4. Well when I say that it was on pre-order, and wasn’t due until the beginning of December. It didn’t matter though as my copy of BF4 was a PS3 version, so I could play it until the console arrived.
Things started off well. Again the campaign was ok-ish but I wanted the multiplayer, and the new maps were ace. I was back in love with Battlefield, even though a lot of my buddies had switched over to the latest gen console. I heard stories about server issues and something called ‘rubber banding’ but it wasn’t affecting me. I was getting used to the new maps, levelling up and counting down the days until my PS4 arrived.
And then it did. ^_^
After upgrading my copy of BF4 to a PS4 version, and with nervous anticipation, I started to play some 64 player online matches. However rather than the “Hell yeah, this is what I’m talking about” I was expecting instead it was more like “Whoa, what the hell is going on here?!?!”. The lag was terrible and I became instantly aware of what rubber-banding was. I would spawn onto a map and, without pushing a button, find myself moving across in a stuttering fashion. Given that it was happening 90% of the time I learnt to put up with it a bit, otherwise I wouldn’t get a game. Sometimes, though, it would be unplayable. I can recall seemingly unloading a full clip into someone without doing them one point of damage.
I started rage quitting, which is not something I have done before.
Things got worse with the DLC, too. China Rising should have been met with a celebration, given the audacious scale being attempted by DICE. Instead the maps became so bad that it wasn’t even worth looking for a game on them, simply because of the rubber-banding. Second Assault was better but far from perfect.
I could feel my resentment towards EA and Battlefield growing. The game plus the premium code meant that I had paid a lot of money for this s**t. People were complaining, yet nothing was being done to rectify the problem. We got a ‘Player Recognition’ month in February instead of a fix and a sorry. I note two things here: 1) The maps were still broken, and 2) February is the shortest month of the year. Just sayin’.
What I really wanted was for EA and DICE to hold their hands up and say “Look, we effed up and we’re sorry. We understand your frustration and we are desperately trying to fix things. Please accept [insert real world recompense here] as a token of gratitude for your patience”. But no, we get some bonus packs and perks on a game we cannot play. Way to please a crowd, guys.
Things have improved more recently though. EA have reintroduced rent-a-servers but have a good balance of DICE run ones too. Server stability has also greatly improved, to the point where I would guess that less than 5% of the games I play experience any lag. It’s not perfect but it is acceptable. I am also in a platoon with some other good players, so some mates and I can now chew the fat while we run around shooting baddies. It’s exactly what a Battlefield game should be: exciting and fun.
So I find myself falling in love with the series again. I am looking forward to the new DLC again, and I am anticipating the new Battlefield release again. Hardline… it’s about cops and robbers, right? Sounds a bit different, but it could be good. I already know I’ll be on my 40th birthday list
Then Battlefield 3 came along and blew my mind. The campaign was ok-ish but it was the multiplayer that I was really after. By the time BF3 came out I was well into the bigger maps, the destructible environments, the vehicles and the phrase “PTFO!!”. There was a quorum of regular Battlefield players with whom I would regularly meet up with online, and many an hour was lost playing Conquest and Rush.
The maps were brilliant too. From the open world of Kharg Island and Caspian Border to the rat runs in Operation Metro and Grand Bazaar. And that’s not even mentioning my favourite map of the lot, Damavand Peak, which had a good balance of long, mid and close quarters play, a mixture of vehicles and that ‘Only In Battlefield’ moment when you jumped off the cliff to get to the next base in Rush. The exhilaration was intoxicating.
Things weren’t always smooth, though. You see EA messed up with the servers. Players could rent/buy their own team servers and play by their rules, which is fine. However EA massively cut the number of standard servers available, making it very tricky to find a balanced game. Servers also became unreliable, often resulting in game crashes and a lot of rebooting. Players were told to save the servers they liked as favourites, as if trial and error was an acceptable approach to finding a multiplayer game. EA did not comment on server reliability, though.
After several weeks/months the problems were rectified. EA started to provide more of their own servers, meaning it was easier to find a game that wasn’t heavily biased towards the owners (I remember playing on one, Caspian Border only server where the rule was basically ‘no locking onto aircraft’ and the owners just flew around in helicopters the whole time. I got kicked and banned, eventually, from that one >:¬)). They also improved server reliability, so players like me could once again play unfettered.
The DLC was also pretty good. DICE seemed to e trying some new things which, although not to everyone’s tastes, was refreshing. Close Quarters had us running around offices, hotels and warehouses in a sort of Call of Duty kind of way. A lot of people argued that it wasn’t Battlefield, but I kind of liked it. Armored Kill was more but not solely vehicle based, and End Game was more like tradition DLC with a few new twists. Over the course of two years it managed to keep feeling fresh, and that’s why I kept going back to it.
So it was no surprise to find myself eagerly anticipating the arrival of Battlefield 4. Unfortunately it is my birthday just after the release date of all BF games, so in this case (like all cases) I had to wait until 6th November to play the game. I am nearly 40 by the way. =)
What was extra special was that my wife had also bought me a Playstation 4. Well when I say that it was on pre-order, and wasn’t due until the beginning of December. It didn’t matter though as my copy of BF4 was a PS3 version, so I could play it until the console arrived.
Things started off well. Again the campaign was ok-ish but I wanted the multiplayer, and the new maps were ace. I was back in love with Battlefield, even though a lot of my buddies had switched over to the latest gen console. I heard stories about server issues and something called ‘rubber banding’ but it wasn’t affecting me. I was getting used to the new maps, levelling up and counting down the days until my PS4 arrived.
And then it did. ^_^
After upgrading my copy of BF4 to a PS4 version, and with nervous anticipation, I started to play some 64 player online matches. However rather than the “Hell yeah, this is what I’m talking about” I was expecting instead it was more like “Whoa, what the hell is going on here?!?!”. The lag was terrible and I became instantly aware of what rubber-banding was. I would spawn onto a map and, without pushing a button, find myself moving across in a stuttering fashion. Given that it was happening 90% of the time I learnt to put up with it a bit, otherwise I wouldn’t get a game. Sometimes, though, it would be unplayable. I can recall seemingly unloading a full clip into someone without doing them one point of damage.
I started rage quitting, which is not something I have done before.
Things got worse with the DLC, too. China Rising should have been met with a celebration, given the audacious scale being attempted by DICE. Instead the maps became so bad that it wasn’t even worth looking for a game on them, simply because of the rubber-banding. Second Assault was better but far from perfect.
I could feel my resentment towards EA and Battlefield growing. The game plus the premium code meant that I had paid a lot of money for this s**t. People were complaining, yet nothing was being done to rectify the problem. We got a ‘Player Recognition’ month in February instead of a fix and a sorry. I note two things here: 1) The maps were still broken, and 2) February is the shortest month of the year. Just sayin’.
What I really wanted was for EA and DICE to hold their hands up and say “Look, we effed up and we’re sorry. We understand your frustration and we are desperately trying to fix things. Please accept [insert real world recompense here] as a token of gratitude for your patience”. But no, we get some bonus packs and perks on a game we cannot play. Way to please a crowd, guys.
Things have improved more recently though. EA have reintroduced rent-a-servers but have a good balance of DICE run ones too. Server stability has also greatly improved, to the point where I would guess that less than 5% of the games I play experience any lag. It’s not perfect but it is acceptable. I am also in a platoon with some other good players, so some mates and I can now chew the fat while we run around shooting baddies. It’s exactly what a Battlefield game should be: exciting and fun.
So I find myself falling in love with the series again. I am looking forward to the new DLC again, and I am anticipating the new Battlefield release again. Hardline… it’s about cops and robbers, right? Sounds a bit different, but it could be good. I already know I’ll be on my 40th birthday list
chasfh wrote:
I think in truth that the issue is simply the law in most countries still sees "just a game" rather that looking at the problem as a whole, where a multi-billion £ industry is actually taking advantage of its customer base.
True, and I think the 'taking advantage' will get worse before it gets better.
Probably the best way to register your dismay is with your wallet, that is until the industry starts sorting itself out. Sadly that would take hundreds of thousands of others to do the same to be anything like effective and that's something I don't think will happen.
I think in truth that the issue is simply the law in most countries still sees "just a game" rather that looking at the problem as a whole, where a multi-billion £ industry is actually taking advantage of its customer base.
True, and I think the 'taking advantage' will get worse before it gets better.
Probably the best way to register your dismay is with your wallet, that is until the industry starts sorting itself out. Sadly that would take hundreds of thousands of others to do the same to be anything like effective and that's something I don't think will happen.
altaranga wrote:
I think it's an issue that is creeping more and more into software releases (of which the games industry is part of I suppose). It's too easy for companies to release a broken product, knowing full well that patches released via the internet have become the norm. For these companies it's not a case of "Can we release a broken product?", but it's more like "How much of a broken product can we get away with selling?".
One thing that seems to cloudy the water is the idea of what rights you have as a consumer. I own a BF4 disc, and that is then considered 'goods' in the eye of the law (and so has one set of rights behind it). However the bit that was broken was the multiplayer, which I believe is seen as a 'service' instead (and so has another set of rights to consider). It's all blimmin confusing that's for sure, although I guess if someone had figured out a way for us all to get our money back they would have done so already.
That's an interesting point, which is probably just compounded by the fact that when you buy a game, you don't actually "own" it, you simply purchased the "right to play" in basic terms, according to the EULA.
Surely if a company providing either goods or services (or both, in the case of games devs) want their own EULA to be in place, and for us as consumers to agree to it, then we are equally entitled to demand and to expect a reasonable level of service and quality of goods under the terms of that same agreement. If I buy the right to play, then let me do so, fully and completely, because that's what I paid for.
If my electric supplier failed to provide an adequate service for three months, I doubt they'd be in business long...
I think in truth that the issue is simply the law in most countries still sees "just a game" rather that looking at the problem as a whole, where a multi-billion £ industry is actually taking advantage of it's customer base.
I think it's an issue that is creeping more and more into software releases (of which the games industry is part of I suppose). It's too easy for companies to release a broken product, knowing full well that patches released via the internet have become the norm. For these companies it's not a case of "Can we release a broken product?", but it's more like "How much of a broken product can we get away with selling?".
One thing that seems to cloudy the water is the idea of what rights you have as a consumer. I own a BF4 disc, and that is then considered 'goods' in the eye of the law (and so has one set of rights behind it). However the bit that was broken was the multiplayer, which I believe is seen as a 'service' instead (and so has another set of rights to consider). It's all blimmin confusing that's for sure, although I guess if someone had figured out a way for us all to get our money back they would have done so already.
That's an interesting point, which is probably just compounded by the fact that when you buy a game, you don't actually "own" it, you simply purchased the "right to play" in basic terms, according to the EULA.
Surely if a company providing either goods or services (or both, in the case of games devs) want their own EULA to be in place, and for us as consumers to agree to it, then we are equally entitled to demand and to expect a reasonable level of service and quality of goods under the terms of that same agreement. If I buy the right to play, then let me do so, fully and completely, because that's what I paid for.
If my electric supplier failed to provide an adequate service for three months, I doubt they'd be in business long...
I think in truth that the issue is simply the law in most countries still sees "just a game" rather that looking at the problem as a whole, where a multi-billion £ industry is actually taking advantage of it's customer base.
chasfh wrote:
[Why is it that in general we seem to believe different rules apply to games, rather than making the same demands we would of other industries? I've never accepted a sofa with an arm missing, or a cooker that only works on a Wednesday afternoon providing it's a full moon and the month begins with the letter J.
I think it's an issue that is creeping more and more into software releases (of which the games industry is part of I suppose). It's too easy for companies to release a broken product, knowing full well that patches released via the internet have become the norm. For these companies it's not a case of "Can we release a broken product?", but it's more like "How much of a broken product can we get away with selling?".
One thing that seems to cloudy the water is the idea of what rights you have as a consumer. I own a BF4 disc, and that is then considered 'goods' in the eye of the law (and so has one set of rights behind it). However the bit that was broken was the multiplayer, which I believe is seen as a 'service' instead (and so has another set of rights to consider). It's all blimmin confusing that's for sure, although I guess if someone had figured out a way for us all to get our money back they would have done so already.
[Why is it that in general we seem to believe different rules apply to games, rather than making the same demands we would of other industries? I've never accepted a sofa with an arm missing, or a cooker that only works on a Wednesday afternoon providing it's a full moon and the month begins with the letter J.
I think it's an issue that is creeping more and more into software releases (of which the games industry is part of I suppose). It's too easy for companies to release a broken product, knowing full well that patches released via the internet have become the norm. For these companies it's not a case of "Can we release a broken product?", but it's more like "How much of a broken product can we get away with selling?".
One thing that seems to cloudy the water is the idea of what rights you have as a consumer. I own a BF4 disc, and that is then considered 'goods' in the eye of the law (and so has one set of rights behind it). However the bit that was broken was the multiplayer, which I believe is seen as a 'service' instead (and so has another set of rights to consider). It's all blimmin confusing that's for sure, although I guess if someone had figured out a way for us all to get our money back they would have done so already.
DL wrote:
Way to go EA ... EA lawsuits
Wholeheartedly agree chas :¬)
It's not that I expect every game to be perfect on day of release, that would be an unrealistic demand if you're playing on PC. Hardware, drivers, OS, all of it updates several times a year, and there's a huge variety of configurations out there. Some bugs are to be expected.
However, equally a PC gamer who invests in a product from a trusted manufacturer should be able to expect that manufacturer to support their product utterly, and any and all fixes should be implemented rapidly. A month is too long, three months an insult, over a year just downright rude.
Console gamers, however, should be entitled to working games from the word go. The hardware doesn't change, and the "updates" are minimal and mostly about adding content and accessibility to the UI, so pre-release development and quality control should eliminate ALL issues. A broken console game is inexcusable.
...Unless said company is just in it for the quick buck...
Why is it that in general we seem to believe different rules apply to games, rather than making the same demands we would of other industries? I've never accepted a sofa with an arm missing, or a cooker that only works on a Wednesday afternoon providing it's a full moon and the month begins with the letter J.
I wouldn't pay for such an item, then sit and swear about it for six months while I waited for it to be fixed, and I certainly wouldn't be content for my neighbour to come round with a spanner and a hammer to sort it out for me (user-made patches/ fixes/ workarounds do NOT release the developer from responsibility).
Way to go EA ... EA lawsuits
Wholeheartedly agree chas :¬)
It's not that I expect every game to be perfect on day of release, that would be an unrealistic demand if you're playing on PC. Hardware, drivers, OS, all of it updates several times a year, and there's a huge variety of configurations out there. Some bugs are to be expected.
However, equally a PC gamer who invests in a product from a trusted manufacturer should be able to expect that manufacturer to support their product utterly, and any and all fixes should be implemented rapidly. A month is too long, three months an insult, over a year just downright rude.
Console gamers, however, should be entitled to working games from the word go. The hardware doesn't change, and the "updates" are minimal and mostly about adding content and accessibility to the UI, so pre-release development and quality control should eliminate ALL issues. A broken console game is inexcusable.
...Unless said company is just in it for the quick buck...
Why is it that in general we seem to believe different rules apply to games, rather than making the same demands we would of other industries? I've never accepted a sofa with an arm missing, or a cooker that only works on a Wednesday afternoon providing it's a full moon and the month begins with the letter J.
I wouldn't pay for such an item, then sit and swear about it for six months while I waited for it to be fixed, and I certainly wouldn't be content for my neighbour to come round with a spanner and a hammer to sort it out for me (user-made patches/ fixes/ workarounds do NOT release the developer from responsibility).
Yup... EA. Worst customer service ever...
The whole "It'll get fixed eventually" attitude is apparent in pretty much all of their games, along with the absolute certainty that regardless of just how broken the games are, they'll still sell.
Take the Sims. My wife loves the Sims 3, and over the course of a few years she must have spent in excess of £200 buying all of the expansions and addons for it, not to mention the little "micro- transactions" for in-game content.
Like every other Sims player out there, she accepts that the game is fundamentally flawed, she accepts the fact that it will most likely crash every two hours or so, that on occasions textures won't load or areas will be inaccessible, or that three weeks worth of game play will be lost because of a corrupted save. She also accepts the fact that problems introduced by one expansion won't actually get fixed until the next one is released.
Sims 4 is due later this year. I am under instruction to build her a PC that will handle it, because she wants it despite all of the issues in both Sims 2 and Sims 3.
And guess what? The issues will still be there in Sims 4.
Just try sending EA a technical query. Wait 72 hours for a response, only to receive their standard formatted email. No help.
I have zero respect for them.
The whole "It'll get fixed eventually" attitude is apparent in pretty much all of their games, along with the absolute certainty that regardless of just how broken the games are, they'll still sell.
Take the Sims. My wife loves the Sims 3, and over the course of a few years she must have spent in excess of £200 buying all of the expansions and addons for it, not to mention the little "micro- transactions" for in-game content.
Like every other Sims player out there, she accepts that the game is fundamentally flawed, she accepts the fact that it will most likely crash every two hours or so, that on occasions textures won't load or areas will be inaccessible, or that three weeks worth of game play will be lost because of a corrupted save. She also accepts the fact that problems introduced by one expansion won't actually get fixed until the next one is released.
Sims 4 is due later this year. I am under instruction to build her a PC that will handle it, because she wants it despite all of the issues in both Sims 2 and Sims 3.
And guess what? The issues will still be there in Sims 4.
Just try sending EA a technical query. Wait 72 hours for a response, only to receive their standard formatted email. No help.
I have zero respect for them.
altaranga wrote:
Apologies for my ramblings. This is something I've wanted to write for a while, and here seemed as good a place as any to post it.
No problems at all altaranga ... your 'ramblings' pretty much match mine with exactly the same games and experiences. One difference though, I got so feed up at the end of BF3 MP, with the massive totals required between Bird levels, that the game just lost any interest I might have had to continue with BF4. My son plays BF4 constantly and doesn't seem to have had many problems connection wise, just the usual 'how can you shoot me with a pistol from a mile away' problems ;¬) However, he didn't really experience BF3 and so, being fresh, had every chance to enjoy BF4. We both play PC versions though.
Apologies for my ramblings. This is something I've wanted to write for a while, and here seemed as good a place as any to post it.
No problems at all altaranga ... your 'ramblings' pretty much match mine with exactly the same games and experiences. One difference though, I got so feed up at the end of BF3 MP, with the massive totals required between Bird levels, that the game just lost any interest I might have had to continue with BF4. My son plays BF4 constantly and doesn't seem to have had many problems connection wise, just the usual 'how can you shoot me with a pistol from a mile away' problems ;¬) However, he didn't really experience BF3 and so, being fresh, had every chance to enjoy BF4. We both play PC versions though.
Apologies for my ramblings. This is something I've wanted to write for a while, and here seemed as good a place as any to post it.
I love Battlefield games. I really do. I used to love Call of Duty, at least I did when Modern Warfare came out. CoD:MW was the reason I bought an Xbox 360. I played that game into the ground, and then did the same with Modern Warfare 2. However things started to feel a little stale and so I found myself trying Battlefield Bad Company 2 and Battlefield 1943. I wouldn’t say I fell in love with them straight away, as I struggled with some of the differences (such as the relatively huge maps). However I did grow to love them, even so far as actually enjoying the campaign in BC2.
Then Battlefield 3 came along and blew my mind. The campaign was ok-ish but it was the multiplayer that I was really after. By the time BF3 came out I was well into the bigger maps, the destructible environments, the vehicles and the phrase “PTFO!!”. There was a quorum of regular Battlefield players with whom I would regularly meet up with online, and many an hour was lost playing Conquest and Rush.
The maps were brilliant too. From the open world of Kharg Island and Caspian Border to the rat runs in Operation Metro and Grand Bazaar. And that’s not even mentioning my favourite map of the lot, Damavand Peak, which had a good balance of long, mid and close quarters play, a mixture of vehicles and that ‘Only In Battlefield’ moment when you jumped off the cliff to get to the next base in Rush. The exhilaration was intoxicating.
Things weren’t always smooth, though. You see EA messed up with the servers. Players could rent/buy their own team servers and play by their rules, which is fine. However EA massively cut the number of standard servers available, making it very tricky to find a balanced game. Servers also became unreliable, often resulting in game crashes and a lot of rebooting. Players were told to save the servers they liked as favourites, as if trial and error was an acceptable approach to finding a multiplayer game. EA did not comment on server reliability, though.
After several weeks/months the problems were rectified. EA started to provide more of their own servers, meaning it was easier to find a game that wasn’t heavily biased towards the owners (I remember playing on one, Caspian Border only server where the rule was basically ‘no locking onto aircraft’ and the owners just flew around in helicopters the whole time. I got kicked and banned, eventually, from that one >:¬)). They also improved server reliability, so players like me could once again play unfettered.
The DLC was also pretty good. DICE seemed to e trying some new things which, although not to everyone’s tastes, was refreshing. Close Quarters had us running around offices, hotels and warehouses in a sort of Call of Duty kind of way. A lot of people argued that it wasn’t Battlefield, but I kind of liked it. Armored Kill was more but not solely vehicle based, and End Game was more like tradition DLC with a few new twists. Over the course of two years it managed to keep feeling fresh, and that’s why I kept going back to it.
So it was no surprise to find myself eagerly anticipating the arrival of Battlefield 4. Unfortunately it is my birthday just after the release date of all BF games, so in this case (like all cases) I had to wait until 6th November to play the game. I am nearly 40 by the way. =)
What was extra special was that my wife had also bought me a Playstation 4. Well when I say that it was on pre-order, and wasn’t due until the beginning of December. It didn’t matter though as my copy of BF4 was a PS3 version, so I could play it until the console arrived.
Things started off well. Again the campaign was ok-ish but I wanted the multiplayer, and the new maps were ace. I was back in love with Battlefield, even though a lot of my buddies had switched over to the latest gen console. I heard stories about server issues and something called ‘rubber banding’ but it wasn’t affecting me. I was getting used to the new maps, levelling up and counting down the days until my PS4 arrived.
And then it did. ^_^
After upgrading my copy of BF4 to a PS4 version, and with nervous anticipation, I started to play some 64 player online matches. However rather than the “Hell yeah, this is what I’m talking about” I was expecting instead it was more like “Whoa, what the hell is going on here?!?!”. The lag was terrible and I became instantly aware of what rubber-banding was. I would spawn onto a map and, without pushing a button, find myself moving across in a stuttering fashion. Given that it was happening 90% of the time I learnt to put up with it a bit, otherwise I wouldn’t get a game. Sometimes, though, it would be unplayable. I can recall seemingly unloading a full clip into someone without doing them one point of damage.
I started rage quitting, which is not something I have done before.
Things got worse with the DLC, too. China Rising should have been met with a celebration, given the audacious scale being attempted by DICE. Instead the maps became so bad that it wasn’t even worth looking for a game on them, simply because of the rubber-banding. Second Assault was better but far from perfect.
I could feel my resentment towards EA and Battlefield growing. The game plus the premium code meant that I had paid a lot of money for this s**t. People were complaining, yet nothing was being done to rectify the problem. We got a ‘Player Recognition’ month in February instead of a fix and a sorry. I note two things here: 1) The maps were still broken, and 2) February is the shortest month of the year. Just sayin’.
What I really wanted was for EA and DICE to hold their hands up and say “Look, we effed up and we’re sorry. We understand your frustration and we are desperately trying to fix things. Please accept [insert real world recompense here] as a token of gratitude for your patience”. But no, we get some bonus packs and perks on a game we cannot play. Way to please a crowd, guys.
Things have improved more recently though. EA have reintroduced rent-a-servers but have a good balance of DICE run ones too. Server stability has also greatly improved, to the point where I would guess that less than 5% of the games I play experience any lag. It’s not perfect but it is acceptable. I am also in a platoon with some other good players, so some mates and I can now chew the fat while we run around shooting baddies. It’s exactly what a Battlefield game should be: exciting and fun.
So I find myself falling in love with the series again. I am looking forward to the new DLC again, and I am anticipating the new Battlefield release again. Hardline… it’s about cops and robbers, right? Sounds a bit different, but it could be good. I already know I’ll be on my 40th birthday list
Then Battlefield 3 came along and blew my mind. The campaign was ok-ish but it was the multiplayer that I was really after. By the time BF3 came out I was well into the bigger maps, the destructible environments, the vehicles and the phrase “PTFO!!”. There was a quorum of regular Battlefield players with whom I would regularly meet up with online, and many an hour was lost playing Conquest and Rush.
The maps were brilliant too. From the open world of Kharg Island and Caspian Border to the rat runs in Operation Metro and Grand Bazaar. And that’s not even mentioning my favourite map of the lot, Damavand Peak, which had a good balance of long, mid and close quarters play, a mixture of vehicles and that ‘Only In Battlefield’ moment when you jumped off the cliff to get to the next base in Rush. The exhilaration was intoxicating.
Things weren’t always smooth, though. You see EA messed up with the servers. Players could rent/buy their own team servers and play by their rules, which is fine. However EA massively cut the number of standard servers available, making it very tricky to find a balanced game. Servers also became unreliable, often resulting in game crashes and a lot of rebooting. Players were told to save the servers they liked as favourites, as if trial and error was an acceptable approach to finding a multiplayer game. EA did not comment on server reliability, though.
After several weeks/months the problems were rectified. EA started to provide more of their own servers, meaning it was easier to find a game that wasn’t heavily biased towards the owners (I remember playing on one, Caspian Border only server where the rule was basically ‘no locking onto aircraft’ and the owners just flew around in helicopters the whole time. I got kicked and banned, eventually, from that one >:¬)). They also improved server reliability, so players like me could once again play unfettered.
The DLC was also pretty good. DICE seemed to e trying some new things which, although not to everyone’s tastes, was refreshing. Close Quarters had us running around offices, hotels and warehouses in a sort of Call of Duty kind of way. A lot of people argued that it wasn’t Battlefield, but I kind of liked it. Armored Kill was more but not solely vehicle based, and End Game was more like tradition DLC with a few new twists. Over the course of two years it managed to keep feeling fresh, and that’s why I kept going back to it.
So it was no surprise to find myself eagerly anticipating the arrival of Battlefield 4. Unfortunately it is my birthday just after the release date of all BF games, so in this case (like all cases) I had to wait until 6th November to play the game. I am nearly 40 by the way. =)
What was extra special was that my wife had also bought me a Playstation 4. Well when I say that it was on pre-order, and wasn’t due until the beginning of December. It didn’t matter though as my copy of BF4 was a PS3 version, so I could play it until the console arrived.
Things started off well. Again the campaign was ok-ish but I wanted the multiplayer, and the new maps were ace. I was back in love with Battlefield, even though a lot of my buddies had switched over to the latest gen console. I heard stories about server issues and something called ‘rubber banding’ but it wasn’t affecting me. I was getting used to the new maps, levelling up and counting down the days until my PS4 arrived.
And then it did. ^_^
After upgrading my copy of BF4 to a PS4 version, and with nervous anticipation, I started to play some 64 player online matches. However rather than the “Hell yeah, this is what I’m talking about” I was expecting instead it was more like “Whoa, what the hell is going on here?!?!”. The lag was terrible and I became instantly aware of what rubber-banding was. I would spawn onto a map and, without pushing a button, find myself moving across in a stuttering fashion. Given that it was happening 90% of the time I learnt to put up with it a bit, otherwise I wouldn’t get a game. Sometimes, though, it would be unplayable. I can recall seemingly unloading a full clip into someone without doing them one point of damage.
I started rage quitting, which is not something I have done before.
Things got worse with the DLC, too. China Rising should have been met with a celebration, given the audacious scale being attempted by DICE. Instead the maps became so bad that it wasn’t even worth looking for a game on them, simply because of the rubber-banding. Second Assault was better but far from perfect.
I could feel my resentment towards EA and Battlefield growing. The game plus the premium code meant that I had paid a lot of money for this s**t. People were complaining, yet nothing was being done to rectify the problem. We got a ‘Player Recognition’ month in February instead of a fix and a sorry. I note two things here: 1) The maps were still broken, and 2) February is the shortest month of the year. Just sayin’.
What I really wanted was for EA and DICE to hold their hands up and say “Look, we effed up and we’re sorry. We understand your frustration and we are desperately trying to fix things. Please accept [insert real world recompense here] as a token of gratitude for your patience”. But no, we get some bonus packs and perks on a game we cannot play. Way to please a crowd, guys.
Things have improved more recently though. EA have reintroduced rent-a-servers but have a good balance of DICE run ones too. Server stability has also greatly improved, to the point where I would guess that less than 5% of the games I play experience any lag. It’s not perfect but it is acceptable. I am also in a platoon with some other good players, so some mates and I can now chew the fat while we run around shooting baddies. It’s exactly what a Battlefield game should be: exciting and fun.
So I find myself falling in love with the series again. I am looking forward to the new DLC again, and I am anticipating the new Battlefield release again. Hardline… it’s about cops and robbers, right? Sounds a bit different, but it could be good. I already know I’ll be on my 40th birthday list