Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Battlefield 4

1,326 replies to this topic
F4L?
  • F4L?

    Well I'm sorry, Princess.

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Jan 2010
  • None

#541

Posted 16 June 2013 - 09:02 AM

I think the graphics look brilliant for a war shooter,.a heck of a lot better than COD ghosts at least.

nigelhere9901
  • nigelhere9901

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2013

#542

Posted 16 June 2013 - 12:22 PM

The graphics are phenomenal, it was the best looking FPS on E3. Heck, it could even look better than Crysis 3 on release.

Failure
  • Failure

    My life has no meaning

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 11 Apr 2007
  • None

#543

Posted 16 June 2013 - 12:52 PM

QUOTE (gpcguy1 @ Thursday, Jun 13 2013, 20:13)
QUOTE (Daz @ Thursday, Jun 13 2013, 19:37)
QUOTE (VCRules86 @ Thursday, Jun 13 2013, 19:07)
QUOTE (Daz @ Thursday, Jun 13 2013, 18:35)
QUOTE (iNero @ Thursday, Jun 13 2013, 16:50)
-Ammo is magazine-based, not "pool"-based

LAAAAAME

This is fine in realistic games, SOCOM used to do this, so when you reload you cycle through all your mags and end back up with the mag with half ammo in.

This is f*cking annoying for this game though because I often reload instantly and all the time to top up. Unless the weapons have been made so they kill anyone within 2-3 rounds this will get super sh*t real fast.

The rest of the details sound good though, especially pistol while in water, and more cross-class weapons, and less surpression.

Don't top off so often then. I think this is a great idea and wish more games did it. Bullets magically teleporting themselves into other magazines annoys the hell out of me.

That is a stupid way to look at it.

This is a videogame not a simulator.

There needs to be a balance between realism and ease of gameplay, this is something that is f*cking annoying.

I need to top mags off because they are so god damn weak, and with bad connectivity to the server and people not dying when being shot at, I can BARELY get a kill without using 75% of the magazine. So it is important that it refills.

The worst sh*t in the world would be needing a fresh mag and you reload and it has one bullet in it. f*cking moronic. This also then doesnt allow you to see how much overall ammo you have.

So yeah that and the fact there is no kill feed are f*cking STUPID AS BOLLOCKS.

So because there is no more ammo pool again it means this game is a simulator?
BF is going back to it's roots if you don't like it continue to play Call of Duty on the frostbite engine or Bad Company. Those games seem to be dumbed down enough for you.

I agree on this actually. Magazines made Mafia a lot more intense and actually made you pay attention to ammo conservation rather than spamming "R" whenever you've killed a guy.

Whiskey
  • Whiskey

    Homie

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 29 Aug 2011

#544

Posted 16 June 2013 - 01:07 PM

QUOTE (elanman @ Sunday, Jun 16 2013, 12:52)
QUOTE (gpcguy1 @ Thursday, Jun 13 2013, 20:13)
QUOTE (Daz @ Thursday, Jun 13 2013, 19:37)
QUOTE (VCRules86 @ Thursday, Jun 13 2013, 19:07)
QUOTE (Daz @ Thursday, Jun 13 2013, 18:35)
QUOTE (iNero @ Thursday, Jun 13 2013, 16:50)
-Ammo is magazine-based, not "pool"-based

LAAAAAME

This is fine in realistic games, SOCOM used to do this, so when you reload you cycle through all your mags and end back up with the mag with half ammo in.

This is f*cking annoying for this game though because I often reload instantly and all the time to top up. Unless the weapons have been made so they kill anyone within 2-3 rounds this will get super sh*t real fast.

The rest of the details sound good though, especially pistol while in water, and more cross-class weapons, and less surpression.

Don't top off so often then. I think this is a great idea and wish more games did it. Bullets magically teleporting themselves into other magazines annoys the hell out of me.

That is a stupid way to look at it.

This is a videogame not a simulator.

There needs to be a balance between realism and ease of gameplay, this is something that is f*cking annoying.

I need to top mags off because they are so god damn weak, and with bad connectivity to the server and people not dying when being shot at, I can BARELY get a kill without using 75% of the magazine. So it is important that it refills.

The worst sh*t in the world would be needing a fresh mag and you reload and it has one bullet in it. f*cking moronic. This also then doesnt allow you to see how much overall ammo you have.

So yeah that and the fact there is no kill feed are f*cking STUPID AS BOLLOCKS.

So because there is no more ammo pool again it means this game is a simulator?
BF is going back to it's roots if you don't like it continue to play Call of Duty on the frostbite engine or Bad Company. Those games seem to be dumbed down enough for you.

I agree on this actually. Magazines made Mafia a lot more intense and actually made you pay attention to ammo conservation rather than spamming "R" whenever you've killed a guy.

I hate when playing any shooter, you've used about 7-10 rounds to kill someone. Then you press reload and just as you reload some guy comes around and pops you. Such a bad habbit of reloading after every kill.

Cosmic Gypsy
  • Cosmic Gypsy

    It's time for a trip

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#545

Posted 16 June 2013 - 01:24 PM Edited by Cosmic Gypsy, 16 June 2013 - 01:27 PM.

I must admit, Battlefield does seem to have that annoying problem, you have 100% health, you put an entire clip of bullets into someone, they turn around and kill you with 1 bullet and their walking around with 0% health.

Inexcusable, the worst thing is people on the BF forums actually think running around on 0% health makes sense and "balances out the game".

0% health you should just be dead, anything below 10% you should have blurry vision, stumbling about all over the place, injured as your health slowly deteriorates to 0%, at which point you should DIE. Only way you should be able to survive at below 10% health is if a medic chucks you a first aid kit. I don't give a f*ck if really you're walking around with 0.90% health, you should be dead. Any variation of 0% health should = death, or at LEAST a bleed out until a medic comes to your rescue.

But yeah, i can definitely get Daz's opinion, sometimes i put an entire clip into someones back and they don't even die, it's not like i'm missing him either, direct hits all the way, inexcusable no matter what gun you use.

iNero
  • iNero

    Black Tiger Sex Machine

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2012
  • Germany

#546

Posted 16 June 2013 - 01:24 PM

Yes. Mag based reloading makes you play better imo. You have to calculate how many bullets u got keft in the mag and how many you need to kill an enemy with that weapon. And when Im running out of ammo in BF3, I kill more enemies with the last mag bscause I try to hit every shot instead of spraying

arsenal_fan
  • arsenal_fan

    Homeboy

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Apr 2008

#547

Posted 16 June 2013 - 01:35 PM

QUOTE (Cosmic Gypsy @ Sunday, Jun 16 2013, 13:24)
I must admit, Battlefield does seem to have that annoying problem, you have 100% health, you put an entire clip of bullets into someone, they turn around and kill you with 1 bullet and their walking around with 0% health.

Inexcusable, the worst thing is people on the BF forums actually think running around on 0% health makes sense and "balances out the game".

0% health you should just be dead, anything below 10% you should have blurry vision, stumbling about all over the place, injured as your health slowly deteriorates to 0%, at which point you should DIE. Only way you should be able to survive at below 10% health is if a medic chucks you a first aid kit. I don't give a f*ck if really you're walking around with 0.90% health, you should be dead. Any variation of 0% health should = death, or at LEAST a bleed out until a medic comes to your rescue.

But yeah, i can definitely get Daz's opinion, sometimes i put an entire clip into someones back and they don't even die, it's not like i'm missing him either, direct hits all the way, inexcusable no matter what gun you use.

I agree wth you and this is one of the reasons why I played hardcore on BF3, I couldn't stand offloading a clip into someone and them not dying, it completely infuriated me and it is just plain inplausible.


Normal mode you should be able to withstand a couple of bullets but if someone offloads a full clip you die, while hardcore should be whoever hits first gets the kill.



Also if it's only 24 players for the current gen then I'm definitely only getting this for the PS4, the maps look much bigger this time around so 24 players would be pretty dreadful from what I gather.

Cosmic Gypsy
  • Cosmic Gypsy

    It's time for a trip

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#548

Posted 16 June 2013 - 01:43 PM

QUOTE (arsenal_fan @ Sunday, Jun 16 2013, 13:35)
QUOTE (Cosmic Gypsy @ Sunday, Jun 16 2013, 13:24)
I must admit, Battlefield does seem to have that annoying problem, you have 100% health, you put an entire clip of bullets into someone, they turn around and kill you with 1 bullet and their walking around with 0% health.

Inexcusable, the worst thing is people on the BF forums actually think running around on 0% health makes sense and "balances out the game".

0% health you should just be dead, anything below 10% you should have blurry vision, stumbling about all over the place, injured as your health slowly deteriorates to 0%, at which point you should DIE. Only way you should be able to survive at below 10% health is if a medic chucks you a first aid kit. I don't give a f*ck if really you're walking around with 0.90% health, you should be dead. Any variation of 0% health should = death, or at LEAST a bleed out until a medic comes to your rescue.

But yeah, i can definitely get Daz's opinion, sometimes i put an entire clip into someones back and they don't even die, it's not like i'm missing him either, direct hits all the way, inexcusable no matter what gun you use.

I agree wth you and this is one of the reasons why I played hardcore on BF3, I couldn't stand offloading a clip into someone and them not dying, it completely infuriated me and it is just plain inplausible.

Agree'd, i mean ffs, i have an air pistol at home, if i emptied a clip of that into your face there's a big possibility that you'd die. So some of the guns on Battlefield not killing people after even half a clip is more than pathetic.

Try telling this to the people on the BF forums, their so stubbornly adamant that 0% health makes sense and that their isn't a problem with the amount of damage guns do in general, their idiots who gobble up anything DICE offers without argument.

tuareg
  • tuareg

    Goodbye, John Marston. It's been a great pleasure!

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 04 Sep 2006
  • None

#549

Posted 16 June 2013 - 04:31 PM

QUOTE (Cosmic Gypsy @ Sunday, Jun 16 2013, 13:24)
anything below 10% you should have blurry vision, stumbling about all over the place, injured as your health slowly deteriorates to 0%, at which point you should DIE.

That would be terribly sh*t.

I agree, 0% health is ridiculous and i feel the same way towards anything below 5%, but being forced to stumble around below 10% health with blurry vision would be f*cking annoying as f*ck. No offense, but anyone who thinks this would be a good idea underestimates how often you actually get down to 10% health during a single match. Regardless of your skill level it probably happens 3-4 times average.

Gameplay should never be sacrificed for realism. It would be fair, however, if your health didn't regenerate at 10% or below 10% health. I could agree to that!

Cosmic Gypsy
  • Cosmic Gypsy

    It's time for a trip

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#550

Posted 16 June 2013 - 04:33 PM Edited by Cosmic Gypsy, 16 June 2013 - 04:47 PM.

QUOTE (tuareg @ Sunday, Jun 16 2013, 16:31)
QUOTE (Cosmic Gypsy @ Sunday, Jun 16 2013, 13:24)
anything below 10% you should have blurry vision, stumbling about all over the place, injured as your health slowly deteriorates to 0%, at which point you should DIE.

That would be terribly sh*t.

I agree, 0% health is ridiculous and i feel the same way towards anything below 5%, but being forced to stumble around below 10% health with blurry vision would be f*cking annoying as f*ck. No offense, but anyone who thinks this would be a good idea underestimates how often you actually get down to 10% health during a single match. Regardless of your skill level it probably happens 3-4 times average.

Gameplay should never be sacrificed for realism. It would be fair, however, if your health didn't regenerate at 10% or below 10% health. I could agree to that!

In my view, the game play wouldn't be sacrificed if this scenario was implemented, rather improved upon with something new, interesting and semi realistic, adding a new challenge and threat instead of everyone being at peek physical condition at all times regardless of how much health they actually have.

Not only that but it would actually encourage team work, having people stay near medics or having medics become more aware of casualties around them.

The way i see it in my head, the effects suffered wouldn't completely ruin your ability to play anyway during 6-10% health, as it gets down to 5 and below it might.

EDIT: To be fair i would like basic first aid animations also (a bit like Far Cry), instead of just hovering over med kits and magically regaining health. This isn't realism that sacrifices game play, this is a semi-realistic activity which encourages team work, tactical thinking and new scenarios.

Claude4Catalina
  • Claude4Catalina

    being a fag since '07

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 May 2007

#551

Posted 16 June 2013 - 07:19 PM

I think the lack of an ammo pool could be countered by set damage, not having 'one shot kills' for almost every weapon, but base it on the calibre. for example, it could take 6 hits from anything 9mm and five from a .45(so people still use pistols and secondary's) four from anything chambered in 5.56, three from 7.62 and for the sake of balance, one shot from a 50 BMG will take out well over 3/4 health, but it would require another hit from a 50, 7.62, 5.56 or two pistol/SMG calibre shots to finish them off.

karaokequeen3
  • karaokequeen3

    O.A.P.

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Jul 2002

#552

Posted 17 June 2013 - 09:26 AM



Direct feed footage from the Viper in the alpha release. promising!

iNero
  • iNero

    Black Tiger Sex Machine

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2012
  • Germany

#553

Posted 17 June 2013 - 11:00 PM





Daz
  • Daz

    Pirandello/Kruger

  • Feroci Racing
  • Joined: 09 Dec 2001
  • None

#554

Posted 18 June 2013 - 06:48 AM

QUOTE (Whiskey @ Sunday, Jun 16 2013, 13:07)
QUOTE (elanman @ Sunday, Jun 16 2013, 12:52)
QUOTE (gpcguy1 @ Thursday, Jun 13 2013, 20:13)
QUOTE (Daz @ Thursday, Jun 13 2013, 19:37)
QUOTE (VCRules86 @ Thursday, Jun 13 2013, 19:07)
QUOTE (Daz @ Thursday, Jun 13 2013, 18:35)
QUOTE (iNero @ Thursday, Jun 13 2013, 16:50)
-Ammo is magazine-based, not "pool"-based

LAAAAAME

This is fine in realistic games, SOCOM used to do this, so when you reload you cycle through all your mags and end back up with the mag with half ammo in.

This is f*cking annoying for this game though because I often reload instantly and all the time to top up. Unless the weapons have been made so they kill anyone within 2-3 rounds this will get super sh*t real fast.

The rest of the details sound good though, especially pistol while in water, and more cross-class weapons, and less surpression.

Don't top off so often then. I think this is a great idea and wish more games did it. Bullets magically teleporting themselves into other magazines annoys the hell out of me.

That is a stupid way to look at it.

This is a videogame not a simulator.

There needs to be a balance between realism and ease of gameplay, this is something that is f*cking annoying.

I need to top mags off because they are so god damn weak, and with bad connectivity to the server and people not dying when being shot at, I can BARELY get a kill without using 75% of the magazine. So it is important that it refills.

The worst sh*t in the world would be needing a fresh mag and you reload and it has one bullet in it. f*cking moronic. This also then doesnt allow you to see how much overall ammo you have.

So yeah that and the fact there is no kill feed are f*cking STUPID AS BOLLOCKS.

So because there is no more ammo pool again it means this game is a simulator?
BF is going back to it's roots if you don't like it continue to play Call of Duty on the frostbite engine or Bad Company. Those games seem to be dumbed down enough for you.

I agree on this actually. Magazines made Mafia a lot more intense and actually made you pay attention to ammo conservation rather than spamming "R" whenever you've killed a guy.

I hate when playing any shooter, you've used about 7-10 rounds to kill someone. Then you press reload and just as you reload some guy comes around and pops you. Such a bad habbit of reloading after every kill.

Honestly, think about it.

Singleplayer, sure, do whatever.

Multiplayer, No, this does not require it.

Just because you pick a bad time to reload (happens to me too) does not somehow justify your ammunition usage being capped. It has only just gotten to a point in BC2 and BF3 that I feel more comfortable because I feel that I have enough ammo to go to war with. Putting restrictions on that isnt helping anyone.

For example, the multiplayer in Medal Of Honor: Warfighter. Everyone gets INFINITE AMMO on your sidearm, sometimes that being a fully automatic weapon or a shotgun, did it unbalance the game? No, infact it made it much better, you were always in the fight and could defend yourself. Even the Light Machine Guns had infinite ammo, and even more amazingly if you deployed the bipods you had INFINITE MAGAZINE. All of this confirms it keeps the game moving, and though it may be not entirely needed, but it makes the point that you shouldnt be capped on ammo. People are going to die constantly and respawn with more, so there will always be people firing their weapons so you may as well let us have a reasonable amount and not restrict that, it helps nothing.

SOCOM, and Conflict Desert Storm are the only games I can think of that uses ammunition this way. Both are extremely similar games and though they are console games they are intended to be military simulation.

In a game like Battlefield 3 Multiplayer, it is important to allow the player to easily react to threats and not add restrictive features that do not benefit anyone. As I said before, this is not a milsim, this is a visually jazzed up arcadey shooter. Just because it looks realistic, doesn't mean that is it's intention.

If Battlefield games were a 1-2 shot kill on any enemy type, then I wouldn't care, but based off how Battlefield 3 plays, even without server lag and suppression you will find it hard not to waste at least half of your magazine for one enemy.

I honestly am pretty pissed if this makes the final cut.

Then again originally they were going to only force you to spawn on squad leaders in 3, but they changed that last minute. I hope they don't opt for this bullsh*t magazine situation.

Claude4Catalina
  • Claude4Catalina

    being a fag since '07

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 May 2007

#555

Posted 18 June 2013 - 07:07 PM

it does make more sense to limit the higher nitpicks of realism to singleplayer, I, as geeky as this sounds, enjoy firing single shots from an M4A1, taking cover, minding my reloads, firing short five round bursts from M249's, and generally sometimes just playing 3 like its an episode of Generation Kill. multiplayer on the other hand I've got no issue with going a bit Rambo, way I see it nobody else is going to play it like a simulator when it's not a milsim, so why should I? I'm not so bothered about having magazine based reloading or not, after casually playing BF Vietnam on PC and BF 3 on 360, I can live with or without magazine based reloads.

iNero
  • iNero

    Black Tiger Sex Machine

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2012
  • Germany

#556

Posted 18 June 2013 - 07:13 PM

Someone leaked the Next Gen Settings and Campaign from the Battlelog/Alpha Files:

http://www.mordorhq....mpaign-Spoilers


Seems like Next Gens will get low and some high settings with 720p. probably even less as the renderScale is 0,6667 ( not sure what that means though)

Seems like they are legit which means that I wont get a Next Gen consoles. I always said that I wont get a Next Gen if they cant handle 1080p@60fps 64p....

now it has 720p and even with 720p it has low settings.

Basicly it will look like Current Gen with no Texture Loading delay and better AA.

nigelhere9901
  • nigelhere9901

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2013

#557

Posted 18 June 2013 - 08:03 PM

QUOTE (iNero @ Tuesday, Jun 18 2013, 19:13)
Someone leaked the Next Gen Settings and Campaign from the Battlelog/Alpha Files:

http://www.mordorhq....mpaign-Spoilers


Seems like Next Gens will get low and some high settings with 720p. probably even less as the renderScale is 0,6667 ( not sure what that means though)

Seems like they are legit which means that I wont get a Next Gen consoles. I always said that I wont get a Next Gen if they cant handle 1080p@60fps 64p....

now it has 720p and even with 720p it has low settings.

Basicly it will look like Current Gen with no Texture Loading delay and better AA.

So you are not going to buy the next gen consoles because of some insignificant leak that spews bullsh*t about BF4's graphics?
That's just pathetic. Seriously there will be so many exclusives that you'll miss. One more thing, what you saw could be for the last gen consoles, EA themselves said that the game will run at 1080p 60FPS on the PS4. Renderscale means the Draw Distance.

iNero
  • iNero

    Black Tiger Sex Machine

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2012
  • Germany

#558

Posted 18 June 2013 - 08:13 PM

draw distance has a seerate number..

And yes I will. Why should I get this thing with such limitations even at launch?!

I dont care about most of the exclusives. Like I wouldnt mind if I couldnt play them. But I better invest the money in my new PC instead of getting a console that already reached its limits... ( why else should they disable several settings and set it to 720p)

nigelhere9901
  • nigelhere9901

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2013

#559

Posted 18 June 2013 - 08:19 PM

QUOTE (iNero @ Tuesday, Jun 18 2013, 20:13)
draw distance has a seerate number..

And yes I will. Why should I get this thing with such limitations even at launch?!

I dont care about most of the exclusives. Like I wouldnt mind if I couldnt play them. But I better invest the money in my new PC instead of getting a console that already reached its limits... ( why else should they disable several settings and set it to 720p)

Like I said earlier, this could be for current gen consoles. No way BF4 would run 720p with inferior graphics on a 7870. 7870 can do much better than that, and considering BF4 isn't as physics intensive as the other games like Watch_Dogs, I call BS on those forum member claims.

iNero
  • iNero

    Black Tiger Sex Machine

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2012
  • Germany

#560

Posted 18 June 2013 - 08:32 PM

Well, in these leak there is mentioned "Orbis" which is codename for PS4/processor. And in one line it says "Gen4 to Gen3" while at the top line it says that these settings are applied to Gen4a and Gen4b. Means that Gen4 is next gen while Gen3 has to be current gen. To me thise look too detailled tonbe made up. Especially as Mods on Battlelog instantly censored and locked the thread from the guy who posted it in first place.

<Yang3
  • <Yang3

    ☆☆☆☆☆

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Apr 2009
  • Philippines

#561

Posted 19 June 2013 - 08:47 AM

Why would you like to take a miss on a lot of presumably brilliant games in the next gen just because you don't like how a game looks like or a console works?
Of course, we've barely scratched the surface of next-gen's power yet. Games BUILT FOR NEXT GEN CONSOLES aren't out yet and what we're seeing is a cross-gen game.
Remember how BFBC and BF3 differ from each other? And there are just some assholes on the internet that like making stuff up just for the sake of making his fellow forumers hate a specific dev.

iNero
  • iNero

    Black Tiger Sex Machine

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2012
  • Germany

#562

Posted 19 June 2013 - 11:36 AM

QUOTE (DODI3OG @ Wednesday, Jun 19 2013, 10:47)
Why would you like to take a miss on a lot of presumably brilliant games in the next gen just because you don't like how a game looks like or a console works?
Of course, we've barely scratched the surface of next-gen's power yet. Games BUILT FOR NEXT GEN CONSOLES aren't out yet and what we're seeing is a cross-gen game.
Remember how BFBC and BF3 differ from each other? And there are just some assholes on the internet that like making stuff up just for the sake of making his fellow forumers hate a specific dev.

BC2 actually looked much better than BF3 on console...

Cosmic Gypsy
  • Cosmic Gypsy

    It's time for a trip

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#563

Posted 19 June 2013 - 11:43 AM

I disagree, as much as i prefer BC2 as a game, BF3 does look superior with visuals and animations.

iNero
  • iNero

    Black Tiger Sex Machine

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2012
  • Germany

#564

Posted 19 June 2013 - 11:58 AM

QUOTE (Cosmic Gypsy @ Wednesday, Jun 19 2013, 13:43)
I disagree, as much as i prefer BC2 as a game, BF3 does look superior with visuals and animations.

to me the effects looked much better. and it had better AA and no texture loading delay. and it looked much sharper. thats probably because it has native 720p while BF3 only has around 712-709p.
that might be because the game was developed for consoles. Thats why I hoped for a BC3 instead of BF4.

Cosmic Gypsy
  • Cosmic Gypsy

    It's time for a trip

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#565

Posted 21 June 2013 - 06:27 PM

On Battlefield 3, do i keep my points/stats after the connection gets lost or after being kicked by an admin?

gpcguy1
  • gpcguy1

    Soldier

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Aug 2011

#566

Posted 21 June 2013 - 06:31 PM

QUOTE (Cosmic Gypsy @ Friday, Jun 21 2013, 18:27)
On Battlefield 3, do i keep my points/stats after the connection gets lost or after being kicked by an admin?

Kicked by admin: stats are saved

Lose connection: nope

Cosmic Gypsy
  • Cosmic Gypsy

    It's time for a trip

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#567

Posted 21 June 2013 - 06:33 PM

QUOTE (gpcguy1 @ Friday, Jun 21 2013, 18:31)
QUOTE (Cosmic Gypsy @ Friday, Jun 21 2013, 18:27)
On Battlefield 3, do i keep my points/stats after the connection gets lost or after being kicked by an admin?

Kicked by admin: stats are saved

Lose connection: nope

Cheers for the response, just got kicked by bastard c*nting admin during an amazing game because i raped his team so much.

CryptReaperDorian
  • CryptReaperDorian

    Boss

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Aug 2007

#568

Posted 21 June 2013 - 08:34 PM

QUOTE (iNero @ Wednesday, Jun 19 2013, 05:58)
QUOTE (Cosmic Gypsy @ Wednesday, Jun 19 2013, 13:43)
I disagree, as much as i prefer BC2 as a game, BF3 does look superior with visuals and animations.

to me the effects looked much better. and it had better AA and no texture loading delay. and it looked much sharper. thats probably because it has native 720p while BF3 only has around 712-709p.
that might be because the game was developed for consoles. Thats why I hoped for a BC3 instead of BF4.

BC2 looks better than Battlefield 3 (at least on consoles) because it's atmosphere wasn't tarnished by "special effects" like over exaggerated lighting effects (bloom) and horrible blue tints (or orange in the case of Aftermath). Battlefield 3 actually looked much better during the alpha than at the game's release.

gpcguy1
  • gpcguy1

    Soldier

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Aug 2011

#569

Posted 21 June 2013 - 08:52 PM

QUOTE (Cosmic Gypsy @ Friday, Jun 21 2013, 18:33)
QUOTE (gpcguy1 @ Friday, Jun 21 2013, 18:31)
QUOTE (Cosmic Gypsy @ Friday, Jun 21 2013, 18:27)
On Battlefield 3, do i keep my points/stats after the connection gets lost or after being kicked by an admin?

Kicked by admin: stats are saved

Lose connection: nope

Cheers for the response, just got kicked by bastard c*nting admin during an amazing game because i raped his team so much.

Play hardcore, 90% of the admins on there on PS3 are better and don't kick for stupid sh*t.

GTAction99
  • GTAction99

    R*

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Nov 2011
  • None

#570

Posted 21 June 2013 - 08:57 PM

Any Shotguns from BF3 returning?




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users