Doesn't the legendary and ultimate edition come with the DLC? The £80 & £105 versions?
Might have a free pass to get the DLC when it arrives, but if you're paying 80 quid it's pretty much the same as buying the game and buying the DLC pass anyway??
Doesn't the legendary and ultimate edition come with the DLC? The £80 & £105 versions?
Was disappointed with the Beta and lack of story campaign but decided to give it a shot and picked it up for £20 in Game. Really enjoying it, not sure if its because I've been playing the pretty crap COD:AW. The game looks incredible and that's one of the shames about it being a multilayer only game, there's no time to just stop, look and appreciate the level of detail that's gone into it.
I'm still a bit weary about the actual shooting, there's something about it I just can't put my finger on. Not tried all the game modes yet and the update hasn't helped trying to get to grips with all the modes etc... lol
Seems to be a bone of contention that. Personally, I love single player campaigns in FPSs - they are pretty much exclusively what I play on any of the COD games. Yet other players don't even fire them up and are purely focused on multiplayer only. I also have a liking for player vs bots options - like a survival mode. They give you the ability to learn the mechanics and features of the game, without impeding an online teams' performance.If the new one had a single player campaign i'll deffs buy it, last one was a 100% let down.
I get that from a dev studio perspective, committing to an SP campaign is a considerable investment in both time and resources. Especially if a noticeable chunk of players will never even look at it. A tricky situation to keep all comers happy, I guess.
Yeah - I tend not to be an early adopter of EA stuff. I only got the Season Pass last Christmas as it was in a flash sale on cdkeys for about a tenner. Otherwise - no chance!For the amount of money those tossbags charge for the f**king game they can do both!
Got seriously pwned the night before last on this - on the Graveyard of Giants map.
If you're online, probably. As the AI bots clearly aren't much to write home about. :smile:Is that the one where you can sit up the top of the downed ship and just generally be a little c**t to everyone walking around below you??
Must admit - I’m tempted. I kind of want to wait for the final product though.I believe a beta will be available this week.
Nope - stayed clear of the beta - as I pretty much do all the time. I like to play games when they are finished, established and have the majority of their issues ironed out. Games are so complex these days that there are normally several dozen changes that need to be applied even within a day or two of release. I'll definitely be ordering this though.Anyone else tried out the Beta? Given it a few games... Looks absolutely stunning, but just feels like more of the same and for some reason I just cannot get a hang of the flight controls either.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Had a good go on the Beta, visually it looks pretty good.
Flight controls are total s**t and there's the same old EA issues with servers.
After playing Battlefield for ages I kinda want interactive scenery as well, it certainly adds to the experiance.
Shooting rockets and big laser cannons at walls, buildings and fences should do something - it looks stupid when nothing happens!
There's places on the Beta map which look like a cafe, loads of tables and chairs etc
You can't even knock them over, it's rubbish.
Hahaha, yeah - it does feel a bit crap when that happens! It's a seemingly simple thing to ask for, but such an incredibly complex 'thing' to add!After playing Battlefield for ages I kinda want interactive scenery as well, it certainly adds to the experiance.
Shooting rockets and big laser cannons at walls, buildings and fences should do something - it looks stupid when nothing happens!
There's places on the Beta map which look like a cafe, loads of tables and chairs etc
You can't even knock them over, it's rubbish.
Yeah - I hear you mate. Sadly it's not just down to money in this case; it's more the technical complexity. It's one thing to have hundreds and thousands of physics objects interacting in a 3D world and quite another to have that complexity accurately reflected with nanosecond precision across a network game with players from all over the world. One slightest thing out of sync and that could compromise one player compared to others on the other end of a network and - boom - suddenly things are out of sync and that's a whole world of pain!oh for sure, but it really makes the game (if you know what I mean) and given the incredible amount of money some of these games are pulling in you could argue it needs to be a staple of big game releases.
If it's £40-£50 for the base game, plus the same again for whatever DLC pack they make you buy I think you have the right to ask for these things.
Battlefield is very careful in the level of destructibility it allows though; almost 'scripted' rather than a generic free-destruction-for-all type affair. It's certainly a nice to have and can really add to the immersion and enjoyment without a doubt. It's a big step away from totally free destruction though (unless that destruction is purely cosmetic and doesn't affect the players in any meaningful way). It's the network complexity that really restricts multiplayer and networked games (or, rather, keeping everything in sync when 10 players might have 100meg connections with 20ms ping and another players might only have 1meg connections with 150ms ping times). That's one of the reasons we don't really see massively multiplayer FPS games; for every player the system has to communicate the players' positions, velocity, animation state, etc. Then, for example, consider that 64 players are online together and using machine guns firing multiple rounds per second. Suddenly that's 64 players' worth of data to be kept in sync plus several thousand bullet / projectile positions, velocities, etc. Then vehicles. Incidental characters. It all adds up and absolutely must stay in sync if the game world is to remain consistent for all players. Then, on top of all that, trying to add in things like generic tables, chairs, and other physical objects that can affect a player - you suddenly have thousands of physical objects with tens of thousands of properties that have to be consistently communicated across the network. It's a pain to get working and a real barrier to making much more immersive gameplay experiences. Hence the reason why, as you rightly say, it can be a bit disappointing to see how 'static' things can appear in-game, especially given how rapidly things have advanced in computing and gaming over the last 15 years.Battlefield franchise manages it though? Has done for a decade or so now, which in computer terms is a f**king lifetime.
Granted not everything can be damaged, especially in city environments with loads of buildings, but still it's better than nothing.
EA DICE is the developer for both of those game series as well.
Just had a play on the beta.
Flight controls are w**k. Much worse than I remember them on the first one. Graphically it's great. Not sure it's enough to make me want to buy it yet though.
Battlefield is very careful in the level of destructibility it allows though; almost 'scripted' rather than a generic free-destruction-for-all type affair.
(Sorry, didn't mean to write an essay! Just trying to explain some of the reasons why it's such a pain and why some of these restrictive game designs come about!) :smile: