I actually tend to prefer lower FOVs. The distortion effects really bother me.
I actually consider a good fov when you start to get a slight fisheye thing on the edges of the screen, which is usually around 90 degrees. Low fov doesn’t really bother me though, even though I prefer 90-100.
Low FOV is fucking physically painful to me.
Human Revolution has an FOV settings changer. It makes the gun look very, very thin as you go up though.
That’s because it’s poorly implemented if it’s happening at fovs like 90. Or maybe you’re just setting it too high. A lot of games these days aim for low fovs and bumping it too high (90+ is too high, which is stupid) will cause issues like being able to see the back ends of your arms or texture popin becoming more noticeable.
^ that’s part of what I meant by distortion. Another is when you can look down and the room is suddenly twice as tall. Portal 2 did that.
How to break the singleplayer: knife an enemy while a cutscene is about to start.
Also, I really do like the models for your squadmates in campaign, they look very well made.
black friday is nearing, should i buy me a discounted bf4?
i can wait for premium when a origin sale occurs
[POSSIBLE CAMPAIGN SPOILERS]
I completed the campaign recently, and I gotta say it’s much better than BF3’s campaign. It wasn’t fantastic, nor was it shitty; it was simply somewhere in the middle, probably at ‘okay’. The whole Russia & China VS America didn’t interest me a whole lot.
A lot of the characters died before you could get well acquainted with them. Irish and Hannah are the most fleshed out characters by the end, since the story seems to revolve around those two and Recker. I did wish Pac was in the game a bit more, but he just sort of disappears and then reappears at the end.
The enemy AI is definitely improved; they don’t just run into battle with absolutely no care in the world, they actually take cover and run away when they know they’re going to lose. I am also very glad that they’ve added weapon stashes so you can choose what weapons you want to use, I just wish they’d allow you to customize it with different scopes and shit.
In BF3 the only proper vehicle part was in that mission where you drove a tank through that desert, BF4 allows you to choose whether you want to use a vehicle or not (as long as there is one nearby, of course). The stealth sections of the game where you had to knife a whole bunch of guards while avoiding spotlights was also fun, and had a strange feeling of Dishonored over it.
One of the biggest gripes I have is that it was just 4-5 hours long, but I guess it could also be a good thing, because the missions were always boring when you were near the end. Difficulity has been set up to somewhat harder; there was a part in the game I couldn’t even complete on normal mode and I had to revert to easy.
Also, what the fuck is with all these multiple endings games? I’m starting to hate multiple endings.
TL;DR: Relatively fun; not shitty nor fantastic. Much better than BF3’s campaign, for sure.
Also, music is definitely better.
I agree. I want to experience a satisfying conclusion to a game, and it’s really stupid when I get stuck with a downer ending instead because I didn’t talk to a certain character or went left instead of right.
The worst is when the ending and/or rewards is based on whether you’re stealthy or more brute force-ish in a game that gives you both options. I had being goaded into stealth when there are perfectly good shootouts to be had.
I couldn’t agree more. I don’t know why would have bother to have multiple endings anyway. I mean back in the day for the first time they introduce the multiple endings for games I thought it was cool. But now it’s getting old, for more games to have multiple endings.
Another thing is; why do the reviewers give it a lower score solely because of the singleplayer? Reviewers should set singleplayer and multiplayer apart; so they each get their own scores.
EA should just make better single player modes.
Because it’s EA making the singleplayer, and not DICE.
EA is forcing the issue by making Battlefield 4 come out as quickly after Battlefield 3 as it did.
Gap between BF2 and BF3 was much wider. My guess is that EA will probably try to push for annualization of the franchise to compete with CoD, which will completely destroy the brand and further contribute to the company’s loss of capital.
It looks like the consoles got downgraded to High settings, instead of Ultra. I’m not much of a graphics guy, so it doesn’t bother me that much.
Still my brothers PC will be able to handle it in ultra sooo… Mwehehehehe.
I read a news article on the Escapist were EA said that “[They] need a mechanism and a process which we can get to [produce] better games more quickly”. You can’t have both of them, unless your team is more than extremely talented. No offence against DICE, it’s clear that they’re good game designers (as far as MP is concerned at least and Mirror’s Edge and BF3 just needed more polish, IMO), but they’re not the Doctor Manhattans of the game design world.
So EA is either very dumb or they run their studios like slave pits.
well the console versions have significantly less/less quality rendered foilage, alpha draw distances, overall mesh quallity (u can notice much less polygons on console versions), darker brightness/filters/gamma and worse particle effects
i always wonder why console versions look darker than pc as a whole?
Cause TV?
Awww look at the pretty colours. Thank you EA.