Tweet
For a second lets forget the fact that EA Digital Illusions CE (DICE) royally screwed up launching Battlefield 4, not only on next-gen platforms Xbox One and PS4, but also on current-gen and PC! I get it. It’s tough for developers to adapt to new technology and innovate at the same time, but a finished product should be that, FINISHED. - See more at: http://www.nerdacy.com/2013/12/28/bl....LkNUS8L1.dpuf
OK, now that I’ve gotten that off my chest, let me explain why 64 players wasn’t particularly the right choice for Battlefield 4, but I understand why they made it. This new generation of consoles are focused on maintaining the same level of graphical innovation as their PC-counterpart, something that wasn’t possible with the last generation. Now that the architecture of both consoles are similar to that of a PC, it would be easier for developers to make games and allow them to create more possibilities. That is where the 64 player servers come in.
The Xbox One and PS4 are capable of delivering that large server experience as the PC version of the game and that was a major selling point for buying the game on next-gen consoles, at least for me it was. I got Battlefield 3 on PC back in 2011, because it gave me a better experience. I didn’t want to run around looking for one person in a 24 player server. I wanted that all-out-warfare 64-player experience; but now with Battlefield 4, that disparity between map size and amount of players has been remedied. I find the 32-player Obliteration game types better than 64-player Conquest Large on next-gen consoles.
Here are a few short reasons why I prefer the smaller experience on console: FPS drops are too frequent; standard maps are too small and overcrowded; I’m playing with a controller after all, not a 3200dpi gaming mouse and keyboard; and finally, it’s a console, it’s not meant to mimic the experience of PC, but more adapt the innovation to fit the console audience. 64 players on Battlefield 4 feels more like a congested domination server in Call of Duty than a spread out, war game like the PC version.
OK, now that I’ve gotten that off my chest, let me explain why 64 players wasn’t particularly the right choice for Battlefield 4, but I understand why they made it. This new generation of consoles are focused on maintaining the same level of graphical innovation as their PC-counterpart, something that wasn’t possible with the last generation. Now that the architecture of both consoles are similar to that of a PC, it would be easier for developers to make games and allow them to create more possibilities. That is where the 64 player servers come in.
The Xbox One and PS4 are capable of delivering that large server experience as the PC version of the game and that was a major selling point for buying the game on next-gen consoles, at least for me it was. I got Battlefield 3 on PC back in 2011, because it gave me a better experience. I didn’t want to run around looking for one person in a 24 player server. I wanted that all-out-warfare 64-player experience; but now with Battlefield 4, that disparity between map size and amount of players has been remedied. I find the 32-player Obliteration game types better than 64-player Conquest Large on next-gen consoles.
Here are a few short reasons why I prefer the smaller experience on console: FPS drops are too frequent; standard maps are too small and overcrowded; I’m playing with a controller after all, not a 3200dpi gaming mouse and keyboard; and finally, it’s a console, it’s not meant to mimic the experience of PC, but more adapt the innovation to fit the console audience. 64 players on Battlefield 4 feels more like a congested domination server in Call of Duty than a spread out, war game like the PC version.
Comment