Battlefield 4 Game Play Video Is Up!

Well, Im rocking 3 7970s in tri-fire at 2560 X1080 with my 2600K @ 4800 Mhz so i hope i wont need to upgrade but by the looks of the video everything should still play fine.
 
caddys83 said:
Got mine pre-ordered. Woot
Click to expand...
Stop that!:mad:

bigdogchris said:
It looks good but I'm tired of this type of game release cycle. Games with 2 year cycles between versions end up being 4 hours long single player, and MP that is basically new maps.

1942->2->3 were all huge leaps.

BF has officially became the next CoD.
Click to expand...
I'd like to see them bring back the single player from the previous titles. Fuck a campaign, i want bots on MP maps in my BF!

fdiaz78 said:
Hopefully gamebryo has been put to pasture.
Click to expand...
lol keep dreaming.

Colonel Sanders said:
This really does just look like BF3.1... I mean, I really wonder how the MP is going to be differentiated from BF3's aside from different maps and maybe some new vehicles and guns here and there (in other words, what could have just been MOD for BF3).
Click to expand...

ftfy
 
Honestly I am pleasantly surprised to see so much vitriol at the BF4 reveal. I was expecting to get hyper-flamed for thinking it was shit. You people impress me. Well done.

Plague Stamp of Game-Hating Approval.
 
Dethred said:
Vietnam was not received negatively, prior to or after release. 2142, was criticized for the reason you mentioned, and for its in-game ads, but once released almost the entire BF2 community loved it. It was more of a difference than BF1942 and Vietnam. It was still being played by thousands of people in 2011, even after BC2 was released.

BF4, is the same "battlefield" setting (modern day), same engine, etc.

Defend this shit all you want, but they are making deliberate efforts to make the franchise a yearly rehash ala COD. Its pathetic.
Click to expand...

I can tell you're already excited; you spent all of BF3 prerelease and release making the same points how it was shit over and over again, now you get to do it all over!

Plague_Injected said:
Honestly I am pleasantly surprised to see so much vitriol at the BF4 reveal. I was expecting to get hyper-flamed for thinking it was shit. You people impress me. Well done.

Plague Stamp of Game-Hating Approval.
Click to expand...


Not sure if serious. :confused:
 
Plague_Injected said:
Honestly I am pleasantly surprised to see so much vitriol at the BF4 reveal. I was expecting to get hyper-flamed for thinking it was shit. You people impress me. Well done.

Plague Stamp of Game-Hating Approval.
Click to expand...

It's the people not hating on it that concern me. :p
 
128 players would be good. 64 isn't as impressive as it use to be. Maps are pretty big. 128 or even 256 players would allow more action per square foot ;)
 
Conker said:
128 players would be good. 64 isn't as impressive as it use to be. Maps are pretty big. 128 or even 256 players would allow more action per square foot ;)
Click to expand...

More action per square foot yes, pure mayhem when the server files were leaked before DICE patch things up. but careful, alot of people here are quick to call it COD :rolleyes:
 
I don't know what people were expecting...BF4 was always going to be BF3.1 ever since EA announced a yearly release schedule...unless they have different studios working on it or have been working in stealth for a few years this is not surprsing in the least...BF is now just a glorified benchmarking game
 
TwistedAegis said:
I can tell you're already excited; you spent all of BF3 prerelease and release making the same points how it was shit over and over again, now you get to do it all over!

Not sure if serious. :confused:
Click to expand...

Yes I am serious. I'm also serious when I say that your BF3 fandom is going to result in you having a bad time if you're going to try and censor and belittle everyone who finds BF4 utterly underwhelming.

Dethred might still be going on about the same stuff for two years, but it doesn't make him any less correct about it all.
 
This will sell about 3 copies on the console if it comes out next-gen at the same time or around the 'future' COD.

The only market where BF is prosperous financially is in the 30-45 year old PC demographic, so in turn they need to dumb down the gunplay for the ol' blind folk. That is/was my issue with BF3. Play BF3 you say? Why sure, but why does it take 15 minutes to find an opposing infantry player? I am not enjoying getting shot to shit by this 65 year old, flying his airplane with his $2000 Saitek flight simulator desktop HUB setup.

Give me competitive FPS, that is smooth with good hit detection, that emphasizes twitch aiming and non-camping tactics and we may have a deal.
 
I think most people are just waiting on multiplayer details before making up their minds. BF3 single player previews looked awesome as well but the end product was pretty lame.

If they fix most of the multiplayer issues from BF3 then I'll probably pick it up.
 
chockomonkey said:
Fuck a campaign, i want bots on MP maps in my BF!
Click to expand...

Yes please. AI Bots in BF2 was epic. Dont get me wrong I've got hundreds of hours in BF3's MP and will likely clock as many or more in BF4's MP, but being able to battle against dozens of AI's solo or with a co-op group can be incredible entertainment if the developer does it right.

Its just a nice change of pace from the aggro, shit-talking cadence of MP mode that gets your blood pressure up even if you're dominating on account of the boneheads you typically you run in online MP games these days - you know the ones I'm talking about - the trolls that do shit like camping a tank on the runway blasting own team's jets all day, etc. A man's only got so much patience
 
Last edited:
AceCR42 said:
I think most people are just waiting on multiplayer details before making up their minds. BF3 single player previews looked awesome as well but the end product was pretty lame.

If they fix most of the multiplayer issues from BF3 then I'll probably pick it up.
Click to expand...

They should fix the multiplayer issues in BF3 by...patching BF3.


odditory said:
Yes please. AI Bots in BF2 was epic. Dont get me wrong I've got hundreds of hours in BF3's MP and will likely clock as many or more in BF4's MP, but being able to battle against dozens of AI's solo or with a co-op group is arena sized entertainment if they do it right. If was over the top good times in BF2
Click to expand...

I would love this as well, but we can't have nice things, because of dudebros.

dudebro3cover-Gouty.jpg
 
What it comes down to is, if you want a REAL Battlefield experience, get ArmA 3 instead.
 
AceCR42 said:
I think most people are just waiting on multiplayer details before making up their minds. BF3 single player previews looked awesome as well but the end product was pretty lame.

If they fix most of the multiplayer issues from BF3 then I'll probably pick it up.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more.
 
BLUEFISH44 said:
I Pre-ordered. I dont often do this but I honestly have yet to be let down by a Battlefield title and I dont think BF4 will be any different.
Click to expand...

No offense but no reason not to wait until last minute to buy this thing. I'll buy it as well - but last minute only. I fail to see the logic in people collectively giving EA a big interest free loan which will sit in their account 6 months.

There's currently nothing a preorder gives you that ordering last minute won't -- the "closed beta" is New Marketing terminology for demo, all part of the standard operating procedure now for game marketing - and if you've got BF3 Premium you'll have access to the beta anyway. If you dont have Premium then 'preordering' an hour before the beta opens will be the same diff as giving them your money today.
 
Graphics looked pretty good to me. But then again my pc is old. So I can only judge the game quality from trailers :)

Is there any possible chance it will look this good on PS4?
 
Last edited:
TheMadHatterXxX said:
You mean that clunky lag fest horri-awful game engine from 2001? Worse than BF3's netcode. Good luck with 64 players on that.
Click to expand...

People regularly run 128+ player servers in ArmA 2 and it will be the same with ArmA 3. Nice try, though...not. :rolleyes:
 
Well regardless of the quality of both games, they have nothing in common besides being military FPS. Can't really tell someone who enjoys BF to just go play ArmA instead.
 
AceCR42 said:
Well regardless of the quality of both games, they have nothing in common besides being military FPS. Can't really tell someone who enjoys BF to just go play ArmA instead.
Click to expand...

Has more in common with BF1942 and BF2 than what Battlefield has become, that's for sure.
 
MavericK96 said:
People regularly run 128+ player servers in ArmA 2 and it will be the same with ArmA 3. Nice try, though...not. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Ok that must be great ...along with the lag and vehicles warping and clipping thru everything on the map.

That's not a game that the average person can pick up and enjoy at will without having scour thru the server list for something that you can even get a decent connection to and join without having to play detective on 3 or 4 different mod sites to find some cryptic texture packs that need to be installed, among other things..people want to play a game that just works and they can jump into.

Arma 3 is Arma 2 with better textures which was Arma 1 with better textures which was Operation Flashpoint: Resistance with better textures which was Operation Flashpoint: Cold War Crisis with better textures, I know because I played the original 2 to death when I was 21 and bought every one of them to try...12 years later same game same problems that plagued the original which is why it doesn't get mainstream recognition.
 
Last edited:
I'm starting to think you've never even played any of the ArmA games. Or at least not on a decent server.
 
TheMadHatterXxX said:
Ok that must be great ...along with the lag and vehicles warping and clipping thru everything on the map.

That's not a game that the average person can pick up and enjoy at will without having scour thru the server list for something that you can even get a decent connection to and join without having to play detective on 3 or 4 different mod sites to find some cryptic texture packs that need to be installed, among other things..people want to play a game that just works and they can jump into.

Arma 3 is Arma 2 with better textures which was Arma 1 with better textures which was Operation Flashpoint: Resistance with better textures which was Operation Flashpoint: Cold War Crisis with better textures, I know because I played the original 2 to death when I was 21 and bought every one of them to try...12 years later same game same problems that plagued the original which is why it doesn't get mainstream recognition.
Click to expand...


actually arma 3 has made HUGE advancements engine wise in comparison to arma 2. physics alone is insanely better. they aint fuckin around with that dayZ money
 
Well, I'm one of the 6 people in the world who plans to play this only for single player. Is it even worth it for that? Dice claim the SP campaign is much better.
 
naticus said:
I am not enjoying getting shot to shit by this 65 year old, flying his airplane with his $2000 Saitek flight simulator desktop HUB setup.
Click to expand...
This has been said before, and needs to be said again. The best flyers in BF2 and BF3 have been using Keyboard and Mice controls. At most, the only advantage they might have been using is macro keys on their mice or keyboards for some sort of throttle/brake and pitch up combo for tight turns. There was zero way to actually regulate the throttle at exactly 200 knots to turn the tightest with joystick analog throttles, it had to be done on the keyboard by typing the W and S keys every second or two. Some pilots had aimbot hax, but those did little to actually help them pull off the maneuvers to get on your tail to use the aimbot in the first place. If you believe that the best pilots in BF3 spend massive amounts of money on joystick setups where they develop macros or had software to compensate, you obviously never paid attention to forums, youtube videos, some of the flying competitions on twitchtv (or similar), or straight up never owned one of those expensive joysticks and don't know what they are actually capable of. The comparison of using a joystick in BF3 to KB/M use is almost identical to comparing the precision of a FPS player using a gamepad versus a kb/m. I actually used a joystick for flying, and I tried everything short of hax to improve my abilities with a joystick since I find using a KB/M for flying counter-intuitive. You cannot get the precision for that infantry snipe at 1000 meters while traveling 200+ knots with a joystick, but you could with a good mouse at the right sensitivity settings. Using a joystick is actually counterproductive in the battlefield series do to the flight and weapon mechanics. The best flyers are twitch style gamers that practice their maneuvers religiously. It is also extremely unfortunate that the flight models in this game have peculiar quirks that defy or exaggerate certain flight mechanics and actually encourage the use of kb/m use for flight for the instantaneous throttle and pitch/roll response just to be competitive. I hope they improve the flight mechanics in BF4, but I don't have much hope.
 
Last edited:
MrCrispy said:
Well, I'm one of the 6 people in the world who plans to play this only for single player. Is it even worth it for that? Dice claim the SP campaign is much better.
Click to expand...

Just gotta wait and read reviews I guess. Most mainstream gaming press hated the BF3 campaign so there's no reason they wouldn't call DICE out if this one is shit, too.
 
MrCrispy said:
Well, I'm one of the 6 people in the world who plans to play this only for single player. Is it even worth it for that? Dice claim the SP campaign is much better.
Click to expand...

Even if it's the same or better than the BF3 campaign, it's certainly not worth $60 for just the SP.

(I enjoyed the BF3 campaign and co-op, but I still can't say it was worth full price)
 
firas said:
it'll have 128 players when the console can handle 64
Click to expand...
Assuming the specs for the PS4 are correct and the new Xbox has similar, I see zero reason that the consoles could not handle a full 64 players (assuming lower graphics settings) as long as they use dedicated servers.
 
Looks good. I really hope they bring back destructible environments like in Bad Company 2. That was my favorite part of that game. Shooting holes in the walls to get through to places... priceless. I don't think developers understand how important destructible environments are in games.

Anyone remember playing Red Faction for the first time? If they could do it back then, then that should be a standard by now.
 
zamardii said:
Looks good. I really hope they bring back destructible environments like in Bad Company 2. That was my favorite part of that game. Shooting holes in the walls to get through to places... priceless. I don't think developers understand how important destructible environments are in games.
Click to expand...

They understand it just fine, but you blowing a hole in the wall has to sync with all the other clients, and everyone else blowing holes in things has to sync with your client. With 64players thats a lot of extra overhead. The amount of additional bandwidth that little random events create ends up impacting the more essential components of the netcode like hit detection, so obviously its a balancing act.

Add to that they were also hamstrung by bandwidth limitations imposed by Microsoft (and Sony as well I'm sure) where they mandate not to exceed a certain threshhold. And since DICE has been hellbent on keeping platform parity, I imagine PC version had an artificial cap on enhanced destruction that would've otherwise been possible.

Also, there have to be some limitations on destruction or everything is just a pile of rubble within 5 minutes and no buildings left standing. You might think "cool" but it doesn't necessarily translate to better gameplay in practice.
 
odditory said:
Also, there have to be some limitations on destruction or everything is just a pile of rubble within 5 minutes and no buildings left standing. You might think "cool" but it doesn't necessarily translate to better gameplay in practice.
Click to expand...

Why? Warzones aren't 100% rubble in 5 minutes RL... not like i've been in one, but i've seen saving private ryan ^_^
 
chockomonkey said:
Why? Warzones aren't 100% rubble in 5 minutes RL... not like i've been in one, but i've seen saving private ryan ^_^
Click to expand...

Eh because videogame. DICE already playtested 100% destructible buildings and when everyone knows that you can blast a building to rubble, the first thing everyone does is blasts every building to rubble. It would be priority #1 for every annoying kid that gets in a tank.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top