Battlefield 4 Game Play Video Is Up!

drako said:
Yeah, you clearly don't understand, especially by comparing BF3->BF4 to Bioshock->Bioshock:Infinite. A more apt comparison would be Bioshock->Bioshock 2.

Let's look at the Battlefield series up to this point...
Battlefield 1942 - obviously original
Battlefield: Vietnam - completely new setting
Battlefield 2 - completely new setting
Battlefield 2142 - completely new setting
Battlefield 3 - (misguided?) attempt to flesh out single player
Battlefield 4 - new... nothing

Every game in the series has brought something new to the table until now. It's not surprising that some people are underwhelmed. To be fair, we haven't seen the MP, but I'd be surprised if it brought anything radically new to the table.
Click to expand...
Wow, you must not have been around Battlefield forums when all those games were released. This is how it really was:

Battlefield 1942 - obviously original
Battlefield: Vietnam - perceived to be just a Vietnam mod for BF1942. People complained that they were buying an expansion for new-game prices.
Battlefield 2 - completely new setting, great innovation
Battlefield 2142 - perceived to be just a futuristic mod for BF2. People complained that they were buying an expansion for new-game prices.
Battlefield 3 - Engine upgrade, attempt to draw in the console audience.
Battlefield 4 - perceived to be just DLC for BF3

The feelings towards BF4 is nothing new, we just have to sit tight until we can get some hands-on reviews to really see what is and is not "new" in BF4.
 
Nothing but eye candy to get people excited, I'm more concerned about gameplay. Server-side hit detection and squad voice chat in game or else this is just Battlefield 3.1
 
I watched it again and the environmental destruction is impressive. However, I wish it had this level of destruction. That is real-time on a GTX680 btw.
 
I think whats going to sway my decision either way is not going to be graphics or even gameplay or any of it. It could truly be a BF3 2.0 and I would buy it if we can host our own servers.

If not. I'll wait for the $10 sale.... maybe.
 
Kryptorchid said:
Wow, you must not have been around Battlefield forums when all those games were released. This is how it really was:

Battlefield 1942 - obviously original
Battlefield: Vietnam - perceived to be just a Vietnam mod for BF1942. People complained that they were buying an expansion for new-game prices.
Battlefield 2 - completely new setting, great innovation
Battlefield 2142 - perceived to be just a futuristic mod for BF2. People complained that they were buying an expansion for new-game prices.
Battlefield 3 - Engine upgrade, attempt to draw in the console audience.
Battlefield 4 - perceived to be just DLC for BF3

The feelings towards BF4 is nothing new, we just have to sit tight until we can get some hands-on reviews to really see what is and is not "new" in BF4.
Click to expand...

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.
 
It looks good, but not really impressive to me. It's a step up from 3, but i expected a bit more from "next gen" game i guess. I see my friend the sun, lens flare and all the "artistic" goodies are here to stay.
I would like to see multiplayer, this Hollywood crap does nothing for me. This is the first time ever that i said meh about upcoming BF game. Maybe i'm just getting old for this :p
 
GibsonEX said:
It looks good, but not really impressive to me. It's a step up from 3, but i expected a bit more from "next gen" game i guess. I see my friend the sun, lens flare and all the "artistic" goodies are here to stay.
I would like to see multiplayer, this Hollywood crap does nothing for me. This is the first time ever that i said meh about upcoming BF game. Maybe i'm just getting old for this :p
Click to expand...

Do what I do -- play BF1942 for free (but you need Origin :()
 
I haven't played BF3 in months so I guess I'm probably not going to be buying this. I just lose interest in MP only titles after a point.

Looks pretty good although I'd argue looks more like a glorified expansion of BF3 but we'll see.
 
Yah! Another generic modern FPS that is identical to the current FPS it is replacing. If they ever tighten up the gunplay and utilized hit-scan hit detection I might get it. We need more compettive MP FPS games not press-a-button-show-all-enemies-on-the-map-and-guns-with-no-recoil type of game.

Can't we get a competitive game in the mold of Counter Strike, but with 'aim down the sights (ADS)'? That's all I want.
 
naticus said:
Yah! Another generic modern FPS that is identical to the current FPS it is replacing. If they ever tighten up the gunplay and utilized hit-scan hit detection I might get it. We need more compettive MP FPS games not press-a-button-show-all-enemies-on-the-map-and-guns-with-no-recoil type of game.

Can't we get a competitive game in the mold of Counter Strike, but with 'aim down the sights (ADS)'? That's all I want.
Click to expand...

I agree I was a tad disappointed with the new CS. Still fun to play.
 
FMX said:
Really? This is BF3.1 at best.
Click to expand...

You mean gameplay wise? I wouldn't know as I never understood the fun in those games Delta Force next next next generation games which brutally disregard people's skills.

The game looks considerably better than BF3, though.
 
polonyc2 said:
why aren't more games made with the Frostbite engine besides the Battlefield series...that footage looked stunning...Wow! that might be the best looking game I've ever seen going by that video
Click to expand...

I think I read somewhere that the engine was in house engine used only for this series but I agree with you the engine sure does look pretty. I would love for them to use this engine on the next fallout. Imagine how gorgeous it would look? Hopefully gamebryo has been put to pasture.
 
JoeUser said:
I was unaware the theme of Battlefield was accuracy and realism. It's certainly better than CoD. If you want what you described then go play ARMA. Battlefield isn't trying to be ARMA.
Click to expand...

JoeUser knows what he speaks. Arma III will fill the 'realism' niche quite nicely. Its an excellent game, btw.

BF4 is EA's mandate to DICE to capture COD marketshare no matter the cost, with even more pressure to do so when factoring they sat out the holiday 2012 sales window with MOH:WF that turned out to be a non-offering while BLOPS2 steamrolled.
 
Last edited:
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 DLC for BF3).
 
odditory said:
JoeUser knows what he speaks. Arma III will fill the 'realism' niche quite nicely. Its an excellent game, btw.

BF4 is EA's mandate to DICE to capture COD marketshare no matter the cost, with even more pressure to do so when factoring they sat out the holiday 2012 sales window with MOH:WF that turned out to be a non-offering and BLOPS2 steamrolled.
Click to expand...

No one is contesting what you state here. We're just arguing that it makes for a shit game. COD is already horribly stale, recycled bullshit from about 6 years ago. Now, take a game that used to be a go-to-title for PC FPS gamers, and now they're trying to copy/mimic that "horribly stale, recycled bullshit from about 6 years ago".

Who here would have been more surprised if they had come up with a new and updated game for us?
 
I almost wouldn't mind if they gave the *whole* game as one package, but we all know there will be a whole "season" of DLC's trickled out, and the total package if bought at full price will break $100 easily, and even with meticulously tracking down sales will be ~$80.
 
GibsonEX said:
It looks good, but not really impressive to me. It's a step up from 3, but i expected a bit more from "next gen" game i guess. I see my friend the sun, lens flare and all the "artistic" goodies are here to stay.
I would like to see multiplayer, this Hollywood crap does nothing for me. This is the first time ever that i said meh about upcoming BF game. Maybe i'm just getting old for this :p
Click to expand...

I was about to type something very similar to this. I don't think it's getting older in my case, it's more like my realization that I hate playing goofy scripted single player games that try too hard to be action movies.
 
I envy the mass of gamers who don't mind plopping down $60 for an on the rails experience with multiplayer. I guess I've been jaded. to each their own though!

this is the same reason why I haven't bought a Madden game in 5 years; just updated rosters and a few new animations.


Posted from Hardforum.com App for Android
 
The first two minutes when he walks down the corridors and there is no shooting was immersive, and the graphics are incredible. But then the shooting starts and the whole thing becomes cringe-worthy. I got bored halfway through the trailer and skipped through.

1942 didn't try to pretend to be something it wasn't, and it's still the best game in the series IMO. I got bored with bf3 mp after only a month.
 
I wouldn't mind seeing a BF reboot from the WW2 era using the Frostbite Engine.
 
Looking forward to mp footage! I sunk 500+ hours into BF3, this will be a day one purchase for me.
 
Battlefield has a single player?????

Video is meaningless without 64 player battle.......Or could we say 80 player battle? So we can have 20 people AFK on 1 team instead of the current 12 players AFK.

Is it just me or did that game play look.....Pre-rendered and not actually live gameplay?
 
Last edited:
I'm reserving my decision until I see some MP footage and hear about what changes (if any) will be made there. I have never bought a BF game for the single player campaign, and I'm not about to start now.

In-game VOIP. Larger squads. Commander. If those are included and implemented correctly, it adds a dynamic that can separate it from the tired "modern shooter" genre and possibly make it the game a lot of people hoped BF3 would be. There's a balance to be found between run and gun arcade and "omg super realz!!!11!one!" and someone has to find it eventually.
 
TheMadHatterXxX said:
Nothing but eye candy to get people excited, I'm more concerned about gameplay. Server-side hit detection and squad voice chat in game or else this is just Battlefield 3.1
Click to expand...

thank you

this is all that matters, if no server side then no money
 
MisterClean said:
I was about to type something very similar to this. I don't think it's getting older in my case, it's more like my realization that I hate playing goofy scripted single player games that try too hard to be action movies.
Click to expand...


That's exactly what it is. But this is just a single player so it's not the biggest issue for me.

I just watched it again to pay close attention to "art direction", which is what pisses me off the most about new BF games.

What really gets me is this way over the top contrast, black and white looking game, at times there is no color at all, it's like fucking BF3's Sharqi Peninsula again, blinding supernova sun, i can't see shit lens flare everywhere, and so on that really pisses me off in multiplayer.
If you pay attention when they are driving through that tunnel at the end the game changes from normal to shit blue tint before they exit. Why every BF game has too look like a damn Saving Private Ryan?

BF3 Color Tweaker was God sent before DICE killed it.
 
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.

Thanks for the linky to the video OP.
 
Pringle said:
I envy the mass of gamers who don't mind plopping down $60 for an on the rails experience with multiplayer. I guess I've been jaded. to each their own though!

this is the same reason why I haven't bought a Madden game in 5 years; just updated rosters and a few new animations.


Posted from Hardforum.com App for Android
Click to expand...

"On the rails" as you put it, is necessary to tell a compelling story in a FPS. You simply cannot have the cinematic control that is needed if you have some sort of open world / sandbox type game.

It's a necessary evil, and if the story is good enough, if the cinematics are good enough, it's worth it.
 
Tyrsis said:
"On the rails" as you put it, is necessary to tell a compelling story in a FPS. You simply cannot have the cinematic control that is needed if you have some sort of open world / sandbox type game.

It's a necessary evil, and if the story is good enough, if the cinematics are good enough, it's worth it.
Click to expand...

Please contact the developers of Skyrim, tell them they're doing it wrong. :rolleyes:
 
Is this thread going to be merged into the other BF4 discussion thread? That video looks shockingly like BF3...
 
The magic glint that even reflects sunlight in total darkness with no light source.

"Sir, I have a great idea."

"What is it?"

"BIHPSLS or Build-In-High-Power-Sniper-Location-Systems, that way we can always know where our weakest and most defenseless assets are at a moments notice and our support and medics can find them easier to lend heavy suppression fire."

"I don't know, not quite sold"

"Its a high power light build right into the scope with laser precision so all the snipers have to do is look at you and you know where they are."

"You almost have me."

"And here is the kicker, those sneaky bastards can't turn it off, you know how they like to be all sneakily like!"

"YOUR A GENIUS!"
 
They can't do server side hit detection along with 64player servers. Their netcode can't handle it. If everyone in the country/world was on fiber, it probably would be feasible....
 
Tyrsis said:
"On the rails" as you put it, is necessary to tell a compelling story in a FPS. You simply cannot have the cinematic control that is needed if you have some sort of open world / sandbox type game.

It's a necessary evil, and if the story is good enough, if the cinematics are good enough, it's worth it.
Click to expand...
On rails != "press space to win", which is what the MMS genre has become. Half of the time if you do something contrary to the scripting you lose, even if it makes more sense. That's ridiculous.

The original Half-Life was probably the pinnacle of on-rails SP design. Since then, the concept has been taken to the extreme and it's not like we're getting Game of Thrones caliber writing here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top