I "got" to wait in line for an hour to play Battlefield 4 at PAX... and not only did it just feel like BF3 with some extra stuff, it felt like a bad version of BF3 with extra stuff.

Look, I'm just an amateur video gamesman at best, and they were showing early code. I think it might've been from E3 actually. However, I've played every Battlefield game minus some of the '42 expansions and the early console versions, and won a BF2 tournament in 2007. I've even put a good amount of time into P4F, Heroes, 2142, and played BF3 pre-alpha, alpha, and beta.

Given all that, I feel like I knew what to expect, but it still fell even below that. We were playing on Xbox One controllers hooked up to PC's (the guy next to me crashed to desktop halfway through).

It looked good. A little better than BF3 on PC, and a lot better than BF3 on 360 (yeah I play both x.x). But ugh, it controlled so poorly. The left trigger was extremely sensitive so it would ADS all the time. The tank controls were just broken, period. It was really laggy getting in and out, sometimes you could only turn one direction (my friend could only turn right the entire time). Jumping and vaulting over stuff was bad as well. It was never great in BF3, but it seemed even worse in the demo. I'd get caught on rubble and any little thing on the ground. And just in general, it felt really laggy, even though we were presumably playing 10v10 locally.

Ok, so that's all stuff they can (and should) fix before launch, but the part that bummed me out the most was just how much seemed to be re-used from BF3. The HUD is nearly identical, shooting down the sights on a controller feels the same, that is, a little sluggish and unresponsive. Just the style of the map and how it was rendered looked so extremely similar to BF3 (brown dirty buildings with a slightly yellowed desaturated look).

I don't know. Obviously all this criticism should be read in context of me being a crazy Battlefield player, playing on an early version. Maybe they just fucked up and should not have been showing this demo, and maybe they spent no time on the demo, and are instead working on making a rad game. I just got absolutely no hint from playing the demo that a new, awesome Battlefield was coming out of this, but instead, assuming they fix the major problems, just another BF3 with more destruction and new little things here and there, like the ability to parry a knife attack (I think that happened? yay?).

BF3 is still a great game, and if this is just the same game again, it'll be ok... It's just disappointing that it doesn't seem to be anything more than that. So maybe don't get massively hyped about it if you're starting to get that way? Who knows, maybe I'll read this after it comes out and think I was so wrong.

Huh. Well I suppose we'll see. The only opportunity they have left is TGS. That's at the end of the month now. Its sure not very far until launch, so hm.

Assuming you're a PC player, it's only natural that playing any FPS game on a gamepad will feel sluggish and broken to you. It's also definitely been the E3 build, from the footage I've seen on youtube.

I don't know man, Shanghai Siege is a personal dream come true for me - combined arms warfare in an actual metropolitan downtown area - that's got to be great, if you are aware of the verticality of it all. The chopper footage I've seen, flying trough the skyscraper canyons of Shanghai, that's giving me shivers.

Of course I haven't played it yet, but I am certain I will like it better than BF3. It's objectively bigger and more badass, and from the minute details I've spotted, like more tracer rounds and therefor much clearer visual directional feedback, I think it'll also be better. Hey, I finally see the gunship shooting at me, which I never did in BF3.

I won't tell you you're wrong or you're right based on anything, I firmly respect and believe in how games can be felt and perceived differently by every individual. We don't need to agree on any game being good or bad, in my book.. it's a personal thing.

However from reading your post I can split your issues into two: One is the controls, which I'm not gonna discuss because you played with a controller and therefore in my opinion the critique is irrelevant to Battlefield on PC, and the other is the re-used BF3 assets, and the general jank you felt while playing. Here's my two cents on the latter: The jank will be fixed, hopefully, for release day the same way BF3's jank was magically patched up between the beta and the final game.

And when it comes to re-used assets, I'm someone who HATES lazy developers who re-use assets and don't put 100% into creating a n.e.w game with the whole meaning of the word. However, I personally think that Battlefield 3 was so incredibly groundbreaking, asset-wise, that I'm OK with DICE re-using the BF3 tech and focusing more on adding the BF2 features that BF3 lacked, and fixing the broken teamplay of BF3.

If BF4 is BF3 with the addition of decent and respectable PC-worthy features and better, BF2-esque teamplay, that's more than enough for me. BF3 was a revolution in the technological aspect, we don't need more tech-work for BF4, we need better teamplay.

That guy on forums who said battlefield will be great will be disappoint. I will wait for reviews.

I played the demo at PAX as well, and the main issue I had with it was that we were using a controller but the aim assist was not turned on. Because of that, it lacked any form of precision with the aiming. After being so used to console shooters helping with aim assist, it was disorienting trying to shoot a dude who was reasonably far away with no help from the systems. I'm sure they'll have aim assist on consoles when it comes out.

Playing on a map designed for 64 people with only 20 was also underwhelming.

It was just a bad showing, there were only like 16 people playing, and the game felt very unfinished, too slow, when you looked down the sight you could strafe back and forth very fast, which was odd, the controls were mapped awfully, and you could not change them because the gamepad was not mapped to the menu, also the kill times as of right now are way too high, and tanks running out of ammo after like 5 shots and having to hid from another tank till the regain theirs is retarded.

Destruction was the same level as BF3 for the most part too, the game will likley be good, but the demo was really poor.

Baddlefield, more like!

*dusts off shoulders*

The E3 demo was BF:BC 2-style in terms TTK (time to kill), which I personaolly prefer. In other words, on average, it takes one hit more to down a hostile - so TTK is between 20%-30% increased over BF3 in that build of BF4. Sadly, DICE has already come forward and said that they'll very likely go back to BF3's take on TTK for retail. Shame really, but I guess there's no accounting for taste. I guess mass market hates reactive gameplay, and circumstances where skill trumps initiative more frequently. That's how Call of Duty became bigger than Halo, initiative trumps skills almost always.

Yeah, but I just don't think DICE is great at controller precision. Maybe it's because I'm used to how other shooters feel, but even taking into account the lack of aim-assist, the controls just didn't feel like I wanted it to -- I'd guess because the acceleration they use on the sticks is just off enough to bug me. I probably play more console shooters now than PC, and Battlefield has always been more "acceptable" than good on consoles. I don't doubt that it'll feel like it should with a mice and keyboard, but from that demo, they aren't making any strides to catch up on consoles.

I'll never understand how acceleration isn't a standard option for all console games. The only game I know of, that does so, is Max Payne 3. So many games get major flak for too slow acceleration. Remember Killzone 2 or Uncharted 3? Both suffered from that, as well as ungodly deadzones. I guess some of that was input latency, which is another problem. Input latency aside, designers should let us set acceleration to our own preferences. No matter if their focus tests say that the mass market doesn't understand or care about acceleration, their core audience does (and it's nothing that can't be explained with a short tooltip either), and if they get it catastrophically wrong like Killzone 2 - it's horrible PR everytime.

Yeah, I can't imagine it would be that difficult to have a nice calibration thing as well. Like just a crosshair with a target that pops up above and another to the side. Could do it like an eye exam where it's "which is better, number 1 or 2, now 2 or 3?" Just to compare different acceleration curves as closely as possible.

After playing BF3 I can't say I'm surprised. Judging from the footage I've seen of BF4 it did looked the same, and since BF3 didn't really impress me like Bad Company and Bad Company 2. I can't really say I'm excited for the game.

For anyone who's going to pre-order this on PC, I have two words for you:

"Remember SimCity"

Don't let EA burn you again.

Way more interested in class balance than the control stuff to be honest. Anything you remember about that or was it mostly the visual/presentation stuff?

@two_socks: It was hard to get a sense of class balance over the course of the one match. They spawned enough vehicles for 64 people but there were only 20 people playing so most of the combat was occurring in those.

One interesting thing I had happen to me was when I got assists for more than 80% of the health of an enemy, it popped up with 'assist counts as kill', meaning exactly what you would think it means.

I knew it, BF4 really is BF3.5. I'll be skipping this one for sure. It's like DICE don't even know what they're doing anymore.

I don't think it's Dice's fault. I think it's pressure from EA to get their foot in the door with the new consoles.

Hopefully that will funnel into unlocks for weapons.

Yeah, I can see that. Fuckin' EA

Really, with this, Mass Effect 3, Need for Speed: Most Wanted, and Sim City... it just feels like EA is pushing things out too quickly. These games have so much potential, but playing them, they just aren't finished. At least they keep putting money into some of them after the fact... but it sucks being burned by playing a not-quite-there version at release.

Also, it's really gross that they're already taking people's money for season passes for BF4. I hope people learn not to even consider those until at least the first big content is out -- I know I've screwed up that up enough on season passes to learn my lesson.

DICE has been indoctrinated.

DICE has been indoctrinated.

I guess I'll just keep playing BF2 on the few servers that remain, like I have been doing a bit lately. I was incredibly disappointed in BF3 and this sounds even worse from what I have seen and heard so far. It is such a shame what EA has done to this franchise.

I feel like I'm the only person in this thread who actually really liked BF3.

In regards of minutia, and how BF4 is going to be more fun, check out this GamesCom scout chopper gameplay video. The much increased frequency of tracer rounds and increased muzzle flash is readily apparent from above, as well as that all projectiles from vehicles seem to be drawn much more consistently and much more visibly too. Also notice the much less nervous dynamic crosshairs of the scout chopper. Also, the increased traveling speed.

Looks like they're willing to make scout choppers as fun as they should be, this time around. Putting fun ahead of balance in the priority of things. A perfectly balanced game is never as fun as a perfectly imbalanced game, because imbalance heightens the potential for good times. The balancing act is not about absolute balance, but about fun balance - a fact of gamedesign DICE seems to have forgotten when it made BF3.

Also - that 25mm cannon is hella OP. Luv!

Aren't you coming to this conclusion a little prematurely? BF4 isn't even in beta yet.

I could say the exact same thing to you.

Not really, I'm merely hopeful. Staying positive. You talk like BF4 being a lost cause is a fact. In a *Haters gonna hate* fashion. So really, calling it merely *Premature* is putting mildly.

I am pretty sure DICE is known at this point for really poor builds of their games being shown off early on because they are focusing on the game. The BF3 beta was hilarious! And I want to say it wasn't the first time that had happened with their games.

I will say, it looked way better than the talk out of E3 made it sound it would when I looked at it over at MS's space at PAX. Although I suppose it's not confirmed that that was running on an Xbone.

It's true, this guy just doesn't realize that it's what a lot of the more serious players actually want out of BF4. They don't want a huge departure, they don't want BC3, they want an improved BF4 that fixes the issues that 3 had.

I don't know, isn't the point of balance to make sure both players have fun in an encounter? BF3 is filled with jets that can infinitely avoid launchers and chopper snipers and mobile AA that are all a bit silly because while they may be fun for the user, they aren't much fun for anyone trying to deal with them. I think the biggest issue with "balance" in BF3 is that there aren't enough consequences and it's built to let skilled players last forever in certain roles. And the big picture balance is skewed pretty strongly in favor of vehicles. A disabled vehicle is rarely all that bad as long as you can hop out and survive. You just pop out and run or repair and you're back in it 5 seconds later. It'd be nice to see more balance throughout the roles, because BF3 got stupid frustrating when one team had good air and you were stuck with shitty pilots, or when there was a decent player in one of those ludicrous AA LAVs that rips up everything from infantry to aircraft to tanks.

If they add a little more consequence to curb the excellent players who stick to vehicles, I think it'd help bring the game back into a more holistic place where infantry is more than just numbers to capture a spot and vehicles aren't infallible.

Seems your idea of "fun balance" over "absolute balance" is "fun for one guy, not fun for the other." I mean, obviously a vehicle is going to gun down some infantry if they aren't prepared, but in BF3 it often feels like there's nothing you can do about that sort of thing without 4 engineers coordinating launcher fire or what have you. And because of how they handle joining matches and teams and all that, they actively discourage you to play with friends easily so you can accomplish that sort of coordination.

That "merely hopeful" ship sailed a long time ago for you. Right now, you're making it seem like it's the greatest thing ever, and disagreeing with anybody that thinks otherwise. So yes, I can say the same thing to you.

Probably the worst burn I've ever been through, I'm definitely weary of EA. Then again I'm not planning on getting BF4 for awhile. Saving it for a new console because that's the way I've grown accustomed to playing multiplayer FPS games. I'm also a bit disappointed after reading what the OP had to say, but I guess what can you expect? BF3 has been an amazing experience for me, for a plethora of reasons. So if Dice/EA don't want to change it up too much I guess I'm alright with that.

WHOOOOOOOOOOOOA THERE NELLY! Bad Company and Bad Company 2 on console had some dead-on precision with those controls. I played the FUCK out of those bastards.

And just to make sure my PC creds are in there, I put a solid 250 hours into Battlefield 2, at least 100 hours into 2142 (and still play it on occasion), can't even think of how many hours I spent on Desert Combat, and spent about...25-ish...hours on Battlefield 3 before I realized how much I hated it?

Bad Company 2, however... I know that I easily put just as much time on it as I did Battlefield 2. Damn near had all the achievements also, I believe. That game, personally, is the paramount of the Battlefield franchise still. Great map design, great destruction, great team strategy, great systems...just overall a fantastic game. I just hated it on PC. The way characters move in those games now, there is a weight to them. Being able to just twitch around with a mouse feels so fucking weird after playing it on a controller.

Considering I haven't played a military shooter since Bad Company 2 on 360, I'm expecting this to be a huge leap for me.

I gotta stop reading these posts, or articles saying that the dust isn't good enough.

WHO CARES?!

MIRRORS EDGE 2 GUYZ

@awesomeusername said:

WHO CARES?!

MIRRORS EDGE 2 GUYZ

Which was at PAX not at all. I'll believe that game is coming when I see it on shelves.

Eh, I liked the first Mirror's Edge, but this one most won't be the same as the first, so I guess we'll see. Also, there's that whole never-giving-money-to-EA-again thing. So yeah, skipping.

I'm pretty sure controls and network issues will be, for the most part, fixed before the launch. Those seems like superficial flaws that can, and will, be tweaked many times come crunch time.

It's a bigger problem if it feels roughly like the same game. But I really liked how BF3 played. If they change some animation timings, give it better graphics, add new modes that feel diferent enough, add new maps, some new ideas... yeah that's a sequel I'm interested in. It doesn't have to change the world.

BF3 has a rather rigid rock-paper-scissors balance, and if you are boring enough person, it's built with tons of zero skill ceiling weapons like the lock-on Stinger/IGLA/Javelin, the indirect mortar, or the absolute worst - the SOFLAM & Javelin/Guided Missle combination- , that one/two player(s) can lock-down an airspace completely (without turning oneself into much of a target either), ruin land warfare on an entire section of a map, and so forth. I don't know what Battlefield 3 you were playing, but combined arms balance in Conquest 64 certainly isn't allowing for anyone to dominate indefinitely. Jets maybe, but that's only possible when a team is incapable of adapting their loadouts and behaviours to the situation. Or TV missile sniper & helo camper jocks, on choppers-only maps - the epitome of boorish and boring playstyles.

Other than that, BF3 is so well balanced, even the best of vehicle pilots, be it tank or chopper or jet, can be put in their place by a constantly droning *beep - beep - beep*. Sadly lock-on warfare is back in BF4, to what extent we don't know. I fucking hate that aspect of BF3 more than anything in any game I've ever played. The beeping of zero skill ceiling weapons locking on is the sound that fun makes when it goes to die. In terms of combined arms balance, BF3 is the most well balanced Battlefield ever - it keeps everyone in check, just not in a particularly fun way.

Imbalances are apparent on one-dimensional maps, sure. But that's because of the rigid nature of BF3's rock-paper-scissors balance. Did I mention that I hate BF3's rigid rock-paper-scissors balance? I hate it so much!

To give you an example what kind of balance I like. I like to shoot at an aircraft with my 9mm sidearm and deal chip damage. Every kit regardless of loadout being at the very least capable of dealing meaningful chip damage to armor too. That's how I like it. Zero rigidity in terms of rock-paper-scissors balance. Anything and anyone can fight anything and anyone, regardless of kit and loadout, just with varying degrees of efficacy. Due to BF3's rigid rock-paper scissors balance, one is often helpless and incapable of doing anything other than keeping one's head down. In the large scheme of things, it's still well balanced, better than ever really, but not fun at all.

I really hope BF4 will soften combined arms balance up to the point of being similar to BF:BC 1 and BF:BC 2 Vietnam. And for the love of god, I hope that *Under The Radar* prevents all lock-on attempts - so that flying super-low is a valid tactic (the trade-off being at risk from 120mm cannons from tanks, as well as unguided RPGs and small arms fire). And really, whoever at DICE thinks that lock-on warfare against land vehicles is anything but devasting to fun... jeez, just go over your books - man. That's so wrong, it hurts my brains. Tank vs tank ballet out in the open field have become so rare, it makes me want to puke. At my best in pervious iterations of Battlefield, I was able to hold my own against 3-4 tanks - outmanouvering and outgunning lesser tank commanders. These days, with lock-on warfare in the mix, and generally way easier to use main cannons, that's a thing of the past. Blech!

@hailinel: Do you not remember the end of the announce trailer? "Coming... When it's ready." That's enough info to know it's probably still super, super early into development. I also (think I) read somewhere that a small team is working on it. So we have a long way until the game comes out but I bet we'll see it at E3 2014. I'm just happy it got announced. I just replayed Mirrors Edge and I'm trying to beat all the speed runs and time trials which are ridiculous. But man I love this game.

I really enjoyed BF3, but I think I might skip BF4. If I do buy it, I'll wait for a sell or for the eventual premium edition or whatever.

Was not into BF3 at all (PS3 only). Much prefer Bad Company. So until they make a new one or 2142 i'm going to give BF a miss.

I sometimes feel like you come into threads just to argue with people or be contrarian. Seriously, I've never seen you say something positive without first saying something negative.

All my friends had BC2 on PC, so I only played a tiny bit on console -- I guess I don't remember much about it's controls. BF3 though just kind of bugs me with the little hitches and slight rubberbanding sometimes when vaulting or dying. I probably played too much CoD and got used to how smooth those games are.

If they fix the serious issues, I imagine BF4 is going to control a lot like BF3, good or bad I guess.

I'm honestly not here to pick fights with anyone. I just give my honest opinion on things, and somehow people take offense to my comments that were in no way directed at anyone at all and start attacking me. Yeah, my opinions might not always be popular, but they're MY opinions.

Fair enough. But you do come across as negative a lot of the time. Which isn't to say you're a bad person, or you shouldn't have opinions, but I kinda wish I could see you post something happy. You seem fairly level-headed, just a little pessimistic, is all I'm saying.

So bugs and controls not withstanding, from everything they showed so far i never really got the impression this was anything more than more BF3 so i guess i'm not surprised. Everything looks more or less the same from BF3 on PC down to the box art with the orange hue. This was always going to be played safe and stick to what worked last time and really the only meaningful change that can be reasonably expected is for people who only played the console version of BF3 and will be moving up to the PS4/Xbox One version.

I got burned out grinding for unlocks in BF a while ago. And this looks just like BF3 with a graphics mod. But I can't wait to get in on the beta and give it a go before buying.

Great point.