Ultra Realism confirmed. Hopefully visibility will remain clearer than BF3, which is at times almost unplayably polluted with vision-impairing PostFX. Other than that, it looks like Battlefield - probably not the Battlefield I want - but a Battlefield game nontheless. If the gameplay goes more in my direction again, I'll be a happy camper. Hopefully I'll be a little less angry at this one.

P.S. apparently the PS4 version has been confirmed to run 1080p @ 60 FPS at an investor conference call by an EA official. *sigh of relief*

It looks pretty, but will probably not be that amazing to play. I can already see all of the "gun barrel sticking out of a bush" killcams in my mind's eye. Yup, it's a modern Battlefield.

My eyes locked on pictures.

I just want to play Battlefield 4. I don't care if those pictures represent the quality we'll get on high settings.

Where the boats at?

At this point, I want every non Bad Company Battlefield game to have no story and just focus more on making the multiplayer more fun and dumb.

Me and my friends played the shit out of Bad Company 2 for about a year. Then Battlefield 3 came out and the hype for it died after two weeks.

Still got some of that stupid blue tint that was so prevalent in BF3, other than that though it is not too bad. The game looks really pretty, hopefully it's, you know, actually fun to play.

It doesn't look much better than Battlefield 3. But hey, look at all those birds. Next gen confirmed.

I don't quite understand what you're saying? Do you say Battlefield games don't play well? Are not the most impressive online multiplayer games? Both in the ways the players interact with each other, the environments, and all the crazy vehicular simulation going on? I'm over 500 hours into BF3, and there's so much to master, that by the time you master one thing, you've forgotten whatever you've mastered before.

Battlefield is the prettiest and most densely & highest fidelity interactive online multiplayer game at any scale - it's just Battlefield 3 went in a direction quite a few are disappointed with, whom enjoyed the more empowering, more direct and straight forward design of the Bad Company games.

As far as I'm concerned BF3 is the most flawed Battlefield game to date, with the most unfun design direction of all iterations, but it's still a god damn Battlefield game, and in many ways it's the deepest Battlefield experience to date.

I just wish DICE would have considered fun over sheer ambition. Hopefully BF4 will more carefully consider the question *Is this fun?* with its design.

The one thing I want back in this game is being able to completely destroy buildings to the point of them collapsing. That was the one glaring flaw of Battlefield 3 I could never get over.

As long as the multiplayer is great, l'll be satisfied.

It looks pretty nice, I'm not that interested in Battlefield 4 to be honest though, but hopefully it makes a few improvements over Battlefield 3.

@seppli Bad Company and Bad Company 2 made the transition from BF2 to BF3 less impressive; it lost the commander and it has the conquest flags closer and people don't ever live long enough to bother with cooperating with each other. Sure, you throw out a medkit and some ammo, but man, that's about it. BF4 needs to take a few steps back and look at what set Battlefield apart from other games and seek to improve those features and add even more. BF4 needs to have bigger battlefields. It needs to support more players. It must bring new features and not just better graphics. Destroyable buildings need to be fully destroyable, and don't bring me that fucking bullshit that some buildings magically have the structural integrity to withstand anything from grenades to tank shells to 'maintain' the map. If you're going to have destructible environments don't break the illusion by going half-way like in Bad Company and BF3.

The most important thing is to make people feel they're part of a team. Give people the means and reasons to cooperate, be it coordinate through waypoints, set objectives and rally-points and whatnot else. I miss car-pooling. Now people spawn on any guy in the group and it sucks ass; Mainly because people just appear out of thin air; At the very least have them appear para-trooper style so there is a risk to reinforcing a group. It just sucks as when you're fighting a dude and suddenly 2 more targets appear out of fucking nothing at all. It isn't fun.

When are they fixing Prone? When can I go prone in a game and my guy doesn't clip through the wall? A guy can shoot me in my foot until I die when i'm inside the fucking building. FUN.

Fix your games and be Battlefield. Don't think that Modern Warfare is the only way people want to play team based shooters.

Fast spawning, Self-repairing vehicles. Fuck. That. Shit. Nobody cares about the vehicles. Vrooom drive right into whatever flag and see what happens. Die. Spawn. Get another vehicle. Die. Spawn on your team mate. Die. Spawn. Die. Spawn. Die. Round ended.

Battlefield 4. Bring it for real please.

Edit: Don't get me started on unlocks, and especially not on those fucking retarded Assignments. Talk about making people ruin their own experience of the game, grinding just to get a weapon they want to use.

I... honestly can't do anything more than shrug.

They insist on making story content for Battlefield. What the fuck. Am I completely oblivious to the demand for it? I haven't seen anyone ever write that they want this to be that kind of game. They're teasing the game by revealing concept art/other imagery of 'named characters'. It is so stupid.

Nope. Looks fucking boring.

If the player limit is max 64 on PC I give up. I absolutely do. I'm old. I'll be dead before shooters reach a standard where maps are big enough to facilitate fun for a higher number of players.

BF2 had 64 player maps and that was back in 2005. FUCK.

Looks like shit. But well textured shit.

If gameplay looks anything like image 3 then thats pretty dang good! Overall it's completely what I'd expect from a Battlefield game.

It sure looks like a battlefield.

I just hope it is less blue than BF3, there were like 3 colors in the last game.

I just hope for next gen console 64 player, 1080p, 60fps. As much as I like the 64 player count on the PC the hacks and people perfect sniping with the mouse was a real turn off.

I wonder if they'll just totally ape Modern Warfare's story again.

It definitely looks better than BF 3. Sure, we need to see more (always doubt screens) but this is better looking.

It definitely looks visually nice, but I don't play multiplayer games, and after playing Bad Company 2 single-player, I absolutely will not be playing another Battlefield campaign (BC2 was quite possibly the worst FPS campaign I've played - and I've played a lot of FPSs).

If I'm not mistaken, Battlefield 2 had unlocks that you gained via getting experience about 2 years before Modern Warfare did.

If I can fly a fighter jet at like 20 MPH I am in.

Well - gameplay will be shown at the BF4 reveal event at 11 PM PST later today. I believe that's in 2-3 hours. Whatever will be shown will hit the interwebs soon enough. I think the difference will be substantial, once we see it in movement.

Still rather have it look drawn like a game, rather than shot like a Micheal Mann movie - one cannot account for taste, whatever preference is one's own.

P.S. Gamespot UK just leaked the info, that we'll get a 17 minute gameplay video out of tonight's conference.

That'll go great with my breakfast.

Guys. A modern military first-person shooter.

Dem bokeh fire particles.

The only part that I'd be worried about is the visibility of enemies, especially after looking at that last picture. The sun effects are cool and all, but if it compromises how well I can see the action, that'd be something I'd genuinely have to take into consideration. Other than that, the screenshots look pretty cool. Excited to see some footage.

I like Battlefield. That city scene looks nice. Battlefield 4 will probably be nice.

Yo guys leaked trailer, watch it quick!

appreciate the post,

could it have killed those youtube guys to leak this in HD, really cant get a sense of the visuals that good on 360p video.

but regardless the reveal is apparently tonight, so its not too much longer again. pics look nice though, stoked that thats the fidelity we're getting from launch games. cant wait to see where we will be years into the next gen.

First two don't tell me much, last one looks like Battlefield to me which is good to me.

Meh.

Graphical detail and fidelity have never been DICE's problem. Those screens look amazing. Balance and mm/squad formation they need to get better at imo, at least on 360 per my experiences. BC2 did that stuff better if I recall correctly.

Nothing says Battlefield like Rihanna.

Yeah the fuck is that about. Oh well though.

with your dragons

that's a lot of birds.

And yet when they released the biggest maps ever in Armored Kill everyone bitched that they were too big.

Adding more players will hurt server operators as the monthly cost (more players means more bandwidth, more cpu) to run servers would go up significantly.

Doesn't look different enough to justify my interest yet.

I like it. And I like you.

Nice screen-caps but honestly they look fake for some reason. .

Call me a hater, but I despise the business end of what EA/DICE pulled off with Battlefield 3 (This actually is entitled for the majority of the mainstream gaming industry as-well.). They first release two versions separately (Why?) [Standard and Limited Edition]. A year and a half later, they re-release another version called, Premium which includes everything. Since I could not afford the limited edition at the time, I got the Standard version.

The Standard version is a complete rip-off. I feel like I PAYED for a goddamn demo-esc version instead. All of the extra contend thats not included in the Standard version that Prenium has completely surpasses it. I am appalled that consumers (We the gamers) LET companies get away with this.

Besides that rant, Battlefield 3 is a decent game to play on its own.

@caustic_fox: Not exactly sure what you're talking about... The Limited Edition was no different from any other EA "Limited Edition", as in it was just the game... new (with Back to Karkand access). Pretty sure they didn't sell the game brand new without that. Please elaborate on this "Standard Edition"

@sac:Ok, lets start from the top:

Premium Edition:

Includes the core game

Battlefield 3: Back to Karkand

Battlefield 3: Close Quarters

Battlefield 3: Armored Kill

Battlefield 3: Aftermath

Battlefield 3: End Game

(Basically Everything)

Limited Edition:

Includes the core game

Battlefield 3: Back to Karkand

(And other miscellaneous extras)

And finally, Standard Edition: (The version that I have currently)

Includes the core game

(Nothing more)

So now hopefully you understand of why I'm pissed off at EA/DICE with this. I won't be surprised if Battlefield 4 does the same thing. .

I'm still of the opinion we don't really need another full blown battlefield game. I think they would have been better served putting out another spin off title first, maybe actually bring out a PC version of 1943 with improved graphics and more players. This honestly just looks like more BF3 to me, no major graphical enhancement, which has sort of been a staple of the series.

Just get Premium for your Standard edition. What's the problem with that? There was a lot of game to be found in BF3 at release, and it warrated full price. Premium offers even more content than that - for less than full price. The Premium Edition is essentially the GotY version of BF3, with everything included, and released about a year after launch. Standard fare, and an incredible value.

I do not understand what you're upset about, and it really wasn't that hard to get the Limited Edition. At launch, there was no such thing as a Standard Edition, unless you went out of your way to acquire one. Everything is strictly above board with BF3's value proposition, unless your perspective is skewed into the absurd.