#1 Posted by Captain_Lone_Wolf (23 posts) -

When we first heard of BF4, we all wondered at first what was going to be new? To start off, BF4 is going to be run off of the new Frostbite 3 engine. Which we all know means, better graphics, better game play, ect. Another thing that got people's attention was the "Commander mode" in which a player has control of various missiles and can command the players on his or her team. More recently the BF4 team said that there will be more thing to "Blow up" and change the way one might capture an area. One of these things I'm very excited about is the road blocks that you can activate, which block the path for tanks. One thing i do wonder about this is, if the tan is on top of the barrier when it's activated, will the tank blow up? Oh and don't forget about the sky scraper in Dow n town Hong Kong falling over. Now that they are introducing "Theater mode" into BF4 making Lets plays and reviews is going to be so much easier now. I hope theater mode is going to be included in Campaign, like Halo.

Given all this, BF4 should be a great upgrade from BF3, but the one thing that take all the realism of the Battlefield series, is the introduction of kill cams. This is not something that should be in BF4. What i loved about the Battlefield series what that i could hide and snipe with out and anyone finding me from the kill cams. I really do hope they take that out before release day.

#2 Edited by Rorie (3169 posts) -

@captain_lone_wolf: I'm pretty sure killcams have been in previous Battlefield games as a server-side option, unless I'm sorely mistaken.

Staff
#3 Posted by Baillie (4274 posts) -

@rorie said:

@captain_lone_wolf: I'm pretty sure killcams have been in previous Battlefield games as a server-side option, unless I'm sorely mistaken.

I haven't played Battlefield 4, but yes. Killcams have been in the previous games, if by means it just shows the person who killed you. This is removed in certain modes, such as Hardcore.

#4 Posted by GreggD (4509 posts) -

'Battlefield' and 'Realism' should never be used in conjunction with one another.

#5 Edited by ArtisanBreads (3960 posts) -

In the Bad Company games they had a cam that showed your killer from third person, and if you knew the map it rather easily tipped off their location.

I haven't seen it in 4 but anything to limit sniping on open maps is welcome to me, especially since it seems like sniping is more deadly in BF 4 from the limited amount of it I've seen.

#6 Posted by PandaBear (1379 posts) -

After literally 250 hours of BF3 multipayer, including diving out of a jet, strapping C4 to a jeep, slamming it into a tank, blowing it up, repairing a crashed helicopter with a blowtorch then getting shot down by an unguided rocket I can safely say realism isn't what makes Battlefield great. AND BF3 had killcams. They didn't show the angle like BF4, but they did focus on your killer for a few seconds letting you know where they are.

This has never been ArmA. Kill cams balance long distance kills from riles that are one-hit kills above the chest... and I bet they'll be optional in the final game.

#7 Edited by DonPixel (2598 posts) -

DICE has said this many times: Battlefield is not about realism, is about fun.

#8 Posted by CrazyBagMan (856 posts) -

Battlefield was realistic? More realistic than Call of Duty, sure. But realistic? Nope.

#9 Posted by xX_Kells (25 posts) -
@donpixel said:

DICE has said this many times: Battlefield is not about realism, is about fun.


This a thousand times over. If you want "realism" play some Rainbow Six on PC or something like it. Its bad enough they made BF3 some bastard child of CoD and BF.

#10 Edited by Evilsbane (4694 posts) -

Battlefield has never been about realism and kill cams are a fantastic addition (Not really because pretty sure they were already there) because it takes 90% of the situations where you have No fucking clue what just killed you and your angry you got "cheated" then you watch a feed that tells you if you did or not, most of the time you just have to admit you got owned and move on.

#11 Posted by mosdl (3242 posts) -

Battlefield is about chaos theory - give people enough stuff and the ensuing chaos will be amazing.

#12 Posted by jayjonesjunior (1094 posts) -

Battlefield series never had any realism.

#13 Edited by fisk0 (4396 posts) -

The Battlefield games have always been the opposite of realistic, and downright embraced ridiculousness. Going back as far as when you tried to load up the zeppelin in Codename Eagle with tanks which you dropped on the enemy base, or when people put explosives all over their jeeps in BFV, blowing them up while blasting 60's hits from the speakers. That said, it seems like they've taken out spotting, which is disappointing.

#14 Posted by xX_Kells (25 posts) -

@fisk0: On Xbox its on the RB button. I thought they had taken it out as well.

Battlefield has never been about realism and kill cams are a fantastic addition (Not really because pretty sure they were already there) because it takes 90% of the situations where you have No fucking clue what just killed you and your angry you got "cheated" then you watch a feed that tells you if you did or not, most of the time you just have to admit you got owned and move on.

Also, its 10x more skillful to be spotted and being watched on the kill cam and still killing someone over and over versus "hardcore" where you just lurk back to whatever corner/bush you were hiding in. Hardcore isn't really harder at all.

#15 Posted by fisk0 (4396 posts) -

@fisk0: On Xbox its on the RB button. I thought they had taken it out as well.

Great, thanks, I did try to look at the PS3 controller layout, but couldn't find it there, and since the PC version is using battlelog again, making you unable to check settings out of a match (and I haven't had any luck joining games on PC), I couldn't check it's keybindings.

#16 Edited by csl316 (9230 posts) -

Man, seeing people talk about Battlefield's chaotic nonsense just brings back all my good memories of Bad Company 2. Can't wait to get this.

#17 Posted by Subjugation (4728 posts) -

If you want realism, play ArmA. Even then you're still very much playing a game. People claiming a game is realistic more often than not don't actually have any actual experience with the real version of whatever is being represented, so them saying it is realistic doesn't hold much weight at all.

#18 Posted by Captain_Lone_Wolf (23 posts) -

@baillie: I do remember that it was an option in previous battlefeilds. Now the problem is that "possibly" we won't be able to turn it off in BF4 which is bad no matter how you think about it.

#19 Edited by Korwin (2977 posts) -

I could land a Spitfire on a roof and make tanks do back flips against sand bags in 1942, realism has never been part of the equation.

#20 Edited by Captain_Lone_Wolf (23 posts) -

@subjugation: I agree Arma is the most realistic game out there. Now the most "realistic" war game on consoles i believe is the battlefield franchise. So it's as close as we can get. Of course there are things that make it completely unrealistic (some one nailed all the those thing in a comment above) I believe the most realistic thing was there weren't kill cams that highlighted the enemy...but heck their can never be a "perfect" war game. Well except Arma

#22 Posted by Captain_Lone_Wolf (23 posts) -

@greggd: When i say realism i mean it's a lot closer to being like the real thing compared to COD and other war game franchises.

#23 Posted by tourgen (4542 posts) -

The only thing realistic about Battlefield is that it happens to be skinned with modern military textures. It's a cartoon.

#24 Posted by Captain_Lone_Wolf (23 posts) -

@tourgen: There i have to disagree with you. Yes i does look fancy, but the animations, for example, are more realistic than other first person shooters. Also the vehicle dynamics, i would say, again for example, the way the jets fly are pretty realistic (as long as your in first person view). Not everything is perfect, but it's got a good balance between realistic aspects and the aspects that make it fun.

#25 Edited by JasonR86 (9762 posts) -

lol. "realism"

#26 Posted by kindgineer (2788 posts) -

To argue that kill cams eliminate "realism" in Battlefield 4 is just ridiculous. Why in the hell would I want to play a war game, on a gigantic map, and not have a method of evening my chances with eliminating those that are completely hidden? I don't play the game to get killed 20 times in a game of hide-and-seek before I finally find the culprit. Kill cams even out the ridiculous notion of putting snipers into a gigantic map.

#27 Posted by JasonR86 (9762 posts) -

Realism.

#28 Posted by Subjugation (4728 posts) -

@jasonr86: Are you implying that doesn't happen in real combat scenarios? Next thing I know you'll be telling me soldiers don't do 360 no-scope headshots either.

#29 Edited by Vonocourt (2157 posts) -

@jasonr86 said:

*SNIP*

Realism.

I was gonna say something...but this made anything I could say unnecessary.

#30 Posted by Nekroskop (2786 posts) -

To be honest the beta version of BF3 looked fucking amazing, but EA put on this dumb filter and made everything look washed out and like someone were pointing gigantic lights at the player at all time.

BF4 has the same problem. You can't even mod it out because that would be considered "A hack" according to EA.

#31 Edited by MAGZine (438 posts) -

To be honest the beta version of BF3 looked fucking amazing, but EA put on this dumb filter and made everything look washed out and like someone were pointing gigantic lights at the player at all time.

BF4 has the same problem. You can't even mod it out because that would be considered "A hack" according to EA.

DICE did that, not EA.

EA just gives DICE money to make the game. I doubt they, as a publisher, came down on DICE and demanded high-contrast, low-saturation blue filters.

Anyhow, on realism: I don't think anybody is calling Battlefield 'realistic'--at least not in the sense of ArmA or Rainbow Six. BUT, the gameplay did always tend to be more realistic than, say, Call of Duty

#32 Edited by Nekroskop (2786 posts) -

@magzine: Dice is pretty much EA's bitch now, so it doesn't matter. The next thing they'll do is call them Bioware Sweden or Bioware North Europe and set them to work on the new ME game.

#33 Posted by probablytuna (3795 posts) -

I'm fairly certain the map with the falling skyscraper is Shanghai, not Hong Kong.

#34 Posted by Verendus (348 posts) -

It wasn't realistic to begin with.

Besides, balance is much more important factor than realism.

BF4 should be a great upgrade from BF3, but the one thing that take all the realism of the Battlefield series, is the introduction of kill cams. This is not something that should be in BF4. What i loved about the Battlefield series what that i could hide and snipe with out and anyone finding me from the kill cams. I really do hope they take that out before release day.

1. BF3 had killcam.

2. If you want to be a teammate and rack up your k/d, play hardcore. No killcam there, every camper's wet dream.

#35 Posted by Captain_Lone_Wolf (23 posts) -
#36 Posted by Captain_Lone_Wolf (23 posts) -

@verendus: Yes BF3 did have a killcam, which many people hated. Yes i love hardcore because ithas no kill cam. BF4's kill cam highlight where the enemy is from where you were which is worse than BF3's kill cam.

#37 Posted by djou (878 posts) -

@greggd said:

'Battlefield' and 'Realism' should never be used in conjunction with one another.

Yeah, seriously isn't that what Arma is? BF should be about doing a bunch of dumb shit on a huge playground.

#38 Posted by GreggD (4509 posts) -

@verendus: Yes BF3 did have a killcam, which many people hated. Yes i love hardcore because ithas no kill cam. BF4's kill cam highlight where the enemy is from where you were which is worse than BF3's kill cam.

They're using the only thing that MoH: Warfighter did right. I say good on DICE for adopting the superior kill cam.

#39 Posted by Verendus (348 posts) -

@greggd:

Agreed.I didn't have a problem with cam BF3 had, but BF4's is better.

@captain_lone_wolf:

Then keep playing hardcore. I don't understand what's the problem with it, it only hurts campers and cliffwankers anyway.

#40 Posted by Deranged (1856 posts) -

The kill-cam isn't even that bad. Sure, it's annoying but it's never felt like I've been screwed over by it. If I'm capping a point and my team are busy being kill-happy and ignore the points, I tend to get rushed consistently and I have no problem wiping out entire squads.

#41 Posted by KittyVonDoom (445 posts) -

Pfft. I like my games to be realistic. Thx

#42 Posted by Captain_Lone_Wolf (23 posts) -

@verendus: Yes, but the serious snipers are hurt by this killcam. People who need to stay hidden wilst defending or attacking an area.

#43 Edited by GreggD (4509 posts) -

@verendus: Yes, but the serious snipers are hurt by this killcam. People who need to stay hidden wilst defending or attacking an area.

Active sniping, look it up sir.

#44 Edited by Verendus (348 posts) -

@captain_lone_wolf:

Serious sniping? Is that same as cliffwanking? I'm pretty sure I outscore these "serious snipers" who are hurt by killcam easily. Maybe it's time to reconsider more active and team oriented playstyle. ;)

Yes, part of sniping is shooting an enemy who never saw the bullet coming, but only an idiot remains in one position for longer than 2-3 kills.

You can always argue "That's how it goes in real life" but this is a game. No matter how good your K/D is at the end of the round you'll be burden to your team.