• 53 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Edited by mrcraggle (1979 posts) -

Eurogamer

Consider this the last gasp of the old multiplayer model then. It's a fine swansong, especially when played on the most powerful platforms, and in particular if you treat the campaign as a free bonus feature. It's hard not to wonder just what DICE will be able to do when it no longer has to hobble its designs to suit ageing hardware, though.

8/10

Videogamer.com

It may not pack the same shock and awe as its next-gen cousin (the visual concessions made during multiplayer and occasional bug smack of an engine cracking under pressure), but the top-drawer gameplay makes Battlefield 4 a deeply enjoyable title regardless of platform. As one of the best multiplayer games available on 360 and PS3, DICE’s shooter offers a delightfully destructive send-off to the current-generation.

9/10

Joystiq

The main draw for the Battlefield series has always been the chaotic camaraderie of its multiplayer, and that's no different here. But the sum of Battlefield 4's parts shows that DICE is capable of more. Not only has the developer iterated on and progressed its marquee multiplayer, it's provided a tight and cohesive campaign that is everything a military shooter needs to be.

4.5/5

UK IGN

The current-gen version of Battlefield 4 isn't the ideal way to play, but it isn't damaged or deficient despite its limitations. It accomplishes less than you'll see on other platforms, but it's still a great multiplayer shooter that makes the most of its ambitions. DICE proves once again that destruction is a valuable strategic addition to competitive combat, even when it's a little ugly, and that battle reaches its full potential with two killer Commanders are bringing out the best in their squads. The campaign, on the other hand is a disappointing, but functioning and familiar game with overwhelming action and remarkable spectacle.

8/10

Polygon

DICE has failed once again to make Battlefield 4 a serious singleplayer contender. But its emphasis on ambitious, team-based multiplayer does wonders to wash the taste of that failure away. Battlefield 4 takes the elements that have made each installment work and glues them together successfully — even if some rough edges show here or there.

7.5/10

#2 Posted by knifeoframbo (38 posts) -

Gamespot has a review up based on the ps4 version, very exciting!

#3 Edited by mrcraggle (1979 posts) -

@knifeoframbo: It's currently the only one up on metacritic. I'll update the post later on once more come in. A lot of these reviews state what the situation is with the next gen version. Polygon noted that the Xbox One version is running at 720p and the PS4 version is 900p. Videogamer.com also stated that they played current gen and next gen/PC versions equally at an EA event.

#4 Posted by gike987 (1778 posts) -

There is also the first next gen Digital Foundry. For those who are interested in technical comparisons.

Result: PC>>PS4>XB1. So just like most people expected. 1600x900 on PS4 and 720p on XB1.

#5 Posted by TheStandardToaster (187 posts) -

gametrailers: 9.5

#6 Edited by kishinfoulux (2505 posts) -

@gike987 said:

There is also the first next gen Digital Foundry. For those who are interested in technical comparisons.

Result: PC>>PS4>XB1. So just like most people expected. 1600x900 on PS4 and 720p on XB1.

PC Master Race wins again...to the surprise of no one.

#7 Posted by knifeoframbo (38 posts) -

@mrcraggle: Must be why the Xbox One review is under embargo for another two weeks. Glad to hear the graphics are nearly as good as pc on ps4, I was hoping for that. Supposedly there will be direct capture footage of the ps4 version on YouTube tomorrow.

#8 Edited by Yummylee (22504 posts) -

It begins!

#9 Edited by Milkman (17308 posts) -

@gike987 said:

There is also the first next gen Digital Foundry. For those who are interested in technical comparisons.

Result: PC>>PS4>XB1. So just like most people expected. 1600x900 on PS4 and 720p on XB1.

The comments on that are hilarious. All the crazy reactionary fanboy posts are way upvoted (for example: "Microsoft, you cunts" +8) and the only reasonable comments are downvoted to hell. ("It's a cross-generational LAUNCH game by a 3rd party dev. No surprise that there are differences. But no doubt, silly fanboys will draw "definitive" conclusions about console "power" from it because hey, console wars, man." -10)

INTERNET!

#10 Posted by mosdl (3258 posts) -

@milkman said:

@gike987 said:

There is also the first next gen Digital Foundry. For those who are interested in technical comparisons.

Result: PC>>PS4>XB1. So just like most people expected. 1600x900 on PS4 and 720p on XB1.

The comments on that are hilarious. All the crazy reactionary fanboy posts are way upvoted (for example: "Microsoft, you cunts" +8) and the only reasonable comments are downvoted to hell. ("It's a cross-generational LAUNCH game by a 3rd party dev. No surprise that there are differences. But no doubt, silly fanboys will draw "definitive" conclusions about console "power" from it because hey, console wars, man." -10)

INTERNET!

The most interesting bit is the PS4 upscaler being called not great - might be because its not a simple 720p->1080p, but that should not be an issue. Wonder if it is PS4 hardware or BF4 being the issue.

#11 Posted by theveej (854 posts) -
#12 Edited by csl316 (9411 posts) -

Been a while since I played one of these, so jumping into the PS4 version after playing Bad Company 2 on 360 will be a super-impressive jump. Shame about the campaign sucking again. I heard someone from DICE mention that story is hard for Swedes.... but I just played Brothers on Saturday so yeah.

Edit: Here's the quote "I hate to say this, but storytelling does not come naturally to Swedes," said Soderlund. "But we’re good at designing systems, and that’s what these games really are. Minecraft puts a box in front of you and says, ‘Do whatever you want with it.’ Battlefield is a system designed for entertainment rather than for telling you a story."

#13 Posted by mrcraggle (1979 posts) -

@gike987 said:

There is also the first next gen Digital Foundry. For those who are interested in technical comparisons.

Result: PC>>PS4>XB1. So just like most people expected. 1600x900 on PS4 and 720p on XB1.

The contrast on the XB1 version is so high that blacks hold very little detail and are mostly lost. It also looks like the XB1 version has some kind of sharpening filter applied as some textures look even sharper than the PC version. But for the most part, it's a great looking game no matter which version people end up buying.

#14 Posted by Milkman (17308 posts) -
#15 Edited by gike987 (1778 posts) -

Xbox one have higher contrast and crushed blacks in the comparison videos, that's probably why some people think it looks better. Same thing they use to sell TVs. It's more eye catching so people think it looks better at a glance. Modify the TV settings and the consoles will look really similar. Someone at NeoGaf edited it and they look almost identical (except for the AO on the PS4).

#16 Posted by mrcraggle (1979 posts) -

@milkman: Upping the contrast in a lot of cases looks more pleasing to the eye (see photos shot on most camera phones) as well as the addition of a sharpening filter. Compare the same shot to the PC version and the guys head will still look more detailed.

@csl316: BF4 was written by Jesse Stern so there's even less of an excuse.

#17 Edited by Dallas_Raines (2222 posts) -

X1 version looks sharper to my eyes, PS4 is running in a higher res, but it's super washed out. Polygon's pics tell the same story.

edit: Okay, I saw a full screen shot, X1 version looks miserable in comparison.

#18 Posted by subyman (668 posts) -

PS4 looks more natural. Kind of like the difference between a plasma tv and an LED TV. Can't wait to see more.

#19 Posted by mrcraggle (1979 posts) -

Here's a good example of how the black levels on the XB1 version completely ruin the scene. In contrast, the PC version is overly so in the opposite direction.

Strikes a good balance with detail still visible in the shadows and on the wall
Oddly lacks DoF present in both console versions (this could be a setting disabled by DF) but brightness is too harsh
High contrast removes all detail you see in the background that's visible on both PS4 and PC versions

#20 Edited by Marokai (3140 posts) -

The contrast on the Xbox One version is super weird. Sometimes it looks great, and then in other, darker scenes, you almost can't see anything. You don't really know what the contrast is obscuring until you look at the screenshot comparisons, particularly against the PC version, where in some scenes large portions of the environment are almost totally blacked out. Still though, in certain scenes, the contrast trick looks good. I assume tinkering with the settings on the Ps4 version could get the best of both worlds.

Edit: Yeah, that comparison above is what I was referring to. That gets crazy.

Online
#21 Posted by JoeyRavn (4983 posts) -

Weird. Some people are claiming that the PS4 version is the absolute superior one. What about PC? It puts both and either console versions to shame. Some dude said that if you bought the game on XO, "you get what you paid for". If that's the case, then the PC version should be the standard to which everything is measured against. Why is it that graphics and performance only matters when "debating" which console is better, but are even treated as a disadvantage when it comes to PCs vs. consoles.

#22 Posted by ManMadeGod (1585 posts) -

720p vs 900p? Generation over, Sony wins.

#23 Edited by MonetaryDread (2168 posts) -

XOne Battlefield 4: Clean Faces Edition

Seriously, the PS4 version looks like it has blurry textures. The XOne version has ugly jaggies, but the textures look sharper and cleaner. I think that the XOne has awful AA shimmer that I would find to be annoying.

#24 Posted by GnaTSoL (836 posts) -

@milkman said:

@gike987 said:

There is also the first next gen Digital Foundry. For those who are interested in technical comparisons.

Result: PC>>PS4>XB1. So just like most people expected. 1600x900 on PS4 and 720p on XB1.

The comments on that are hilarious. All the crazy reactionary fanboy posts are way upvoted (for example: "Microsoft, you cunts" +8) and the only reasonable comments are downvoted to hell. ("It's a cross-generational LAUNCH game by a 3rd party dev. No surprise that there are differences. But no doubt, silly fanboys will draw "definitive" conclusions about console "power" from it because hey, console wars, man." -10)

INTERNET!

Still, it shows poorly for Xbox one that they're lagging behind, but I guess it is to be expected.

Can we still be certain that these consoles can go even further in capabilities in the future? I hope so.

I'm all in on PS4 btw. Just not at release day.

#25 Posted by TruthTellah (9468 posts) -

In this case, I actually prefer Kotaku's review of "Not Yet". They acknowledge the reality that most people will be coming for the multiplayer, and until reviewers actually see how the most important part of the game holds up, it would be premature to give an absolute conclusion on it.

For all multiplayer-focused or online games, I'd say a "Not Yet" is a decent conclusion before launch, and the same applies to holding off on pre-ordering or buying it until you see how it really fares.

#26 Posted by TheManWithNoPlan (5977 posts) -

Seems like a perfect game to get with my shiny new console.

#27 Posted by Captain_Felafel (1601 posts) -

Console versions look comparable, but the hell is up with that contrast on XBO? Is that actually how that game looks, or is something getting lost in the capture process. I can't imagine anyone at DICE looking at that and saying "Yes, this is a good representation of our game.".

#28 Edited by Marokai (3140 posts) -

@captain_felafel: The contrast tinkering is actually super smart, if you're the type of person that only looks at a few of the scenes and closes the tab. At first glance, certain scenes look more visually pleasing on the Xbox One version, until you realize how much the crushed blacks kill a lot of the detail, and how much the lower resolution causes gross jaggies in specific comparison shots.

Stuff like that really emphasizes the intended soft effect of the PC version and how jaggy and hidden so much of the detail is in the Xbox One version. The Ps4 straddles the line between the two, it seems.

Online
#29 Posted by Colourful_Hippie (4486 posts) -

@joeyravn said:

Weird. Some people are claiming that the PS4 version is the absolute superior one. What about PC? It puts both and either console versions to shame. Some dude said that if you bought the game on XO, "you get what you paid for". If that's the case, then the PC version should be the standard to which everything is measured against. Why is it that graphics and performance only matters when "debating" which console is better, but are even treated as a disadvantage when it comes to PCs vs. consoles.

Digital Foundry already detailed the differences and show that PC easily comes out on top because duh

#30 Edited by Captain_Felafel (1601 posts) -

@marokai said:

@captain_felafel: The contrast tinkering is actually super smart, if you're the type of person that only looks at a few of the scenes and closes the tab. At first glance, certain scenes look more visually pleasing on the Xbox One version, until you realize how much the crushed blacks kill a lot of the detail, and how much the lower resolution causes gross jaggies in specific comparison shots.

Stuff like that really emphasizes the intended soft effect of the PC version and how jaggy and hidden so much of the detail is in the Xbox One version. The Ps4 straddles the line between the two, it seems.

Ugh. It bums me out because you're probably exactly right. "Crap, this version just doesn't hold up to the other two, what can we do?" "Crush the blacks!! They'll never spot the differences if they can't see them!"

#31 Posted by earlygrab666 (42 posts) -

I think I'll be buying BF4 for my new mac pro before I bother with this beta launch of next gen consoles.

#32 Posted by jayu26 (50 posts) -

Since we are doing this...

I fuck'em hate jaggies... PC version it is for me.

#33 Posted by Korolev (1724 posts) -

The Single Player isn't any good? Color me surprised.....

I played Battlefield 3's Single Player. I played Medal of Honor (the reboot) singleplayer. It seems that DICE just can't make a good singleplayer. They always mess something up, and I think it's the "far too blue" visuals, "we're trying to be super serious but at the same time hold your hand" mentality and just overall poor writing and too many scenes that lack real tension. I don't like CoD much, and I find Battlefield's Multiplayer to be much better than CoD's, but for some reason I can't quite pin down, I like CoD's single player better than I like Battlefields. Both are short. Both have storylines that could have been written by a 13 year old on a sugar rush, both are super linear and guide you as if leading you by the hand.... so why is it that I always like CoD's singleplayer more than Battlefields (not by much, mind you, not by much)? What is it that DICE keep getting wrong? Is it the tone? The pacing? I don't think it's the mechanics - I like the mechanics of Battlefield's multiplayer more than CoDs.

It just surprises me that Battlefield's single player is almost always lacking when compared to CoD's. Not that singleplayer really matters - who buys Battlefield for the single player campaign? But I just can't quite pin down what it is that DICE do worse than Treyarch or IW. They're doing SOMETHING wrong... I can't quite figure out what.

Online
#34 Posted by Korwin (3007 posts) -

@mrcraggle: The depth of field in the PC version is still there it's just more subtle, odds are they're using a method with higher accuracy.

#35 Posted by GreggD (4515 posts) -

@korolev: You never played Bad Company, did you?

#36 Posted by jimmyfenix (3859 posts) -

All i wanted was a stable frame rate on the PS4 version and it is stable ! Bring on the 29th Nov

#37 Posted by Quarters (1852 posts) -

As a side note, I hate how reviews for stuff like this just devolve into, "the SP sucks, but the MP is great so 9/10". I feel like SP is a little more important than a footnote on an entire game. Heck in my case, I don't even play the MP. I do only play these games for the SP, and this seems to be a case where it will once again be incredibly lackluster. I'll probably still give it a chance eventually, but it just looks like BF3 all over again.

#38 Posted by Darji (5294 posts) -

@quarters said:

As a side note, I hate how reviews for stuff like this just devolve into, "the SP sucks, but the MP is great so 9/10". I feel like SP is a little more important than a footnote on an entire game. Heck in my case, I don't even play the MP. I do only play these games for the SP, and this seems to be a case where it will once again be incredibly lackluster. I'll probably still give it a chance eventually, but it just looks like BF3 all over again.

Some games have just a tucked in SP and that is the case with Battlefield in general. The meat of this game is the MP and I really do not think it is worth so much mney for the SP alone. BF is Multiplayer^^

#39 Posted by AMyggen (3626 posts) -

@korolev: I like the Bad Company SP, for what it was. I wish they'd go back to that, and not the SUPER SERIOUS SINGLE PLAYER IS SUPER SERIOUS thing they've been doing lately. If you're gonna go with something like that you have to have good writers, which DICE apparantly doesn't have. Part of the problem might also be that SP is such an afterthought for DICE.

#40 Posted by gike987 (1778 posts) -

@korolev: Battlefield was a multiplayer only game until Bad Company, CoD has always focused on single player. I don't think DICE cares about the single player at all and the only reason it has a campaign is that they are being forced to include it as a bulletpoint. Just like many single player game are forced to include some multiplayer mode.

#41 Posted by Krullban (1062 posts) -

The only review you need.

#42 Edited by chiablo (999 posts) -

@milkman said:

I'm not a graphics expect (nor do I particularly care) but am I wrong or does the Xbox One version look better there?

Textures are identical, it looks like it's a matter of contrast. PS4 has contrast set too low, XB1 has contrast set too high.

That's one thing I hate about these kinds of comparisons, they won't do any cleanup in post to make sure they are both identical in brightness and color.

#43 Posted by DonPixel (2621 posts) -

I like this video game happy with my purachase, but hee single player pretty but ZZzzZZzZzZzz

#44 Edited by BaneFireLord (2956 posts) -

Any word on whether or not the PC servers are on fire? Kinda tempted to pick this up but don't want to have to wait a few weeks for the game to actually work.

#45 Posted by Veektarius (5008 posts) -

I am really put off by common high-end PC visuals being outright better than consoles at the outset of the generation. Is there any game except Destiny that doesn't seem like it will be coming to PC?

#46 Posted by chiablo (999 posts) -

I am really put off by common high-end PC visuals being outright better than consoles at the outset of the generation. Is there any game except Destiny that doesn't seem like it will be coming to PC?

Killzone, Infamous, etc. Until we start seeing games that aren't split-gen, the PC will be the better platform. It's pretty obvious that the XB1 and PS4 versions are just ported from the PC version and not coded from the ground up for those platforms.

#47 Posted by Veektarius (5008 posts) -

@chiablo said:

@veektarius said:

I am really put off by common high-end PC visuals being outright better than consoles at the outset of the generation. Is there any game except Destiny that doesn't seem like it will be coming to PC?

Killzone, Infamous, etc. Until we start seeing games that aren't split-gen, the PC will be the better platform. It's pretty obvious that the XB1 and PS4 versions are just ported from the PC version and not coded from the ground up for those platforms.

I'm not really digging what I've seen of any of the 'true' one system games, but you're right, those are fair answers.

#48 Edited by development (2612 posts) -

Hello. I know nothing of this game. But I do have one question: why is Tony Hawk on the cover art?

Not really sure what you mean by that, but no game will ever be made that way again. Maybe you're being super hyperbolic and are just referring to console un-friendly UI or graphical bugs and framerate hiccups. That would be fair. But... "from the ground up?" No multi-platform game is written like that.

edit: no idea why it turned my quote into a link to the other guy's profile. Weird.

#49 Posted by theanticitizen (274 posts) -

One thing i noticed in the digital foundry breakdown videos is that the XBO version has more particle effects than the PS4 version. I thought that was odd.

#50 Edited by AngriGhandi (792 posts) -

The review scene should probably stop treating PC like it's a single, max-spec platform that "wins" every time based on the fact that it can be as powerful as you want it to be (and are willing to pay for).

It's a variable platform by nature! You get exactly what you put in. The more useful question is, what is the gaming market's average gaming PC setup-- and how well will that setup run the game? We should use that for comparisons. Or at least, present that as another point of comparison.

PS WE GOT 180 MORE P

SUCK IT XBO, PS4 4 LYFE

t( °□° t)