• 59 results
  • 1
  • 2
Avatar image for expensiveham
#51 Posted by expensiveham (347 posts) -

Kind of feels like the graphics are getting to much praise. The faces are not nearly as good as the ones in Crysis 2 or 3. This sure looks a lot like BF3. The color correction, contrast and lens flare is just as obnoxious as before. Won't be picking this one up unless my friends rope me into it.

Avatar image for charlieboom
#52 Posted by CharlieBoom (36 posts) -

It definitely looks like another Battlefield game. Which is fine by me, I've got nearly a hundred hours of BF3's multiplayer under my belt.

What I really want to see is Red Faction: Armageddon destruction combined with ridiculous battlefield moments - even if that means less seagulls and god rays.

Avatar image for deathstriker666
#53 Edited by deathstriker666 (1349 posts) -

@mosdl said:

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.

You can't please everybody. This generally falls in with my experience of the Battlefield community. BF2 elitists who decry everything DICE has released since 2005. 2142, Modern Combat, Bad Company 1/2, BF3, all had massive shit thrown at them because BF fans are so bitchy. Attacking M-Coms stations is too easy? Oh, now they're too easy to defend. Run around with the saiga? Saiga noob. Camp with a sniper? Recon noob. Use the grenade launcher? Grenade noob. It never ends does it?

Avatar image for vandersexxx
#54 Edited by VanderSEXXX (587 posts) -

@donkeycow said:

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.

I feel exactly the same way so far. And other than the already lacking time I'm having to play games these days (thanks to work) I'm guessing I'm already likely to pass on this one. The only factor that can possibly get me to buy this is if the multiplayer gameplay possibly returns closer to what Battlefield 2 was or if not better. For me atleast Battlefield 3 to this day is still alot of fun and doesn't look outdated even for next gen.

Avatar image for thomasg666
#55 Posted by ThomasG666 (155 posts) -

Looks good. Wonder if it'll run on my ol' 4890.

Avatar image for bollard
#56 Edited by Bollard (7390 posts) -

@seppli said:

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*


As long as the new consoles get good player count that'll be a boon.

Avatar image for officegamer
#57 Edited by OfficeGamer (1120 posts) -

@funkydupe said:

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

Battlefield 3 is already out and it looks the same, hasn't been out for 2 years yet either, why don't you play that?

Avatar image for funkydupe
#58 Posted by Funkydupe (3587 posts) -

@officegamer: What's your point? I've played over 100 hours of BF3. Can't a guy hope for some new features and possibilities in BF4 even though the graphics engine isn't completely different?

Avatar image for officegamer
#59 Posted by OfficeGamer (1120 posts) -

@officegamer: What's your point? I've played over 100 hours of BF3. Can't a guy hope for some new features and possibilities in BF4 even though the graphics engine isn't completely different?

I don't have a point, I'm curious as to why someone who has 100 hours in BF3 seems anxious to play BF4 when he's already playing 3. What sort of drastic changes do you expect?

You don't have to expect any, I'm just asking. If all you want is some new features that's fine it's not my business to judge.