• 76 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Edited by mbkgen (37 posts) -

I can't believe the level of details, its just mind-blowing. EA posted earlier they would allow much more destruction of objects and details than previous one and they aren't wrong. Watch for yourself and get your mind blown.

Now only if other game companies decide to put that much attention to details, pc gaming would be epic.

ps: vid courtesy of http://deviatedhacking.com/

#2 Posted by jimmyfenix (3813 posts) -

Im excited for 64 players for all next gen consoles aswell.

#3 Posted by Vuud (1943 posts) -

I'm still hoping we'll see 128 player servers in Battlefield again.

#4 Posted by Seppli (10251 posts) -

I thought it was clear from the get-go that Battlefield 4 would be awesome, simply because it's Battlefield. I mean I fucking hated everything about Battlefield 3, and it's still one of the god damn most epic games I've ever played.

#5 Edited by Seppli (10251 posts) -

@vuud said:

I'm still hoping we'll see 128 player servers in Battlefield again.

The diminishing returns of playercounts past 32 players make higher playercounts increasingly not worth it, because dealing with such player masses introduces massive problems for map design, balancing, and especially pacing. On top of that, servers capable of running extreme playercount games are costly, prohibitively so even.

Just think of Planetside 2, which is pretty much everything Battlefield is - infantry, land & air vehicles, massive structures - with nearly equal fidelity of gameplay and simulation. Thousands of players versus thousands of players on the same map doesn't necessarily make Planetside 2 a better and more fun game.

Extreme playercounts may work for a niche audience, whom enjoy what such high playercounts add. For me, it's bearly ever worked. The only extreme playercount game that has worked for me was Joint Operations (max. 250 players on the two official servers worldwide that supported that number, 125 players max. otherwise), but I guess by my current standards, it wouldn't cut it anymore.

The Bad Company games have shown me that I want to play the hero, not some iddy biddy little cog in a faceless warmachine. I'm fucking Rambo and The Terminator rolled into one, and at the best of times, I alone dominate your whole god damn army with endless virtues and boundless skill.

I guess that's just me. 24-32 player Battlefield is the perfect mix of high playercount team driven gameplay, whilst still allowing for individuals to stand out with superior skill and tactics. With 64 players, the individual's influence becomes negligible. How often have I done extremely well in BF3, just for my team to fail on every other front? So frustrating.

#6 Posted by BillyMaysRIP (161 posts) -

The thing is, the building falling in Shanghai and this ship crashing into the coast is going to happen - it's part of the game type of Siege. If you play the game often, how many times will the "siege" event occur before it's nothing special. I watched a whole bunch of E3 videos of the Shanghai map, and after seeing that building fall about six or seven times, it already was old. Players will rush to trigger these events, and everyone will know where not to be - it won't be a surprise.

I don't understand why EA doesn't push for the level of destructibility in BFBC 2. Those maps looked unrecognizable after 20 minutes of a round. There were problems with the initial game, sure. But after the patches and updates, that game is fun and amazingly creative to play. Of course there can be so many details if only certain specific buildings get destroyed - it's just not an important part of the game when everyone knows about it. That pillar in the Shanghai map that they used to trap the tank - no one is ever going to drive over that spot, or some one will blow it up before it can be used as a trap.

Contextual destruction or contextual traps are useless in games with humans. People will learn to avoid almost immediately - and when some gets killed by contextual destructibility, it'll be more annoying than fun. It'll be like getting killed by the exploding cars in all of the Call of Duty games. I don't doubt that this will be one more very good and solid Battlefield game, but it lacks the experimentation that defined the Battlefield games before. BF2 basically invented the unlock guns progression things and BFBC 2 took destructibility to an all new level in mp. At least the maps are big in this game, and aren't trying to funnel everyone into the center like in COD.

#7 Edited by ll_Exile_ll (1409 posts) -

I don't know, this game just doesn't feel like "Battlefield 4" to me. Compare the jump between the original Battlefield (1942) and Battlefield 2, then the jump between Battlefield 2 and Battlefield 3. Those were true generational improvements. Battlefield 4 just looks a like a slightly better looking Battlefield 3 with modest improvements to things like destruction and other minor features.

Nothing about BF4 really seems like it is next era of Battlefield, it looks more like Battlefield 3-2. I really would hate to see this series find itself in a COD-like position of iteration over innovation.

#8 Posted by FriendlyPhoenix (353 posts) -

I fail to see the mind-blowing part. Destruction in games is done being impressive until it's all dynamic. Stuff like this looks cool the first time or two, but it'll look and play out the exact same way every time it happens. And I don't blame DICE, making truly dynamic destruction is by no means easy, but I wish they would do something other than implement Bad Company 2's system on bigger stuff.

#9 Posted by Funkydupe (3305 posts) -

It is going to be mediocre. It is the next new shiny, and a week after we'll look to the next, that's how it goes.

#10 Posted by csl316 (7980 posts) -

Is the destruction just relegated to set pieces, or will it be as open as Bad Company 2? I honestly haven't played a military shooter since BC2 because the unpredictability of each match was fucking nuts.

Online
#12 Edited by Seppli (10251 posts) -

@ll_exile_ll said:

I don't know, this game just doesn't feel like "Battlefield 4" to me. Compare the jump between the original Battlefield (1942) and Battlefield 2, then the jump between Battlefield 2 and Battlefield 3. Those were true generational improvements. Battlefield 4 just looks a like a slightly better looking Battlefield 3 with modest improvements to things like destruction and other minor features.

Nothing about BF4 really seems like it is next era of Battlefield, it looks more like Battlefield 3-2. I really would hate to see this series find itself in a COD-like position of iteration over innovation.

You must have missed BF Vietnam, BF 2142, BF:BC 1, BF 1943, BF:BC 2, BF:BC 2 Vietnam. New Battlefield games always have released in a 1,5-2 years interval. Yes - BF4 looks like the most similar iteration to its direct predecessor, but that's mostly a superficial impression, and pretty far from fact. It seems to me that all the touches and novelties make for an incredible step forward. Have we ever had a map like Shanghai Siege? No! It's the realization of an age old Battlefield player dream. Fighting in a fully realized metropolitan downtown area full of high rises and shit, with choppers and tanks and airplanes (okay - on this map there's only the semi-automated gunship) and all the jazz!

To shrug off what DICE is doing with Battlefield 4 is rather ignorant on the whole. Networked waves, with believable physics interactions between boats and the wave? Crazy stuff! For those big semi-scripted events like the skyscraper and the boat - they're meant to be map changers. Like blowing up a dam and to flood the streets of a urban map, so patrol boats can mix it up. It's meant to fundamentally change the maps mid-round, and are not meant to stand-in for the more granular destruction. Anyways - destruction seems to be in full effect again - or at least to a more extensive degree than in BF3. What was missing was Bad Company's extensive ground deformation, which was patched out of BF3 during beta, because it caused massive complications. Didn't see anything yet in regards to that. I hope it'll be back.

On the topic of destruction, this little clip sure is tell-tale.

#13 Posted by TheManWithNoPlan (5138 posts) -

Multiplayer looks nice.

Single player?....... nope.

#14 Edited by Irvandus (2777 posts) -

As someone with a pretty weak pc i'm excited to finally get 64 players on console. Looking forward to this.

#15 Posted by TyCobb (1944 posts) -

Battlefield 4 will be awesome because it is another Battlefield game is not Call of Duty. Battlefield games are great because of the map sizes, vehicles, and aircrafts. I played the hell out of 1942 back in the day. It's one of the few franchise's that has never disappointed me.

#16 Edited by ll_Exile_ll (1409 posts) -
@seppli said:

@ll_exile_ll said:

I don't know, this game just doesn't feel like "Battlefield 4" to me. Compare the jump between the original Battlefield (1942) and Battlefield 2, then the jump between Battlefield 2 and Battlefield 3. Those were true generational improvements. Battlefield 4 just looks a like a slightly better looking Battlefield 3 with modest improvements to things like destruction and other minor features.

Nothing about BF4 really seems like it is next era of Battlefield, it looks more like Battlefield 3-2. I really would hate to see this series find itself in a COD-like position of iteration over innovation.

You must have missed BF Vietnam, BF 2142, BF:BC 1, BF 1943, BF:BC 2, BF:BC 2 Vietnam. New Battlefield games always have released in a 1,5-2 years interval.

That was pretty much exactly my point. They have never gone directly from a mainline numbered entry to the next one like this before. In the all those cases you mentioned, there were major changes that made those games stand out, even if they were largely iterative. Vietnam was a new setting and era, 2142 was set in the future with sci-fi elements, Bad Company added destruction and a single player with a fun plot and likable characters, and 1943 was a budget title. Bad Company 2 is probably the most iterative of the games you mentioned.

I guess my feelings of disinterest in Battlefield 4 come primarily from the fact that it doesn't have that one thing you can point to (like a setting or era change) that makes it feel different from the previous game and also that it doesn't feel like as a big of a leap as previous numbered installments in the series have been. If it were called something other than Battlefield 4, the quality of the game would obviously be the same, but it just wouldn't feel as forced. Maybe getting hung up on the name is a little silly, but it just doesn't seem like a enough has changed from BF3 for this game to warrant being the next numbered installment.

I'd also like to add that I was really hoping they would do 2143 next, this makes 5 out of the last 7 games set in the modern era (and one of those two was 1943 which had only a handful of weapons and maps).

#17 Posted by Baillie (4025 posts) -

Bad Company 2 is my favourite Battlefield of all time.

#18 Edited by Seppli (10251 posts) -

@ll_exile_ll said:
@seppli said:

@ll_exile_ll said:

I don't know, this game just doesn't feel like "Battlefield 4" to me. Compare the jump between the original Battlefield (1942) and Battlefield 2, then the jump between Battlefield 2 and Battlefield 3. Those were true generational improvements. Battlefield 4 just looks a like a slightly better looking Battlefield 3 with modest improvements to things like destruction and other minor features.

Nothing about BF4 really seems like it is next era of Battlefield, it looks more like Battlefield 3-2. I really would hate to see this series find itself in a COD-like position of iteration over innovation.

You must have missed BF Vietnam, BF 2142, BF:BC 1, BF 1943, BF:BC 2, BF:BC 2 Vietnam. New Battlefield games always have released in a 1,5-2 years interval.

That was pretty much exactly my point. They have never gone directly from a mainline numbered entry to the next one like this before. In the all those cases you mentioned, there were major changes that made those games stand out, even if they were largely iterative. Vietnam was a new setting and era, 2142 was set in the future with sci-fi elements, Bad Company added destruction and a single player with a fun plot and likable characters, and 1943 was a budget title. Bad Company 2 is probably the most iterative of the games you mentioned.

I guess my feelings of disinterest in Battlefield 4 come primarily from the fact that it doesn't have that one thing you can point to (like a setting or era change) that makes it feel different from the previous game and also that it doesn't feel like as a big of a leap as previous numbered installments in the series have been. If it were called something other than Battlefield 4, the quality of the game would obviously be the same, but it just wouldn't feel as forced. Maybe getting hung up on the name is a little silly, but it just doesn't seem like a enough has changed from BF3 for this game to warrant being the next numbered installment.

I'd also like to add that I was really hoping they would do 2143 next, this makes 5 out of the last 7 games set in the modern era (and one of those two was 1943 which had only a handful of weapons and maps).

This is how is see it. I see a shopping list of wishes. Wishes I've read over and over again in Battlefield fan forums. And DICE makes them all come true with BF4. Such as...

  • Return of Commander *check*
  • Return of 5-man Squads *check*
  • Dynamic Weather-Effects *check*
  • Full-scale Metropolitan Downtown Map with Combined Arms Warfare *check*
  • Diving underwater *check*
  • More MP modes *check*
  • 64 players for consoles *check*
  • 60 FPS for consoles *check*

The map changing events are above and beyond what anybody even dared to dream of really. And that's just the big ones.

On top of that, I see a much larger degree of care and thought has been put into the minutia of BF4's design, which just wasn't the case with BF3. The switch to the new Frostbite tech that happend with BF3, which completely changed their rendering method, was just too much to get it all right the last time around. Now, DICE actually seems to have the experience and efficiency necessary to get down to the nitty gritty of their design and polish it - to finally free the diamond in the rough that was hidden in BF3. BF4 will be as fun as BF3 could have been, if not even more so. Sure, you can chalk it up to wishful thinking, but I'm hopeful.

I believe many people are just too hung up on criticizing repetition in games to still see clearly. BF4 is objectively a huge step forward, not just for the franchise, but for games in general. Just think of the ambition and technical prowess that the insane stormy sea level is taking? Networked waves that'll interact with 64 players and their vehicles correctly? In-fucking-sane! Apparently all maps have events and circumstances of similar magnitude built in. A flippin' tidal wave from a broken dam washing into a 64 player map? Dude. What? DICE is beating Uncharted singleplayer set-pieces in multiplayer.

If you apply an objective standard to what we've seen and heard about BF4, it is indeed a big deal - and not just some quick cashgrab. Battlefield never was that. And hopefully never will be.

#19 Edited by Darson (441 posts) -

I came here for some sort of childish list of why BF4 would be "so boss". But then I see a ship slam into a god damn building.

#20 Posted by Darson (441 posts) -

I came here for some sort of childish list of why BF4 would be "so boss". But then I see a ship slam into a god damn building.

#21 Edited by TyCobb (1944 posts) -

@darson said:

I came here for some sort of childish list of why BF4 would be "so boss". But then I see a ship slam into a god damn building.

I don't know why, but your avatar fits perfectly with this.

#22 Posted by Branthog (7340 posts) -

They lost me with turning BF3 into a $120 game, adding pay-for-shit/premium shit, fragmenting the playerbase, splitting up the servers, and stripping the personality and community out of servers and hosting.

I have absolutely no positive expectations for BF4. Fuck those guys and the EA-shit-fest road they've been lead down. If this was 2002 and there were only so many multiplayer games available, then it would obviously be god damn fantastic. It's almost 2014. There are far better options out there without the gross stank of manipulation.

#23 Edited by Seppli (10251 posts) -

@branthog said:

They lost me with turning BF3 into a $120 game, adding pay-for-shit/premium shit, fragmenting the playerbase, splitting up the servers, and stripping the personality and community out of servers and hosting.

I have absolutely no positive expectations for BF4. Fuck those guys and the EA-shit-fest road they've been lead down. If this was 2002 and there were only so many multiplayer games available, then it would obviously be god damn fantastic. It's almost 2014. There are far better options out there without the gross stank of manipulation.

Name one game that does what Battlefield does better than Battlefield. I can't even name a single game inhabiting the same space as Battlefield - mil-sims sure aren't scratching the same itch, and Call of Duty-style shooters offer but a fraction of what Battlefield is about.

By the way - I had a 18 page thread going in the EA UK Battlefield forums demanding premium paid DLC and a Season Pass (90% of it was me furiously typing down my opinion on the matter of paid DLC, and how I want it and expect it, and everybody who wants it all for free are deluded non-fans). In fact, I might have invented the damn scheme, since the thread pre-dates any Season Pass deals on the market.

Battlefield Premium is the single best consumer experience I've ever had with DLC. It pretty much kept Battlefield 3 forefront on my mind for a whole year, and the experience was always fresh and exciting. I weep for the fan who wants premium post-release support, but isn't willing to pay for it - because that is never going to happen, and it never was.

As far as I see it, Battlefield Premium was an end to the hypocrisy I've had to suffer through with BF:BC 2's *free content support*. I'm glad I fought the good fight for the real fan, who actually wants more Battlefield and really means it. 4 million fans put down 60 bucks for a shitload of DLC content, and pretty much everyone who did it, came away with a happy grin.

Your loss man.

#24 Posted by CreepyUncleBrad (165 posts) -

Not to say Battlefield 4 won't be any good but if it is good it won't be because of scripted destruction. Though the ones that do fundamentally change the map (which the ship crashing doesn't seem to really do) should still be cool.

#25 Edited by Seppli (10251 posts) -

@creepyunclebrad said:

Not to say Battlefield 4 won't be any good but if it is good it won't be because of scripted destruction. Though the ones that do fundamentally change the map (which the ship crashing doesn't seem to really do) should still be cool.

The *gamechanger* is the storm. Huge waves on the seas. Wind and rain messing with visibiltiy and whatnot. The boat-event is just the biggest symptom of the dynamic map change. It also serves as a commander tool, who can take over control of its massive AA turrets while his team holds the corresponding capture point.

#26 Posted by Whitestripes09 (397 posts) -

While this is cool and all, I'm not really that impressed by scripted destruction. Now if I could shoot down someone in a jet, watch their jet erupt into a fire ball, crash into a building and making a giant hole in the building with pieces of debris and fires erupting all around it that would be awesome.

The weather stuff is cool and the wave mechanics are really nice, but I feel like the only real time you have a boat full of players is at the beginning of the match when everyone spawns and after a point is captured on the island itself, no one will really use the boats anymore except to backdoor a point.

#27 Posted by JouselDelka (967 posts) -

I have so many mixed feelings on Battlefield, my BF2 clan memories, how great [enough] BF3 is, the mind-blowing potential of BF4, and how too tired and busy I've become to follow game news/hype and actually learn what this game is offering. This is the first Battlefield coming out in 8 years that I barely know anything about.

Anyways, the footage I've seen so far is great, the commander/3 faction news is good, and the fact that the Fuckbox 360 and PS3 won't hold back DICE's creativity this time around is extremely satisfying. There's no doubt this game will be a nuclear bomb on the PC.

Not sure if I will buy this game though.. without being active in the community, lone-wolfing Battlefield feels really weird.

But yeah, dynamic maps and shit, fantastic.

#28 Edited by Seppli (10251 posts) -

@whitestripes09 said:

While this is cool and all, I'm not really that impressed by scripted destruction. Now if I could shoot down someone in a jet, watch their jet erupt into a fire ball, crash into a building and making a giant hole in the building with pieces of debris and fires erupting all around it that would be awesome.

The weather stuff is cool and the wave mechanics are really nice, but I feel like the only real time you have a boat full of players is at the beginning of the match when everyone spawns and after a point is captured on the island itself, no one will really use the boats anymore except to backdoor a point.

Reports are in. Boats are pretty OP in BF4. Deadly guns and rockets operated by the captain. Escape on jetski, when patrol boat is under heavy fire. I believe DICE has added all the trimmings to the patrol boats, similar customization depth as tanks and such. They're meant to be combat-ready frontline vehicles, and not mere transport vehicles.

#29 Posted by thatdutchguy (1267 posts) -

@mbkgen: Love that video...pfft will this shit never stop ? now i need to buy one of the new consoles.GODDAMN YOU VIDEOGAMES !!

#30 Posted by Missacre (566 posts) -

Eh, this looks neat and all, but it looks scripted rather than actual dynamic destruction. I won't be impressed until you can go out to the boat itself and drive it into the island and knock that building down yourself, then destroy the boat with C4 or something. Right now, the whole game's looking pretty blah. Also, I don't know about giving EA any more of my money.

#31 Posted by Grissefar (2842 posts) -

Now they fixed the framerate and playercount on console.. that's great.

So shouldn't the next step be to fix the terrible pacing, the animation heaviness, the awkward respawn system etc, instead of cramming more vehicles in that don't belong there and putting more detail into building crumbling?

#33 Edited by falserelic (5278 posts) -

@baillie said:

Bad Company 2 is my favourite Battlefield of all time.

This right here I approve!

Call me crazy or insane, but I had more fun with Bad Company 2 then Battlefield 3.

#35 Posted by OldManLight (819 posts) -

@grissefar: i'm guessing that current gen consoles will still hover around the 30 fps mark and keep to 24 players. The animation pacing and spawning issues you speak of aren't very bad on PC but that's also the difference of 60fps being a possiblity there.

#36 Posted by GERALTITUDE (2860 posts) -

Definitely waiting to hear what the total number of players is on console before I get too excited.

#37 Posted by thatdutchguy (1267 posts) -

@baillie said:

Bad Company 2 is my favourite Battlefield of all time.

This right here I approve!

Call me crazy or insane, but I had more fun with Bad Company 2 then Battlefield 3.

Yeah i bought BF3 and stopped playing it some days later... but played the shit out of Bad company.

#38 Posted by Nadafinga (957 posts) -

@baillie said:

Bad Company 2 is my favourite Battlefield of all time.

This right here I approve!

Call me crazy or insane, but I had more fun with Bad Company 2 then Battlefield 3.

You're not crazy, there's plenty of people who agree with you. I'm one of them.

There's a lot of things in BC2 that I had problems with (and BF3 fixed for me) but overall I think BC2 was a better game. I put 500 hours into BC2, its my most played game by a mile.

That said, I'm very excited for BF4.

#40 Posted by Clonedzero (4050 posts) -

Definitely waiting to hear what the total number of players is on console before I get too excited.

It's confirmed to be 32 vs. 32 on PS4 and Xbox One.

#42 Posted by GERALTITUDE (2860 posts) -

@geraltitude said:

Definitely waiting to hear what the total number of players is on console before I get too excited.

It's confirmed to be 32 vs. 32 on PS4 and Xbox One.

I'll believe it when I see it - and as far as I know *no one* has seen more than 16 player so far, at least actually running on a console.

#43 Posted by GERALTITUDE (2860 posts) -

@geraltitude said:

Definitely waiting to hear what the total number of players is on console before I get too excited.

It's confirmed to be 32 vs. 32 on PS4 and Xbox One.

I'll believe it when I see it - and as far as I know *no one* has seen more than 16 player so far, at least actually running on a console.

#44 Posted by GreggD (4475 posts) -

@clonedzero said:

@geraltitude said:

Definitely waiting to hear what the total number of players is on console before I get too excited.

It's confirmed to be 32 vs. 32 on PS4 and Xbox One.

I'll believe it when I see it - and as far as I know *no one* has seen more than 16 player so far, at least actually running on a console.

Don't be stupid, why would they lie about that? And yeah, they haven't been showing off much of Conquest, which is pretty much exclusively where you get 64 player matches.

#45 Posted by chiablo (893 posts) -

I see a lot of promise... but I also see a really short development time. I don't think there's going to be enough new stuff in here to make it all worth it. I had a ton of fun with BF3, but everything I've seen related to BF4 makes it look like more of the same.

I hope they don't go down the path of Call of Duty and make an annual release of the same game.

#46 Edited by Seppli (10251 posts) -

@falserelic said:

@baillie said:

Bad Company 2 is my favourite Battlefield of all time.

This right here I approve!

Call me crazy or insane, but I had more fun with Bad Company 2 then Battlefield 3.

You aren't crazy. A game designed for 24 to 32 players from the ground up is bound to be tighter, and more fun for a majority of players. It's a pretty common complaint that BF3 isn't as fun as it should be. There's loads of ways to right what ailed BF3, and it seems to me like DICE will do just that with BF4. I might enjoy 64 player BF4 battles better than 32 player Bad Company ones. That certainly wasn't the case with BF3.

That said, I think what I want is another Battlefield game designed for 32 players from the ground up. Scale up the destruction. Make battles more personal again. BF3 with 64 players often feels too chaotic and impersonal. As individual, one just doesn't have the same impact as with lower playercounts. Sure, you can just play on 32 player servers in BF3 - but it's obvious that it's just not been built with such a thing in mind.

I hope DICE is doing something very different with Battlefield the next time around. Future setting. Giant Robots. WWII. Vietnam. Bad Company 3 (picking up right after Bad Company 1). Anything other than just another straight-forward modern warfare setting.

#47 Posted by Azteck (7450 posts) -

Battlefield 4 is gonna be great because then we'll probably have more dumb montages by BirgirPall. I very much look forward to that.

#48 Posted by ShockD (2393 posts) -

@vuud said:

I'm still hoping we'll see 128 player servers in Battlefield again.

This could speak that either:

1. Battlefield has absurdly huge maps.

2. You're perverted.

I can barely stand 20-player games, let alone... Jeesh.

#49 Edited by TyCobb (1944 posts) -

@shockd said:

@vuud said:

I'm still hoping we'll see 128 player servers in Battlefield again.

This could speak that either:

1. Battlefield has absurdly huge maps.

2. You're perverted.

I can barely stand 20-player games, let alone... Jeesh.

You're in luck. There's these other games called Counter-Strike and Call of Duty ;)

#50 Edited by GreggD (4475 posts) -

@azteck said:

Battlefield 4 is gonna be great because then we'll probably have more dumb montages by BirgirPall. I very much look forward to that.

Would you mind posting one of said montages? I'd like to see it.