What do you think of the BattleField 4 Demo?

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 


So far, I am relatively unimpressed by what I have seen. Sure, the graphics look amazing and better than anything I've ever seen but the demo was played on a PC. That means that if I want to play the same game with the same graphics I will have to pay hundred of dollars on a new computer to play one game. The other option is to play a downgraded version on the consoles. Sometimes I think that games like this are supposed to push people into getting new video cards, like the original Crysis.

Gameplay looked like it relied much to heavily on scripted events. It may not be quick time events, but it's still a linear progression; it turns the gameplay into a shooting gallery. You can command your pals and helicopter to attack for you, and I hate it when npc's do my job.

The "destructible environment" that the Devs often mention as a feature was only shown once, making it look extremely contextual.

The story and characters are typical of this genre of shooter. Although the Devs spoke of putting more emphasis on the single player campaign and try to separate itself from other shooters(Call of Putty) it still features the same group of macho Americans with the token black guy, plus one girl that pilots the helicopter you never see. The enemies are either Russian or Chinese--possibly terrorists--and the thing the Devs were most excited about with playtesters was that they knew who the characters were with 17 minutes. I've played fps's with memorable characters, and I knew there names as soon as I met them.

Electronic Arts, need I say more?

Me and a friend were discussing this last night, and we both came to the same conclusion.

While the graphics are very good, everything else about this game looks bland, and exactly the same as the previous battlefields.

So yeah, pretty graphics, but its wasted on the game.

I'd be lying if I said I wasn't excited, but I do agree it looks very linear. That being said, it got me interested in the story. I want to see how it plays out. I like the way it looks.

Yeah, not really impressed. It's not bad, but nothing really outstanding either. Except for one thing! How the fuck did that guy manage to cut off a leg with one swipe of a knife?!

Pretty much mostly the same as Battlefield 3 other than environmental destruction ala Red Faction Guerrilla.

IllumInaTIma:
Yeah, not really impressed. It's not bad, but nothing really outstanding either. Except for one thing! How the fuck did that guy manage to cut off a leg with one swipe of a knife?!

He's a Special Ops Super American Navy Seal Special Super Sergeant man, with special leg-cutting skills.

As for the demo: The blue-tint that so plagued the BF3 seems to be gone. I liked the humour in this trailer, if they have an interesting cast I wouldn't mind playing it. I have BF3 now but never did the campaign as what I saw of it on YT was terribad.
But I'm more interested in the multiplayer of BF4. I wonder about the maps & vehicles.. They already announced a Premium service (with no detail).

It's a modern military shooter.
INNOVATION

Also I like how they can produce nothing new so for the end they're just like "PUT MORE BASS ON THE MUSIC 'N' SHIT"

If they used this engine to make The Raid: Redemption the game, complete with tons of brutal Silat action, I probably wouldn't complain. If they used the engine to make Battlefield 2143 I wouldn't complain. If they used the engine to make Slender: The Arrival (yes I'm know I'm stretching this out), I wouldn't complain either.

But instead, they make a sequel... to a game that didn't really need one. Don't get me wrong, I like my military action, but guys, get a little interesting. Ghost Recon: Future Soldier, hell, ALL the Ghost Recon games allowed to mark targets for my team to unleash a hellstorm of lead & death upon well before this - and FS let me use a fucking invisibility suit to stealth around like Solid Snake. There' some attempt at squad command, but unless I see something like coordinating a team of vehicles & infantry squads in the heat of battle, there's not much to work with. The main character has 3 weapons (M16A4 with Elcan sight & side-mounted iron sights, M1014 shotgun & M32 grenade launcher) on him... except AO2 had that - and some dudebro personality to go with it, along with some amazing customization.

Also, EA, learn from your other FPS Crysis. That game manages to look lush & vibrant, like someone actually lived there at some point. Maybe it's because it comes colors other than my toilet bowl after 50 suicide wings. Even the forest part didn't look like much other than dump.

Hey EA, learn from Battlefield 2: Modern Combat. That game's SP played like MP matches with a hotswapping mechanic that let me switch vehicles & classes (and characters) on the fly in the middle of battle. And it worked!

Magpies will love the single player as it's so damn shiny.

For me it was exactly what I expected for the campaign stuff, a silent protagonist who will probably only talk during cinemas, pretty graphics, and shit going south. Things I am excited for in it are the 6 shot grenade launcher, and there being female soldiers in the game, especially if it translates over into multiplayer. Overall I am kinda excited for this game, but I am going to wait until I have a computer, or if the PS4 version has servers almost as big as what they'll have on PC.

Everything about it screamed bland. Lame helicopter chase scene that has been done so many times before, even with the half bridge/cliff combo that at least had missiles being shot at you in cod 4 by the same F****** helicopter mind you (I think they used a havoc). You see every one of those are 100% boring to play. I bet if you let off the gas in the car it doesn't slow down, I bet if you just yank the wheel to one side the game won't even let you steer too far off course, I bet you have exactly four missiles from the helicopter to shoot your ridiculous grenade launcher of death before dying. I would wager more money that you could be a complete drone and simply follow you men up that whole building when it was shooting at you barely putting any input at all and you would still make it. I must go to a casino because I'm feeling like a betting man.

The combat seemed even worse. Right in the get go he shoots a man in the legs and the burst follows up the body, does it kill him. Oh no he does the identical stumble every game has done for the past 6-7 years since cod 2 or earlier. He then shoots him as he is getting up and low and behold we have the same crap where enemies are kind of invincible when doing certain actions, such as recovering from a stumble. Oh here comes the best part, you can tell your men to suppress an enemy so you can flank them. Wow way to take from a great game (Brothers in arms way back on the original xbox) and implement in a silly way. It looked retarded. Half the time the heli just was supposed to get all the kills so why bother shooting and the other half of the time there was a very obvious "sit your men here to suppress" and "go this way to flank" area that you could see from a mile away. Now this was just the demo level so maybe that improves but I remember brothers in arms version of flanking being way better (maybe I just have rose colored glasses).

Now the graphics were pretty boss and I'll admit while I feel uncultured for saying it, I like the new music but everything else just made me never want to play. I don't think this would have been so bad if it wasn't for this being the next generation. I remember when the 360 came out I nearly dropped a pantload as cod 2 was playing on those 720i tv's. So much changed in gameplay and graphics, that games from the xbox era seem so old (still godd, but old in both mechanics and graphics). This barely looks better than games out now, it shows no advancement in anything worthwhile unless you think advancement means stealing ancient concepts like suppress that target and look at the shiny action sequence where you don't actually do anything but watch this almost movie for 30 seconds where maybe you move the thumbstick forward a little bit if you want.

And I know everyone plays bf for the multiplayer but I'm just throwing it out there but bf: modern combat 2's single player was awesome... Buggy, sure, but at least it was a bit different from the same old crap I have been playing for 15 years.

Of course the multiplayer is where it's at but bf3 was kind of meh anyway, started to play a lot like cod, and while I loved cod I can only play the exact same multiplayer every year for so long. (I have prestiged in every cod since 4, not 10th but normally to 2-3 before getting bored). Anyone remember 1942? 1943 on xbla? modern combat 1 and 2? I for one miss them. Hell, nothing wrong with cod but the fps genre needs a kick in the ass from all this stagnation or I fear the worst. (Going back to some unreal style games maybe? Natural selection II?????)

Edit: Oh and the female soldier. Eh. Women aren't allowed in the infantry but that's no big deal. The scary thing is that maybe EA or DICE are going "Yeah! Female soldiers! That is exactly all the innovation we really need this go around. Nothing else or we may outdo ourselves."

Edit: And here's to hoping that buildings that go boom is back... While it was technically possible in bf3 it was nothing like bad company where a team of campers would quickly run out of real estate. (sorry for the double post, I'm new)

It looks like a shinier version of bf3, until I see something interesting from the game, I'll pass.

What I want to see in a battlefield game:
Large open city environments with realistic enter-able building to better portray urban warfare, a setting that isn't in the desert (seriously what happened to the gorgeous maps of bad co 2?) and large destructible environments, not only that, but I want this in multiplayer. Battlefield 3 was a huge letdown, it hasn't been that long since it came out and EA is still satan last I checked so I am rather skeptical.

Oh and the female soldier. Eh. Women aren't allowed in the infantry but that's no big deal. The scary thing is that maybe EA or DICE are going "Yeah! Female soldiers! That is exactly all the innovation we really need this go around. Nothing else or we may outdo ourselves."

I noticed the more open battlefield in the SP, which could be a nice thing.

Other then that, painfully unimpressed. A FPS is going to have do a lot more then that to really get attention.

Haters gonna hate.

Battlefield 3 was a great multiplayer game and that's what battlefield games are.

I want a bad company 3 that abandons all pretence of being srsbsns and goes back to being the gold collecting madness of the first one.

It looks pretty.

That is all, it looks generic as hell gameplay wise and doesn't in any way grab me.

The only way it could get me to buy it would be if you could get it without Origin and with mod tools.

What's the deal with making everything shining? The Sun is just annoying.

I'll ignore every answer saying that it's to be realistic.

Bit at the start where they're in the car looks quite intense, other than that... Yeah, whatever. More linear levels, more Russians to shoot over and over against brown and grey backdrops, more lens flare.

Curious to see how the multiplayer is but I doubt the campaign is going to capture my attention for any time at all.

I passed on Battlefield 3, and I am sure I will be passing on this one as well. It looks pretty, but I grew tired of the stereotypical modern shooter mechanics very early, and this looks like it will be more of the same:

-cover based health system
-shot direction indicators
-over-the-top explosions
-gray and brown collor pallet
-Russians and Chinese as villains
-linear single player
--small environments with not much to explore
-scripted events/quicktime events
-multiplatyer with a class system, perks, skills, unlocks, etc.

I'll stick to big kid games like ArmA III.

They are using the exact same reload animations. This better not be in the final game.

Very pretty game but that's about all I can give it. I am stoked to see how they will apply such great graphics to more innovative IPs.

Battlefield 3 was a great multiplayer game and that's what battlefield games are.

No it really wasn't, BFBC2 was better and BF2 was miles better

Where to start

- Unlocks: BF2 had them and so did BF BC2. The thing was BF2 had them better spaced out and in much smaller numbers. BFBCs introduced the stupid small numerous unlocks that started players down the route of playing purely for the unlocks rather than for the win. BF3 then extended this unlock system to vehicles and to further confirm the play for the unlocks rather than the win attitude it introduced unlocks that required you to complete specific tasks to gain the unlock. Spend 2 hours in an LMV, kill 5 players with a Buggy, so instead of heading for the objective you have a player driving round and round an enemy spawn point to try and get kills??

You then had max unlock level. I played BF2 for over two years and a year of that was as a high K/D pilot yet I barely got close to unlocking all the extras and came no where near the max soldier rank. BFBC2 took a little over a year to gain all the unlocks and a Lvl 50 and BF3 all the unlocks and then it started stacking the max level at LVL 30 and done in under 8 months.

- Premium content: 4 or 5 releases designed to force you to buy them or end up playing a game with a split community. Yes BF2 did this and so did BFBC2 but they both had a single addon where as BF3 had 5 of them.

- Truly awful community: Many factors involved in this, lack of dedicated servers killed the modding community so we didn't get anything like the PR community. The splitting of the community by releasing 5 different addon packs, the multi format release which probably brought a lot more of nubs in to the game than the PC exclusive BF2 had. The mass of no name meaningless servers with no admins, I don't think I played a single game of BF3 in a single server that had an admin in that was doing an admins job. The games unlock system generated a player base who spent more time trying to max their own stats rather than playing as a team for the win. Put it this way, BF BC2 and BF3 had more folk than BF2 every had joining squads yet I saw less team tactic game play in either of those games than I ever encountered in BF2. The reason, simple you got more points for doing certain actions as part of a squad in BF BC2 and BF3 and that's the only reason most people joined them.

- Game mechanics: Well the most obvious was the laughable implementation of suppression. Suppression is meant to force the enemy in to cover but if your enemy has the balls to drop cover and spend time aiming at you then he's gonna be as accurate as if he wasn't being supressed. Since the real world suppression works by playing on the fear of getting killed and knowing that they couldn't or were unable to translate this fear in to a gameplay element they just turned round and implemented a system that gave a numeric decrease to your weapons accuracy if an enemy was firing at you. It turned weapons fire, aiming, skill and just turned it in to a pot luck of if I fire I may hit him.

Saying that of course the game itself had lousy hit detection anyway. BF2 and BFBC2 both suffered from hit detection issues but for the most part they were predictable which meant with practice and some tweaking you could over come it. BF3 on the other hand and specifically it's stupid client side hit detection meant that it all came down to your connection vs the connection of the guy you were firing at. In BF2 and BFBC2 you tagged servers with good pings because it meant reliable predictable hit detection. In BF3 with the high number of players coming and going in a server it was anybodies guess what will happen when you aim and fire at someone.

- Cheats: I spent two years as a BF2 server admin. Battlecorder was a saviour it gave instant access and irrefutable proof of someone cheating, not that it mattered much as the whole time I spent their I only encountered 3 maybe 4 aimbotters. Okay the commander hack was a lot more common but it was rarely as destructive as a balls out couldn't give a toss aim botter. BFBC2 killed the Battlecorder and within less than a year EA support had stopped giving a toss about cheaters too. I encountered more aimbotters in BFBC2 in the first month than I did in the whole two and a bit years of playing BF2 but the real fun was being stored for BF3. Yes that same client side server support that introduced the will I hit this guy guess work of aiming also allowed for some truly wonderful cheats.

Being killed by a guy using a knife while you are inside a tank
Being killed by a guy using ammo and medi packs
More aimbotters than you could shake a shit covered stick at

The issue is that when you add in the piss community support and specifically the non name wankfest servers that have zero or utterly useless admin support you have a game that offers no fear of punishment for cheaters and as a result almost every game had someone doing some form of cheating.

a). The uber knife that can cut a human leg off in one slice
b). The uber warrior who has had his Femoral artery cut but manages to survive for 6 minutes and is together enough to be able to hand you a gun and do the uber warrior thing and sacrifice his life to save his squad bros.

It sure looks pretty, but beyond that there is little to it. It seems to be more set piece heavy than the previous title and the environments seem uninspired. On the bright side, combat in SP seems more open than BF3, allowing you to take control of vehicles outside of specific moments and more heavily utilizing the destructible cover. Frankly I would like to see more from them on the MP front, cause to be honest, that is all anyone cares about.

The characters in your squad reminded me so much of the characters from BC & BC2...

Speaking of... Why aren't they making a sequel to that game?

Oh wait- it's EA. Have to have yearly COD ripoffs to exploit their fans. Remember when you were allowed to have mods in a Battlefield game?

OT: It just seems like slightly prettier graphics and slightly less linearity. Still heavily scripted.

I'm still not to fond of the "destruction" physics the Frostbite engine has. I prefer seeing it in real-time ala Red Faction Guerilla.

Disappointed with the generic and unimaginative trailer. Elite american squad killing numerous 'elite' Russian soldiers, tough black guy from the streets, helicopter chase leading to car crash has all been done before, mainly by COD4. I loved playing as the Russians in BF3 and variety is the spice of life. DICE need to stop with their constant hard on for the USMC, I want to play as the British, Russians, Chinese, anyone as long as it's not more fucking yanks(no offence intended but Americans are in about 95% of games). Battlefield is a work of fiction, so think of other military forces to us, it's not like there aren't any. MOH WF had the right idea of using forces not normally seen in games like Polish GROM. Also diversify the main squad so it's less generic. How about a mainly black squad or something more fun like gurkhas. Gurkhas are awesome yet I can only think of one game I have seen them in. I also want to see Challenger 2(best tank ever) and other non-american equipment because it is hardly ever used. But no EU army because that shit don't work. NATO like in BF2:MC worked so use that. Also nothing quite says elite soldier like a British accent and a ridiculous moustache.

It looked nice, but other than being a few inches further down the graphics road (Yeah...inches) I saw nothing that an FPS game hasn't done before. Now, of course, weaving in things that other games has done is key to enhancing an experiance, but really, I don't hold out hope for Battlefield 4 to do anything mould breaking. Even with an eye to the graphics, the graphics ALWAYS look ridiculously good on demos. SO take that away and the game gives you nothing new.

And, sadly, despite being an American, I'm getting tired of playing as Americans. There, I said it.

Abandon4093:
I want a bad company 3 that abandons all pretence of being srsbsns and goes back to being the gold collecting madness of the first one.

I also want this. The Bad Company series is just so much better.

ShinyCharizard:

Abandon4093:
I want a bad company 3 that abandons all pretence of being srsbsns and goes back to being the gold collecting madness of the first one.

I also want this. The Bad Company series is just so much better.

I'm with you guys,not only was the singleplayer cast better, the MP was a whole different ball game from BF3, those maps...the BC1/2 ones, not the shitty 3 ones.
And Abamdon, the Gold chasing has to come back,for both MP and SP, it gave the first game such character that set it apart from other military shooters.

I'm just hoping the campaign is better than it was in BF3. It's easy to be hard on the Modern Warfare series after CoD4, but the more I think about it the more I realized that I actually remembered the main characters, which is a nice touch after the fact.

Laughing Man:

-snip-

You just clearly laid out all of my gripes with the Battlefield series since BF2. I played BF1942, BF2, and BF2142 for a while, but when the unlocks, cheating, lack of good dedicated server with admins, and waning support from EA started to kill the community, I gave it up for good. It's sad too because they had a good formula with BF2. Why they chose to sell out and include features that actually encourage players not to play as intended is beyond me.

tehpiemaker:


So far, I am relatively unimpressed by what I have seen. Sure, the graphics look amazing and better than anything I've ever seen but the demo was played on a PC. That means that if I want to play the same game with the same graphics I will have to pay hundred of dollars on a new computer to play one game.

It was running on a (stock) Radeon HD 7990. That's easily an 800 graphics card. One that isn't available to consumers yet (though partners of AMD have made their own by taping two 7970's together!). Hence the pretty shiny and smooth nature. It looked really good to me but I'm not sure I want to pay the Origin Premium of 55 for a fucking PC download, if I do get it it will be a year after launch from amazon for under 20.

The PS360 version is gonna be something lesser though I hate to say, it needs to be PS4/NextBox to really have a chance of being as visually appealing on a console.

ASlso, single player in Battlefield 3 was crap. So I don't care until they show multiplayer. And no co-op, the co-op was amissed opportunity, the missions weren't very well designed and the lack of checkpoints in a half hour mission is a bit of a pain in the arse.

duchaked:
I'm just hoping the campaign is better than it was in BF3. It's easy to be hard on the Modern Warfare series after CoD4, but the more I think about it the more I realized that I actually remembered the main characters, which is a nice touch after the fact.

The Modern Warfare games aren't bad for what they are. They're fast food gaming, it's a solid action packed 6-8 hour campaign stuffed with blowing shit up and shooting things. It scratches a particular itch.

The spec ops mode is good too, bite sized co-op missions are great and so was that survival mode in MW3. MW3 hardcore with no killstreaks is also fun multiplayer. Lots of bang for your buck there.

Battlefield 3 did not have said bang for buck. Limited maps I can't remember, half assed development split over too many platforms, boring and forgetable campaign and poorly designed co-op.

I will be the first to say, it looks more like an Expansion pack than a full game to me. Now I am of course not giving another cent to EA but this shows me that they are just making as Skarkow; "Fast Food Gaming".

What do I think of the Battlefield 4 Demo? Lets see:
Prior to this I played Spec Ops: The Line.
Then I saw this demo.
Then I saw some old gameplay of Battlefield 3.

My verdict: Disappoint.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked