official Battlefield 4

[+SOOPRcow MVC]

Don't we already do this with the leaderboards? or is this something else? like to see who is the best bf4 player or?

In the case of Battlefield think of it more as a team sport vs an individual competition.

[zeke009]

This, Most modern FPS games are like this

Maybe you have been jaded by the yearly releases of CoD that appear to be little more than map packs or slight tweaks to old game engines.

BF3 & Premium were a solid purchase in my opinion. Pre-ordering the expansion packs saved a few bucks and kept the game alive for much longer than expected.

[Alladaskill17]

Battlefield 4 won't use motion controls because they are a 'gimmick', says DICE exec producer.

Battlefield 4 won't include motion control support because the mechanics won't make the game better, despite "people throwing money" at developer DICE to include them, according to executive producer Patrick Bach.

Speaking with Edge Online, Bach said integrating next-generation motion control peripherals with the latest installment of its military shooter franchise is not in the plans. Bach suggested that other companies have been offering DICE compensation to provide support for "quirky control" in Battlefield 4.

"We are not interested in things that don't make the game better," Bach said. "There are a lot of gimmicks ? people throwing money at us ? ?can you implement support for this quirky control thing'. No, it doesn't make the game better." Bach added that despite DICE's openness to new, innovative technology, there is "no point" in adding support for something that ultimately does not improve the game experience.

"Touch screens used to be a gimmick, because no-one could get it to work until iPhone came out and used it right," he said. "It adds to the experience, and now everyone is doing it. To us it's the same with motion control and perceptual gaming in general; if it adds, great. If it's a gimmick, ignore it."

Battlefield 4 was unveiled at GDC 2013 last month. Check out Polygon's coverage here.

[SirEvan]

if there is one franchise I've been commited to, it's the BF series. Been playing EVERY one since 1942, and this will be no different. Battlefield is the best series ever made, and while it has had it's lame moments (BF: Vietnam anyone?) I can say it is by far the best PC game series ever produced. 69$ pre-order...on its way

[Silpheed2K]

Looks like the same game with just a few changes. I won't be buying or supporting this one anytime soon. It looks like Battlefield 3. It's not a large upgrade if you've been playing it on PC. They definitely wont be getting my money after the whole Premium membership spectacle they made.

You had to buy the game + Premium. Which was too much money. So no, I will say hell no to this one on launch day.

[Sandor]

Looks like the same game with just a few changes

That was my impression too. I love the Modern Warfare games but they've essentially been the same look and sound since the start. The weapons and maps changed but the graphics were nearly the same all the way.

Seems like BF is going down the same sort of route.

[trag3dy]

Looks like the same game with just a few changes. I won't be buying or supporting this one anytime soon. It looks like Battlefield 3. It's not a large upgrade if you've been playing it on PC. They definitely wont be getting my money after the whole Premium membership spectacle they made.

You had to buy the game + Premium. Which was too much money. So no, I will say hell no to this one on launch day.

While I mostly agree with you there isn't anything wrong with Premium. It's actually a really good deal if you were interested in getting the map packs. I don't see a problem there.

[Emn1ty]

This, Most modern FPS games are like this

Battlefield was better off as a WWII game. The scenarios are better, the diversity of combat was better. WWII fit video games well because of the utter chaos of combat. Trench warfare was still prevelant, whereas today they are shoehorning trench-like combat into a modern warfare scenario where such combat just plain and simple does not exist. 90% of current warfare never sees two people engaging on each other and the other 10% is quick fire missions with minimal gunfire.

Watching the gameplay footage just shows me that we still haven't made a true modern warfare title, since none of the games play like modern warfare. The closest thing to it I've seen was GRAW back when it came out. Most of the game was avoiding the enemy and recon, not gunfights.

We are still dealing with WWII combat with a 21^st century skin, so we may as well just make it WWII. It also makes me want to load up Battlefield 1942 again and play that.

[watchthisspace]

if there is one franchise I've been commited to, it's the BF series. Been playing EVERY one since 1942, and this will be no different. Battlefield is the best series ever made, and while it has had it's lame moments (BF: Vietnam anyone?) I can say it is by far the best PC game series ever produced. 69$ pre-order...on its way

I loved BF:Vietnam and BC2:Vietnam. :p

[ViperAFK]

Battlefield was better off as a WWII game. The scenarios are better, the diversity of combat was better. WWII fit video games well because of the utter chaos of combat. Trench warfare was still prevelant, whereas today they are shoehorning trench-like combat into a modern warfare scenario where such combat just plain and simple does not exist. 90% of current warfare never sees two people engaging on each other and the other 10% is quick fire missions with minimal gunfire.

Watching the gameplay footage just shows me that we still haven't made a true modern warfare title, since none of the games play like modern warfare. The closest thing to it I've seen was GRAW back when it came out. Most of the game was avoiding the enemy and recon, not gunfights.

We are still dealing with WWII combat with a 21^st century skin, so we may as well just make it WWII. It also makes me want to load up Battlefield 1942 again and play that.

I do wish they would make another BF194x game for PC, I was hoping for 1943 come to pc and was sad when they cancelled that. I'd also like another battlefield 214x game, the titan mode in 2142 was really original epic and fun, I would LOVE to see what they could do with titan mode on frostbite and more modern hardware. I don't know why they just keep doing the modern warfare games over and over :( Some variety would be nice.

[spaceelf]

Some variety would be nice.

Agreed, but I just finished Black Ops 2s single player campaign and...I don't know, scifi certainly didn't seem to improve it. There were some neat things but overall it didn't impress me at all.

Honestly, I don't think games will be terribly impressive before the 64 bit ones come. We're still on the 512 meg memory wall (not with graphics and audio obviously, but level design in general) with most of these games being multiplatform and it lends itself to very similar games.

[Keyboard Cowboy]

Battlefield was better off as a WWII game. The scenarios are better, the diversity of combat was better. WWII fit video games well because of the utter chaos of combat. Trench warfare was still prevelant, whereas today they are shoehorning trench-like combat into a modern warfare scenario where such combat just plain and simple does not exist. 90% of current warfare never sees two people engaging on each other and the other 10% is quick fire missions with minimal gunfire.

Watching the gameplay footage just shows me that we still haven't made a true modern warfare title, since none of the games play like modern warfare. The closest thing to it I've seen was GRAW back when it came out. Most of the game was avoiding the enemy and recon, not gunfights.

We are still dealing with WWII combat with a 21^st century skin, so we may as well just make it WWII. It also makes me want to load up Battlefield 1942 again and play that.

We still have Red Orchestra 2 thank goodness. :/

[PsychD]

Battlefield was better off as a WWII game. The scenarios are better, the diversity of combat was better. WWII fit video games well because of the utter chaos of combat. Trench warfare was still prevelant, whereas today they are shoehorning trench-like combat into a modern warfare scenario where such combat just plain and simple does not exist. 90% of current warfare never sees two people engaging on each other and the other 10% is quick fire missions with minimal gunfire.

Watching the gameplay footage just shows me that we still haven't made a true modern warfare title, since none of the games play like modern warfare. The closest thing to it I've seen was GRAW back when it came out. Most of the game was avoiding the enemy and recon, not gunfights.

We are still dealing with WWII combat with a 21^st century skin, so we may as well just make it WWII. It also makes me want to load up Battlefield 1942 again and play that.

I'm all for another tour in WWII, but seems like most developers are fed up with making WWII shooters, and instead wants to focus on the current era of warfare due to the vast possibilities with gadgets and what not. WWII doesn't really support the current obsession with unlocks, nor can I see as many achievement possibilities as with a modern warfare game.

The newer generation(s) of players do not want "proper" modern warfare, they want action. They want explosions, kills and a lot of numbers, and for some reason the developers doesn't seem to think the WWII setting is useful for that any more.

I recently went back with some friends to replay Call Of Duty 2, what a game compared to the newer CoD titles (MW2 and forward in particular), your screen is not cluttered with numbers and achievements or unlocks. Fast paced play can be done, but not in the same way as in MW3 for example, running and gunning is not nearly as simple to do in COD2. The same thing I feel goes for the Battlefield series, running and gunning has taken over the series due to the demand. Just look at many of the maps in BF3, Grand Bazaar springs to mind, they funnel players into kill zones for maximum damage. I'll admit some of the older maps in the different shooter series had kill zones, but for some reason I just don't feel like it was as horrible as they are these days.

With this said I might not buy BF4, but sit this one out, even though I own all games in the BF series, playing all of them in their prime. The beta better have something incredible to offer.

Luckily Battlefield 1942 has gone Free to play, I've already loaded it up several times and having some nostalgic moments in it.

We still have Red Orchestra 2 thank goodness. :/

I loved RO1, but for some reason I never got started with RO2 after playing the beta, even though I had preordered it, perhaps it is time to try it once again?

[Keyboard Cowboy]

I loved RO1, but for some reason I never got started with RO2 after playing the beta, even though I had preordered it, perhaps it is time to try it once again?

It definitely got better from the beta, but I can't lie there a still a few bugs here and there that are annoying and I question Tripwire's commitment at this point to fix them.

[Emn1ty]

I'm all for another tour in WWII, but seems like most developers are fed up with making WWII shooters, and instead wants to focus on the current era of warfare due to the vast possibilities with gadgets and what not. WWII doesn't really support the current obsession with unlocks, nor can I see as many achievement possibilities as with a modern warfare game.

The newer generation(s) of players do not want "proper" modern warfare, they want action. They want explosions, kills and a lot of numbers, and for some reason the developers doesn't seem to think the WWII setting is useful for that any more.

I recently went back with some friends to replay Call Of Duty 2, what a game compared to the newer CoD titles (MW2 and forward in particular), your screen is not cluttered with numbers and achievements or unlocks. Fast paced play can be done, but not in the same way as in MW3 for example, running and gunning is not nearly as simple to do in COD2. The same thing I feel goes for the Battlefield series, running and gunning has taken over the series due to the demand. Just look at many of the maps in BF3, Grand Bazaar springs to mind, they funnel players into kill zones for maximum damage. I'll admit some of the older maps in the different shooter series had kill zones, but for some reason I just don't feel like it was as horrible as they are these days.

With this said I might not buy BF4, but sit this one out, even though I own all games in the BF series, playing all of them in their prime. The beta better have something incredible to offer.

Luckily Battlefield 1942 has gone Free to play, I've already loaded it up several times and having some nostalgic moments in it.

The biggest problem with BF3 and most like 4 and even Bad Company was that the maps were TINY compared to 1942 and Vietnam's maps. Remember El Alamein? The map was large enough for them to add a B52 and when a game on that map got enough players it was awesome. The current BF maps are about the size of Midway, if not smaller and to me that kills a LOT of the game. Don't even forget the naval warfare, the ability to sink carriers, etc. Heck, reproducing a modern Pacific would be pretty neat by going at Korea and just foobaring that they took the pacific islands from Japan. A whole new battlefield in the same, classic locations from the original series.

But they'd rather shrink maps, create killzones and destroy vehicle combat.

[ViperAFK]

Agreed, but I just finished Black Ops 2s single player campaign and...I don't know, scifi certainly didn't seem to improve it. There were some neat things but overall it didn't impress me at all.

Honestly, I don't think games will be terribly impressive before the 64 bit ones come. We're still on the 512 meg memory wall (not with graphics and audio obviously, but level design in general) with most of these games being multiplatform and it lends itself to very similar games.

Have you ever played 2142's titan mode? Way cooler than anything in blops2 :p

[spaceelf]

Have you ever played 2142's titan mode? Way cooler than anything in blops2 :p

I've played nothing before BF3. The WW2 game focus turned me off these series pretty hardcore initially. I'm still not that fond of war FPSes but they're fun enough, and BF3 certainly proved its worth multi...hell I even liked MOH:W more than Black Ops 2 heh.

[Keyboard Cowboy]

The biggest problem with BF3 and most like 4 and even Bad Company was that the maps were TINY compared to 1942 and Vietnam's maps. Remember El Alamein? The map was large enough for them to add a B52 and when a game on that map got enough players it was awesome. The current BF maps are about the size of Midway, if not smaller and to me that kills a LOT of the game. Don't even forget the naval warfare, the ability to sink carriers, etc. Heck, reproducing a modern Pacific would be pretty neat by going at Korea and just foobaring that they took the pacific islands from Japan. A whole new battlefield in the same, classic locations from the original series.

But they'd rather shrink maps, create killzones and destroy vehicle combat.

This all the way...

[PsychD]

The biggest problem with BF3 and most like 4 and even Bad Company was that the maps were TINY compared to 1942 and Vietnam's maps. Remember El Alamein? The map was large enough for them to add a B52 and when a game on that map got enough players it was awesome. The current BF maps are about the size of Midway, if not smaller and to me that kills a LOT of the game. Don't even forget the naval warfare, the ability to sink carriers, etc. Heck, reproducing a modern Pacific would be pretty neat by going at Korea and just foobaring that they took the pacific islands from Japan. A whole new battlefield in the same, classic locations from the original series.

But they'd rather shrink maps, create killzones and destroy vehicle combat.

I agree 100 percent.

DICE wants to compete with the COD franchise, and beat them on their court. The exclusion of prone from BC2 (Never played BC1 due to being console only), the removal of lean in the series, this hampers the tactical play I was used too in the early days of this series and this alongside the map size promotes fast paced game play. I can see myself skipping BF4 unless the beta proves to be the return to their roots, but I doubt it, it will be a clone.

This has also meant a decline in the community, teamwork in public games are non existing, I had a very different experience in 1942,Vietnam and BF2, Battlefield used to be about teamwork but that is all gone, people care more about their KDR than winning a game. If your KDR isn't above 2.0, you're not allowed to have an opinion. They don't care if you capture points or blow up the MCOMS, you just need a good KDR.

[TheLegendOfMart]

Have either of you guys played the Armored Kill DLC, the maps are freaking huge.

[PsychD]

The maps in AK isn't that big, it takes no time to get from one end to the other, they should have taken speed and the agility of the current vehicles into consideration when making the maps. These overviews make them seem big, but if we compare them to the standard BF3 maps, then yes they are huge. But as you can see you are being funneled into killzones. I can't remember the map name, but the mountainous region is 1 "secure base" for each team plus the rest of the points in close proximity to each other. That isn't armored warfare, that is pushing people into killzones for maximum carnage.

[TheLegendOfMart]

BF2 maps weren't much bigger.

[PsychD]

BF2 maps weren't much bigger.

The majority of the maps have gotten smaller and more funnelling is occuring to ensure maximum carnage, I'm not talking about size as the only factor. To be entirely fair I remember battles raging back and forth on small sized maps in BF2, even if the lines were across one another as in Gulf Of Oman (I think it was that one), now people just rush to the front line or behind the enemy, thinking nothing about teamwork or winning the map.

With the community decline and fast paced action it really shows that the BF series has lost a lot of what made it Battlefield. Now it just seems like a poor attempt to add vehicles into Call Of Duty. That said I can still enjoy playing it from time to time.

[TheLegendOfMart]

You can't blame them for trying to chase CoD money, ever since the game went onto consoles it was only a matter of time before they came consolised, if it had continued as BF2 did as a niche PC shooter then it probably would have gone the way of the dodo a long time ago.

[PsychD]

You can't blame them for trying to chase CoD money, ever since the game went onto consoles it was only a matter of time before they came consolised, if it had continued as BF2 did as a niche PC shooter then it probably would have gone the way of the dodo a long time ago.

I do realise it is a business, but that doesn't change the fact that series has suffered from being consolised, gameplay and community wise. To this day I'm still mad that EA didn't have someone else to work on the CoD killer they so desperately want. As a business I understand them, but if the series had stayed true to it's original form it might not have gotten as many sales, but it would still be very popular and active, that I do not doubt.