Recommended Posts

If those 17 minutes of BF4 gameplay don't leave you speechless I don't know what will.

Sure, technically it looks great, but that's completely out balanced by it retaining the same old bombastic cinematic spectacle that military shooters have been doing for the past few years now.

The actual gameplay shows nothing remarkable in the slightest.

I mean, seriously are people just locking themselves into a corner & not excepting anything that isn't this particular thing? This badass military deal?

It's the same tiring dramatic nonsense paired with remedial gameplay.

It looks like more of the same to me. I don't think it looks all that different to Battlefield 3 either, the campaign in that looked as good.

I'm really sick of the over the top modern shooters, it's been done to death now.

It looks like more of the same to me. I don't think it looks all that different to Battlefield 3 either, the campaign in that looked as good.

I'm really sick of the over the top modern shooters, it's been done to death now.

I agree. Sure, looks pretty - but it is going to run like **** on about 99% of people's systems!

Heck, I have an Intel Core i5-3570K 3.4GHz, Radeon HD 7850 XFX DD 2GB Black Edition and 16 GB DDR3 1600MHz RAM and BF3 struggles still at 1920x1080 res.

Personally, Far Cry 3 and Tomb Raider got it right for me - loved both of the stories and how they played. Games like BFx, MWx just regurgitate the same macho American army dude scenario time and time again. HUUURAAAAY we are hardcore elite squad who kick everything in the nuts then frag out!

Just gets a bit boring after a while.

I agree. Sure, looks pretty - but it is going to run like **** on about 99% of people's systems!

Heck, I have an Intel Core i5-3570K 3.4GHz, Radeon HD 7850 XFX DD 2GB Black Edition and 16 GB DDR3 1600MHz RAM and BF3 struggles still at 1920x1080 res.

Wow really? I have an i7 3770 3.4 Ghz, Radeon HD 7770 Ghz Edition 2GB and 6GB of RAM, BF3 runs at around 50FPS on high. It sits around 30FPS on Ultra but sometimes dips to 25 in high action moments to I play on high.

I may have to play BF4 at Medium.

Apparently they have been able to optimize the engine much more with the new Frostbite 3 engine, so hopefully the game might run better than BF3.

When we built this engine, I think we already felt when we did Battlefield 3 with Frostbite 2 that it was kind of a power horse. It had enormous potential. We talked then about next-generation technology on the current generation of platforms, and I still have that feeling that we've done so many tech improvements in that engine that are, in many ways, just making things look more beautiful for a cheaper cost.

Source

Visually, it's on par with my expectations.

I don't care for these FPS campaigns though. They are false, insensitive, and corrupting the minds of the impressionable youth, much like most of today's action movies.

Multiplayer can be a respectable form of competition. I would prefer that they invest all of their resources and man-hours into it.

But whatever, EA is behind it, and all they want is to go toe-to-toe with CoD. Greedy f***ing b******.

I agree. Sure, looks pretty - but it is going to run like **** on about 99% of people's systems!

Heck, I have an Intel Core i5-3570K 3.4GHz, Radeon HD 7850 XFX DD 2GB Black Edition and 16 GB DDR3 1600MHz RAM and BF3 struggles still at 1920x1080 res.

So what's the excuse to how my Phenom II X4, 4GB DDR2 RAM, 9800GTX runs the game just fine @ 1680x1050?

This is the problem with PC gaming; some people act like you need a god box. No, I bought my machine for roughly $400-500, and I play Battlefield 3 just fine on decent enough settings that still blows current generation console graphics out of the water. All I can suggest is to try to tweak something because to me, that just doesn't sound right that I'm having such an amazing time with the game while yours is somehow "incapable"... Not every game needs to be supped up to high.

Sorry if I sound annoyed, it's just that I personally love Battlefield 3 because it looks amazing and isn't a miserable experience, compared to other games that choke even on low settings due to poor optimization.

But whatever, EA is behind it, and all they want is to go toe-to-toe with CoD. Greedy f***ing b******.

I don't care for EA either but... they're releasing a sequel 2 years after Battlefield 3, not a sequel every year like CoD. Their DLC also doesn't blow ass compared to what Activision and [Treyarch/Infinity Ward] offer.

I don't care for EA either but... they're releasing a sequel 2 years after Battlefield 3, not a sequel every year like CoD. Their DLC also doesn't blow ass compared to what Activision and [Treyarch/Infinity Ward] offer.

Not really. They do it annually as well. They just rotate between BF and Medal of Honor.

So what's the excuse to how my Phenom II X4, 4GB DDR2 RAM, 9800GTX runs the game just fine @ 1680x1050?

This is the problem with PC gaming; some people act like you need a god box. No, I bought my machine for roughly $400-500, and I play Battlefield 3 just fine on decent enough settings that still blows current generation console graphics out of the water. All I can suggest is to try to tweak something because to me, that just doesn't sound right that I'm having such an amazing time with the game while yours is somehow "incapable"... Not every game needs to be supped up to high.

Sorry if I sound annoyed, it's just that I personally love Battlefield 3 because it looks amazing and isn't a miserable experience, compared to other games that choke even on low settings due to poor optimization.

I don't care for EA either but... they're releasing a sequel 2 years after Battlefield 3, not a sequel every year like CoD. Their DLC also doesn't blow ass compared to what Activision and [Treyarch/Infinity Ward] offer.

I think my point is, that yes I can turn down the graphics to medium or whatever, but a 2 year old game on new hardware (ok. not a super hot gfx card) it should be able to play on Ultra with a high fps.

I guess at the res I run it at, on the settings I have it set to - I was expecting more... and if BF4 is going to be more intensive then it is just crapping over everything else. Tomb Raider looks great and runs beautifully with all settings maxed out. I know, different engines but I really feel that a lot of these engines aren't optimised enough and are sloppily coded.

I think my point is, that yes I can turn down the graphics to medium or whatever, but a 2 year old game on new hardware (ok. not a super hot gfx card) it should be able to play on Ultra with a high fps.

I guess at the res I run it at, on the settings I have it set to - I was expecting more... and if BF4 is going to be more intensive then it is just crapping over everything else. Tomb Raider looks great and runs beautifully with all settings maxed out. I know, different engines but I really feel that a lot of these engines aren't optimised enough and are sloppily coded.

My machine just turned 3 and I run it on ultra all, 1080, 40+ fps, no oc

mobo: http://www.amazon.co...77348245&sr=8-1

gpu: http://www.newegg.co...N82E16814102889

cpu: http://www.amazon.co...=A2KO89YV2VWO37

ram: http://www.newegg.co...N82E16820145286

I wonder what you get in the "digital deluxe" version besides beta access?

I suppose $10 more for beta isnt all that bad. At least you don't have to waste $59 on preordering Medal Of Honor: Warfighter :D

Compare Editions here - http://store.origin.com/store?Action=html&Locale=en_US&SiteID=ea&easid=Origin_BATTLEFIELD4_Web_Hero_PreOrder&pbPage=battlefield4_en_US

If those 17 minutes of BF4 gameplay don't leave you speechless I don't know what will.

I was not left speechless. Wait... mabye I was,,, as to the sorry state games are lately. I get more out of watching LPers derping it up in a lot of FPS games lately then actually playing them myself.

mabye MP is better... who knows.... but I don't see dropping full retail on this .

  • Like 1

Ouch, the trailer and demo at GDC ran on AMD 7990 GPU.

amdmaltafront_480.jpg

Which is basically two 7970 GHz edition GPUs on one card. My 7850 am cry, would it be worth getting another 7850 for crossfire?

There is a MP trailer coming on the 30th apparently so says one of the staff on twitter.

sillypic

Seriously?

You could find the most tenuous links between almost any forms of media these days if you cherry pick the moments. Omg they shoot a gun, that is totally a copy of Call of Duty, grow up.

  • Like 3
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • The quantum search for Time's origin had an equally mind-boggling conclusion by Sayan Sen Image by Steve Johnson via Pexels A theoretical study from researchers at the University of Surrey suggested that the direction of time may not be fundamentally fixed in certain quantum systems. The work, published in Scientific Reports, examined how the “arrow of time” could emerge from microscopic physics and found that time-reversal symmetry can remain intact even in models used to describe processes such as energy loss and thermalisation. The arrow of time refers to the observed one-way direction from past to future in everyday life. In macroscopic processes, this is easy to see. Spilled milk spreads across a table and does not gather back into a glass, and heat flows from hotter objects to colder ones. These processes shape the common sense idea that time moves in a single direction. However, at the level of fundamental physics, many equations do not prefer a direction of time. Time-reversal symmetry means that the same physical laws can describe a system whether time moves forward or backward. This has made it difficult to explain why irreversible behaviour appears in the large-scale world even when the underlying rules do not require it. Dr Andrea Rocco, Associate Professor in Physics and Mathematical Biology at the University of Surrey, described this contrast: "One way to explain this is when you look at a process like spilt milk spreading across a table, it's clear that time is moving forward. But if you were to play that in reverse, like a movie, you'd immediately know something was wrong – it would be hard to believe milk could just gather back into a glass. However, there are processes, such as the motion of a pendulum, that look just as believable in reverse. The puzzle is that, at the most fundamental level, the laws of physics resemble the pendulum; they do not account for irreversible processes. Our findings suggest that while our common experience tells us that time only moves one way, we are just unaware that the opposite direction would have been equally possible." The study focused on open quantum systems, which are quantum systems that interact with a surrounding environment. This environment, often described as a heat bath, can exchange energy and information with the system. The researchers used this framework to study how a direction of time might appear even when the underlying physics does not enforce one. A key part of the analysis involved the Markov approximation. This is a simplification used in many models where the system is assumed not to retain memory of its past states. The idea is that changes depend only on the current state, not on earlier history. This is commonly used when studying thermalisation, which is the process where a system settles into equilibrium with its environment. The study also used concepts such as master equations, including the Lindblad and Pauli equations, which describe how probabilities of different quantum states change over time. Another related model discussed was quantum Brownian motion, which describes the random-like movement of a quantum particle interacting continuously with its environment. In these descriptions, a “memory kernel” can appear, which is a mathematical term that accounts for how past states influence current behaviour. The researchers found that applying the Markov approximation did not break time-reversal symmetry. Even when the system interacted with an effectively infinite heat bath, the resulting equations of motion remained symmetric in time. This meant that the same mathematical description could, in principle, run forward or backward in time without contradiction. The study further showed that standard frameworks used in open quantum systems, including quantum Brownian motion and master equations like the Lindblad and Pauli forms, could be written in a time-symmetric way. These equations are typically used to describe processes that look irreversible, such as dissipation and thermalisation, but the results suggested they can also be interpreted as allowing evolution in both time directions. Thomas Guff, Research Fellow in Quantum Thermodynamics, said: "The surprising part of this project was that even after making the standard simplifying assumption to our equations describing open quantum systems, the equations still behaved the same way whether the system was moving forwards or backwards in time. When we carefully worked through the maths, we found that this behaviour had to be the case because a key part of the equation, the "memory kernel," is symmetrical in time. We also found a small but important detail which is usually overlooked – a time discontinuous factor emerged that kept the time-symmetry property intact. It’s unusual to see such a mathematical mechanism in a physics equation because it's not continuous, and it was very surprising to see it appear so naturally." The researchers also noted that deriving a one-way arrow of time from time-reversal symmetric microscopic dynamics remains an open problem across fields such as thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, particle physics, and cosmology. Their results suggested that some standard descriptions of irreversible behaviour in open quantum systems may be better understood using a time-symmetric formulation of Markovianity. According to the study, processes such as thermalisation, which are usually treated as irreversible, could in theory be described in a way that allows evolution in either time direction under the same rules. This does not imply that time reversal occurs in everyday life, but rather that the underlying equations do not strictly enforce a single direction. Overall, the findings suggested that the perceived direction of time may emerge from how physical systems are modelled and approximated, rather than from a fundamental asymmetry in the laws themselves. The researchers noted that this perspective could have implications for ongoing work in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and cosmology on the origin of time’s arrow. Source: University of Surrey, Nature This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing
    • A bit premature... 100% Marketing. Bizarre.
    • A $300 price hike is insane! No one is going to want to pay that much!
    • Since the 1st one flopped, there is really no reason to make another one. It's just losing money left and right.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      BizSAR earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      580
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      75
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      71
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!