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.

  • Like 6

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

    • As long as i get to play GTA 6 before it ends 😂😂
    • Google is opening the world's first AI museum in Los Angeles by Ivan Jenic Image via: Google Ever since AI image generators went mainstream, the debate over whether AI-generated art is real art hasn't let up. Those who don’t consider AI to be art say that if a machine does the creating and anyone can prompt it, there’s no skill involved, and therefore no art is produced. The counter-argument is equally persistent, as defenders of AI-generated artworks often claim that AI is just a tool, and that every major technological breakthrough, like the camera or the computer, was met with the same skepticism before eventually being accepted as a legitimate creative medium. Google’s position in this debate is clear. Which is no surprise, as the company is investing billions in AI infrastructure. And now, in efforts to encourage people to use its AI even more, Google is opening Dataland on June 20, which it's calling the world's first AI arts museum. Located inside The Grand LA, a Frank Gehry-designed building in Los Angeles, the museum spans 25,000 square feet. The museum is built around a collaboration with media artist Refik Anadol, who has worked with Google since 2016. The inaugural exhibition is called Machine Dreams: Rainforest, and is powered by an AI model trained on “an extensive dataset of the natural world.” It generates 1.2 billion pixels of visuals in real time and reacts to visitors dynamically. The space also generates soundscapes, real-time emotion sensing, and algorithmically produced scents. Image via: Refik Anadol Studio / Google Google says that the museum is powered by its Gemini models, which run on Google Cloud. So, everything is generated inside one of Google’s AI data centers and is streamed to the museum. Alongside the museum opening, Google Arts & Culture is funding an AI Artist Residency, giving four artists $25,000 grants each, along with mentorship from Refik Anadol Studio and access to Google's machine learning tools. Their work will be shown at Dataland and on the Google Arts & Culture website later this year. Google’s AI museum will undoubtedly initiate a fired-up debate on social media, and we can’t wait to see the first reactions. Via: Smithsonian Magazine
    • Calling GTA 6 overhyped crap doesn’t make you edgy, it just makes you sound like someone who hasn’t enjoyed anything since the PS2 era.
    • I’m not arguing whether Rockstar likes money. Obviously, they do, they’re a business. I’m saying this isn’t new. They’ve always launched console first. This is just how Rockstar operates.
    • I'm not sure how old the school is, but they've been doing this since GTA 3. Back in those days we'd be lucky for game companies to release on the PC at all. And with the current state of Sony (or Microsoft) their gaming wing won't be getting a penny from me.
  • Recent Achievements

    • 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
    • Week One Done
      With What earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      570
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      175
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      73
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      68
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!