Battlefield: What Is It Good Four?

By Jim Rossignol on June 11th, 2013 at 10:00 am.


Absolutely destructible scenery. And also a top-down commander mode. WUH OH. No, it’s probably fine, it might work, in the way so proven by numerous other RTSFPS hybrids. And yes, E3 actually coughed up the multiplayer part of Battlefield, instead of waving scriptilinear doodads in our faces once again. The videoed offerings showed a blistering street-battle in Shanghai, with the commander mode being used to apply convenient artillery.

Dudes get shot! (Below.)

The idea that we’re going to get a Battlefield game every couple of years is oddly draining.

__________________

« | »

, , .

124 Comments »

  1. Ansob says:

    The bit with the APC and the street is neat, but I’ll bet the building destruction at the end is just scripted end-of-round stuff, just like the radio tower in Caspian.

    • DarkLiberator says:

      Actually, the building collapse was caused by the vehicles shooting at it apparently, and it was in the middle of the match. The collapse is scripted obviously.

      • Chalky says:

        It’s a shame it’s such an incredibly repetitive setup in each of these games because the incremental tech improvements are quite impressive and you’ve got to hand it to them that it looks extremely pretty.

        Couldn’t they do a sci-fi theme or something with the same tech? It can’t be the case that they’re so terrified of upsetting their fan base that they’re reduced to making literally the same game every couple of years with a slightly better engine. Battlefield has done sci-fi before in the franchise, it’d be great to see them mix it up a little.

        I hate to say it but at this point even a WW2 battlefield would be refreshing.

        • sabasNL says:

          Battlefield 2149?

          Oh hell yeah!

          On the other hand, since DICE is also making the new StarWars Battlefront on the Frostbite 3 engine, maybe that’ll do too.

          • Ansob says:

            Yeah – I am a lot more interested in Battlefield: Star Wars than I am in Battlefield: More Of The Same, Still Broken. As much as I hate to admit it, I can overlook slightly wonky balance in a game where I get to be a snowtrooper on Hoth.

          • cunningmunki says:

            I never understood why there was no sequel to Battlefield 2149; it was by far the best BF and still has lots of players. I just hope the new Battlefront is going to like an updated mix of 2149 and the old Star Wars: Galactic Conquest mod for BF1. If it’s even half as good as either it would be way better than the original two Battlefronts.

      • Smion says:

        If I had to guess (and since I’m writing this, I obviously do), I’d say that the flag on top of the building getting captured is the signal for the collapse, since being able to significantly alter the position of a flag at will could be arguably pretty gamebreaking.

    • Agrippa911 says:

      As someone who’s died from being hit by the radio tower, I’ve never felt it was a scripted event. Some battles I don’t think it falls, sometimes it does – I suspect it’s due to hits on the supporting wires.

      Watching that video made my teeth hurt – was OPFOR even trying? They shoot like drunken paraplegics, if I played them I’d be top of the scoreboard each game. (yes, yes, I know, game controllers and a much wider hitbox, just incomprehensible to a PC gamer who needs laser accuracy to hit anything…)

      • Meldreth says:

        No no, the collapse of the tower * is * scripted. It happens as soon as one of the teams gets down to somewhere around 10 tickets , on conquest, but has nothing to do with people shooting at it or not.

  2. roryok says:

    Every time I see that guy I think of Joey from Friends.

  3. DarkLiberator says:

    I’m cautiously optimistic. I rather enjoyed BF3 though it fell below its predecessors. Things I noticed:
    Limited vehicle ammo is a big plus. Hopefully means more powerful vehicles.
    The hud seems minimal, no kill feed in your face.
    Commander mode with supply drops and the ability to use UAV and cruise missiles.
    Five man squads.
    Recons have c4. I did rather enjoy tossing c4 at enemies in Bad Company 2.
    Liking the vertical size of the map. You have a capture point underground and you can travel to the top in some of those buildings.
    No supernova or blue tint in your face.
    Elevator + music is obviously the best thing in the game. Duh!
    The website mentions spectator mode, server admins will rejoice.

    You’ll never see that kind of teamwork in a match lol.

    • HermitUK says:

      much like my thoughts. The cynic in me understands that this is basically Battlefield 3 2.0, but it looks like the additions are bringing it closer to the Battlefields of yore, which is no bad thing.

      Particularly, it’s nice the console versions are running 64 players as well. Hopefully means all the maps will be better designed to accommodate that number (no more 64 player Metro fests).

  4. DougyM says:

    “And also a top-down commander mode. WUH OH. No, it’s probably fine, it might work, in the way so proven by numerous other RTSFPS hybrids.”

    Uhhh Jim… Battlefield 2 had the same thing and its one of the features that people most complained about missing from Battlefield 3.

    As for the rest of the video, looks interesting. They have certainly ramped up the destruction and the tower collapse is “dynamic” in that it can happen at any point in the round if the support columns are taken out as evidenced by the ticket count left on the map when the tower is falling, but of course the actual collapse wont be dynamic otherwise the servers would die every time it happened.

    The road being destructible too was a nice touch, but as always with Battlefield we will have to see some real gameplay to see how effective the new features are given that all trailers for BF are staged in some way to make scenes look more amazing and team based than they actually are in 99% of rounds.

    Cautiously optimistic.

    • Tatourmi says:

      Yeah, 2142 had it as well. And it was absolutely bonkers, with the ability, among others, to move a GIANT SHIP OF DESTRUCTION all around the map.

      • MasterDex says:

        Ah yes, nothing like the good old lagfests of a titan match with moveable titans. The best thing admins did in 2142 was get and make use of the ability to make the titans stationary.

  5. Sensation says:

    That looked more like a single-player level than a multiplayer map, the way idiot Russion/Chinese soldiers run at the player’s squad. Fun to watch, but hardly real gameplay when dice employees are playing to a script.

  6. Gnoupi says:

    I’m quite uninterested at this point in realistic looking shooters (I prefer colorful, vibrant colors to recognize enemies from the scenery).

    The commander mode, however, controlled on a tablet, could be a fun thing.

  7. Spoon Of Doom says:

    I’ll hop on to the “cautiously optimistic” bandwagon. Looks nice and battlefieldy. I like nice looking and battlefieldy things. Also, I have a soft spot for destructable structures, and this supportive tablet thingy seems like a nice addition. On the other hand, this is still EA and I fully expect them to screw us all over in one way or another.

  8. roryok says:

    3:22 – I really hope you can shoot out the struts holding up that monument and it rolls down the steps, fight club style.

  9. Dowr says:

    I should be excited, but any last enjoyment fuel I had for Modern Military Shooters is completely drained out of me – hell, it’s generally any type of shooter I can’t go near without shrugging my arms off.

    I think it’ll be another couple of years before the fuel is back.

  10. Dude (Darloc) says:

    Is it me or the soldier seem to be running slightly slower than in bf3? Not that I mind it will probably make things more tactical. Overall I am happy at the direction they are taking, more dynamic environment, and I haven’t noticed any suppression, maybe they finally removed the blurring vision… The guy did get a suppression assist so not sure if they just turn it off for the presentation.

    • nearly says:

      No, I noticed that as well. I also noticed that there’s a bar that fills as he gets kills with the icon from the old Sprint perk which made me half-suspect that the perks are now kill/score streaks and he was entirely unable to sprint until it was unlocked.

      but I think I did see them sprint at one point before that particular bar was full, so it might not be the case. still I’m worried about that bar.

  11. roryok says:

    I hate to say it but at this point even a WW2 battlefield would be refreshing.

    Fun to watch, but hardly real gameplay

    I’m quite uninterested at this point in realistic looking shooters

    Sweet Zombie Jesus – if your 90s selves could see you now (assuming you’re as old as me of course). Games like this were beyond our wildest dreams once. Games technology is brain numbingly spectacular, but because of the incremental developments in between, we don’t notice. A game that even five years ago would have been pretty much impossible is received to a chorus of “meh”.

    I refuse to be desensitized. This trailer is fucking amazing.

    • philbot says:

      Agreed. DICE sure know how to deliver with their trailers, and the multiplayer is also just as epic.

    • Smion says:

      Fucking Videogames,Man!

    • Ernesto25 says:

      I would disagree there. 1) When cod 4 was released it felt like it was going to change the fps and take it to new heights rather than releasing the same game every year with the same mechanics as cod 2.

      2) WW2 fps had variety from the arcade like MOH to the realistic grit of brothers in arms. And they were a lot around but no where near the spamming of releases we get today.

      3) The game-play isn’t that much better compared to other fps swat 4 and F.E.A.R 1 or crisis 1 all of which became like cod for no apparent reason but its popular.

      So when i say “meh” its more of a missed opportunity to create something fun and exciting with lasting power , apart a sub par BF3 i just can’t justify getting this although a trailer with game play is better than monologue character showing nothing of the game.

    • gwathdring says:

      But incremental development means we’ve had games that got pretty close to this already and when they arrived they themselves weren’t wildest-dreams material. Two options at that point. I can casually ignore the development of the medium and just be happy for things that would have been awesome to me years ago or I can expect top-tier game design to elevate a game not just from it’s lineage but also from it’s surroundings.

      Sure we’ve come a long way from Pong. But how far have we come from BF3? I’m sure many of the unexcited were happy to play BF3 and some aren’t done with it.

      I don’t think it’s too much to ask that, if DICE are settling in to do one of these things every other year they could maybe vary the setting and the mechanics a bit more. Or offer assurances of long-term support. Or go all the way and jump to some sort of subscription model to allow for truly incremental development with a greater sense of consistency for players over a longer period of time.

      Lazy development goes further than the failure to create new IPs. It’s also the failure to create innovative strategies that elegantly mesh player desires with company profits. The current BF/CoD model might be profitable, but I’m sure there are unexplored alternatives that make both parties happier and take some of the budgetary front-loading that goes into a massive, top-tier, annual/biannual, AAA release.

      It also comes down to games being more than the sum of their parts. Or in this case, less. Having a kickass destruction engine, massive server battles, and so on and so forth doesn’t matter. That’s just bullet points. What matters is how it all goes together to create a game experience and what the actual mechanics of that experience are.

      • roryok says:

        Sure we’ve come a long way from Pong. But how far have we come from BF3?

        That’s what I mean. Its hard to step back and see the progress.

        To respond to your other point, I agree that the contemporary shooter can become a bit tired, but in fairness to DICE, they did try to shake it up with Battlefield 2142 and that didn’t go down well. But I’d like to see 2142 with this engine.

        • MasterDex says:

          Yeah, 2142 was a great game and anyone that gave it the time of day would surely agree. The problem was that the BF2 fans wanted BF2.1 and instead got 2142, which really did have fun with the Battlefield framework. It also had titans.

          Long story short: We can’t appreciate what’s in front of us.

    • Caiman says:

      If I could bring my 90s self into 2013 and play Battlefield 4, I would indeed be overwhelmed by it and never leave the house. However, my 2013 self has lived through the intervening period and played this identical gameplay to death way too many times. Therefore, my response to Battlefield 4 is “not this shit again” although I must admit the explosions do look nice. Life experiences man, they scar you.

    • Ansob says:

      An amazing trailer doesn’t make a good game.

      • roryok says:

        no. this game could suck of course. but I’m just saddened that nobody is amazed by graphics anymore. We’ve become desensitised to technology

        • buzzmong says:

          People aren’t amazed by graphics anymore because I suspect most of us have seen and played through each of the big graphical upgrades that came to games over the last ~15 years.

          Things like dynamic lights, stencil shadows, bump mapping, normal and specular maps, volumetric lights, the move away from sprites to proper particle effects, the introduction of shaders etc… Oh, and of course including things like real time physics and environmental sounds and the like.

          The thing is, with seeing all of those I certainly noticed, especially for a few years around 2005, the PR departments going “Buy our games! They’ve got graphics” and have seen that the massive push for graphical fidelity has been expensive in what is has cost us.

          Art is expensive. It really is. It’s one of the biggest expenses to make a video game. So publishers and devs, who feel they must keep pushing graphics, end up spending more and more to keep on the edge of the graphics curve.

          This leads to an unfortunate spiral where they need to know a game is going to sell well so they can recoup their expenditure, which leads to a lot of retreading of old ground and confirmed sales rather than taking the risk to develop something fresh and interesting, as it may bomb and cost them lots of money.

          So in summary, most of us aren’t excited with graphics anymore because what we’re now seeing is only incremental, and it’s obvious to a lot of us that it’s come at the expense of the “gameplay” and interesting ideas.

          • roryok says:

            People keep explaining this to me. I understand WHY. I even explained it myself in the original post. I just think it’s SAD.

    • Vorphalack says:

      ”Games like this were beyond our wildest dreams once”

      I don’t remember having wild dreams about modern military shooters with pitiful, token single player and grindy, unlock focused multiplayer. If you aren’t into the WAR! setting then there is plenty to put people off.

      • Ernesto25 says:

        This: it the reason i never played specs ops the line until recently. Although i hate the fact most reviews compare it to MMS rather than 3rd person cover shooters. But ye we are living the dream… apparently

      • roryok says:

        I more meant games of this graphical fidelity, map size and number of players were beyond our wildest dreams. Whether they’re about contemporary warfare or teddy bears racing each other across lollipop land in hot air balloons – the technology on display is incredible.

        • Ernesto25 says:

          But i want substance even from an fps rather than everything is biggerer and betterer and therefore i should be impressed.

      • Tatourmi says:

        No way, I completely agree with roryok here. Back then I didn’t really care what I got as long as it had flashy stuff in it. We were excited like hell about doom for god’s sake. Do you really, honestly think you’d have snobed that game back then? I certainly don’t.

    • Gap Gen says:

      My 1990s self would have been way more interested in Rome II, to be fair.

    • vivlo says:

      It could be named Generic Persons Shooters Incremental Update 4. But indeed i’m still fond of DICE oversaturated light. I don’t play that kind though because it’s too expensive a game. The day i’ll have a pay, i’ll buy the moment’s Generic Person Shooter, probably, and i’ll be amazed at the light.

    • jrod says:

      I would say it is much MUCH more about gameplay than graphics… if it has both then great, but gameplay first.

    • The Random One says:

      If my 90′s self would be ashamed of me my job here is done. He was a fucking twat.

  12. philbot says:

    I’m not skeptical, I’m pretty pleased with what I’ve seen in the trailers. Just small things like being able to click on the map to deploy (in some pictures), commander mode, crazy destruction, less suppression, knife counterattacks, new vehicles, water combat. These are the things BF3 players wanted for so long.
    Commander mode looks like it will add an extra level of metagame.

    Lets hope it has a smooth launch.

  13. gwathdring says:

    Levolution?

    • Fanbuoy says:

      “Haha! Chinese people can’t say ‘revolution’!” I dunno. I can’t see any other lexplanation.

    • Dude (Darloc) says:

      I guess it stand for level evolution, as the C point start on top of the building and then once it is destroy it is in the ruins…. marketing guy needs to be shoot!

  14. sharks.don't.sleep says:

    Just watched the video and can only imagine that this might have been BF3 if it weren’t for the consoles.

  15. Goodtwist says:

    Does it support mods?

    Is the squad size enlarged?

    Ingame proprietary VOIP, even 3D VOIP?

    Nope? I pass.

    • DougyM says:

      It probably does have PC VOIP ingame this time around, Dice stated with BF3 that the games communications got sold to the company that made battlelog and they could not alter that contract via a patch because it would have opened them to legal action.

      Should they get blamed for selling it off to a 3rd party in the first place? Yeah.

      But given the complaints from BF3 they would be really silly to do it all over again.

      Also squad size appears to be raised to 5 soldiers per squad.

      • Goodtwist says:

        I see. Whatever the reasons for dropping all those features I mentioned initially might be, BF3 was for me a nuisance, a mindless manshooter that I don’t mind playing anymore.

  16. Ham Solo says:

    Battlefield 4: like Battlefield 3, just with Jetskis… sad

  17. Knufinke says:

    Is this a new Frostbyte Engine? If it is I can’t see it.

  18. Banjo-Tuesday says:

    I still enjoy BF3 when I can find a server that is not stacked, but this video has left me a bit nonplussed. So many re-used assets from BF3. I’ve had quite enough of fighting in modern offices too, especially after Close Quarters in BF3. Give me some trenches and bunkers and barbed wire, insurgent caves and ammo caches. I can’t believe they don’t take advantage of the semi-random weapon cache idea of Project Reality, as it makes game almost never play out the same way twice. I wouldn’t say no to BF1944 either.

    There is also a new single player trailer out for BF4. Again, unfortunately the graphical fidelity of SP is far superior.

  19. MajorManiac says:

    This looks great.

    I just hope they can fix the team balancing issue. In nearly all BF3 games I have played, one team dominates the other team. So I’m either loosing badly, or wining too easily. If they could fix this it would make the game amazing.

    Maybe its my age, but I’d also like a game play mode that slowed down the pacing a little. To removing that feeling of endlessly running toward enemy gunfire. Make it more like an arcadey-Arma.

  20. Jabberslops says:

    I have sworn off buying or playing any new game using the Frostbite engine. I seriously doubt DICE has fixed any of the issues in Battlefield 3. They probably treated it like an expansion and just added on to the already wonky code of the Frostbite engine.

    The Frostbite engine is really only good for singleplayer games, because it won’t be dealing with the issues that only show up in multiplayer. The engine also doesn’t make finacial sense in my opinion; The cost to patch it must be pretty high on just PC alone. The netcode is horrible and causes tons of issues. The maps are all 1+GB large because they bake everything into the maps that is required for their design and patches that change anything in a map are 1GB or more in file size because of that. The physics are all wonky for anything that isn’t a tank. The only good part is the graphics are nice but that again is also affected by the baking of everything into a map. I don’t even care about the graphics much because I play at lowest settings except view distance settings for max fps.

    Battlefield 3 basically showed me that DICE has issues programing their own engine. Frostbite engine is just poorly optimized for multiplayer. The netcode is basically the worst part of the whole game now. Before the Back to Karkand patch was released I had a decent 1.8 K:D ratio and about average 18% accuracy. I am far from being the best player, but once B2K was released and the netcode was updated, everything become shit. My current K:D ratio is below 1.5 and my accuracy is below 14% and it just keeps going down every time I play. So much of my frustration with BF3 is due to the netcode getting in the way that I uninstalled the game about a month ago and don’t plan on returning.

    Some thing that happened after the Back to Karkand patch:

    Being shot around a corner or wall when you are already in cover.
    Players shooting and killing each other at the same time when one of them shoots first. The player with the higher ping usually wins though even if you shoot first.
    High ping players being shot with a hit indication, but not taking any damage because of rubber banding.
    Nearly all vehicle mounted weapons hitting, but doing 0 damage to another vehicle or infantry.
    RPGs hitting your target, but doing 0 damage.
    Point blank rounds hitting any body part, but do 0 damage (Basically made shotguns useless to me most of the time.)
    Being ran over even though you are already out of the path of a vehicle.

    These issues were compounded by the Back to Karkand patch netcode changes and some were never even a problem before. There are more examples, but I think that covers enough for now. These issues were almost never a problem in Bad Company 2. I started playing Battlefield 3 on a 15/5Mb fiber optic internet connection which I upgraded to 75/35Mb last year, so it’s not my internet.

    • Banjo-Tuesday says:

      Did you ever try adjusting the connection-latency slider they introduced in one of the patches? After I moved that far to the left I almost never get killed while in cover, when previously the netcode had bothered me, for all the reasons you mention.

      • Jabberslops says:

        From what I have read from people who tested it, you are suppose to set it to “match” your current latency on the scoreboard. I’ve tested it at all points for hours and really see no difference and usually just leave it about 2/5 to 1/2 way on the bar.

    • adammtlx says:

      “I started playing Battlefield 3 on a 15/5Mb fiber optic internet connection which I upgraded to 75/35Mb last year, so it’s not my internet.”

      You do know that bandwidth, throughput and latency are different things, right? Stating that you’ve “controlled” for your connection having any culpability simply by upping your data bandwidth makes me wonder about the accuracy of your other complaints.

      Simply put, you could have 10 gbps downstream and 10 gbps upstream and still have 500 ms latencies that would totally kill the experience.

      • Jabberslops says:

        It is highly unlikely that my internet connection is at fault and more likey that the server I’m connected to or the netcode itself is at fault. I’ve done testing and my connection always has 0 dropped packets to the test servers and 1ms jitter which is what you would expect from a fiber optic internet connection. Battlefield 3 and Bad Company 2 are the only game I play that have any lag issues with in multiplayer. They also happen to use the same(more or less) netcode.

  21. Flea says:

    It does look spectacular and it does make me want to buy a new computer (if I had the funds to do it!) by the end of October, but…

    1) I think they chose the wrong map for the presentation, because in a concrete jungle and skyscrapers you can’t really see what the new Frostbite engine can do.

    2) Too bad the multiplayer thing was mostly scripted as well, I would have liked to see a random multiplayer game which any one of us would play and will eventually get to play. This just looked like a scripted single player sequence with four squad members running by you (oh look, that helicopter at the top of the building just conveniently showed up just as we came out of the elevator, or: oh look, that tank was at the perfect spot for us to destroy the pillars in the basement and the road above it).

    No deaths, no revives, no failure, no broken keys on your keyboard when things go wrong (uh, did I type that last one out loud?)…

    I mean, it’s probably going to be a fantastic game and I’m probably just nitpicking here. Sorry. I’ll be on my way trying to find ways to finance a new rig.

  22. The_Great_Skratsby says:

    The trailer has snagged my interest, but I’m still bitter about how BF3 turned out, and the idiotic cutting of features, design choices that were made, let alone the bugs and network issues.

    Low and behold commander makes a return, gee whiz it’s almost as if it was a good idea to begin with. Now what about something even more super revolutionary in game voip while we’re at it.

  23. Stevostin says:

    I would like to like this, even despite the so off putting military setup, but really the shooting feel so dull. It’s neither fast nor tactical. Is the guy playing like an anvil or is this how BF3 is played ?

    Also what’s the point about releasing Battlefield 4 when 3 still isn’t released ? (can’t find it on steam and what’s not there doesn’t exist).

  24. Brainz says:

    How could they possibly have made the gunplay this dull? Oh, right, console controllers.

    • phelix says:

      The way the view pans sloooooowly acroooos the screeeeeeen in a hectic (albeit obviously scripted) battle makes me cringe.

  25. Banjo-Tuesday says:

    I understand some people are attached to Steam, but competition with Origin (and others) is good for the industry and the consumer. If you don’t want to support that, it’s your choice.

    Incidentally on the BF blog it’s been announced that Close Quarters is available for free during E3. Redeem on Origin with the code: BF3E3

    Source: http://blogs.battlefield.com/2013/06/bf3-e3-2013-fan-celebration/

  26. Stupoider says:

    Have we all forgiven DICE so readily? Have we all forgotten the promise of never charging for maps, or withholding mod tools because the engine is “too complex” for our tiny little brains? What about that dire inclusion of a pathetic singleplayer campaign?

    Not to mention the minimal graphical improvement. There might be shiny new tech but this is not leaps and bounds ahead. BF4 is shaping up to be what BF3 SHOULD have been, as DICE are reinstating stuff like commander mode and naval vehicles as NEW AND EXCITING features.

    Give over, DICE. Give over, EA. The minute you stopped targetting core Battlefield players was the minute I stopped giving a toss.

    • Misnomer says:

      They don’t charge for maps. They charge for expansion packs with more vehicles, more weapons, more game modes, and yes more maps. They are full on expansion packs. Deal with it. Tripwire did it too recently.

      As to the mod tools, perhaps they are too complex or perhaps no one would play mods if they were made and simplifying the complexity into end user tools is not worth the investment. Looks at Crysis multiplayer mods for example. Not worth it.

      Co-op was quite fine and was included. Mostly because of the singleplayer. Totally worth it. Commander mode was 1 person and typically abused in BF2. I am glad they took the time to think it out again, I am anxious to see how it actually works in a 64 person server again though. The tablet bit is quite new of course.

      Get off your high horse. PC players are in the minority, those who played commander are a smaller minority, mod players are a tinier minority, modders themselves are an even smaller minority. You seem to want a game designed around the smallest percentage possible.

      • Banjo-Tuesday says:

        Don’t forget the exclusive dogtags you get too. =P

      • darkChozo says:

        Crysis multiplayer mods spawned the excellent Mechwarrior: Living Legends, which was very well worth it. Though maybe not financially speaking.

        • Misnomer says:

          Financially certainly not. Community size for the mod? Possibly not.

          There were something like 2 more Crysis games released before MLL released for the original Crysis? And that is a game with very nice to use tools from what I heard.

          In today’s market, if I have people with the talent of MLL guys…I might be trying to greenlight that game or get it Kickstarted. It is tougher because you can’t leech a community from an existing base in some regards, but in a world where you are competing with a tons of F2P games and an oversaturated market of shooters…not to forget people’s heavily encumbered Steam backlogs… that community of people bored with the core game looking for something different is dwindling.

          The MLL guys might have a bigger community today if they charged money for it and ran free Steam weekends. Hard to say.

  27. bstard says:

    Realizing this needs Origin is like discovering she isn’t quite a she..

  28. Fitzmogwai says:

    So, as far as I can see… it’s 2005s Battlefield 2 with more shiny. IMO a good thing. I lost count of the number of hours I spent playing BF2.

    And no doubt there’ll be a huge layer of shit slathered over the top of it from EA head office, which, just like BF3, will make it a no sale for me. This will make me sad.

  29. Misnomer says:

    Why did you choose the gameplay video instead of the commander video?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgZTeVnM5Sw

    Might have actually given someone a chance to look at the mode instead of relying on your poorly informed snide comments? (As others said before, BF2 and 2142 had a similar commander mode).

    And adding to the misinformed statements:

    “The idea that we’re going to get a Battlefield game every couple of years is oddly draining.”

    I have to keep this list around now to debunk people spreading this weird statement. Perhaps oddly draining means we have been doing it so long you didn’t notice?

    Codename Eagle NA March 29, 2000 UK April 3, 2000

    Battlefield 1942 NA September 10, 2002 EU September 20, 2002
    Battlefield 1942: The Road to Rome NA February 2, 2003 EU February 7, 2003
    Battlefield 1942: Secret Weapons of World War II NA September 4, 2003 EU September 5, 2003

    Battlefield Vietnam US March 14, 2004 PAL March 19, 2004

    Battlefield 2 US June 21, 2005 PAL June 24, 2005
    Battlefield 2: Special Forces US November 22, 2005 PAL November 24, 2005
    Battlefield 2: Euro Force March 14, 2006
    Battlefield 2: Armored Fury June 6, 2006
    Battlefield 2: Modern Combat NA October 24, 2005 EU November 18, 2005 JP January 26, 2006

    Battlefield 2142 October 17, 2006
    Battlefield 2142: Northern Strike March 8, 2007

    Battlefield: Bad Company June 23, 2008

    Battlefield Heroes June 25, 2009

    Battlefield 1943 July 8, 2009

    Battlefield: Bad Company 2 March 2, 2010
    Battlefield: Bad Company 2: Vietnam December 18, 2010

    Battlefield Online: March 30, 2010
    Battlefield Play4Free: April 4, 2011

    Battlefield 3 October 25, 2011
    Battlefield 3: Back to Karkand December 13, 2011
    Battlefield 3: Close Quarters June 2012
    Battlefield 3: Armored Kill September 11, 2012
    Battlefield 3: Aftermath December 18, 2012
    Battlefield 3: Endgame March 12, 2013

    If we only take the major PC releases (to account for the obvious bias we all have):

    Codename Eagle NA March 29, 2000 UK April 3, 2000
    Battlefield 1942 NA September 10, 2002 EU September 20, 2002
    Battlefield Vietnam US March 14, 2004 PAL March 19, 2004
    Battlefield 2 US June 21, 2005 PAL June 24, 2005
    Battlefield 2142 October 17, 2006
    Battlefield: Bad Company 2 March 2, 2010
    Battlefield 3 October 25, 2011
    Battlefield 4 Fall 2013

    There is nothing new about this. RPS needs to get over its “military man shooter” bias and either stop covering them or find someone who can at least get the facts right.

    • roryok says:

      You’re counting DLC as new games there. Might aswell say Oblivion Horse-armor is another in a long line of Elder Scrolls games

      • Misnomer says:

        Read the last section. The only gap big enough to claim what Jim claims is between 2142 and BC2. Which is approximately 3 years and 5 months. 1942 to BF2 was 2 years 7 months. So you are complaining about BF4 coming 7 months before BF2 did after 1942? (Assuming BF4 releases in October). That when 2142 was just over a year after BF2 and Vietnam was just under two years from 1942 (BF2 following Vietnam less than a year later)?

        So really all you are complaining about is game naming and numbering system? BF4 needs to be called Battlefield China or something to be okay?

        Here is the reduced list again

        Codename Eagle NA March 29, 2000 UK April 3, 2000
        Battlefield 1942 NA September 10, 2002 EU September 20, 2002
        Battlefield Vietnam US March 14, 2004 PAL March 19, 2004
        Battlefield 2 US June 21, 2005 PAL June 24, 2005
        Battlefield 2142 October 17, 2006
        Battlefield: Bad Company 2 March 2, 2010
        Battlefield 3 October 25, 2011
        Battlefield 4 Fall 2013

        • roryok says:

          I’m not complaining at all. I’m just pointing out you were counting DLC as games.

          • Misnomer says:

            Just trying to give a complete picture of the release of game content. If you see, I included line spaces to help those who can’t figure out what a colon and subtitle means. Should be pretty clear when a new title was released.

  30. engion3 says:

    Does anyone else think the guy in the screenshot looks like Joey from Friends?

  31. tomeoftom says:

    If I can’t talk to people with my voice I don’t give the slightest shit about this. Lack of VOIP ripped the soul out of what BF3 could have been.

  32. Sir Flangehammer says:

    I used to love Commander on BF2 but it eventually devolved into a game of “find where on the map the enemy commander is hiding, drop artillery on his face, wait for him to do the same back to me”

  33. darkChozo says:

    Put me down as cautiously optimistic here. I probably got my money’s worth out of BF3, but I do feel that it lacked a certain something, mostly in the realm of map design and somewhat in features. This looks like it could have some value in spectacle, if nothing else, though I’m definitely waiting for release before I start caring. Though between ARMA and Rising Storm, I think I’m going to miss leaning.

  34. fish99 says:

    Funny how EA never mentioned the PC once in their presentation, then rolled out BF4 with 64 players on stage all playing on ……. you guessed it….. PCs. I know BF4 is already announced for PC, but honestly I’d swear most of E3 is trying to pretend PC doesn’t exist (while probably running all their game presentations on PC).

  35. goettel says:

    I’ll come out and say it: it looks ffing amazing, commander is back, collapsing the road to trap the tank was – new, the design of the city is amazing. Seriously hoping this will be what I hoped BF3 to be: awesome instead of just great.

  36. Wurstwaffel says:

    Watching them move and aim with their dumb gamepads is just cringeworthy.

  37. manwithabanana says:

    Absolutely nothing :P

  38. riverman says:

    I will never understand how people can enjoy games like this with three-second health regeneration timers. Give me _any_ of these modern FPS games, but with realistic damage, and I’d be all over that.

    It really couldn’t be that hard to simulate quantified blood, organ zones that kill you within seconds of being hit (heart), instantly (brain), paralyzes (spine), nerfs specific mobility (limbs), kills you slowly (stomache), etc.

    Am I the only person on the planet that thinks that would be pretty rad? Is there some magical limitation keeping this sort of health system from happening in games?

    • Misnomer says:

      No. That health system already exists in Red Orchestra 2 and to a lesser extent in ArmA 2. I would suggest you go try them out if that sounds fun to you. There are a couple thousand people who agree with you and play those.

      Most often what happens is you get shot in a mildly critical place and have to stand there bleeding out for a few seconds unable to move and maybe able to shoot a little. Then you die and respawn in a few seconds or in the next round. If it is less of a wound you can hit a magic bandage key and get back to battle a little hobbled.

      It really adds nothing to the game (bandaging takes about 3 seconds). It effectively boils down to live or die because it is a game. It might work in single player to make a deeper experience, but in MP live or die is everything and even in RO2 it just becomes a nuisance to have to wait for your screen to wink out.

      • buzzmong says:

        To be honest, RO2′s implementation of bandaging (like a lot of Tripwire’s work) is a good idea on paper, but it hasn’t been throught through and refined further.

    • Tarvis says:

      Health regen in Battlefield 3 actually takes several minutes. You need a medkit to get health back in a decent amount of time.

  39. Bobtree says:

    entire trailer looks choreographed
    “LEVOLUTION” @ 5:39
    squad mates that glow in the dark
    same old color filter
    sigh

    edit: … and I still want to play it. I hate what DICE has become.

  40. Shooop says:

    Photoshop a dog in there and you wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between this and CoD.

    Gamers get the games they deserve. Obviously they deserve “wait for someone to open the door” simulators.

  41. Tarvis says:

    The idea that we’re going to get a Battlefield game every couple of years is oddly draining.
    Actually we’ve been getting Battlefield games every 2 or 3 years from the very beginning.

    Battlefield 1942: September 2002
    Battlefield Vietnam: March 2004
    Battlefield 2: June 2005
    Battlefield 2142: October 2006
    Battlefield: Bad Company: June 2008
    Battlefield 1943: July 2009
    Battlefield: Bad Company 2: March 2010
    Battlefield 3: October 2011
    Battlefield 4: October or November 2013

    Besides, there seem to be a lot more changes (and less reused assets) from Battlefield 3 than Bad Company 2 had from 1, so I don’t think the “BF3.1″ distinction is very fair. I guess the fact that it’s a ‘mainline release’ directly after another in the same setting might be a problem, but it’s just a name.

  42. GameDreamer says:

    Battlefield 4 has destructible environments giving you the ability to blow holes in walls and crumble entire buildings. If you know someone is camping in a small building in Battlefield 4, it’s no problem. Just get some sort of explosive device and blow the building to smithereens.

    Great stuff.

    Buy Battlefield 4

Comment on this story

XHTML: Allowed code: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>