17 minutes of single player Battlefield 4 *official*

ShadowHearth

4x expansion on same engine for same game =/= new game. No matter development costs. No matter what way you look at it.

TheFairy

Yawn! Just more of the same!

BlitzKrieg

ShadowHearth wrote: »

4x expansion on same engine for same game =/= new game. No matter development costs. No matter what way you look at it.

then by that logic the call of duty series is not a yearly franchise...we've just had a lot of expansions over the last six years.

ShadowHearth

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

then by that logic the call of duty series is not a yearly franchise...we've just had a lot of expansions over the last six years.

because we had:

Call of duty 4
Modern warfare 2
Black ops
Modern warfare 3
Black ops 2

Just because activision Milks it like ****, does not mean those are not stand alone products.

Now go and buy ONLY Aftermath expansion and play it. Oh, you cant, as it is an expansion and needs BF3 to work.

as far as i can see Bf2 was a stand alone game, Bad company was a stand alone game and now BF3 is a stand alone game, BF4 will be stand alone game. You can call donkey a horse, but it wont magicly turn it in to a full horse.

Starcraft 2 got an expansion. So by your logic its a brand new entry in the starcraft franchise, not a an expansion. Which actually does not work without an original sc2.

BlitzKrieg

Now go and buy ONLY Aftermath expansion and play it. Oh, you cant, as it is an expansion and needs BF3 to work.
as far as i can see Bf2 was a stand alone game, Bad company was a stand alone game and now BF3 is a stand alone game, BF4 will be stand alone game. You can call donkey a horse, but it wont magicly turn it in to a full horse.

Ok. Even taking your stance of add on packs *not* count (and using your definition from above)

that still leaves only 3 years in the 11 years of battlefield where a stand alone title was not released in the franchise. Battlefield is still a yearly franchise and has been for a very long time.

Suddenly crying about it now when quite frankly it changes nothing is rather pointless.

Starcraft 2 got an expansion. So by your logic its a brand new entry in the starcraft franchise, not a an expansion. Which actually does not work without an original sc2.

by the price blizzard charged for it, I'd expect it to deliver in the same amount of content as a brand new entry in the franchise.

ShadowHearth

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Ok. Even taking your stance of add on packs *not* count (and using your definition from above)

that still leaves only 3 years in the 11 years of battlefield where a stand alone title was not released in the franchise. Battlefield is still a yearly franchise and has been for a very long time.

Suddenly crying about it now when quite frankly it changes nothing is rather pointless.

You can think whatever you want, love, and you do know what i mean by "yearly franchise" even if you don't want to admit it.

SeantheMan

Yawn, was hoping they'd do something different.

Battlefield 3.5

Akrasia

I don't know how anyone can watch that 17 minute video and think 'Yawn'

You're all spoilt

That game looks absolutely amazing, if you went back 20 years and told someone playing Doom that they'd be playing a game that has infantry, tanks, helicopters, jets, bikes, quads, MAVs etc all controllable, all playing in the same arena at the same time with pretty much photo-realistic graphics, dynamic environments of astonishing beauty and complexity and artificial intelligence and squad based mechanics that can respond instantly to the whim of the player they'd have stepped over their own mother to have a go.

In 1993 Starfox was released, at the time it had state of the art 3d graphics which consisted of polygons that were essentially large boxes and pyramids stitched together into blocky graphics with garish colours and I thought it was the best thing ever.

I can not imagine a modern warfare themed game that is better than the current Battlefield franchise (with perhaps a few minimal tweaks to improve gameplay or remove some glitches)

BF3 is pretty much the best imaginable game in this genre, and now BF4 is coming out, and it's going to be better, and people on here are complaining that it's just more of the same?

What do you expect them to do?

Chess is a game that hasn't changed in hundreds of years because it's perfect. Lots of people have tried to improve it or make new versions of it, but none of them have been better than the chess we all know and love (except maybe that game 'battlechess' that i used to play on the amstrad, but that was still chess with some violent animation attached)
I'm not saying Battlefield is perfect, but with the current technology, they've come really close to delivering the ultimate multiplayer experience, and I expect BF4 to be even closer.

mozattack

I am not that excited by what I have seen but in essense they cant change it that much, it is a milatery style shooter.

It is critical that destruction returns otherwise I really fail to see the point of the new game.

TheFairy

Jebus shiny graphics do not make a game good in the long run. Game mechanics and long term playability is where its at, ie MODs etc. Dayz has opened pandoras box again to what is possible. ARMA 2 is a decent engine, by no means shiny and very clunky, but for me it hammers BF3/4 because of the size of the maps and the moddability it has.

Just could not be bothered playing anything else in the BF range unless it goes back to its roots in WW2/Vietnam and reintroduces modding etc.

jonski

I am pretty sure I read this thread all the way through and didn't see any mention of the fact that the gun has both scope and iron sights , while not a massive thing it's the first time I have seen it in a game and assuming the switch isn't a combination of seven fingers to get to , I like it .

MajesticDonkey

jonski wrote: »

I am pretty sure I read this thread all the way through and didn't see any mention of the fact that the gun has both scope and iron sights , while not a massive thing it's the first time I have seen it in a game and assuming the switch isn't a combination of seven fingers to get to , I like it .

Arma 3 has it and Arma 2 has a mod to do it (I think).

ShadowHearth

By the way lads. I am pretty sure PETA will get a heart attack watching this video. Did they tried get some publicity already?

Soby

jonski wrote: »

I am pretty sure I read this thread all the way through and didn't see any mention of the fact that the gun has both scope and iron sights , while not a massive thing it's the first time I have seen it in a game and assuming the switch isn't a combination of seven fingers to get to , I like it .

Could do it in COD

iColdFusion

Soby wrote: »

Could do it in COD

I think its in Warfighter too but I always assumed you would slide the optic you dont want to the side but in the video he holds the gun sideways, how the hell would that help!?

I enjoyed the video, it had some great moments but I would still have loved to see Bad Company again

I actually wouldn't have a problem with it being BF3.5 and a more shiny version of Frostbite 2 either because at least they have sorted out most of the bugs, it still amazes me how much patching/unpatching/repatching they did to BC2 & BF3 so a blank slate BF4 sends a shiver down my spine! :mad: