Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Graphics Games

Under the Hood With Battlefield 4 77

Posted by Soulskill
from the measured-in-clock-cycles-per-round-fired dept.
MojoKid writes "EA took the wraps off Battlefield 4 this past week, offering players a chance to try an early beta. AMD has also been talking up Battlefield 4 in combination with their new Radeon R series line with a vengeance, highlighting the features of its new Mantle API and close partnership with DICE, Battlefield 4's developer. Sometimes, enough modest changes evolve into an entirely new product, and when you factor in the tessellation improvements, terrain deformation, Mantle API support, enhanced audio cues, and better particle effects, that's what BF4 is shaping up to be. And it appears likely the game is going to be a premiere title across all of the current and future consoles plus PCs. Battlefield 4 is going to be closely watched for a number of reasons; Mantle performance, comparisons between the Xbox 360 / PS3 and Xbox One / PS4 versions, and, of course, on its own merits."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Under the Hood With Battlefield 4

Comments Filter:
  • I read the title as "under the robin hood with battle 4". this obviously made no sense! so i reread it and saw what they meant.
    Have a good discussion!

  • Generic Shooter X (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Stickerboy (61554) on Tuesday October 15, 2013 @09:05PM (#45138777) Homepage

    Yay! It's got prettier particle effects than BF3! Glad that's $60 that would be well spent. "The blood spatter will be even cooler now!"

    • LOTS of good blood splatter and bodily explosions here http://www.xonotic.org/ [xonotic.org]

      • by aliquis (678370)

        Looks nice, I assume it's got enough players and that I would be owned appropriately.

        But it's not really the same kind of game.

    • by laxr5rs (2658895)
      Exactly... I tried the BF4 beta. It's the same game, just a little prettier. Guys will be out there trying to out kill each other; running around like chickens with their heads cut off. Wee.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    Any more awesome and innovative gameplay features you'd like to tell us about?

  • Battlefield 3.5 (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward

    I played the beta quite a bit, but it felt much more like a rehash than a sequel, especially given the strategy they seem to be pursuing when it comes to DLC.

    If it's like BF3, a lot of the special effects and "audio cues" they spent all that time on are made for selling the game (making it look like a hollywood war movie) rather than for playing it long-term or adding strategic depth.

  • by GodfatherofSoul (174979) on Tuesday October 15, 2013 @09:42PM (#45139099)

    Teamplay was obliterated in BF3 compared to BF2 and 2142. It's almost as if they intentionally removed the element that separated BF from CoD:

    * No commanders, therefore no one directing traffic
    * No commander assets and their perks
    * Smaller squads
    * No built-in voice chat, so communications are limited to text chats (and virtually ignored by most players).
    * Point scoring now rewards individual play. You get 500 pts for winning where rounds can score you 20K points. In older BF games, losers got 1/2 points.
    * They kept nerfing other vehicles (especially AA) to appease people who love flying jets while making jets far too powerful.
    * The one thing I loved about BF2142 was there were no jets; just 2 gunships. This really balanced the air and anti-air.
    * No real anti-griefing features (besides a high vote threshold) to deal with disruptive players.
    * Same old hacking

    EA said with BF3 "hey, how do we get the CoD players?" rather than asking the question "hey, how do we improve Battlefield?" Personally, I'm done with the franchise. Nothing more frustrating than trying to win a team game when 90% of players are stat whoring.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Every single BF game is the same. AA might stand for anti-aircraft but it's basically just one more thing pilots get to blow up. I keep hoping they'll add AA that can kill aircraft and requires ground vehicles and/or troops to counter.

      • by danbert8 (1024253)

        It was effective in 1942 if you actually bothered. The trick was to have at least as many AA gunners as enemy planes. It never works well with 1 AA gunner and 4 enemy bombers...

    • by LoneBoco (701026) on Tuesday October 15, 2013 @10:39PM (#45139457)
      Did you mean this to be a reply to somebody else? This article is about BF4, and at least half of those complaints are fixed in the new game. Commander mode is back, squads are larger, there is in-game voice chat, you get a LOT more points for completing objectives, and air vehicles can easily be murdered via teamwork and RPGs.
      • by Anonymous Coward

        Read the subject line of their post. "Graphics are the LEAST of BF3's problems". The summary talks up improved graphics and not much else. TFA even has this quote:

        The first question people are going to have is, "Can I jump from BF3 straight into BF4?" The answer is absolutely yes. It's not just that the game is designed to be approachable, but that it plays almost exactly like its predecessor.

        Their post is perfectly valid based on the information provided here, if the game is just a prettier BF3 then it isn't fixing the problems of BF3. I see no mention of commander mode coming back, larger squad sizes etc. Care to provide a source?

      • by Anonymous Coward

        And, it should be noted, half of the "problems" buddy had with BF3 didn't actually exist. Well, maybe the pc version deserves his rage, I only played the beta for BF3 on pc, and stuck with the ps3 to avoid hackers.

        BF3 was entirely team based, depending on the game mode selected of course
        Commanders and commander assets suck, they do, if you want to play rise of nations, play it, I want to play BF
        Smaller squads? You simply can't manage squads bigger than 4 to 6, and it forces the cooperation aspect, of whic

        • by archont (1215492)

          You're saying you can't manage squads bigger than 4 to 6 people?

          That's odd. I'm not much of a BF3/4 player, though I did enjoy 2142, and I'm playing Planetside 2 a lot. Squad size is 12, though that's often not enough people to make a difference in big facilities, so to make an impact I lead platoons - 4 squads, total being 48 people. Sometimes that's not enough manpower in bigger fights, so several platoon leaders have to coordinate attacks to defeat entrenched opponents who know what they're doing. For e

      • by myspys (204685)

        Squads are 5 people, not a HUGE increase from 4 that BF3 had.

        • by Ardyvee (2447206)

          That sounds like a fireteam and the squad leader (if we go by ShackTack's organization, which seems like a pretty good idea on paper and it seems to work). If I recall correctly in America's Army 3 you are basically a single squad with various 3 fireteams and a squad leader (I might be wrong about this, but it IS a squad). A squad in Operation Flashpoint was maximum 12 people (which gives you yourself, a medic, and 2 groups of 5 people, or 3 groups of 4 people).

          It really depends on what you consider a squad

      • I'm guessing you didn't pick up on the context? This is an article about shiny new BF4 features and not fundamental changes to make the franchise what it used to be. If they're just going to keep pushing CoD-ified Battlefield, I'm done. I've been waiting to see if the trend will reverse and all I've heard about is some commander-mode tablet app.

    • by gman003 (1693318)

      EA said with BF3 "hey, how do we get the CoD players?" rather than asking the question "hey, how do we improve Battlefield?" Personally, I'm done with the franchise. Nothing more frustrating than trying to win a team game when 90% of players are stat whoring.

      Precisely. BF3 is just a CoD clone, and BF4 is aiming to be the same.

      The sad part is, it isn't even a good CoD clone. I bought it off the EA Humble Bundle, just to check it out. The singleplayer campaign is weak - the levels are perfectly linear (even CoD has better levels), the guns all work the same, the spectacle is weak (in a genre sometimes called "spectacle shooter"), the special sections are boring (MW1 gunship level? Fun. BF3 jet level? It's a turret level with seeker missiles) and even the writing

      • by Nemyst (1383049)
        Playing Battlefield for the singleplayer is like getting Playboy for the articles. There wasn't even any singleplayer before Battlefield: Bad Company, only multiplayer maps with crude, terrible bots. The campaign was added later, probably at the request of execs to "compete" with Call of Duty. The BC campaigns weren't half bad, but BF3 went full Modern Warfare and suffered for it.

        If your sole experience of the game is the campaign, then I'm sorry but you know nothing of the game. It's neither the draw nor
        • by gman003 (1693318)

          The BC2 campaign (PC gamer, don't have BC1) was actually pretty damn fun. It was mostly a CoD clone, but it did enough differently (cover destruction, writing was a lot of witty banter and less drama and shouting) that it was entertaining.

          Also, I've put roughly 400 hours into BF2. Less than a quarter of that is in actual online multiplayer - rest is either LAN, or against bots (again, mods fix the bots pretty well). Is it the "right" way to play? Maybe not by your definition. But I'm having fun, which means

        • by Ash Vince (602485) *

          Playing Battlefield for the singleplayer is like getting Playboy for the articles. There wasn't even any singleplayer before Battlefield: Bad Company, only multiplayer maps with crude, terrible bots. The campaign was added later, probably at the request of execs to "compete" with Call of Duty. The BC campaigns weren't half bad, but BF3 went full Modern Warfare and suffered for it.

          If your sole experience of the game is the campaign, then I'm sorry but you know nothing of the game. It's neither the draw nor the focus, and does not represent the rest of the game at all.

          I have to admit, I fell for it :)

          I have bought BF3 and BF:Bad Company 2 just for the single player. I ended up playing a fair bit of Bad Company 2 but I never really liked it that much. As soon as Black Ops came out I jumped straight in.

          The thing with BlackOps and even more so with BlackOps2 is that it allows casual player to be halfway successful. You can join a server on your own and have a half decent game without being constantly murdered by some git in a helicopter or a clan who have forced your entire

          • by tibman (623933)

            I like the idea of match making but only when there is still the option to host/join a game as well. Match-making means very long waits as the game goes into its death. That only accelerates its death. Another option is a skill meter next to the server in the server list. Natural-Selection 2 does this and it's nice to pick your own skill level. If you join a low-skill server to crush all the noobs that will only last for 10 minutes or so because your presence will bump the meter up. You will quickly f

      • Except it isnt a COD clone. YOu can instantly tell the COD players in BF from their playstyle and they lose horribly, BF has way more tactics and squad play. They did release one DLC (Close Quarters) that seemed like they were trying to appease the COD players
    • by demachina (71715)

      Pinnacle of PVP shooters was and still is BF2 Karkand Infantry only. They want the perfect game just fix:

      - Squad bug
      - C4 jumping
      - Team switching and balance
      - Tone down nade spamming a little, not a lot
      - Botting, glitching and assorted other hacks
      ⦠ship

      Overdone graphics add nothing to game play, they just increase game expense and hardware requirements. They are marketing, they don't make games fun.

      Endless fur balls shooting at each other like COD are just boring. Strategy and tactics is what m

      • by Ash Vince (602485) *

        Endless fur balls shooting at each other like COD are just boring.

        Actually, for some of us they are fun as hell. Charging round the map trying to react to incoming as fast possible, keeping moving at all time, racking up kills by never missing and getting accused of hacking twice a day even though we don't. I don't have enough time to play tactically any more as real life has taken over so reaction based, quick action shooters are all I can fit in a few games of now and then.

        (I play as nohax in case you ever see me online)

      • My problem with infantry-only maps is they don't provide a counterbalance to snipers. Armor in Karkand is extremely challenging because in close quarters and on those narrow streets your vehicles are very vulnerable.

    • THe fixed a lot of the stuff you mentioned. I didn't enjoy BF3 either because of the problems you listed but I played beta with my friends and almost all of them are resolved

      Commanders back
      Squads are 1 bigger now (5 people)
      Voice chat is in
      Point scoring is way more rewarding if you work as a squad as you get squad points now for completing objectives
      An engi+recon(which you should have if you are working together as a squad) makes taking down aircraft fairly easy, recon has a device that can paint a vehicle a
    • Seeing the USA produce and use more Drones (this game is basically USA USA USA!) will we see that?

      Because that is what I want, I want to play a guy who uses a computer, to fly a drone.

      I would be invincible! Except from heart disease, that fucker gets everyone...

      Mental Note: Make BF4 handle 'Heart Disease' or something equally inane like the Heart symbol.

      Mental Note 2: Quickly make a video game called "Best Friends 4: Wine Country" and release the same day. Make millions.

  • Before EA realized it could make money with it. Desert Combat, jeepathon_2k, good times...

    • by danbert8 (1024253)

      Indeed. Forget the complexities. 5 classes, no upgrades, and WWII era weapons. You know so you actually have to be good at the game to dominate. Managing to hit something with a sherman gun sideways at full speed while bouncing over the terrain took talent. Hitting something with a laser guided orbital missile... Not so much.

  • I had so much trouble getting hacked on Origin, and getting BF3 to run, I'm giving up on these guys...

    I want to spend my time playing; not dicking around with DRM.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Sorry won't be buying this one unless they offer mod support. I'm done being bled dry for low calibur DLC that should be community content.

    • by Nidi62 (1525137)
      The most fun I had in the BF series was when I would play in tournaments that used mods, especially a BF2 mod (which I could remember what it was called-all I remember was the loading screen had a song from Black Hawk Down in it). It was great playing with people that actually knew how to play coordinated squad combat, and didn't have to worry about pubs. When they killed the opportunity for communities like that, I stopped playing. That, and BF3 was a buggy mess.
  • was Battlefield 2142. I played all the Battlefield games starting at 1942, and I have to say it peaked with 2142. Everything since then has just been "post-2142" for me. Walker robots, commander-based teams, flying bases--that's all I need. That's all I ever needed, EA.
    • I thought it peaked with BC2.

      2142 was "fun", but not as much as BF2, so I ended up switching back. Different play styles I suppose.

      BF3 was fun with the expansions that finally made it feel like a BF2 successor (big, open vehicle maps), but the gunplay was never quite on par with BC2.

      BF4 brings back more powerful guns (though, they still screwed up giving the class with the most powerful guns the me pack and defrib), vehicles that are useful even without mods, 3D arena (a la 2142), and all the tactical stuf
      • by C0R1D4N (970153)
        I loved bf2, played the shit out of it. Enjoyed grabbing a jeep, rushing to some deserted capturecpoint, taking it, hiding somewhere with my SAW and just holding it the whole round by myself.

        My experience in BF3beta was constantly spawning in a shopping mall in the line of fire and dying right away not knowing the layout of anythinf or where I was. I never bothered with it again.
      • by tibman (623933)

        I agree with you, BC2 was great! Skipped BF3 because it wasn't for sale on steam. Was hoping that if enough people didn't buy it they would put it up for sale on Steam. Might have to install Origin for BF4 : / Unless DayZ:SA comes out, then to hell with any other FPS for a while.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      I think battlefield 1942 was the best.
      Granted that's the only one I played.

    • by danbert8 (1024253)

      The problem with 2142 and all the modern games is the experience and upgrades system. If you don't buy the game at release and play it hardcore, you log into the multiplayer server armed with a staple gun, and everyone else has a 50 caliber gattling gun. Good luck ever getting good when you are at that much of a disadvantage. In 1942 whether you logged in for the first time or you'd been playing a thousand hours, you've still got the same health and the same loadout. I agree team elements could have been ha

      • by Tifer (2644417)
        True, most players usually don't get the very best guns. It can be frustrating trying to unlock anything when you're at a disadvantage to begin with, but (though this doesn't validate the system completely) there's a certain charm to holding your own against superior firepower, and if you stick around long enough, you'll see that there's charm in HAVING superior firepower, too. Sorta like a yin yang, but with tea-bagging.
    • by Artemis3 (85734)

      Those games were moddable and were the best. I couldn't care about the main game, its the mods where the fun was.

      Stuff like Desert Combat, Eve of Destruction, IS1982, Pirates, Galactic Conquest, most of which had sequels for BF2 and 2142.

      I couldn't care less for "yet another CoD" clone, but removing mods and forcing the origin drm made me skip the later ones entirely. And of course, this was a game about 64 players battling each other with vehicles and stuff, just for fun.

      I'm sure the only reason there were

  • On further reading, apparently not. All "modern" 3d shooters are the same...

  • Isn't Slashdot owned by DICE now?

    Reaches for tinfoil hat...

PLUG IT IN!!!

Working...