First Info about BF4 (Not Official)

[Felixlynch777]

I'd take this with a very heavy pinch of salt but this was published by the leading Russian news source for gaming. Not a very conclusive source I know and some things seem very illogical to me but here it goes:

This is not confirmed yet, but according to original source, everything listed below are the facts stated on recent closed conference where the alpha of Battlefield 4 was presented.


- BF4 uses 80% of Frostbite™2 features while BF3 uses only 40%
- Players will be able to record videos and publish them on Battlelog (Battlerecorder?)
- Multiplayer will include 3 factions: Russia, USA, and China
- BF4 will be released on PC and consoles (along with the next-gen ones) at the same time

Current console generation features up to 32 players at 30 FPS. Next console generation and PC feature up to 64 players at 60 FPS

- Multiplayer now features a new soldier class - Commander. He has unique abilities and tools, that's all what we know about him for now. His role will most likely be similar to commanders in MAG on PS3.

- Female characters confirmed.

According to the source, BF4 release date was confimed on the conference but it may not be final - October 23, 2013 on PC, PS3, PS4 (this confused me), XBOX360 and XBOX720 (along with this).

-----------------
This was published by Igromania, the most popular russian digital magazine about games and news from cyber world. That's all what we know about BF4 atm.



About this female players thing...it's a stupid idea. First of all women are typically smaller than men, thus they'll have smaller hitboxes and an advantage if you play as a female character. Plus women don't serve as frontline soldiers for those countries.

[BeazelWeasel]

So, even if it's true, DICE will be trying to sell BF3 again, but with 2 of the major features we wanted so much from BF2?

Fuck doz guise

[Omnirock]

lol @ telling gamers that commander mode will be in BF3, then saying commander abilities will be distributed to squad leaders... and now putting it into BF4.

Bf4 looks like it's going to be BF 3.5 going by this...

[Biggles]

What's that?

DICE is making another game, you say?

...

*back to caring about Arma 3 and no other military shooter for the foreseeable future*

[DeadCamper]

Isn't this too soon? There are still two big DLCs/expansions left in BF3, and they're already talking about the next game? And what else is there in this genre to justify a whole new game at this point?

Run of the mill "they're idiots/greedy/retards" reasons are useless.

[Biggles]

For once, I'm gonna side completely with Camper.

In all fairness, this is totally speculation.

But the question:

what else is there in this genre to justify a whole new game at this point?

Really is a good one. Why, exactly, does there even have to be a new BF? Us diehards, admittedly, keep whining how BF3 wasn't more like older entries in the series...

But doesn't that mean our ideal game has already been released?

[DeadCamper]

I almost think some of the previous entries hit the jackpot by coincidence, they stumbled upon great gameplay/concepts by luck, and now they struggle to recreate that + update it.

I don't hate BF3 myself, I have a good time with friends, but I recognize I'm new to the series and understand what BF2 was about.

I wish BF4 would've at least been set in another era/theme. Not that WW2/Vietnam/Sci-fi is that fresh anymore, but using the modern setting again seems odd.

[Felixlynch777]

I'm actually against the grain here and don't see a problem with the timing. People accusing DICE of being too hasty forget that BF2 was announced 3 months after the release of BF: Vietnam and BF2142 (whilst being good) felt like a very well done Sci Fi mod for BF2 released a year later.

I too enjoy BF3 but it occupies some odd space...like a mix of BF2+BC2 that leaves a lot of fans of either games polarised.

Truth be told I'd think the BC spin off system with a tad longer release span in between is the best system.

Agreed with the time frame. 4 modern era games in a row, from BC1 to BF4 is rather dull. I'd prefer a WW2 or future game.

[DeadCamper]

Love the Brit LMG!

"Cool story bro" etc.

[Felixlynch777]

The L86A2? Looks smexy but the low ROF is a killer.

I don't play support too often nowadays but if I had to say a top 3 it'd be the M27, PKP Pecheneg and M60.

[DeadCamper]

High rate of fire is very important in this game, I agree. But somehow it "feels" like the Brit shoots faster than it actually does, it just handles well. <3

[Biggles]

I'm still thoroughly convinced that a WWI shooter could be awesome, and should be given a serious attempt.

[DeadCamper]

In my opinion that era works better for strategy games. I don't think first person trench war would be all that optimal.

[Neuro]

WWI had more theaters of war than just some trenches on the western front. These would make for a popular map anyway by catering to people who like Isla Inocentes or Hill 137 (people who love camping and don't care about winning).

[Felixlynch777]

*puts on history nerd hat*

Actually it's a bit of a misnomer that WW1 was only trench warfare. The early months were quite mobile and from about 1917 onwards it was also not a deadlock. Could have a few factions. British Army, Armée de Terre (France), Kaiserreichsheer (Imperial German Army), US Army and the Ottoman Empire to name a few.

Could have some fantastic uniforms too, but if it was later in the war then there would be no pickelhaube for the Germans



Those flowery Frenchmen with their blue uniforms.


Kilts (GOO)


No pickelhaube, but it'll do


Combine that with biplanes, poison gas and early tanks and it could be very interesting. Could have maps in France, Belgium, Germany and the Middle East. Main issue I'd see is lack of customisation as gun choice+attachments would be very limited. Using a French Hotchkiss Machine Gun would be a laugh, see the odd reloading system of having 20 round clips instead of one long belt like a Maxim or Vickers.




*takes off history nerd hat*

I feel like all those years in university have paid off ;_;

Funny you should mention WW1 as this Sunday is the Armistice Day. I've always had a strong interest in it as my wife is from Strasbourg, which is right next to the German border which gives me the chance to see many historical sites when I go there. I've been wearing my Red Poppy all week as well, might be an English only thing but for the week before the Armistice Day you wear a red plastic Poppy on your lapel. Since some of you are convinced I sound like him (even though I really, really, REALLY don't), here's a picture of my supposed voice twin and his two bitch friends wearing them:

[DeadCamper]

Sarcasm aside, I don't see it happening.

[Biggles]

No one said they have to make it realistic. It's not like BF2-3 is a realistic depiction of modern warfare.

God, I wish it were. War looks so much more PG with a blue tint, and we Americans love some good ol' desensitization to violence.

[DeadCamper]

Even though they obviously wouldn't make the game realistic, there's no such thing, it'd still have to be authentic or the whole point of WWI, or any setting, is lost. And I don't see that working as anything other than a small niche indie FPS. Which I assume we weren't talking about. Because if we are then hell, anything is possible in the indie world. I mean, Octodad.

[Omnirock]

... top 3 it'd be the M27, PKP Pecheneg and M60.

pretty much... i really enjoy the G36 lately... but i don't have extended mags, and it could really use it.

[Biggles]

S'pose I just fail to see how it'd be boring or only appeal to a niche market.

Gamers like shooting guns at things almost universally.

Strategy gamers are looking for a more tactical shooter.

Fans of Single-player are looking for stakes that haven't really been explored yet in gaming.

I don't see why WWI isn't the answer to that. I've always found WWI more historically interesting (there isn't a clear-cut 'evil', new technologies such as tanks and MGs are first developed but not properly strategized for, there's no ruling on Biological Warfare yet, soldiers aren't properly equipped to handle the reality of death brought on by such new violence, etc.) than WWII. It's easier, I suppose, to make a game about WWII.

But try and tell me, if done right, being the machine gunner, the medic scraping his bullet-riddled corpse out of the nest, or the squad who gets mustard gassed wouldn't be the most bloody, visceral, intense online gameplay out there.

I don't see it working as a typical FPS, but rather a new kind. No levelups. Fuck customization. This is about survival.

[Felixlynch777]

A game that follows Red Orchestra 2 design choices could work very well in a WW1 setting.

It couldn't be an arcadey FPS of course. Guns need to kill fast at high distances, stamina and suppression (not completely ridiculous like BF3's suppression though with giving random bullet spread).

Ignore the comedic aspect with the music and this was actually quite daunting for me to see lol:



That's why the FPS I'm looking forward to most is not ARMA, BF4 or another game. It's Red Orchestra 2: Rising Storm:



The thing that interests me most is is the faction difference. I hate how nowadays it's team red vs team blue in FPS games. Plus any game with samurai swords and banzai charges is a win.

[DeadCamper]

I think I'll quit this discussion here.

[Felixlynch777]

Okay then...

[DeadCamper]

I always found that scene with Homer slightly unsettling...

[Felixlynch777]

For the life of me I cannot remember what that was in response to XD.

[Sponsored content]