Battlefield 4 screenshots leak

Later this evening, Electronic Arts plans to unveil Battlefield 4. However, an early leak of screenshots from the Battlefield blog appears to have spoiled some of the surprise.

33
Later this evening, Electronic Arts plans to unveil Battlefield 4. However, an early leak of screenshots from the Battlefield blog appears to have spoiled some of the surprise (via Polygon). Our John Keefer will be attending the debut event later tonight, but for now, let's take a look at these images.

Presumably, these screens are from the PC/PS4 version

What improvements to Frostbite can you see?

From The Chatty
  • reply
    March 26, 2013 5:32 PM

    Andrew Yoon posted a new article, Battlefield 4 screenshots leak.

    Later this evening, Electronic Arts plans to unveil Battlefield 4. However, an early leak of screenshots from the Battlefield blog appears to have spoiled some of the surprise.

    • reply
      March 26, 2013 6:03 PM

      If these are even remotely gameplay, it's going to be a rough ride for those of us without dual titans.

      • reply
        March 26, 2013 6:13 PM

        eh? It doesn't really look that much better than bf3, which runs flawlessly on many modest configurations

        • reply
          March 26, 2013 7:54 PM

          At least one of us will have a smooth ride; you'll have half of one.

      • reply
        March 26, 2013 6:15 PM

        Looks more stylistic than cpu/gpu demanding. Will need to see pics + divx

        • reply
          March 26, 2013 6:37 PM

          On the 2nd photo, agree. 1st photo is as Milleh alluded to...nothing special...but I'm sure it'll require new CPU's and GPU's to get the most from it.

      • reply
        March 26, 2013 9:25 PM

        I think it will come down to VRAM quantity more so than raw GPU power. Looks like a lot more detailed textures!

    • reply
      March 26, 2013 6:56 PM

      When is this? Any live streams? Can we has LAN servers back?

    • reply
      March 26, 2013 7:40 PM

      Hopefully if they do a campaign this time around it is a lot more open ended. I want the big levels from BC1 back.

    • reply
      March 26, 2013 7:50 PM

      MEH...

    • reply
      March 26, 2013 8:07 PM

      I was excited for Bf3 - which was supposed to be a sequel to Bf2, but was more like a sequel made for the CoD franchise. I'm not putting my trust in DICE a second time. If Patrick prefers CoD to Battlefield, he should quit the team, rather than betraying and bringing down the franchise.

      • reply
        March 26, 2013 8:11 PM

        That's absolute bullshit. BF3 is the anti-cod. They updated things with the unlocks but the gameplay is completely different. You can actually contribute to a team by other means than just raw killing power. It's a fantastic team game.

        • reply
          March 26, 2013 8:23 PM

          Haha... how is it anti-CoD when it abandons Battlefield style and copies most of its design from CoD? And let me guess, you started playing Battlefield with Bf3. It is more CoD than it is Battlefield. DICE and EA were trying to lure CoD players over to Battlefield by ripping off much of its mechanics and style. Nothing about Bf3 bears a resemblance to Bf2 or what Battlefield used to stand for - but much of it bears a resemblance to CoD.

          • reply
            March 26, 2013 8:30 PM

            You aren't going to make a lot of friends here making accusations and hyperbolic statements.

            Battlefield 3 has large scale, 64-player maps with a wide variety of land and air vehicles. This was the same in Battlefield 2, but Call of Duty has nothing like this.

            • reply
              March 26, 2013 9:45 PM

              There is nothing hyperbolic about what I said. Almost the entirety of the Bf community was of this knowledge leading up to, and during, Bf3's release. All those people left Bf due to the CoD-ification of the series. Bf3's maps are insignificant compared to Bf2's. There is no teamwork in Bf3, the squads are smaller, there is no squad leader, there is no fatigue, you can spawn on anyone... saying that there is teamwork in Bf3 is the laugh of the gaming century. It's sad that all the noobs are so used to the CoD style of gameplay that they can't tell that most of what they're receiving in Bf3 is still the same shit, as opposed to what it used to be.

              EA even shut down the previous Battlefield forums because of all the complaints and dissections on Bf3, showing how it's become just a CoD knockoff, with more players in the map. Do some gaming history research, what you're playing is much more CoD than it is Battlefield.

              • reply
                March 26, 2013 11:23 PM

                Once again, your patronizing tone is ill-advised. Did you come here to have a discussion or not?

                Call of Duty is mostly played as a 6 versus 6 affair on maps that are 1/50th the size of a Battlefield 3 map. There really is no comparison. Unless you mean to say that Battlefield 3's improved infantry combat somehow makes it less of a Battlefield game.

                • reply
                  March 27, 2013 1:32 AM

                  Yeah, heaven forbid my gun actually shoot in the direction I point it.

                  • reply
                    March 27, 2013 9:51 AM

                    im atheist, can we please keep this discussion on track with games

              • reply
                March 27, 2013 1:44 AM

                Just a quick note on your last point. The UK forums were shut down to move the discussion to the battlelog forums. It's that simple.

          • reply
            March 26, 2013 9:16 PM

            I started playing Battlefield during the 1942 demo.

            • reply
              March 26, 2013 9:46 PM

              Then you're no doubt aware of how almost the entirely of the previous Battlefield forum - which EA shut down due to too much criticism at the CoD-ification of Bf3 - laughs their asses off at the suggestion that Bf3 is not a CoD wannabe.

              • reply
                March 27, 2013 7:55 AM

                I have no idea what goes on in the battlefield forum. I try to avoid official game forums because they tend to be populated by idiots.

        • reply
          March 26, 2013 8:24 PM

          Also, Bf3 is NOT a team game. You can join a 4 player (tiny) squad, but there is no system which encourages teamplay. Give Battlefield 2 a try to get a sense for what teamplay involves.

        • reply
          March 26, 2013 8:38 PM

          "Fantastic team game" That pretty much no one uses teamwork in. Team works very poorly in bf3 and is completely skewed to personal lone wolf game play style. Just start up a game of bad company 2 and you will see just about everyone using team work even without any communication because it's effective.

          • reply
            March 26, 2013 8:41 PM

            bc2 is the MOST lone-wolf game in the series. M60 and carl gustav, end of discussion.

            • reply
              March 26, 2013 8:58 PM

              Try playing it again. They nerfed the m60 quite a while back.

              • reply
                March 27, 2013 1:37 AM

                Then M16, whatever. Those games always have OP weapons. Actually, the M16 is so goddamned prolific in multiplayer in BF3, I guess not much has changed.

        • reply
          March 26, 2013 9:45 PM

          ARMA3 is anti-CoD.

          • reply
            March 26, 2013 9:46 PM

            This is true. Battlefield is just the other side of the same CoD coin.

            • reply
              March 26, 2013 9:47 PM

              it's in-between. and that's what a lot of people want. arma is technical and glitchy. cod is an arcade spam fest. some of us want a compromise.

              • reply
                March 26, 2013 10:39 PM

                I don't see it that way. Battlefield has more depth than CoD, but it's still designed as an entertainment product with fun at the front and centre. ARMA is designed as a simulation first and doesn't really give a shit if the general public likes it or not.

      • reply
        March 26, 2013 8:18 PM

        Also, controlled leak.

      • reply
        March 26, 2013 9:32 PM

        Yeah all those vehicle based 64 player cod maps... Gimme a break bro.

        • reply
          March 26, 2013 9:41 PM

          Haha, the Bf noobcomers really don't know where the series has been and what it has degraded into. Oh wow, 64 players in maps that are pathetically small compared to previous Battlefields, with very little terrain dynamics and a small amount of infrastructure on it.

          • reply
            March 26, 2013 9:45 PM

            at least two maps in BF3 are as large or larger than anything in BF2. you just don't notice because, holy shit, there are interesting things going on and the infantry combat is enjoyable. so you fight in your little section. you don't have to drive vehicles for minutes across open bland terrain in order to get to the battle.

            • reply
              March 26, 2013 9:49 PM

              There are map size comparisons, and Bf3's are a fraction of Bf2's (most of which were lost when EA shut down the Bf forums due to criticism of Bf3). What DICE cleverly (or not so) did, was count the background and out of bounds areas when claiming "this is the biggest map in Bf to date!"

              • reply
                March 26, 2013 9:51 PM

                how about areas where you actually play? how much of BF2 maps were empty nothing? how long did you have to travel before combat?

                • reply
                  March 26, 2013 9:55 PM

                  Not too long, there were lots of vehicles and you could spawn on your squad leader... but overall is was slower paced that Bf3/CoD. This goes back to the point that Bf3 went for a CoD style approach to gameplay - quicker combat, no teamwork needed, simpler mechanics.

            • reply
              March 26, 2013 9:55 PM

              Here's Bf2 map size: http://youtu.be/fmNIH6SHEXA

              • reply
                March 26, 2013 9:57 PM

                Btw, lots of people still play Bf2. In fact, I find more full servers and servers with players in Bf2 than I do in Bf3. The classic Bf crowd dumped Bf3 shortly after release, and what's there now, I assume, is mostly CoD players who think they're above CoD because the name on their game box says something different - despite offering something very similar.

                • reply
                  March 26, 2013 10:00 PM

                  yeah this is a weird example of things, though. CS 1.6 isn't necessarily better than CS:S or CS:Go, but that the machines that it can run on, just as with BF2, are old, cheap, plentiful. add in that people are hopelessly nostalgic or set in their ways and you have a lot of players.

            • reply
              March 26, 2013 10:51 PM

              Operation clean sweep would like a minute of your time.

              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiM62AeKZCM

          • reply
            March 27, 2013 8:22 AM

            I've been playing BF since BF:1942, and you're way off base here.

          • reply
            March 27, 2013 8:54 AM

            A lot of the maps in BF2 were too big even for 64 players. I can't even begin to count the number of times I had to either walk for 5 minutes to get somewhere where anything was happening or suicide and respawn in the action.


            I am tired of people seeing one specific change that has a beneficial impact on gameplay and game balance and whining about it because it's "worse." So you can't level every building on a map, it means you get a more consistent gameplay experience meaning your team isn't totally fucked after all the buildings are gone like it was in Bad Company 2. So the maps aren't quite as big as in BF2, all that means is that you don't need to spend 3 days walking around to get back into the fight.

            • reply
              March 27, 2013 8:58 AM

              also did people genuinely expect every BF game to have bigger and bigger maps until they were so vast you had to drive for ten minutes just to die from chopper fire? if you choose the right 6-8 maps to play you'll never feel cramped. yes, there are small ones designed for infantry action. because people wanted that. there are also still 64-player maps with loads of vehicles.

      • reply
        March 26, 2013 9:35 PM

        Pizza the Putz, that's unfair!

      • reply
        March 26, 2013 10:02 PM

        you are fucked in the head son

      • reply
        March 27, 2013 5:16 AM

        for me it was the unlocks, oh gawd how I hate them, treat the player as little lab-rats, push that button to receive an reward, push the other to receive a punishment.
        It removes all the *fun* from the game and makes it more like a chore. A hamster wheel without end.
        I want to sit down pick from all classes, all weapons, all vehicles, all add-ons end then just play, how hard is that ? Apparently EA thinks I'm not allowed to do that without paying extra money to them, fuck that.
        Also the TTL is way way to low, your life is not worth anything, its like die-revive-die-revive- ad naseum.
        I want to have mechanics where your life (or how long you live) actually matters more than a single 'ticket'. But yeah I guess I'm old, the young CoD generation is not happy until they either die or kill someone else once every two seconds.



      • reply
        March 27, 2013 9:08 AM

        horseshit. go troll somewhere else

    • reply
      March 26, 2013 8:09 PM

      You think BF4 was in concurrent development with BF3? As in, tech wise.

      Someone mentioned in another thread, the BF3 bullshots looked very similar to what these BF4 pics are showcasing. I'm on my phone so I'm not going to hunt the BF3 bullshots and post them, but if you check them out they look nothing like the BF3 we know and play today.

      • reply
        March 26, 2013 8:20 PM

        Well Bf4 is based on the same engine as Bf3, so tech advances will be due to tweaks/additions to the engine code, not a complete re-write. Some art assets might get re-used, or may be used as placeholders while the final art isn't yet completed.

      • reply
        March 27, 2013 2:00 AM

        Yes. BF3 was obviously scaled back for it to be able to be on consoles as well, always seemed to me like the middle point they had to stop at. Now with new consoles incoming reducing most limitations they're back on it.

    • reply
      March 26, 2013 8:39 PM

      I hate how BF3 was really a sequel to Bad Company 2 (and it's console origins) and not BF2, looks like BF4 continues that trend

      • reply
        March 26, 2013 8:59 PM

        Ehhh not so much

      • reply
        March 26, 2013 9:02 PM

        not at all.

      • reply
        March 26, 2013 9:05 PM

        No

      • reply
        March 26, 2013 9:06 PM

        You always post in BF3 threads and you're consistently wrong

      • reply
        March 26, 2013 9:07 PM

        lmao

      • reply
        March 26, 2013 9:10 PM

        BF3 was it's own game, not a sequel to BF2 or Bad Company imo.

      • reply
        March 26, 2013 9:29 PM

        I don't know why people are disagreeing with that, at least when it comes to the multiplayer.

        BC2 came before and that's what they learned from and built BF3 off of. Has much more in common with that game than BF2. Rush mode is half of the MP, spawn on anyone, the rank and unlock system, no integrated voice or commander mode.

        It's not really a bad thing, though. BC2 had much better infantry combat than BF2 and BF3 improved it even more, while adding more vehicles and some non-linear conquest maps back into the mix. On PC it's only further from BC2 because they upped it to 64 players and had a handful of larger conquest maps at the outset.

        Unveiling BF4 with single player footage just seems dumb considering the reason people are still playing BF3 and buying the expansions is the MP.

      • reply
        March 26, 2013 9:31 PM

        Dude BF3 was a sequel to COD4 which was a sequel to Ms. Pacman.

      • reply
        March 26, 2013 10:02 PM

        wtf are you talking about?

      • reply
        March 26, 2013 10:22 PM

        I wish it had been more like BC2. Destruction seemed way turned down

      • reply
        March 26, 2013 10:53 PM

        diaf

      • reply
        March 27, 2013 1:36 AM

        Nope.

      • reply
        March 27, 2013 1:36 AM

        At least the BC games' single-player play was interesting.

        • reply
          March 27, 2013 4:06 AM

          I couldn't give two shirts about Battlefield single player. I think that is an area where the COD comparisons are somewhat valid. It's all about multi for me.

      • reply
        March 27, 2013 9:39 AM

        well, not really, at all

      • reply
        March 27, 2013 9:57 AM

        I *wish* we'd get a bc2 sequel. And no, bf3 wasnt it.

    • reply
      March 26, 2013 8:44 PM

      Everything is embargoed until 11 p.m. PT

    • reply
      March 27, 2013 9:09 AM

      Wake Island?

    • reply
      March 27, 2013 9:50 AM

      [deleted]

Hello, Meet Lola