to join the Xbox community. Not a member yet? Join now!

Latest Battlefield 4 tease lends weight to rumours about Chi

Your comments on our articles.

Also rumoured: playable female characters, 2020 timeframe

Just one more news piece, before we sign off for a restful weekend's lying facedown on a mattress. DICE has released a new Battlefield 4 teaser, showing the coast of Shanghai. What does this say to you? Because it says "Chinese setting" to me - and funnily enough, that ties in with a rumour from last August, which makes a number of other interesting claims.... read more

Latest Battlefield 4 tease lends weight to rumours about Chi

Postby Gazisdaman » 22 Mar 2013, 19:11

Do you mean Armoured Kill or is that DLC for BF4? :?
Gazisdaman 35
 
Posts: 151
Joined: 01 Nov 2011, 00:18
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Latest Battlefield 4 tease lends weight to rumours about

Postby Metalrodent » 22 Mar 2013, 19:22

playable Chinese character would be interesting - be more interesting if there wasn't a US character, how about more Brit, Frenchies or any nationalities come to speak of it.

Still undecided as to how exited am I am for this game, guess I'll wait until solid information comes out
Image
Hey you, yes you! Feel free to check out my blog
User avatar
Metalrodent 71
 
Posts: 5208
Joined: 20 Nov 2012, 15:22

Re: Latest Battlefield 4 tease lends weight to rumours about

Postby Bezza89 » 22 Mar 2013, 19:42

Metalrodent wrote:playable Chinese character would be interesting - be more interesting if there wasn't a US character, how about more Brit, Frenchies or any nationalities come to speak of it.

Still undecided as to how exited am I am for this game, guess I'll wait until solid information comes out


Once you remember battlefield is a multiplayer game - the playable character just refers to class loadouts really. I like the sound of this rumour, and look forward to the 27th or whenever.

Female characters in mp would be a nice change in fps, as well as single player which is doubtful, though technically the jet co-pilot in BF3 was a woman. It wouldn't surprise me if they got rid of the single player in favour of a co-operative campaign which does sw battlefront style missions - that would be awesome!
...and if you tell that to the kids of today, they wont believe you!
User avatar
Bezza89 68
 
Posts: 7986
Joined: 17 May 2010, 13:30
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Latest Battlefield 4 tease lends weight to rumours about

Postby Plamsa wing » 22 Mar 2013, 20:01

The radio person on Bad Company 1 was women as well, albeit a women that disappeared for BC2. Come to think of the gold was missing aswell but I'm sure there isn't a connection.

Bezza89 wrote:It wouldn't surprise me if they got rid of the single player in favour of a co-operative campaign which does sw battlefront style missions - that would be awesome!


If they include co-op missions, I hope it's more than two player co-op.

After the bore fest I found in Battlefield 3, I'm not sure if I'll even consider buying BF4. Even after I rented it to give it another go I still couldn't get into it, it was made better by playing with the chaps here though.

Say what you will, but I still reckon BC2 is much better both in campaign and multiplayer.

Don't really care for gender on a game like this either, I'm more concerned about "blowing shit up".

After recent events, I'm sure it'll be some sort anti-NK propaganda anyway. It is either them or the Russians in these sort of stories anyway. :wink:
I spilled flour in my uncle's kitchen, now I've got a croissant.
User avatar
Plamsa wing 57
 
Posts: 3021
Joined: 19 Oct 2011, 13:59

Re: Latest Battlefield 4 tease lends weight to rumours about

Postby OXM ETboy » 22 Mar 2013, 20:18

Gazisdaman wrote:Do you mean Armoured Kill or is that DLC for BF4? :?


I did - edited.
User avatar
OXM ETboy
OXM Staff
 
Posts: 3535
Joined: 09 Mar 2011, 18:07

Re: Latest Battlefield 4 tease lends weight to rumours about

Postby Jabraham » 22 Mar 2013, 22:07

Have to say im kind of excited for this either way love battlefield in general and while the campaign for 3 was pretty horrible and didn't bother playing all the way through I've put enough hours into multiplayer with my mates to get my moneys back. So as long as they keep the same standard for MP definitely going to buy.
Jabraham 35
 
Posts: 89
Joined: 29 Jan 2012, 23:53
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Latest Battlefield 4 tease lends weight to rumours about

Postby Harvey12 » 23 Mar 2013, 13:46

I cant wait for this game, got massive high hopes since its coming out on next gen consoles. As I'm not a massive BF fan, last BF I played was BF3; the campaign was awesome but the multiplayer just looked like a lot of players camping as the maps are so vast in size. The teaser does look promising though!
Harvey12 7
 
Posts: 12
Joined: 07 Feb 2013, 21:08

Re: Latest Battlefield 4 tease lends weight to rumours about

Postby Tug » 24 Mar 2013, 13:15

I just wanna fight on the Great Wall.
Or the Forbidden City.
Any stereotypical locations please.
Tug 27
 
Posts: 80
Joined: 02 Mar 2013, 14:52

Re: Latest Battlefield 4 tease lends weight to rumours about

Postby NobleWarrior92 » 24 Mar 2013, 15:17

Harvey12 wrote:I cant wait for this game, got massive high hopes since its coming out on next gen consoles. As I'm not a massive BF fan, last BF I played was BF3; the campaign was awesome but the multiplayer just looked like a lot of players camping as the maps are so vast in size. The teaser does look promising though!


Wow, your view is exactly the opposite of most people. I love the multiplayer and still play it now (although I do have all the map packs) and thought the campaign was pretty awful in terms of gameplay.

I hope BF4 does away with a singleplayer campaign and that DICE focus their resources on something truly innovative and different.

Bezza89 wrote:It wouldn't surprise me if they got rid of the single player in favour of a co-operative campaign which does sw battlefront style missions - that would be awesome!


Now that would be pretty awesome :D
NobleWarrior92 13
 
Posts: 14
Joined: 10 Dec 2012, 19:27

Re: Latest Battlefield 4 tease lends weight to rumours about

Postby Decent_Jam » 24 Mar 2013, 19:46

Have to agree that I wouldn't miss the single player campaign in BF and would be very switched on to the idea of a coop campaign.

Vehicular excitement is undoubtedly BFs strong suit and hopefully if this is next gen there will be less player number capping that in this gen, since many of the multiplayer maps are indeed too large for comparatively few players. I would really like to see them push the boat out with multiplayer to be honest and give us a wider variety of modes, and possibly even original modes...or does that sound like a stretch too far?
Decent_Jam

Game: GT - "Decent Jam"
Tweet: @James_Parry
Email: jamesmparry87@gmail.com
Site - This Is Entertainment: http://jamesmparry.wordpress.com/

Playing : Destiny, TF, Forza 5, KI - head to OXM Nights to meet up.
User avatar
Decent_Jam 62
 
Posts: 4051
Joined: 05 Oct 2008, 10:50
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Latest Battlefield 4 tease lends weight to rumours about

Postby Metalrodent » 24 Mar 2013, 19:55

I'm gonna go against popular opinion and say I want a single player campaign, perfectly happy for it to have coop but I dont want something that forces me to matchmake with some random dude who faffs around, or have to miss out on lots of gameplay (obviously I dont want another CoD rip off :roll: )
Also I like the large maps, its gives the game more of a mellow pace and gives real scope for strategy and stealth - a nice mix would be good, with plenty of vehicles
Image
Hey you, yes you! Feel free to check out my blog
User avatar
Metalrodent 71
 
Posts: 5208
Joined: 20 Nov 2012, 15:22

Re: Latest Battlefield 4 tease lends weight to rumours about

Postby Bezza89 » 24 Mar 2013, 20:01

Part of the reason Bad company is 'better' than BF3 is because those games were designed for consoles, the maps are for 24 players, in BF3 they started to optimise for PC and then went to consoles as lead platform halfway through (so the story goes) in my view, and having played a game or two on pc there is no optimising for consoles in bf3, it's very much a sparse environment in comparison to arica harbour in BC2, you're never short on enemies in that level.

Also, I found you had more health in bad company, the guns sounded better, the snipers looked cooler and it was much less fast paced, you were given time to plan - if you got shot you could run off and not die instantly, it gave you more tension in the gameplay, if you just die when you're shot there's no panicking, (is there a k in that word? lol) in BC2 you would shit yourself, call out for teammates via the mic and they were genuinely helpful.

Then there was the destruction, it wasn't as technically lovely as BF3 but it at least destroyed stuff, need cover? Blow a hole in the ground! Need a door? Make one! A silly camper is in a building? Screw shooting back, take the building out!

I'd like them to go back to the more calculated experience, it gives a slower pace maybe, but the rewards are more satisfying - you don't feel screwed over when you die really quickly because you don't die quickly. Add bf3s suppression, gadgets and gizmos and you have an epic game.
...and if you tell that to the kids of today, they wont believe you!
User avatar
Bezza89 68
 
Posts: 7986
Joined: 17 May 2010, 13:30
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Latest Battlefield 4 tease lends weight to rumours about

Postby Metalrodent » 24 Mar 2013, 20:14

Bezza89 wrote:Part of the reason Bad company is 'better' than BF3 is because those games were designed for consoles, the maps are for 24 players, in BF3 they started to optimise for PC and then went to consoles as lead platform halfway through (so the story goes) in my view, and having played a game or two on pc there is no optimising for consoles in bf3, it's very much a sparse environment in comparison to arica harbour in BC2, you're never short on enemies in that level.

Also, I found you had more health in bad company, the guns sounded better, the snipers looked cooler and it was much less fast paced, you were given time to plan - if you got shot you could run off and not die instantly, it gave you more tension in the gameplay, if you just die when you're shot there's no panicking, (is there a k in that word? lol) in BC2 you would shit yourself, call out for teammates via the mic and they were genuinely helpful.

Then there was the destruction, it wasn't as technically lovely as BF3 but it at least destroyed stuff, need cover? Blow a hole in the ground! Need a door? Make one! A silly camper is in a building? Screw shooting back, take the building out!

I'd like them to go back to the more calculated experience, it gives a slower pace maybe, but the rewards are more satisfying - you don't feel screwed over when you die really quickly because you don't die quickly. Add bf3s suppression, gadgets and gizmos and you have an epic game.

Pretty much sums it up
played through BC1 recently and was overjoyed at how much space there was to play in (singleplayer), also as you say the audio - it just sounded sooo damn good, BF3 sounded very thin and tinny, ni weight behind any of the noises.. Also agree that the pacing was better, it meant you have to plan and use tactics, not just run and gun every map.
The other thing that struck me was that there was a sense of fun, BC1 was ironicly humorous with moments of sheer absurdity (the golf carts) and BC2 was just plain gleefull. BF3 was just another grey victimised America mellowdrama.
Image
Hey you, yes you! Feel free to check out my blog
User avatar
Metalrodent 71
 
Posts: 5208
Joined: 20 Nov 2012, 15:22

Re: Latest Battlefield 4 tease lends weight to rumours about

Postby Decent_Jam » 24 Mar 2013, 20:16

Metalrodent wrote:I'm gonna go against popular opinion and say I want a single player campaign, perfectly happy for it to have coop but I dont want something that forces me to matchmake with some random dude who faffs around, or have to miss out on lots of gameplay (obviously I dont want another CoD rip off :roll: )
Also I like the large maps, its gives the game more of a mellow pace and gives real scope for strategy and stealth - a nice mix would be good, with plenty of vehicles


No need to rely on strangers, I'll look after you :D

But agreed Bezza on the drawbacks of 3, the team mates who you aren't in touch with (who I generally don't worry about as I tend to play with at least one other friend if not more) were rather unhelpful.
Decent_Jam

Game: GT - "Decent Jam"
Tweet: @James_Parry
Email: jamesmparry87@gmail.com
Site - This Is Entertainment: http://jamesmparry.wordpress.com/

Playing : Destiny, TF, Forza 5, KI - head to OXM Nights to meet up.
User avatar
Decent_Jam 62
 
Posts: 4051
Joined: 05 Oct 2008, 10:50
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Latest Battlefield 4 tease lends weight to rumours about

Postby FishyGinger » 24 Mar 2013, 20:38

Metalrodent wrote:
Bezza89 wrote:Part of the reason Bad company is 'better' than BF3 is because those games were designed for consoles, the maps are for 24 players, in BF3 they started to optimise for PC and then went to consoles as lead platform halfway through (so the story goes) in my view, and having played a game or two on pc there is no optimising for consoles in bf3, it's very much a sparse environment in comparison to arica harbour in BC2, you're never short on enemies in that level.

Also, I found you had more health in bad company, the guns sounded better, the snipers looked cooler and it was much less fast paced, you were given time to plan - if you got shot you could run off and not die instantly, it gave you more tension in the gameplay, if you just die when you're shot there's no panicking, (is there a k in that word? lol) in BC2 you would shit yourself, call out for teammates via the mic and they were genuinely helpful.

Then there was the destruction, it wasn't as technically lovely as BF3 but it at least destroyed stuff, need cover? Blow a hole in the ground! Need a door? Make one! A silly camper is in a building? Screw shooting back, take the building out!

I'd like them to go back to the more calculated experience, it gives a slower pace maybe, but the rewards are more satisfying - you don't feel screwed over when you die really quickly because you don't die quickly. Add bf3s suppression, gadgets and gizmos and you have an epic game.

Pretty much sums it up
played through BC1 recently and was overjoyed at how much space there was to play in (singleplayer), also as you say the audio - it just sounded sooo damn good, BF3 sounded very thin and tinny, ni weight behind any of the noises.. Also agree that the pacing was better, it meant you have to plan and use tactics, not just run and gun every map.
The other thing that struck me was that there was a sense of fun, BC1 was ironicly humorous with moments of sheer absurdity (the golf carts) and BC2 was just plain gleefull. BF3 was just another grey victimised America mellowdrama.


Same feeling here. As for single player though I'd doubt they'd do away with it. It's much harder to advertise with in game play using a multiplayer only game and there's no chance it would have advertising so they'll pick out some scripted sequence to show on tv.

I rather just have bad company 3 though. Although jets were fun in BF3 some people did just spend entire rounds in them and as they were completely useless for getting objectives done sometimes felt like trying to win the match was futile. Smaller maps, no jets, not so serious.
2 + 4 = Fish
User avatar
FishyGinger 70
 
Posts: 4518
Joined: 08 Aug 2012, 13:42
Location: United Kingdom


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: captainhetty, FishyGinger, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot] and 3 guests

The forum teamDelete all forum cookiesAll times are UTC [ DST ]