Battlefield 4 reviews love more of the same


It's not a massive surprise that Battlefield 4 has reviewed well. It's one of those franchises that toes the line between being as big and bombastic as Call of Duty, with as much pick up and play and therefore draws a lot of the fringe gamer crowd, but it also isn't CoD, which means it gets a few of the more gamer-like gamers too, who like too pick the underdog.

Still, it's well funded enough that an awful game - especially from a studio as experienced at making big, explosive multiplayer maps and modes as DICE - would be a shock to everyone involved, but that doesn't mean this one's perfect.

In-fact, according to most of the reviews, Battlefield 4 mostly gives us much of the same, even if it does evolve it a little and continue to build that tower of unlocks that we all know one day will dominate the game so much it'll topple down all around us.

The single player campaign is now a little longer than before, but according to most it's pretty vapid, featuring a lot of hallways sprints and in-game cut scenes and set pieces, which is the movie like experience most people expect it to be, but it seems like it could do with giving the players more of the freedom that is showcases in the multiplayer mode.

This is where Battlefield has always and continues to shine, with sprawling environments that are now assaultable by water, as well as all the traditional angles. Squads are bigger, but player counts remain the same - though add one extra for the commander mode which returns from BF2142.

Then there's the addition of destructible environments on a massive scale, which DICE has termed "Levolution." I'm not sure what's worse, that or Drivatar, but it seems that in this instance at least, everyone's in agreement: blowing the environment up is fun, especially since you don't need a tank to do it.

One universal complaint from people though, is that with so many versions of this game being put out, DICE has had to scale back the visuals in some instances. There's horrific pop-in effects on the 360 and PS3 versions, but even the Xbox One and PS4 versions struggle with aliasing and low resolutions.

The Xbox One is the worst culprit there though, outputting at 1280 x 720 while the PS4 at least does 1600 x 900. Ultimately the PC is the best version but who are we kidding, that's the case with 99 percent of shooters.

Battlefield 4 has come out well, even if it's single player is pretty mundane - you were all buying it for the multiplayer anyway right?

Ultimately BF4 is being scored on average as 8.5/10, but there's a lot of 9s out there too. This is a solid buy if you like this sort of thing, but don't expect to be surprised.

Add new comment

This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.



Ya no, Everyone said ps3 has much more power over 360 even on paper! Well we all no it was B.S. every game has been better on 360? So I say lets wait and see if ps4 is really as great as everyone seems to think. I no this much when I see bf4 and some of the other games come out at launch then I will pick the best system, but dont be surprised if the xbox one has much better versions of every game this time around.

You're a moron

If you want to insult playstation you must first know something about technology. The PS3 used a cell architecture that was a head ache to develop for, leading to poor ports from the underpowered 360. Now, both consoles have the same x86 architecture making both of them easy and similar to develop on rather than the differences between the 360 and the PS3. So...if the PS4 version does end up looking worse (which it won't since most games run at higher resolution on it than the xbox one) it is the developer forcing it that way.

Sorry Jason but you opinion

Sorry Jason but you opinion seem highly biased. All the dozens of multi-platform games I've seen in comparison with the ps3 and xbox360 were much nicer on the xbox. While the ps3 has a faster cpu, it doesn't use much of it's core. This is without mentionning the obvious fact that the ps3 has only 256 mb of GDDR3 ram for video. It's a huge pain (that most developpers are not willing to invest into) to dump a part of the texture into the XDR DRAM, a huge mistake by the greedy Sony in the making of the ps3. To make it short; the xbox was much more balanced than your ps3 and this is why your graphic suck since day one. Of course there are exceptions, like those games that toke almost 5 years to build such as GT5 but not much developpers are willing to plunge this much time for a single game these days. Just get a pc!

OpenGL and Direct X

The Frobite 3 engine was developed and optimized for Direct X 11.1. Porting this game to OpenGL, which PS4 uses, is going to be a pain. Maybe they didn't do a proper port and probably had to emulate parts of Direct X. Some of the graphic features may not have translated well from Direct X to OpenGL and they probably left off some of the features. The easiest thing they could do for PS4 was increase the game's resolution. I guess time constraints is what led to a bad looking PS4 port and it's really showing.

I'm having a lot of trouble

I'm having a lot of trouble verifying this - I'm not saying I don't believe you or anything, but everything I can find tells me that the Frostbite 3 engine is optimise for Mantle rather than either DX or OGL. Can you tell me where you found this out? I'm really interested in getting more tech details about it.

Actually, I was right the

Actually, I was right the first time: Mantle support will come as a patch sometime in December. So basically Frostbite 3 was first developed around DX 11.1. h.t.t.p.:././."Your first chance to look at the API in action will be Battlefield 4. GCN-based GPUs will be able to render Frostbite 3 natively in Mantle, without the need for DirectX. Mantle support will arrive as a free update to Battlefield 4 in December."

Here is a quout from the

Here is a quout from the article. "The PS4 sees Sony move to a 64-bit x86 chip architecture, which will be music to the ears of developers, especially those used to working on PC games. The good news doesn’t stop there, though. Developers will be able to take advantage of Microsoft’s latest industry standard DirectX API — DirectX 11.1, but Sony has taken the time to improve upon it, pushing the feature set beyond what is available for PC games development."

I hope this is true 'cause my

I hope this is true 'cause my brother and I already preordered PS4. The thing is that the reporter may have gotten the details wrong or misstated it, since Direct X is exclusive to Windows and Xbox. PS4 does have the PSL API, which is rumored to be compatible with Direct X features. Whether this API was completed and ready before Dice started porting BF4 to PS4 is another question, but it "seems" like Dice may have decided to go with the OpenGL route just by seeing how badly BF4 visuals were ported to PS4. I hope a future patch will remedy this if possible. Ah heck! For all I know I could be wrong, I just can't deny how bad the PS4 version is.

Corrections, here is the

Corrections, here is the correct link: h.t.t.p.:./././battlefield-4-gen-battlelog-20-detailed-directx-111-support-frostbite-3-confirmed/ “We use DX11.1, there are some optimizations in it (constant buffer offsets, dynamic buffers as SRVs) that we got in to the the API that improves CPU performance in our rendering when one runs with DX11.1. This will be in BF4.” Corrections to myself, Mantle is already supported. In fact, the game supports Mantle and NVAPI.


h.t.t.p.:././ Mantle support will come later. Since the Mantle API is not supported on Xbox One or PS4, it will only come to the PCs with for the latest AMD cards. Building the game around Mantle first would be bad business because Mantle only works with the latest AMD GPUs and nothing else. Optimizing the game for OpenGL or Direct X would be a better choice. In this case though, Dice chose Direct X.

Yes, I know the PS4 runs at a

Yes, I know the PS4 runs at a higher resolution! I've said it in my first post which you missed. No, again, it's the game engine being optimized for DX that PS4 doesn't support cause it uses OpenGL. I know the Xbone uses OpenGL, but that's not where the problem it. It's the @#$% engine. The engine, get it? I said all these in my first post! Can't you @#& read??!!!!!!!!!

Didn't the article say that

Didn't the article say that the Xbox One version of the game runs at a lower screen resolution? And besides, you choose to point out that the PS4 uses OpenGL and ignore the fact that the Xbox One also uses OpenGL, as the GPU in both consoles are made by AMD and are nearly identical.

There were already signs that

There were already signs that were telling me not to take your word for it, but silly me, I did!! Xbox One does NOT support OpenGL, yes the GPU does, but the only API supported by Xbox One's OS is DX 'cause DX is Microsoft's baby - go figure!

So yeah, I pretty much just

So yeah, I pretty much just repeated what I said...what? Yes I know the PS4 version runs a higher resolution, but resolution alone doesn't make a game pretty. My 6+ year old game can run at insane resolutions, but it's nothing compared to BF4 on 720p. What? Okay, sure I got the DX version wrong, but it's DX never-the-less. No, the problem isn't with Xbox One, the problem is that the engine is highly optimized for DX which PS4 doesn't use. Yes, yes, possibly shorter development time for the PS4, but still they didn't Optimize it well for OpenGL.

You're forgetting that

You're forgetting that Frostbite 3 engine was optimized for Direct X 11.1, which Xbox One was mostly designed around. That's where the problem is. So trying to get that engine working for OpenGL takes a lot of work and time. I did mention the PS4 running on a higher resolution, because that would be the easiest thing they could do (cause PS4 is more powerful). I could also mention higher FPS. Putting the resolution and anti-aliasing aside, the Xbox One version does look better OVERALL. That's because of better utilization of the DX API. I'm still getting the PS4 cause the hardware and the upcoming games look promising.

They change too much and

They change too much and people complain, then don't change it and people still complain. It's lose - lose. You can't please everyone. I think they have done a good job. I don't by BF games for their campaigns (like most of the ppl) so the fact that it is only good and not amazing doesn't bother me. As for the multiplayer, I think they did it right. They took what worked and build on it. and no crazy changes either. I would rather them build on it slowly then have to jump into something totally different. And I thank god they didn't go the CoD route and add rewards for people who suck at the game. (IE Death steaks and kill steak rewards that don't reset if you die, I mean come on! they are kill steak rewards... you get them for killing people and not dieing!!!!)


wtf ? the same as all others ? its the only 1 with Amazing Destructions. the others are all the same u mean lol. Cod, CS all same bullshit, BF4 could be compared to Arma 3, and no other game out there.

Add new comment