Topic: Battlefield 4 Confirmed

[Chozo Ghost]

http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2012/07/17/access-battlefield-4-beta-via-medal-of-honor-warfighter-le.aspx

Hopefully this one makes it to the Wii U, since apparently Battlefield 3 won't.

[Oblivion]

Well, that was fast.

[Enner]

Well, that was fast.

That's the reaction everyone (including me) has had. However, if you look at the release dates of the series ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlefield_(series) ), then you realize, perhaps with some disappointment, that this is right on time. Even discounting digital-only and free-to-play games, the gap between Battlefield: Bad Company 2 (3/2010) and Battlefield 3 (10/2011) was only 19 months. Assuming Battlefield 4 is another October 2013 release, it is a gap of 24 months.

Since 2002 when Battlefield 1942 came out, every year has had at least one new Battlefield experience being released. When you discount expansion packs and free-to-play entries, here is how the gaps look like:
BF1942 (9/2002) -> BF: Vietnam (3/2004)
18 months
BF:V -> BF2 (6/2005)
15 months
BF2 -> BF2142 (10/2006)
16 months
BF2142 -> BF: Bad Company (6/2008)
20 months
BF:BC1 -> BF: Bad Company 2 (3/2010)
21 months

I probably messed up my math somewhere/everywhere. To my surprise, the gap between BF3 and BF4 will be longest between major Battlefield game releases. You can make the argument that the spin offs don't count which is fair though I don't agree with it. From the perspective of that argument, this will be shortest time between "mainline" Battlefield games.

At first I was a bit angry at the news as I bit the Battlefield 3: Premium bullet (I do really enjoy the game and want it to be expanded), but after looking through the release history of Battlefield I calmed down. It is a bit surprising as hearsay talked of Battlefield: Bad Company 3 being the next game.

[oohhboy]

I long ago gave up on BF back when it was 2 when they time and again failed to sort out aircraft balance. Helicopters surviving direct hit from a tank's shell, worthless heatseekers that miss in straight and level flight, .50 more effective against aircraft than a 25mm chain cannon, AT missiles being more useful against helicopters than trying to use a heatseeker.  Missiles missing point blank. Also, why in gods name does the aircraft know I am locking a missile on them if it's a Heatseeker? Basically, **** aircraft, ruined the game.

[Enner]

In Battlefield 3, a great helicopter crew or fighter jet can still wreck a team but, from my experience, a player can take them out of the sky with enough effort.

Tank shells are one-hit kills to aircraft. The infantry anti-air weapons have horrible lock-on range but can take out jets and helicopters, especially if the aircraft has their counter measures in cool down. As for aircraft knowing that you a locking on to them, I think that's a gameplay balance. In the real world, one would hope that aircraft has ways of detecting lock ons.

I've heard of horror stories of how dominant aircraft were in Battlefield 2. With Battlefield: Bad Company 2 and Battlefield 3, it seems that DICE has made successfully fighting back much more viable.

[oohhboy]

Real world aircraft have a thing called RWR or Radar Warning Receiver that detect radar based threats. For heat seekers there is various MAW systems, but they only detect heat seekers after launch. Statistically you are far more likely to be shot down by a heat seeker than a radar based missile a lot of the time due to the amount of warning given by radar based threats. So yeah, if people flew planes like they did in BF2 they would be some very dead motherfuckers.

I was very good at ambushing aircraft, but the balance was bullshit when missiles arbitrary miss, four missiles from a dedicated AA platform(Linebacker) plus cannon fire couldn't shot down a helicopter at near point blank. It didn't help that aircraft got too much burn time so the crew always had time to bail denying you a very, very hard earned kills. Yeah, BF 2 aircraft was a complete and utter clusterfuck.

[Enner]

Good to know. After putting some thought in to it, it would be difficult to detect a heat seeking missile before it is launched. I'm glad that I didn't shoot my mouth off with a stupid assumption.

I don't know if it you will be glad to hear this or not, but the mobile AA vehicles in Battlefield 3 can tear aircraft apart easily. An accurate driver can disable or destroy jets with the guns in short order and there are optional AA missiles that can be unlocked and used. All vehicles enter a disabled state at around 50% health that drastically reduce maneuverability as well as do damage over time. Oh, and you have crazy people that can shoot the pilot out of helicopters or jets.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrOIgxQ--Tc&list=UUdbd4O5KnIHRWUTtpoF8slA&index=0&feature=plcp

[oohhboy]

Lucky for him the aircraft physics are pretty much BS. It's more likely it was staged. The likelihood a person would just happen to be filming that at the same time is really really low. It's like those "headshot" videos where they don't show you the million times that they missed and then claim to be "133t" by showing you only the shots that hit.

Here is a real and rare example of a SAM in action. The guy was very lucky. He also had other pilots spotting for him as he made the manoeuvres. Also note the turn rates are actually slower than games tend to make it out to be. Skip to 3.00.

Most air combat also happens in BVR or beyond visual range which would make for a real boring game if they didn't artificially shorten the engagement distances.

So yeah, games make a lot of allowances and claims of realism makes me face palm like every time a news reporter tries to play expert and completely gets it wrong. It's even more messed up when they unbalance it by removing a real world effect like not being able to detect heat seekers until after launch. That's why you see most people fly the aircraft in "Bomb" mode so it doesn't set off the in game missile lock detector.

[ShyGuy]

In my opinion, this gameplay reveal is everything wrong with gaming today.

Sure it looks pretty, the video is compelling. But that is all it is. A video.

People play video games for different reasons. Some like the challenge, some like to explore, some like to compete, some like to experience a ride. The problem is, the whole AAA market has turned into games that only appeal to people who want to experience a ride.

Watch the video, and you will see how scripted it is. How it would fall apart if the player pauses for a few seconds or turns left instead of right. There is no freedom in what we are shown, it's 17 minutes of interactive cut scene, a linear quick time event with more buttons. This isn't bumper cars, this is a roller coaster and you can't get off the track.

AAA games are becoming more linear, more scripted, and more homogenized with each iteration.

I don't want a $60 interactive CGI movie (+ DLC $$). I want a GAME.

[shingi_70]

It looks cool though and the overall market probably sadly disagress with you. Also most people buy Battlefield for its mltiplayer which is probably some of the most gamey multiplayer out there.