Scripted. And what wasn’t scripted, was staged.
This guy gets it.
Yeah I was cracking up all through the BF4 “multiplayer” gameplay because of how ridiculously staged it was. They probably spent weeks choreographing how that multiplayer match would go. It makes me laugh to think I’m sure they had a meeting where they said “You need to miss them, but only by a little bit so it looks cool. God dammit John, you fucking killed him. You do this every time, why are you so bad at missing?” Here’s a tip to EA/Dice: if you need to stage a multiplayer match in order to show off your game’s features, then said features are probably at least a little gimmicky.
Not to mention BF4 is more similar to BF3 than BFBC2: Vietnam was to BFBC2. It seems simply having a new campaign makes EA think they can justify a 60 dollar sequel.
To be fair they couldn’t spend an uncertain amount of time playing normally waiting for all the cool shit to eventually happen.
They probably should have had two separate presentations: one of pre-recorded spliced together, but not staged, footage of them using the cool features, and then a second of an ordinary multiplayer match played live.
if that was real multiplayer gameplay, then he woulda died in the first 10 seconds and we would be staring at the respawn countdown for most of it. Look how many enemies just let him shoot them while they were staring at him.
Regardless of how staged it was, I think it was still a better option than a trailer with disjointed clips of MP footage. At least this was a single coherent video that showed proper gameplay and presented the new stuff in a reasonable amount of time.
Looks nice, I wish it wasnt scripted though.
A building where the player could walk, and the building goes down.
Thats pure bullshit.
Doesn’t really have to be bullshit, considering pretty much all the destruction in BFBC1, 2, and BF3 was scripted all the same. There were no “physics” involved, just an animation triggered by certain events. The physics were pretty much limited to tiny pieces of debris, and small things like barrels and chairs.
I’m pretty sure the point of the video is that the destruction, while nothing impressive from a technology standpoint, is player initiated. You could do the same thing with a chandelier in Quake or HL1 mapping by triggering it to fall after you “break” the parts holding it up, this really wouldn’t have to be any different.
So what if it’s a building? Animated destruction like that really would hardly cost that many resources. Having actual collison would still be a lot easier to run then actual simulated physics.
is it possible bush faked 9/11 using the quake engine
Battlefield 4, now with more shiny things.
Hopefully all this destruction isn’t JUST a gimmick. As in, it could be used strategically to cut off the enemy’s assault in one area, forcing them to go wherever you want them to.
Shit like that.
I wanna do that… I just set fuckloads of explosives along the street I want to block and make it go ka-boom in a nice, barricade creating fashion. Not fucking go ahead and figure out how to drop a fucking skyscraper on top of the enemy.
Trust me. I’ve played ArmA long enough to know of the fast and simple ways to stop an assault cold. The engineers can fuck the demolitions up, and you’ll be left with a skyscraper that is falling the wrong way, and possibly removing YOUR possibilities for waging a successfull MOUT.
Well, that’s what taking out the pillar in the parking structure to trap the tank was meant to demonstrate.
Also not sure if anyone posted this already but redeem BF3E3 as a code in Origin to get close quarters DLC for free.
Aaaand if I was remotely interested in Battlefield 3 these days, I might actually do it.
I’m not and I did it anyway 
I’m too lazy to even download the base game, because I know I’ll hate it to death. Getting a DLC, even if it’s a free one is like… pointless… for me.
You can’t really know you’ll hate it. I was suprised that I liked the Elder Scrolls so much after thinking it was a “nerd” game and that I would hate it.
I know I will because I played it for an entire year, and with the “balance”, the last time I saw, they actually made M16 overpowered as fuck.
Plus I do kinda mind not killing a guy with a sniper rifle on a single torso hit. Even worse when there are ballistics involved (yay, most people think, fuck off, I think - since when do bullets fall this damn sharp? People whine CoD has no ballistics simulation whatsoever - CoD actually has THIS right, because both games have engagement range where ballistics would barely have any effect)
I think it makes battlefield gunplay more interesting, and that’s more important than being accurate to reality. The way I see it, all the BF maps are condenced in scale, and the exaggerated bullet drop is scaled to that. That being said, it’s not much of an issue in close quarters. The CQ mappack is pretty damn good too. I haven’t played in a while though, and the community is reminding me why I stopped :s
Anyone who still plays up for a match sometime soon? You know, so we don’t have to deal with the “THEY SHOULD BAN SHOTGUNS IN CLOSE QUARTERS MAPS” retards?