EG Expo 2013: Battlefield 4 Xbox One hands-on impressions - Save/Continue

Save/Continue writes:

"After fifteen minutes with the conquest multiplayer mode on Xbox One, prospective next-gen hardware owners should find relief; Battlefield 4 on Xbox One (and by likely extension, PlayStation 4) is the closest the console versions have ever gotten to replicating the full-bodied glory of the PC Battlefield experience.

Though at this early stage at least, some aesthetic trade-offs appear evident."

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
Sidology1661d ago

Well, I'm excited for huge team battles again.

Bitsnark1661d ago

Me too. 64 player conquest on console will be a blast.

xKugo1661d ago

You played the game at the expo?

GodGinrai1661d ago


I played it at the expo..along with titanfall and a few other games.. ;)

KONAAs1661d ago

well the beta completly disapointed me, ill just stick to bf3,

KwietStorm1661d ago

I can't even tell anymore if these kind of comments are trolling or not. Are you being serious?

isa_scout1660d ago

Agreed, I think the beta is fantastic, apart from a few things that you expect to find in a beta.
If anything it only reaffirmed my decision to buy Battlefield 4 at launch then use the upgrade plan to get it on my PS4...I was going to just wait and buy it at the launch of the PS4, but after playing the beta I don't think I could wait the extra two weeks knowing other people are leveling up and unlocking better equipment.
It's a beta people not a freakin demo, learn the difference.

KONAAs1658d ago

i know its a beta and all that, i just didnt liek the overall aspect of it, no option to keep the bf3 controller configuration, maybe ill give ti a go when its goes gold or after the realise but for now not feeling it and ie invested like 10 mp hrs on it already

Hufandpuf1661d ago (Edited 1661d ago )

Yeah because a BETA on a console that has to make tons of comprimises are representtative of the final product across all platforms. /s

Emilio_Estevez1660d ago

Did you play the BF3 Beta? I almost cancelled my pre-order because of it. Metro was the worst map imo.

KONAAs1658d ago

actually no i imidiately enjoyed the beta of bf3 and i had it on pc and ps3,

angelsx1661d ago

What about if there is no hd texture pack how is with current gen consoles and they add it in the final version.Who knows . .

theXtReMe11661d ago

If the game releases at 720p on the PS4, Im passing. If a game like Killzone, which is pushing the system much harder and looks much better can run at 1080p and 60fps most of the time... There is no excuse. Especially if they are gimping the PS4 version to make up for the Xbox Ones inefficiencies. I refuse to buy any game that runs sub 1080p next gen. Because I feel there is absolutely no reason for it, given the power of the next gen systems and especially, the 8GBs of RAM, being double that of some of the highest end PC graphics cards. Even with system overhead, 5-6GBs of RAM is more than enough to allow for 1080p resolution, even with the nicest of visuals. Killzone is proof positive. Regardless of it being first party, Sony is open sourcing all information regarding tapping the power of the PS4. So, there really is no excuse.

sorane1661d ago (Edited 1661d ago )

Not sure why you would even think Killzone is pushing the system harder than Bf4. Bf4 is doing things Killzone couldn't even dream of. Think about it for a second as to what each offers and maybe it'll come to you. I also wonder why you would ever think that all the ram in the ps4 is going to the gpu.

whoyouwit041661d ago

Oh my dam, dude seriously get your head out of Sony's ass. That's the biggest fanboy BS I've ever seen on this site. exactly what the hell is Killzone doing that's any where close to what battler field is doing? where is it pushing the system? I haven't seen any thing from Kill Zone SF that can't be done on PS3.

Evilsnuggle1661d ago

You sound crazy killzone sf is true NEXT GEN and 1080p 60fsp please stop talking. I don't see why dice can't get battlefield 4 to run at 1080p 60fsp on PS4 . It's political xbone is the weakness next GEN console and EA are in bed with MicroSCAM. Dice said bf4 is running 900p 60fps on PS4 and trying to get the xbone to 900p. Now the xbone is running 720p 60fps.

abusador1661d ago

You haven't seem anything? Lol what a bs statement. You check someone just so you can in turn sound like a dumb fool. What is KZ Sf doing that it can't do on current gen? Go look at the videos you biased fanboy the graphics are easily better than anything seen at launch let alone current gen and the score of the game and vistas is definitely next gen, smfh

In regards to BF, yes it is doing things Killzone isn't doing with destructible environments and higher player counts but killzone is also doing stuff bf isn't doing which is looking wayyyyyy better than BF4.

isa_scout1660d ago

I agreed with everything you said until, "I haven't seen any thing from Kill Zone SF that can't be done on PS3." It's just ridiculous to think that the PS3(I've owned one since 2007) could even remotely come close to KZ:Shadowfall. I'm more excited for BF4 MP, but KZ:Shadowfall looks like a beast of a game as well.I'll be picking both up at release.

TechMech21661d ago

So you won't buy the game because it won't run at 1080p. What logic is that? It's a game. If it's fun, it usually good to buy the game,

Chris121660d ago

Don't you know? He's buying numbers and not games, seems to be a common theme for this gen. Roll on the games :)

theXtReMe11656d ago

Why don't you ask the reason instead of automatically assuming everything? The reason I won't buy the game that's less than 1080P is because I play games on 120 inch screen. Anything under 1080P tends to look a little blurry for my tastes. Sure I could play on my other 70 inch or 60 inch TVs, but I enjoy the large screen and theater experience when I game.

The whole purpose of switching from last gen this gen is having games that do run at a native 1080p. There should be no excuse for it from any developer, for any game to be running under 1080p... unless it's pure laziness or they are holding one system back because the other cannot do it which is the case, in this case. The fact is, they probably could get the PlayStation 4 version to run at a native 1080 P, but because they can't do it on the Xbox one and don't want to cause friction between them and Microsoft, they are holding the PS4 version back. Which is the reason I will not buy the game, because they are specifically holding it back from being all it can be, because of political reasons and not because the system can't handle it.

Purposely gimping the PlayStation version because they cannot get the Xbox version up to spec, for one reason or the other.

theXtReMe11656d ago (Edited 1656d ago )

Killzone technical spec sheet:


This was before Sony announced 8 GB of DDR5 RAM in the system. All of what they were doing in the original demo was done in 3 GB worth the memory, using both raytracing and ray casting. Effects formally only used in high-end Pixar and Disney movies. Ray tracing basically allows for real-time global illumination to not only illuminate the world around it but also bounce off of those surfaces and illuminate objects around it. It is a very costly effect to do on any computer system, not to mention real time in a game environment.

It is really amazing what they are pulling off in Killzone. Don't think I'm taking anything away from Battlefield 4. It is a beautiful game, giving us a incredible visuals that are bound to amaze me. But, they aren't pulling off half of the effects in that game that they are in Killzone. Stuff that was generally only used in big-budget Hollywood movies we will be playing, when we play Killzone. In real time.

I think we are kind of talking about apples and oranges when we talk about these two games. Because they are each trying to do something different. Whereas Killzone is heavily focused on single player while adding some multiplayer features. Battlefield is more focused on multiplayer, while adding a single player storyline for those who want it.

The difference being that Killzone hasn't made any compromises to resolution to pull off what they are doing, whereas in Battlefield... they had to make compromises to do what they've done. Probably because Guerilla games had better access to Sony's hardware and software, but because again I think they focus more heavily on single player than they did multiplayer. Then, probably tone things down a little bit to pull the same effects off in multiplayer and keep the resolution at 1080p and 60fps. Not to mention, by EA's own words, they are purposely keeping resolution even across consoles so as not to step on the toes of each respective manufacturer. Which I find ridiculous. They should use all of each Systems strengths in the games they make and let the cards fall where they may. Because now, they are just penalizing people for buying one system over the other.

PFFT1661d ago

I think id rather stick to a game that is 720P with stable 60fps with no dips than a 1080P "SOMETIMES" 60fps game.

KwietStorm1661d ago

It actually sometimes dips below 60 frames, where it usually sits.

abusador1661d ago

Your statement is what happens when ppl know %hit about what thier talking about Lol Read the latest interview, the mp is locked at 60 fps but unlike most devs he's being honest in then sense that it might dip lower once in awhile if scene is too hectic. Every single game goes through this whether COD, Halo, BF, LBP, etc.... Lol stop being so lame lol

mxrider21991661d ago

the only dip possible is if everyone used all their explosives at once in the same spot....

Evilsnuggle1661d ago (Edited 1661d ago )

All games dip frame rate pc or console . Xoxo boys are running around with a misquote from a article. That came from the eurogame expo developed session. A reporter asked is killzone sf is in 1080p 60fsp. GG said yes only if 24 grenade go off at once it dips. A lot of time he was making a joke he is the link please stop it is lame.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1661d ago
KwietStorm1661d ago

Good thing I don't play Pixelfield or Pixelzone. I'm getting both. Oh, and Killzone doesn't have the destruction, weapon and attachments selection, player count, map size, and vehicles that Battlefield does.

mxrider21991661d ago

theres like 26 guns and like 10 attachments for each one if not more of both... and even with major gun count in bf everyone will chose the best most over powered guns anyways and use those over any others like everyone does with every shooter

givemeshelter1661d ago (Edited 1661d ago )

Killzone looks AMAZING! But it does not have the size of MAPS, or use of vehicles and especially the type of procedural destruction as BF4. KZ is not pushing the graphics engine as BF4. It simple is not. Someone sold you something. Add in almost full destruction. Vehicles and all those vehicles and you will wonder why its not running full [email protected]
And be ready for disappointment @theXtReMe1 as many games will be running sub [email protected] on both these console systems that try to push graphics to the highest and physics.
It's amazing how many on this site think 8G of ram is god and makes up for the systems other weaknesses. It's like they think RAM is an extra GPU running in Crossfire or something.
This site is so comical... I love it LOL

Sevir1660d ago

Give it a freaking Rest already, Killzone DOES have destruction, though not as large scale as battlefield. Killzones Map size may be smaller but it's STILL pushing higher poly counts.

Battlefield is an infantry shooter, It always has been, so vehicles separates it from Killzone and COD... It's not a Plus it's a game design choice that sets it apart from COD.

Titan Fall has mechs, does the fact that it does make it better than Battlefield or Killzone. Totally different gameplay mechanics..

As it stands Killzone pushes Destructible environments, Raytracing, tessellation, dynamic lighting, and 60fps at 1080p while at 24 players

Battlefield 4 on next gen consoles does 64 players, destructible environments, tessellation, dynamic lighting and raytracing, with vehicles at 720p and 60fps and much like Killzone Dice has confirmed that it'll drop if you're leveling an entire building.

You want to talk player count like it's anything big, Resistance 2 did 60 players and ran at 30fps at 720p on ps3... MAG did 256 players with limited destructive environments at 720p at 30fps... Battlefield isn't doing anything spectacular...

The game is crippled on current gen, limping along on next gen and shines on PC... Killzone SF pound for pound looks and plays better on PS4 agains all other "Next Gen" shooters battlefield and COD.

sorane1660d ago


"Killzones Map size may be smaller but it's STILL pushing higher poly counts."

Source please, because I don't believe you. Or did some "insider" from both companies tell you both poly count numbers?

"Killzone pushes Destructible environments"

I guess your definition of destructible environments is very very loose. I guess every game has it then, since you count a little broken glass here and there or a bit of splintered wood.

"Battlefield isn't doing anything spectacular."

Killzone is doing a lot less so what's that say.

"Killzone SF pound for pound looks and plays better"

I guess that's your own opinion, because mine is the exact opposite.

givemeshelter1660d ago (Edited 1660d ago )

All the destruction in Killzone is either set pieces and scripted like COD and other FPS games or your typical smaller objects. Broken glass, splintered doors and the occasional sand bags are not what you would call destruction. Play BFBC2 or Crysis 1 to see what destruction is. Killzone destruction is not procedural at all. And sorry to tell you that the inclusion of vehicles is very system tasking. Killzone does not have this so they can save those resources for other areas.
And you are trying to tell us having vehicles in a game that you have full control over is NOT a PLUS? Are you serious? Are you kidding me?
Ahhhh You were joking bet..................

As for player count. The games you mentioned have mediocre to poor graphics and almost little to no interaction with the environment. Both those titles have graphics and physics just slightly better then a Xbox1 FPS game.

When Killzone has the same size maps, same type of destruction, same amount of players, has the inclusion of different vehicles looking the way BF4 does, then you can say it's not doing anything spectacular. Currently there is NO other game doing this on any console or PC at that level of fidelity and execution then BF4.

As for Killzone having higher Polygon counts then BF4? Please provide proof to this. Links and or links to independent sources would be nice.

1661d ago
tordavis1660d ago

@theXtreeme1 plays games for graphics, not for fun.

koolaid2511660d ago

KillZone doesn't have 64 player maps with jets tanks helicopters boats and tons of other stuff going on in the world.

Gekko361660d ago

@theXtReMe1 - LOL, I have to sit on the fense and watch you tell a developer how they should do their jobs.

I recon you'd get halfway through the phrase "I think you'll find" and someone would be calling an ambulance for you.

Just remember some of this comes down to budget. If they have the budget, you're golden if not you're stuffed!. I can actually see why the DRM policy would be useful, to put money back to the developers so they can AFFORD to do what you are asking.

If you're going to put your hand in your pocket for it yourself, thats fine but i wouldn't start gum flapping if you're not.

The cheek of it really... Only on message forums like this do we see this level of arrogance

hankmoody1660d ago

I honestly can't understand why you would even compare the two. Battlefield 4 has WAY more going on in the game than KZ4, which requires a lot more processing.

+ Show (8) more repliesLast reply 1656d ago
Aussie_Spectre1661d ago

I think it's the EB Expo, not the EG Expo

Show all comments (49)
The story is too old to be commented.