Gaming News | Gaming Opinion | Playstation 4 | Xbox One | PS Vita | Film | Media

Battlefield 4 Review

This review is taken from the PS4 version. Battlefield 4 has had a really rough ride since release. Hampered by bugs, rushed servers-the game has taken a real battering. Is it worth your money?

Battlefield 4 is a love-hate game. There is plenty to admire and plenty to dislike. The multiplayer in this game (when working) is fantastic. The game should be applauded for being on all systems yet compared to Battlefield 3, there is no difference in the PS3/360 versions. Games like Battlefield 4 do much to make me feel like I am in a real scenario being suppressed by bullet spray. And it also makes me angry for pointless single-player.

Lets begin there and the single player in Battlefield is pretty much redundant anyway. The campaign here is better than the one in the third campaign. I enjoyed the mission variety as well as having missions scored as they were in Black Ops 2. But the story is rather poor. Its a decent globe-trotting adventure with the best mission by far being the second one in China. Yet, there is no characterisation. Your character is mute all the time. He is supposed to be the leader of the squad yet does not speak at all not even in mini-cutscenes.

Why is this in games? Why bother having a main character that is mute? Unless of course it is Gordon Freeman who was of course badass. But in a military shooter-could have done with at the very least barking orders to his squad. It will take roughly 5-10 hours to complete and is easier than Battlefield 3. Yet if I were you and if you were looking for a decent single-player shooter, you are most definitely better served elsewhere.

Moving onto the multiplayer now and 64 player matches is at last on consoles. Now I have to go on record here and say that my experience with Battlefield 4 has not been hampered by the many bugs that have been plaguing others. The only bug I have experienced came with my single player save in which I had to start the game again.

Maps are well designed, shooting has been improved slightly. No longer will recoil be harsh on your weapons. The destruction elements are improved from Battlefield 3. But, Battlefield 4 despite its many improvements is no better than Battlefield 3. In fact its worse in every department.

Battlefield 3 (excluding single player) had a superb co-op mode and deep multiplayer. The co-op missions were really good and some required intricate teamwork. No co-op in Battlefield 4. The multiplayer-while only limited to 32 players on console had a superb range of maps that were very well designed and felt ahead of its time. Battlfield 4 even with 64 players has very little differences in quality.

Battlefield 4 feels like a reskin and a compressed version of Battlefield 3. The lack of co-op is annoying as I enjoyed the missions in the third game. The expansion-China Rising is poor in comparison to the excellent Back To Karkand maps on Battlefield 3. Better graphics does not make a better game. I applaud the fact that this now has 64 player matches but to be honest-it never ever feels that way. You could go back and play Battlefield 3, play rush on a big map and still see the same amount of action.

I was really hyped for Battlefield 4. It is so far disappointing. We do have the expansions to come so that could help change the ways in which the game is played. But for me, Battlefield 3 had so much content and effort put into the game. Yes, it had a rubbish single player but everything else about the game sung. Even the graphics on consoles while poor mostly stood tall at the time. This alongside Call Of Duty really needs to rethink its strategy. However, its all about the $$ so the games as long as they perform will not get drastic changes any time soon.

What is Good?

+Solid multiplayer-on par with Killzone on the PS4.

+Having scores in single player missions makes the campaign somewhat more lively.

+Graphically stunning-cannot fault that whatsoever.

What Is Bad?

-64 players does not feel any more large scale. Previous gen games handled 60 or more players better than this.

-Lame single player story. Extremely generic and bland.

-No co-op.

-Has the essence of being a re-skinned Battlefield 3.

-Is worse than Battlefield 3.

Not much has changed in Battlefield 4 from the third even with the console improvements. I think the game was rooted in PS3/360 development and then upgraded slightly for the newer console versions. Yes it has beautiful graphics and yes its multiplayer is great-mostly. But, it is so similar to the third game with less content. I would recommend Battlefield 3 over this any day of the week. Battlefield 3 on ultra-high settings on a good PC will not look too different to Battlefield 4. Its a beautiful game with much style but no substance and little originality.

Verdict: The fact that the sequel feels like a re-skin disappoints on so many levels. It is poor practice in gaming and I dislike the fact that this happens with mainly shooters. The Assassin Creed series manages to do a release every year and still be really high on quality being original each time. Yet, for all of my criticism of Battlefield 4, the multiplayer is the only redeeming feature of this game. It is as good as Battlefield 3 and will probably get better. That is the reason I bought it and that is the reason you did too. I am being very generous with a 6.5/10.


Leave a Comment