sure does look good. I didn't like most of the gameplay in BF3 SP though... maybe i should write a full review here. 

like a pretty girl. What sort of engine tech is going on there? 

engine is frostbite 2 

The same engine as battlefield 3?? Surely they've added some features... lighting in particular looks really impressive. 

yeah, I'm sure it's been evolved somewhat. Plus if you get more experienced with the same tech you can do better work with it. 

http://t.co/MX4V74eOmP 

heh, i was about to come back here and say that wikipedia says it's actually frostbite 3 :) 

This made me giggle a little.
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/03/27/battlefield-4-prattle-feed-all-the-new-news/ 

It's impossible to think anything other than: it's a multiplayer game! Why aren't you showing us that? What is this for?

When metlslime said BF4 has a SP campaign I laughed, no one really cares because it will just play like CoD, but with different graphics. The BF franchise has always been about the MP experience, EA certainly like to shoot themselves in the foot ... "Press E to proceed and cut leg off" 

that looks awesome, epic cinematic sequences.

so is it just bf 3 and 4 that have proper single player? i think i tried to play one of the original ones, bf1 maybe and the sp was shit. just felt like a bot game. 

BF4 looks indeed awesome: I am just wondering whether SP campaign will really be good or not... and I definitively need a new computer :P 

has always been a bit of a joke. I don't know why DICE keep on doing it, it must take so many resources to get the game to look that good and it's all wasted on a single player campaign that no one really cares about. It's battlefield for fucks sake!

BF3 sp was utterly beautiful, and utterly shit. More scripted and on rails than call of duty (if thats actually possible).

At least from what I can tell from that footage there is at least some choice put into bf4 as you can order your squad to suppress the enemy while you flank around. Or tell the helicopter to attack etc.

But really, if they put all this crazy effort they are using for single player into making the multiplayer better then they could probably create something fantastic. Why can't I hold onto the side of buildings while a helicopter explodes below me in MP? Wouldn't experiences like that be worth 1000x more in a multiplayer environment where its totally unscripted? 

Also has a decent single player campaign. 

Only Battlefield game I ever played was 2.
I bought it on Steam for 2 bucks but they gave me an invalid serial number making online play impossible ...
I also found out EA customer support is just as nonexistant as people told me -- classic case of the circular blame-it-on-the-next-guy. Maybe it's better now, at least I hope so.
I only liked the smaller maps anyway. Too much walking around 90% of the time and getting sniped from 10 miles away 10% of the time on the larger maps :'(

Actually I played the first one with some friends back in 2004 or so. But it's so slow. Most of the time spent moving around rather than fighting. I was into UT2004 Onslaught at the time, which is like a night and day difference in those regards.

Guess I prefer MP to be as chaotic and spammy as possible for whatever reason. I'm not even sure If I actually like FPS games as a genre, playing Quake with a good chasecam mod feels just as good to me. To me it's more about hurdling projectiles at each-other and dodging stuff. That's very different from pop and stop kind of games like Counterstrike. So I'm not even sure if the first person perspective is the defining factor here. The ability to dodge weapon fire makes a huge difference. It seems more as if FPS and 3PS should be split into 'projectile shooter' and 'hitscan shooter' or something among those lines. I kind of like to think of it as Romero-fps and post-Romero-fps in historical terms. Altough that might be giving a little too much credit :P

Not that this post should be yet another one of those 'the good old days' kind of things, but I feel like that difference is very fundamental and not recognized enough in mainstream reviews. 

Looks very pretty outside. Destructible stuff looks cool.

Gameplay looked boring and skipped through most of it.

No sale. 

I'm a few hours into Bioshock: Infinite, and have been creaming my pants to an infinite degree. I think... it's my favourite game..? Ever?

Weapons: yes. Powers, yes. Setting, yes. Artwork, yes. Soundtrack, yes. Yes. 

How to make Spirit quit a game and delete it after 5 minutes:

* Constantly change camera angles (skipping the axis)
* Have one cutscene animation after each fight
* Have one cutscene animation after for health refresh
* Change camera when the player does some special action (anything that is not just walking)
* Make all those camera changes not ignore/reset the mouse camera control
* Randomly change the angle after aforementioned animations and have the player run into a wall 

Yes.

It is the business. 

http://youtu.be/dO2rM-l-vdQ 

awesome. design and art looks incredible, but I suppose it doesn't really show much from the engine, apart from size and detail. 

but I suppose it doesn't really show much from the engine

I dunno, it looks like it's prerendered. No jaggies in sight, great reflections. Motionblur is very convincing. UE4 has an amazing realtime lighting system (voxel cone tracing). 

gaaaaammmmeeeepplllaaayyyy.

(seriously tho, if anyone has evidence that the "next generation" of tentpole action games aren't just going to be even shorter, even dumber versions of what we have now, I'm all ears...) 

Close-up quick time events where you see sweat running down the named protagonist's face, blood on his bulky armor and slow motion death cameras that rotate closely around models. 

We can't sell engines based on gameplay videos. How would that work? Here's an innovative and amazing game idea! It ... comes with the engine?

:) 

That said, here's a video showing what you can do with the new Kismet system in UE4:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=IReehyN6iCc