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 

Damn nice looking movie engine there, too bad Unreal Engine won't be used to make games anymore.

:P 

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?

Completely disagree. As a designer, I want to see what possibilities the new technology provides for player interaction with the world.

I want to see what sort of awesome physics is possible. I want to see new possibilities for dynamic environments and procedurally generated content, to name just a couple of things.

All that demo showed me is improvements in real-time rendering in a cinematic sequence.

That kismet system looked wicked cool tho, for non-programmers to make some game logic I guess. 

Gameplay does not sell games, visuals and brand names sells games. People love pretty screenshots, full cinematic cut scenes. Obviously there are exceptions like retro/pixel art but they have to still look good (yes there is bad pixel art).

If you make a game which does not have the latest bling or a tried and tested brand name then it will be a huge mountain to climb to get anyone interested. People love shiny stuff! 

"All that demo showed me is improvements in real-time rendering in a cinematic sequence."

Right, and that's what we're offering you. The potential for top end visuals with a great tools pipeline and a fantastic scripting system in the Kismet/Blueprint features.

The gameplay is up to you. 

Spiney said it really. Lighting looks spectacular and everything looks super smooth, no jaggies, no sharp stencil shadows. Looks completely pre-rendered. It's achieving that weird x-factor where I can't work out how it's being rendered. Uncanny valley here we come! There are exciting times afoot with the next-gen consoles round the corner methinks. 

yes it does. The game industry just lost all the customers that actually cared for it years ago? 

His point is more that sex sells. You can't attract customers with gameplay. You can, however, attract them with great graphics. Then once you have their attention, you can show them your gameplay. 

it totally doesn't work for me that way. I never would watch graphics-/cinematic-only trailers if i wouldn't actually be doing CG for a living.

Gameplay videos actually attract my attention. If there's something E3-like, I watch gameplay videos, as well as the top 5% of the graphics only stuff (but i would never buy those) 

it totally doesn't work for me that way. I never would watch graphics-/cinematic-only trailers if i wouldn't actually be doing CG for a living.

They would for me if they weren't filled to the brink with Hollywood cliches presented as pubescent power fantasies... 

Besides what has been already said is how fulfilling and rewarding succeeding feels in this game. After finally getting past area XYZ or killing boss ABC, its not like "oh well, okay" like I feel in most other games, it's more like "HOLY FUCKING SHIT YEAH BITCH" and literally almost jumping from joy. 

As long as it works for enough other people who care more about eye candy than they do about the graphics. Come on, this is obvious. Also, I think Willem was saying that they're trying to sell their engine more than they're trying to sell their games. 

Graphics are important. People chase the next big thing in computer graphics. If you are making a game, then regardless of what you want the gameplay to be like, you want the graphics the be good. You also want the tools to be good. So this video shows that both the graphics and tools for the engine are awesome. Seems like a win-win to me.