MULTI "Next-Gen" Launch FPS showdown: Battlefield 4 wins

[Journeys End]

And neither does killer visuals. Damn BF4, I was actually hyped up for it - for destructible environments and changing strategy.

killer visuals and destructible environments worked for BF3 pretty good. BF4 is like BF3 2.0. u should have been part of that party

 

[JKhan]

This "Next-Gen" ship sank before it even launched. So many people upgrading their PCs

Its like a freakin' Christmas before it even arrived :lol:

 

[Necrokiller]

Feel free to post reviews, comparisons, and/or share your views on any of the 3 games in this thread.

On PC, the first next-gen Battlefield game is Battlefield 3 (not BF4) - miles ahead of the console versions in terms of tech and gameplay. Its only with BF4 that the new consoles have finally caught up. It'll be logical to use console version Metascores for all three games for your showdown (it will prolly fall near the current Meta but it keeps things consistent).

 

[CerebralTiger]

It'll be logical to use console version Metascores for all three games for your showdown.

And why would that be logical? Like you just said, the new consoles offer the same gameplay experience that PC does. It's not like I'm using Metascores from the X360/PS3 versions of these games.

 

[Necrokiller]

And why would that be logical? Like you just said, the new consoles offer the same experience that PC does.

Your title says Next-gen launch, which is supposed to be the launch of the new consoles, isn't it? BF4 is the first game on consoles to support next-gen visuals, 60fps and 64 player MP. Thats not the case with PC. Naturally, its not that big of a step up for PC as it is for the consoles. But if you don't agree then you can keep it your way.

It's not like I'm using Metascores from the X360/PS3 versions of these games.

Those are completely irrelevant either way, since its a next-gen launch showdown.

 

[CerebralTiger]

Your title says Next-gen launch, which is supposed to be the launch of the new consoles, isn't it? BF4 is the first game on consoles to support next-gen visuals, 60fps and 64 player MP. Thats not the case with PC. Naturally, its not that big of a step up for PC as it is for the consoles.

BF4 isn't a big leap over BF3 on the PC, but that's understandable since the PC is already 'next-gen'. And even though it isn't really associated with the launch of the new consoles, the PC versions of these games are offering the same gameplay experience. Therefore, I see no harm in including them in the comparison.

The PS4 version of COD: Ghosts turned out the one with the highest review count, anyway. It's just the PC version of BF4 that is being considered.

 

[Necrokiller]

And even though it isn't really associated with the launch of the new consoles, the PC versions of these games are offering the same gameplay experience.

If we rearrange that sentence:

And even though the PC versions of these games are offering the same gameplay experience, it isn't really associated with the launch of the new consoles.

And thats precisely what the thread is about, the launch FPS on next-gen platforms.

and it’s a marvel to finally have the fully realized Battlefield experience on a console: 64 players running at a smooth 60 frames per second.

Battlefield 4 Review Text | GameTrailers

It's everything you may have missed from the previous game, and on PS4 we finally get a console port that doesn't feel like a string of compromises.

Battlefield 4 Anmeldelse - Gamereactor Danmark

With the move to 64-player lobbies, Battlefield on consoles finally matches the PC experience in terms of scale.

For PC players, it will mostly be business as usual, but for console players weaned on smaller lobbies, lower frame-rates and truncated maps, it's a huge leap forwards

Battlefield 4 review • Reviews • PlayStation 4 • Eurogamer.net

Statements like these make the PS4 (or the Xbone) reviews more accurate in this scenario. But hey, your thread your rules. Lets keep it this way I guess.

 

[CerebralTiger]

Statements like these make the PS4 (or the Xbone) reviews more accurate in this scenario.

Do these statements translate into greater leniency towards the score given to the PS4 (or Xbone) version in comparison to the PC version from the same source? If yes, then you have a valid reason to complain about. If not, then these statements are just statements that hold no quantifiable value.

 

[JKhan]

^ Dude we aren't discussing SPSS over here. Kindly keep statistics out of the discussion will you ?

 

[Nomad]

[MENTION=218]CerebralTiger[/MENTION]
The scores for all games should be from the same platform for fair comparison. Reviewers rate games according to the platform. When they praise graphics of a game on PS3, they are comparing it to graphics of other games on PS3 and don't take graphics of PC games into consideration. The game might get high score due to that on PS3 but reviewers reviewing the game on PC might deduct score due to graphics being lesser than other PC games.

I know there might not be any difference in scores from same publication/website. But there are many reviewers who talk exclusively about one specific platform. And amongst them Playstation or Xbox exclusive reviewers are likely to rate games on their platform a bit higher than PC specific reviewers. Playstation Official Magazine might rate a game highly because it's the best FPS on the platform while PC Gamers might score it lower as it doesn't do anything new compared to games already available on PC.

However, if you feel that Killzone Shadowfall is going to need 02 point advantage to be able to compete favorably against Battlefield 4 then sure, do whatever you feel is necessary

 

[CerebralTiger]

The scores for all games should be from the same platform for fair comparison. Reviewers rate games according to the platform. When they praise graphics of a game on PS3, they are comparing it to graphics of other games on PS3 and don't take graphics of PC games into consideration. The game might get high score due to that on PS3 but reviewers reviewing the game on PC might deduct score due to graphics being lesser than other PC games.

lol you see, I'm working on a logic here, which is that the version which gets the highest number of reviews gets considered. That could be either of the PC, PS4, or XB1 versions. For example, Call of Duty: Ghosts received the highest number of reviews on PS4, therefore that's the version being considered. I'm not specifically comparing the scores for the PC version with that of a PS4 exclusive.

I know there might not be any difference in scores from same publication/website. But there are many reviewers who talk exclusively about one specific platform. And amongst them Playstation or Xbox exclusive reviewers are likely to rate games on their platform a bit higher than PC specific reviewers. Playstation Official Magazine might rate a game highly because it's the best FPS on the platform while PC Gamers might score it lower as it doesn't do anything new compared to games already available on PC.

I understand your point, but the same applies to the PC as well. Battlefield 4, say, might get rated higher on PC Gamer because it may or may not be the best FPS on the platform. So, I think these things balance each other out.

Still, if you guys insist, I'll put up the scores for all 3 versions in the OP and leave the verdict for everyone to determine on their own individual terms.

 

[Nomad]

I understand your point, but the same applies to the PC as well. Battlefield 4, say, might get rated higher on PC Gamer because it may or may not be the best FPS on the platform. So, I think these things balance each other out.

I think the chances of a game being the best FPS on PS4 are a lot higher when there are only 3 FPS games on the platform compared to PC where a game has to compete with almost ALL noteworthy FPS games released in past two decades. Being better than Call of Duty Ghosts is a lot easier than being better than Half Life 2 and Bioshock Infinite :wink2:

 

[CerebralTiger]

Being better than Call of Duty Ghosts is a lot easier than being better than Half Life 2 and Bioshock Infinite :wink2:

But then, won't critics assume that someone who already owns a PS4 should already have access to a PS3, and hence the games you've mentioned?

If these games are scored on the basis of being the only 3 (non-F2P) shooters available for the PS4, then they should be getting much higher scores than the ones they're getting, don't you think? :wink2:

 

[Nomad]

But then, won't critics assume that someone who already owns a PS4 should already have access to a PS3, and hence the games you've mentioned?

It's really sad if you believe that PS3 is the ultimate platform to play the games I mentioned

If these games are scored on the basis of being the only 3 (non-F2P) shooters available for the PS4, then they should be getting much higher scores than the ones they're getting, don't you think? :wink2:

People do have certain expectations and judge things accordingly. These games are not getting good scores because they aren't that great and haven't probably met the expectations of people. It's only when something extraordinarily good appears that people realize that it has exceeded their expectations and that becomes the benchmark against which future products are judged. That benchmark product has not yet appeared on PS4. But something not meeting even the initial expectations will still get rated lower even in absence of such benchmarks.

But you know all these things, so why continue with this? Are you worried that Killzone might share the same fate as COD Ghosts?

 

[faraany3k]

@CerebralTiger
The scores for all games should be from the same platform for fair comparison. Reviewers rate games according to the platform. When they praise graphics of a game on PS3, they are comparing it to graphics of other games on PS3 and don't take graphics of PC games into consideration. The game might get high score due to that on PS3 but reviewers reviewing the game on PC might deduct score due to graphics being lesser than other PC games.

I know there might not be any difference in scores from same publication/website. But there are many reviewers who talk exclusively about one specific platform. And amongst them Playstation or Xbox exclusive reviewers are likely to rate games on their platform a bit higher than PC specific reviewers. Playstation Official Magazine might rate a game highly because it's the best FPS on the platform while PC Gamers might score it lower as it doesn't do anything new compared to games already available on PC.

However, if you feel that Killzone Shadowfall is going to need 02 point advantage to be able to compete favorably against Battlefield 4 then sure, do whatever you feel is necessary

This is exactly what I wanted to post the moment I saw mix meta critic ratings

 

[Necrokiller]

Do these statements translate into greater leniency towards the score given to the PS4 (or Xbone) version in comparison to the PC version from the same source? If yes, then you have a valid reason to complain about. If not, then these statements are just statements that hold no quantifiable value.

Leniency or strictness is not the point here. How do you know what statements in a review hold more quantifiable value than others?

Everything that is said in the review is translated into the score at the end, isn't it? Kind of the idea behind a numerical score, right? Its pointless to state otherwise.

The version with the highest review count generally works but this comparison is about launch games on a new generation of consoles (not PC).

 

[CerebralTiger]

Leniency or strictness is not the point here. How do you know what statements in a review hold more quantifiable value than others?

Inference - such statements result in no difference between the review scores, hence there is no quantifiable value.

Anyways, I'd better stop using statistical terms before @JKhan blows a fuse

This is exactly what I wanted to post the moment I saw mix meta critic ratings

Ain't you the wise one!

It's really sad if you believe that PS3 is the ultimate platform to play the games I mentioned

It's really not about me. The games you mentioned are available on the PS3, aren't they?

People do have certain expectations and judge things accordingly. These games are not getting good scores because they aren't that great and haven't probably met the expectations of people. It's only when something extraordinarily good appears that people realize that it has exceeded their expectations and that becomes the benchmark against which future products are judged. That benchmark product has not yet appeared on PS4. But something not meeting even the initial expectations will still get rated lower even in absence of such benchmarks.

The PS4 doesn't necessarily need a benchmark as basis for other games to be judged. There's a standard in the industry for every genre, and that's what critics use to determine where a particular game stands. Whether a game is great, good, average, or poor is not really dependent on the library of games available for its platform.

But you know all these things, so why continue with this? Are you worried that Killzone might share the same fate as COD Ghosts?

You really expected COD: Ghosts to end up with these scores? I honestly didn't.

 

[Necrokiller]

Inference - such statements result in no difference between the review scores, hence there is no quantifiable value.

You don't have a way of proving it though. Every reviewer has different standards to rate the games. But I'm working under the assumption that it matters so its stated in the review otherwise it wouldn't be.

Either way, I'm done here. If you ask others to voice their opinions in the OP then try to entertain them as such, rather than saying that they're complaining - esp since I've already said its your thread you can make whatever rules you want.

 

[CerebralTiger]

You don't have a way of proving it though. Every reviewer has different standards to rate the games. But I'm working under the assumption that it matters so its stated in the review otherwise it wouldn't be.

I just proved it. The scores are no different from the PC version. BF4 on PS4 is a generational leap over BF3/4 for PS3 (according to reviews), and that translates into review scores between the two versions. The statement matters, but only to distinguish between the PS3 and PS4 versions; to tell people that the new console version is on-par with the PC version.

Either way, I'm done here. If you ask others to voice their opinions in the OP then try to entertain them as such, rather than saying that they're complaining - esp since I've already said its your thread you can make whatever rules you want.

I asked people to share their views on the games, not on the methodology used for this comparison. Interestingly, the only people voicing their opinion in this regard are PC gamers. Not sure what to make of this inference. Not that I mind, either way. It's all in the interest of fairness.

 

[Shyber]

You're dissing a game which was never known for its lame SP, but the strong MP experience it offered. If you want story in an FPS, play Bioshock Infinite & Metro Last Light.

I'm dissing the lack of generational leap, be it in SP or MP.

- - - Updated - - -

killer visuals and destructible environments worked for BF3 pretty good. BF4 is like BF3 2.0. u should have been part of that party

I tried when it launched, got it legit.
It was fun for a while but got boring real quick. Lotsa servers with runway camping, put me really off.