Battlefield 4 Review: Multiplayer At Its Finest

Since we first started riding on the wings of fighter planes in 1942, the Battlefield franchise has been front and center in the online shooter genre. From the Road to Rome and the Ho Chi Minh Trail, to the streets of Karkand and the Titan-filled skies above Minsk, Battlefield has always been the home for those who crave vehicle combat, big team play, and a combat/team dynamic not found in other FPS titles.

With a firm foothold in the online shooter space, Electronic Arts and DICE have invested heavily to bring the single-player component of Battlefield to the fore. Starting with the Battlefield: Bad Company subset in 2008, some sort of solo campaign has accompanied the regular multiplayer experience ever since. These campaigns have consistently been less than perfect, but playing Battlefield games for the single-player campaign is, as the cliché line goes, like buying Playboy “to read the articles.”

Despite playing second fiddle, the single-player component of Battlefield has improved, if only slightly, from game to game, even if the campaign is a sheep in Call of Duty’s clothing (not that I love the CoD campaigns, either, but we must give credit where it’s due). Does Battlefield 4 continue this trend? How does the six-hour campaign compliment the multiplayer experience that we’re all here for, if it compliments it at all?

Game: Battlefield 4
Platforms: PC (Reviewed), Playstation 4 (Reviewed), Playstation 3, Xbox One, Xbox 360
Developer: DICE
Publisher: Electronic Arts
Released: October 29th, 2013
MSRP: $59.99

Single-player Review

The nicest thing I can say about the campaign in Battlefield 4 is that it’s better than the campaign in Battlefield 3. The single-player experience in BF4 manages to check the “better than the last” box, but just barely, as a promising plot, initially solid cast, and interesting set pieces are quickly wasted on awkward dialogue and confrontation, a phoned-in villain, and a lackluster conclusion.

The Fishing in Baku video that made the rounds earlier this year is where BF4’s single-player campaign kicks off. Baku is the first of six missions that put China center stage, with the campaign’s premise built upon political strife. The assassination of a Chinese politician, a progressive who wants to take China further from its Communist roots, sparks a civil war in the country. General Chang plays the villainous Iron Man of China attempting to take over the torn region, while you play as Recker, one of Tombstone Squad’s four members. Pac, Dunn and the instantly-recognizable Irish (played by Michael K. Williams of “The Wire” and “Boardwalk Empire”) round out the squad. Tombstone calls the U.S.S. Valkryie home, and the carrier plays an integral role throughout the campaign. Other characters such as Garrison (the Valkryie’s skipper) and Hannah (a Chinese agent looking to end the pending global conflict) compliment the initial Tombstone quartet.

Tombstone serves as the linchpin in a burgeoning conflict between the world’s two greatest superpowers, as the squad is constantly found in the brewing war’s greatest battles. It’s a tired device, isn’t it? The only unit in the history of the world that’s been involved in back-to-back-to-back-to-infinity conflicts is the Hollywood-whitewashed Easy Company, circa World War II. Despite the aging foundation, Tombstone does offer up a few interesting moments, like firefights on the South China Sea, and prison breaks deep in the Kunlun Mountains. Being on board a carrier that’s being ripped apart by missiles and the rough seas makes for some inspiring visuals, too, even if the device that leads us to those visuals is a bit long in the tooth.

Join the Conversation   

* required field

By submitting a comment here you grant GameFront a perpetual license to reproduce your words and name/web site in attribution. Inappropriate or irrelevant comments will be removed at an admin's discretion.

3 Comments on Battlefield 4 Review: Multiplayer At Its Finest


On October 28, 2013 at 10:28 pm

Nice review. It would be nice if we could choose to just install the multiplayer component, rather than waste HD space on a portion that most of us will never use. I have never played a single Battlefield single player campaign, and I never plan to. That’s not why I play the game.

Also, while making boats and water combat actually viable again is nice, but I really miss the days of 1942, controlling the guns on massive destroyers, or the entire ship all together. Or moving an aircraft carrier around. That kind of thing would be nice to have come back, rather than the smaller scale boats.

I eventually will purchase this, but I’m too busy with a pile of other games I haven’t touched yet, and won’t touch if I have access to BF4 right now (such as Wonderful101, Batman Arkham Origins, Pokemon X, and the ever time consuming DayZ Origins)


On October 30, 2013 at 12:59 pm

Yeah i t is a disappointment!
My reasoning .
Single player
So scripted and generic it’s kind of not fumy any more, It feels like a chore to complete it is full of just rubbish ideas that are recycled over and over and over again but it does it so badly it make Waarfighter feel good.

well its battlefield 3.5 BC2 is so much better than this game could ever be.
No rush. they will probably try to sell it to us later on . most likely as a request fan feature or back by popular demand.
it’s just tired game play that has been well a lacklustre BF3 experience.
It really feels like call of duty now but a rather bad version that tries to be something bigger than style of game it tries to portray.
The Maps are bad real bad with little or no depth on originality just re used or probably re named maps.
The destructibility is better but worse as it’s mostly scripted points that can be destroyed and doesn’t quite feel like destructibility (again aka BC2)
The scope of the game feels better than battlefield 3 but it’s quickly ruined by the misinterpretation that it is a new game when really it isn’t.


On October 30, 2013 at 1:02 pm

As for battlelog being intuitive tell him he’s dreaming.