So found this while browsing the world wide interwebzs. What do you think?

Singleplayer:
• Admitted that the BF3 story could have been more.
• Campaign will be more character driven and emotional. Confidence in their skills in building multiplayer led them to spend more time into creating a good singleplayer story.
• NPCs will be more human. Right down to the smallest and simplest details of just watching you walk around etc.
• Cutscenes are acted out in a soundstage like in movies

Specs:
• Oculus Rift support is not planned, but is possible in the future
• PC specs are similar to the specs of BF3. No official specs list has been released.

Multiplayer:
• Battlelog returns on PC and will integrated into the console games
• Commander Mode runs in-game and tablet, however the in-game versions will have extra features such as live video feeds etc.
• Maps can't be totally leveled, however, destruction is going to be more dramatic than BF3's and will be similar to BC2's destruction.
• They are considering bringing back the ability to destroy MCOMs by having structures and buildings fall on them, like BC2
• You can cut the power in the indoor parts of the maps and use the darkness and non functional elevators to your advantage
• Seize of Shanghai, the map shown at the E3 Demo, is a medium size map.
• The spokesman said that "You won't be disappointed by the number of maps in the game" and that new game modes will shown very soon.
• He also stated that Operation Metro is the most popular map in BF3, thus indirectly confirming that it'll return in the Second Assault DLC.

http://bf4talk.com/threads/july-16th-bf4-demo-info.497/

Just show me more prettiness! That skyscraper collapsing was amazing

In all seriousness, I am only interested in this as a tech demo for my computer

They shouldn't try to do a Call of Duty like story, they can't directly compete with CoD because BF is different. Instead, they should focus on making great battles in single-player and have it accompanied by a believable story. Over-the-top just doesn't fit Battlefield and it doesn't give it an edge over the competition.

de destruction in BF 3 was more then dissapointing.....

I disagree. Bad Companies had the best stories in Battlefield.

That said, they shouldn't take themselves too seriously. Almost every FPS that takes itself really seriously ends up with its story seeming ridiculous (Killzone 3, Halo 3, etc.) They can't deliver something like Half-Life 2 with what they're trying to do. I say screw story. Just make the missions exciting.

Eww I hope they don't put MCOM stations in destructible buildings. That just ruins the point of rush because people don't even bother planting the bomb. They just shoot RPG's from a distance at the building...

After BF3, I'm very, very hesitant about this one.

That's because Bad Companies were much less Battlefield then any other Battlefield games. They were a whole lot different. Anyway, by over-the-top I meant something that's still aiming to seem somewhat realistic, like CoD. Bad Company isn't like that, it's much more over-the-top and light-hearted.

What made Bad Companies less Battlefield than any other Battlefied games?

Don't you think they were different - significantly?