Battlefield 2018

[phil bottle 9,903]

So the rumour is that it's going to be Bad Company 3. A return to Vietnam. BC2 was epic, hope they dont fuck it up. DICE have lost their way a bit wutj some ghings.

 

The leak comes from the same guy who predicted WW1 for the last game, which gives it a little credence.

 

Battlefield 1 was a bit too casual for me and I only really liked a couple of the weapons. Battlefield 4 is where most folks have gone back to, at least on PC. It'sa very good game since they sorted the net code.

[J4MES OX4D 10,130]

It was always going to be Battlefield 5 or Bad Company 3. I stopped playing BF1 after a few weeks and never felt motivated to return especially as the new content would cost me an extra £40. It wasn't a bad game by all means but coming in from a completed Battlefield 4; it felt pretty bare and a step back. It was WW1 but it felt like they still wanted to cling on modern elements which made the game feel too similar to other Battlefield games and even Battlefront thanks to the rather one-dimensional feel of the Frostbite engine. 

 

With EA being the dicks that they are and DICE being stretched across many games; I'm not sure how their next iteration will fare. Bad Company 3 could be too late in the day for that part of the series and it still may end up feeling like a spin-off. Could be a good opportunity for them to do something new(ish) though without having to resort to Battlefield 5 yet but with nearly 8 years from BC2 and many personnel who made that game long gone; it could be just an addition to the franchise in name only. 

 

 

[techno 3,519]

BF4 was/is one of the best fps games I've played absolutely loved that game. Bf1 though ok for a short while just got boring though operations was a good addition imo.

Hoping for a return to form with the next game.

[GazzaGarratt 11,136]

I was too late to the BF4 party so missed it. I actually kind of liked BF1 but it lacked some emotional attachment to the game unfortunately.

I'm open to Bad Company as I've never played one, however hearing Dice be mentioned doesn't sound promising as their games of late haven't been great imo.

[J4MES OX4D 10,130]

I've just starting playing Bad Company 2 again and I forgot how incredible this game was and still is. It had a tough time back in the day coming out when MW2 was thriving but BC2 was amazing for its time with stunning environments and sounds . Visually, it still holds up today easily and although the story was pretty woeful and cutscenes hijacked the gameplay a bit too much; it's still the best BF game for me and one of the best shooters of all time.

 

Still looks incredible for a game from 2010! We don't get FPS games like this no more really. 

[MrBiron 1,471]

Apparently it's not going to be BC3 and instead is going to be a WW2 game. Meh! 

[phil bottle 9,903]

Apparently it's not going to be BC3 and instead is going to be a WW2 game. Meh! 

Source? [emoji16]

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

[MrBiron 1,471]

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2017-12-15-no-2018s-battlefield-game-isnt-bad-company-3

 

[J4MES OX4D 10,130]

Looks like it's going to be Battlefield V set in WWII

How original. I haven't played a WW2 themed game for many weeks..

[phil bottle 9,903]

Yeah, I think I'll be going back to BF4, I recently reinstalled it on PC.

[tronic44 3,642]

I can say, hand on heart, that I’ve no idea how this one is going to turn out 

 

I’ll be gutted if they go to WW2, although the campaign might be quite good....not as good as the last one though 

 

Im guessing they’ll include zombies also?

[GazzaGarratt 11,136]

Hang on, I'm confused. I thought most CoD veterans wanted to go back to boots on ground and old World War games. Is this seen as a bad thing? Most people were hating the futuristic look of FPS games of late so I can't work out what people want?

 

From a business view I think it's the best thing they can do as old WW games are having a renaissance since the many years of futuristic gameplay.

[phil bottle 9,903]

3 minutes ago, GazzaGarratt said:

Hang on, I'm confused. I thought most CoD veterans wanted to go back to boots on ground and old World War games. Is this seen as a bad thing? Most people were hating the futuristic look of FPS games of late so I can't work out what people want?

 

From a business view I think it's the best thing they can do as old WW games are having a renaissance since the many years of futuristic gameplay.

The Battlefield franchise is another kettle of fish entirely.

 

Really wanted another Bad Company. I'd also have preferred a futuristic one over WW2. 

[J4MES OX4D 10,130]

The problem with a WW2 version of Battlefield is that BF1 felt like a WW2 game anyway albeit being set in WW1. A combination of fluid mechanics from the Frostbite engine along with very arcadey gunplay could see a WW2 variant feel exactly the same as that. I would've expected it to be called Battlefield 2 for brand consistency and if it was to be BF5; it would be assumed to be a modern day BF3/4 style game or something even futuristic which would be no different to Battlefront 2 anyway. Even when playing BF1 I could see recycled assets from the original Battlefiront game despite the huge timeline and fantasy disparity between the two games. 

 

I bet the first complaint from the Battlefield community with BF5 would be 'it feels like BF1 DLC' or something to that tune. I would've taken Bad Company 3, modern Battlefield 5 or even a sequel to Battlefield 2142 than another WW2 game. 

[techno 3,519]

Bf1 was such a disappointment after bf4 that I was hoping for a more modern battlefield game, from Vietnam war onwards.  However if it generates enough content and more importantly it plays well then the setting may not be as important.

[tronic44 3,642]

19 hours ago, GazzaGarratt said:

Hang on, I'm confused. I thought most CoD veterans wanted to go back to boots on ground and old World War games. Is this seen as a bad thing? Most people were hating the futuristic look of FPS games of late so I can't work out what people want?

 

From a business view I think it's the best thing they can do as old WW games are having a renaissance since the many years of futuristic gameplay.

Yeah basically what the others have said. We’ve had our fill of WW2 with COD and I assumed BF? would bring something more recent to the table. Its all about variation, they just need to realise that boots on the ground doesn’t have to mean one of the world wars.

[GazzaGarratt 11,136]

The problem with a WW2 version of Battlefield is that BF1 felt like a WW2 game anyway albeit being set in WW1. A combination of fluid mechanics from the Frostbite engine along with very arcadey gunplay could see a WW2 variant feel exactly the same as that. I would've expected it to be called Battlefield 2 for brand consistency and if it was to be BF5; it would be assumed to be a modern day BF3/4 style game or something even futuristic which would be no different to Battlefront 2 anyway. Even when playing BF1 I could see recycled assets from the original Battlefiront game despite the huge timeline and fantasy disparity between the two games. 

 

I bet the first complaint from the Battlefield community with BF5 would be 'it feels like BF1 DLC' or something to that tune. I would've taken Bad Company 3, modern Battlefield 5 or even a sequel to Battlefield 2142 than another WW2 game. 

Bf1 was such a disappointment after bf4 that I was hoping for a more modern battlefield game, from Vietnam war onwards.  However if it generates enough content and more importantly it plays well then the setting may not be as important.

Yeah basically what the others have said. We’ve had our fill of WW2 with COD and I assumed BF? would bring something more recent to the table. Its all about variation, they just need to realise that boots on the ground doesn’t have to mean one of the world wars.

Thanks to help me understand why. When I read your views though, I can't help but feel like you're never going to get what you want. Games will always evolve as they have to but they have to use most of the tried and tested frameworks that have made their franchise successful. We have to evolve with them.

 

If you want a modern BF then maybe the way to go for many consumers is reboots and remastered versions but if we do we then can't moan about them imo.

 

 

Unfortunately, they can't really go back to support the original BF4 now but if they remastered it could follow more like the recent games as a service model that we see today that are the most successful games right now.

 

Via the FG App

 

 

 

[techno 3,519]

Thanks to help me understand why. When I read your views though, I can't help but feel like you're never going to get what you want. Games will always evolve as they have to but they have to use most of the tried and tested frameworks that have made their franchise successful. We have to evolve with them. 
If you want a modern BF then maybe the way to go for many consumers is reboots and remastered versions but if we do we then can't moan about them imo.
 
 
Unfortunately, they can't really go back to support the original BF4 now but if they remastered it could follow more like the recent games as a service model that we see today that are the most successful games right now.
 
Via the FG App
 
 
 

That's the difficulty developers of franchises face, giving enough of a change without ruining the core gameplay and still offering value for money. Maybe the continuous dlc route rather than new games is a better option ?

Via the FG App

[TigerBurge 2,375]

Don’t have a problem with WW2 games. WW1 sucks as an era for games. I would rather listen to Diddums talk all fucking day that another futuristic game. Leave that to stuff like Destiny. People are going to bitch and complain no matter what era they decide to set a game in. No matter what they do people aren’t going to be happy. Take the games for what they are. A game. If you don’t like it don’t buy it or play it. 

[The3rdWalker 1,279]

I would rather listen to Diddums talk all fucking day

Whoa. Don’t lie dude.

[J4MES OX4D 10,130]

4 hours ago, GazzaGarratt said:

Thanks to help me understand why. When I read your views though, I can't help but feel like you're never going to get what you want. Games will always evolve as they have to but they have to use most of the tried and tested frameworks that have made their franchise successful. We have to evolve with them.

 

If you want a modern BF then maybe the way to go for many consumers is reboots and remastered versions but if we do we then can't moan about them imo.

 

 

Unfortunately, they can't really go back to support the original BF4 now but if they remastered it could follow more like the recent games as a service model that we see today that are the most successful games right now.

 

Via the FG App

I think the main reason BF5 will be set in WW2 is not for the sake of the community but what's convenient at the time for EA and DICE so they can get a game to market as quickly and as cheaply as possible. With BF1 having a shedload of premade and new assets from the base game and premium DLC that wouldn't go amiss in a WW2 setting; they may as well reuse them in a 'new' Battlefield game. Had DICE not been producing SWBF2 and working heavily on actually developing real content that was missing from BF1 in the first place; I actually think Battlefield 5 would have been a modern game as the scope and demand for such a thing has grown. With no Visceral to take the sting out of the timescales; DICE seem to be working round the clock non-stop so they probably didn't have time to produce something original from scratch. 

 

This is the pretty much AAA industry we live in now though - it's not entirely in the interest of gamers but what's best for the publishers to make money as quickly and as simply as possible. No need to remaster BF4 either as it's still perfectly playable and fairly popular 5 years later and has everything in place such as purchasable dedicated servers and a complete map/gun list. It's not the franchises style either.

 

As long as BF5 WW2 has enough of a disparity to make it unique rather than feel like BF1 DLC in a slightly different skin; it is perfectly fine and people will no doubt buy it in droves but Frostbite titles don't really play much differently and if the new game feels anything like a rehashed BF1 then it would feel like deja vu and just like with BF1 at the start; everyone would go back to the old game for content reasons or simply move on due to burnout. 

[GazzaGarratt 11,136]

On 3/3/2018 at 11:16 AM, TigerBurge said:

Don’t have a problem with WW2 games. WW1 sucks as an era for games. I would rather listen to Diddums talk all fucking day that another futuristic game. Leave that to stuff like Destiny. People are going to bitch and complain no matter what era they decide to set a game in. No matter what they do people aren’t going to be happy. Take the games for what they are. A game. If you don’t like it don’t buy it or play it. 

 

I'm with that last line mate. I think for me you need to give constructive criticism rather than just say its another shit Battlefield/CoD game otherwise its just as you say - a personal preference that doesn't help others wanting to understand if its good or not.

 

All for calling a game crap and talking about it if there is substance to it.

[J4MES OX4D 10,130]

I don't think anyone is calling Battlefield 5 shit and they'd be fools to write-off a videogame so quickly but there is certainly widespread disappointment in the Battlefield community of the direction DICE have chosen as barely anybody expected or wanted a WW2 themed game especially coming off the back of BF1. The general hope was a new Bad Company or modern day game to maintain the series variety. There was even hope of a sequel to BF2142 to keep the franchise feeling fresh and varied but the strong rumours that it's going to be WW2 is massive hard-on killer especially with the amount of WW2 shooters in the market right now. 

 

It's also quite hard to envisage a WW2 title really pushing the series and shooters in general forward. If Treyarch nail modern BO4 then Battlefield will once again be chasing shadows and it'll be that which feels stale.