Lol no way in hell I'm buying it at launch after the Simcity fiasco, or maybe even at all.
[QUOTE=Atlascore;39924019]This is the one time where I wish EA is lying, I don't want another Modern Battlefield game, I want 2143.[/QUOTE]
The one time?
meh
[QUOTE]Speaking of Warfighting, you did save that copy of Medal of Honor: Warfighter, right?[/QUOTE]
All three people who bought the game raised their hands.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;39924277]All three people who bought the game raised their hands.[/QUOTE]
I did :D.
I was pissed when they announced Battlefield 4. It was to soon in my opinion. I still have mixed feelings on EA.
[QUOTE=Aide;39924289]I was pissed when they announced Battlefield 4. It was to soon in my opinion. I still have mixed feelings on EA.[/QUOTE]
The time between BF2 and 3 lead to BF3 having a significant release. BF4 should have been set in some unique setting, or have just been replaced with BF:BC3.
It's probably going to be a pointless upgrade whose only purpose is a cash grab, something like going from FIFA 2011 to 2012. I have very little hope for this game to be as revolutionary as BF3 was.
[QUOTE=SweFox*;39924286]I did :D.[/QUOTE]
My condolences.
Is it sad I'm looking more forward to the trailers than the game itself?
The Battlefield 3 launch trailer was amazing. The game was good, but died quickly. I have no plans of getting BF4 but I hope the trailers will be as good as BF3's.
[QUOTE=Atlascore;39924019]This is the one time where I wish EA is lying, I don't want another Modern Battlefield game, I want 2143.[/QUOTE]
maybe if that Star Wars CoD looking game that sorta mixes futuristic with modern warfare does good the industry will make it the new trend
Since BF4 is going to be released for the PS4 maybe things will be dramatically different? Developers can do so much more with its hardware compared to the incredibly limited PS3/360.
If it is going to be a sequel to 2142 then I'll buy it.
If not then forget it.
I have a feeling it's going to be like the transition between Bad Company 1 to Bad Company 2. Outside of the PC version for BC2 the games were pretty much identical. hardly anything new was added outside of maps and campaign mode.
BF4 seems like it's going to be like a BF3.5 like BC2 was.
no thanks
I'd rather drag my balls against sandpaper a few times than to waste 60$ on a rehash
Hopefully its what battlefield 3 SHOULD have been, limited by consoles and all
[QUOTE=legolover122;39924582][B]I have a feeling it's going to be like the transition between Bad Company 1 to Bad Company 2.[/B] Outside of the PC version for BC2 the games were pretty much identical. hardly anything new was added outside of maps and campaign mode.
BF4 seems like it's going to be like a BF3.5 like BC2 was.[/QUOTE]Yeah, and if it's like that, then they shouldn't have fucking called it Battlefield [B]4[/B], dicks.
Hopefully it's a better BF game that BF3. As great as BF3 was, I just didn't get a battlefield vibe from it, really.
[QUOTE=Killer900;39924631]Yeah, and if it's like that, then they shouldn't have fucking called it Battlefield [B]4[/B], dicks.[/QUOTE]
Adding a couple new weapons and maps does not a sequel make. That's what we call a DLC.
And I guess a new shitty campaign.
A good sequel is the jump from Battlefield 2 to Bad Company (oh shit apparently 2142 came between BF2 and BC2. Still, the jump from 2142 to BC2 was still a major change). Better graphics and updated engine, which leads to different gameplay.
Or if you don't count those, the advancements from BF2 to BF3 are good.
I think this is EA's only decent IP now.
[QUOTE=-Chief-;39924680]I think this is EA's only decent IP now.[/QUOTE]
If Mirror's Edge 2 ever happened, we'd know for sure.
[QUOTE=Aide;39924289]I was pissed when they announced Battlefield 4. It was to soon in my opinion. I still have mixed feelings on EA.[/QUOTE]
Battlefield 1942: released 2002
Battlefield Vietnam: released 2004
Battlefield 2: released 2005
Battlefield 2142: released 2006
Battlefield Bad Company: released 2008
Battlefield Bad Company 2: released 2010
Battlefield 3: released 2011
Battlefield 4: released 2013 maybe 2014
Sooo, too soon?
[editline]15th March 2013[/editline]
With that said I'd rather have a new setting, but whatever. We'll see what Battlefield 4 is at GDC.
You've disepointed us too much EA.
You won't get my hard earned money
[QUOTE=legolover122;39924655]Adding a couple new weapons and maps does not a sequel make. That's what we call a DLC.
And I guess a new shitty campaign.
A good sequel is the jump from Battlefield 2 to Bad Company (oh shit apparently 2142 came between BF2 and BC2. Still, the jump from 2142 to BC2 was still a major change). Better graphics and updated engine, which leads to different gameplay.
Or if you don't count those, the advancements from BF2 to BF3 are good.[/QUOTE]I count the Bad Company games as spinoffs, more importantly to test Frostbite, but people liked the first one so much so they made a sequel and also made a PC version to test Frostbite on that too.
[QUOTE=Killer900;39924921]I count the Bad Company games as spinoffs, more importantly to test Frostbite, but people liked the first one so much so they made a sequel and also made a PC version to test Frostbite on that too.[/QUOTE]
They aren't spinoffs they are official releases from the one DICE team that makes Battlefield games.
The truth is Battlefield has always released a new game 1 or 2 years after release. BF4 is no different. Though I am interested in how they can keep modern warfare fresh. The only major marketing advantage they have ever CoD is the perceived (false) notion that it's not a rehash every year.
[QUOTE=markfu;39924860]Battlefield 1942: released 2002
Battlefield Vietnam: released 2004
Battlefield 2: released 2005
Battlefield 2142: released 2006
Battlefield Bad Company: released 2008
Battlefield Bad Company 2: released 2010
Battlefield 3: released 2011
Battlefield 4: released 2013 maybe 2014
Sooo, too soon?
[/QUOTE]
Vietnam was pretty much an expansion pack, or atleast that's how they treated it, seeing as it wasn't considered Battlefield 2 and it isn't very popular. Same with 2142.
Bad Company was just a little side-game spin-off to hold us over until Battlefield 3, and Bad Company 2 was pretty much the same game except slightly updated and on PC.
aaaaand now it's time for the battlefield series to get run into the ground like every other annual series
Too disappointed with Battlefield 3 to buy another Battlefield game. Unless you were stupid enough to pay for the same game twice or preordered the only "battlefield-sized" maps in bf3 were kharg island, operation firestorm, and caspian border. Also you can pull an rpg out of your ass and fire it in under two seconds which is pretty stupid.
[QUOTE=Killer900;39924921]I count the Bad Company games as spinoffs, more importantly to test Frostbite, but people liked the first one so much so they made a sequel and also made a PC version to test Frostbite on that too.[/QUOTE]
Even if you do count them as spinoffs (though they were still developed by dice), the changes from 2142 to BF3 were pretty big.
I mean you went from this
[t]http://www.wolfmanzbytes.com/gamereviews/bf2142/walkerlg.jpg[/t]
To this
[t]http://nextgengamingblog.com/files/2011/11/BF3-screenshot-5.jpg[/t]
And while the blue and washed out kinda kill it a little, in general the quality is much higher. Plus new content and arguably a new theme. They didn't do 2142.5 with BF3, they made a new game with BF3.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
