Battlefield Franchise Megathread V1 - 'Hardline is still DLC' Edition - Games

Let's set up the mood : [QUOTE] [video=youtube;8TmFT2DqKgA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TmFT2DqKgA[/video][/QUOTE]

64 players Operation Trench when?

Not what I expected, but I will probably play it. Hopefully, this means going back to the roots somewhat. Bring back the commander. Let us call in artillery.

having never played battlefield 1942 or battlefield vietnam, how will reviving players work assuming that will still in the series. we gonna jam a needle in them like how BFBC Vietnam did?

As a Canadian I want a Vimmy Ridge map. Even if they don't have anything other then America and German sides.

[QUOTE=WaffleCopter;50269462]having never played battlefield 1942 or battlefield vietnam, how will reviving players work assuming that will still in the series. we gonna jam a needle in them like how BFBC Vietnam did?[/QUOTE] There was no reviving in BF1942 and I hope there will be no jesus cure in this one too.

How disappointing. Another year passes without 2142 getting the sequel it deserves Will probably still be a fun game but I wonder how much they will have to butcher the setting to squeeze it into Battlefield gameplay

[QUOTE=Raidyr;50269485]How disappointing. Another year passes without 2142 getting the sequel it deserves[/QUOTE] Yeah it's really disappointing that they're trying to make something original. I want more of the same games. [editline]6th May 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=WaffleCopter;50269462]having never played battlefield 1942 or battlefield vietnam, how will reviving players work assuming that will still in the series. we gonna jam a needle in them like how BFBC Vietnam did?[/QUOTE] It would probably only really work if medics didn't have a gun but no one would probably play them.

I can imagine a gamemode where the Entente has to stop zeppelins by holding checkpoints for long enough to call in anti air. Similar to Walker Assault in Battlefront.

Man, listening to the stream in the background and hearing their opinions on Battlefield 3 really drives home the "generation gap" between people who started Battlefield after Bad Company and people who have been playing since the beginning.

I already own Battlefield 1 does that mean I get this for free?

actually pretty smart imo There's all sorts of Battlefield [conflict], there's Battlefield 2, but there is no Battlefield 1 heh

I wonder if they will include a cavalry class :v:

[QUOTE=simkas;50269489]I want more of the same games.[/QUOTE] Considering that the top selling game franchises are pretty much just that, I'd say it's exactly what people want. :v: But in all seriousness, I'd wager that the people who want a 2142 "sequel", only want exactly the exact same kind of sequel that BF3 was to BF2. That being more or less the same game on a shiny new engine. Because in all honesty that's all Battlefield 3 was, BF2 on a shiny new engine. (Minus that silly campaign that had no actual purpose...... although on one hand given the fictional setting and history of 2142, that could make for an actually decent story if done right).

I don't know how they can get alot of content from WW1. Not alot of variety in the weapons and almost no vehicles to choose from. It's only going to make a small group of people extremely happy. It's going to feel like hardline. I have a feeling BF4 will last longer. BF2142 deserves a remake. Tons of unique vehicles and tactics. Titan mode was game changing for me. it was a really good display of being different from the typical COD hurr durr robots of the future shit.

[QUOTE=Smoot;50269611]I don't know how they can get alot of content from WW1. Not alot of variety in the weapons and almost no vehicles to choose from. It's only going to make a small group of people extremely happy. It's going to feel like hardline. I have a feeling BF4 will last longer. BF2142 deserves a remake.[/QUOTE] Why does everyone say this? Theres a lot more diversity than what most people seem to think. Have a look at the Verdun game, lots of weapons and equipment to choose from.

[QUOTE=NitronikALT;50269594]actually pretty smart imo There's all sorts of Battlefield [conflict], there's Battlefield 2, but there is no Battlefield 1 heh[/QUOTE] If they used Roman Numerals, cool! Numbers though?

[QUOTE=ubersoldier;50269608]Considering that the top selling game franchises are pretty much just that, I'd say it's exactly what people want. :v: But in all seriousness, I'd wager that the people who want a 2142 "sequel", only want exactly the exact same kind of sequel that BF3 was to BF2. That being more or less the same game on a shiny new engine. Because in all honesty that's all Battlefield 3 was, BF2 on a shiny new engine. (Minus that silly campaign that had no actual purpose...... although on one hand given the fictional setting and history of 2142, that could make for an actually decent story if done right).[/QUOTE] BF3 absolutely =/= BF2 Some could say it was for the better, but they're definitely quite different

Don't lose faith! [B]World War II setting[/B] is still a thing - [B]369th Infantry Regiment[/B] (infamous [I]Hellfighters[/I]!) was active during both world wars - maybe this poster was supposed to promote single player campaign - and multiplayer part would be set during last great war.

[QUOTE=Smoot;50269611]I don't know how they can get alot of content from WW1. Not alot of variety in the weapons and almost no vehicles to choose from. It's only going to make a small group of people extremely happy. It's going to feel like hardline. I have a feeling BF4 will last longer. BF2142 deserves a remake. Tons of unique vehicles and tactics. Titan mode was game changing for me. it was a really good display of being different from the typical COD hurr durr robots of the future shit.[/QUOTE] do some research and educate yourself before you spout off and make yourself look stupid, there's more going on in WW1 than almost anyone can keep up with considering the probability that this will be an alternate history ww1 like codename eagle there will be even more to play with from prototypes and developed prototypes of the 20s [editline]6th May 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Pirx;50269637]Don't lose faith! [B]World War II setting[/B] is still a thing - [B]369th Infantry Regiment[/B] (infamous [I]Hellfighters[/I]!) was active during both world wars - maybe this poster was supposed to promote single player campaign - and multiplayer part would be set during last great war.[/QUOTE] nobody's "losing faith", alt history ww1 is a fucking awesome setting

[QUOTE=Pirx;50269637]Don't lose faith! [B]World War II setting[/B] is still a thing - [B]369th Infantry Regiment[/B] (infamous [I]Hellfighters[/I]!) was active during both world wars - maybe this poster was supposed to promote single player campaign - and multiplayer part would be set during last great war.[/QUOTE] Most people "losing faith" are people who literally know squat about the setting. I know barely anything but enough to know they've got plenty to work with. As I said if they can have a decent variety of vehicles or even skew the realism element then there's enough to fit the formula.

[QUOTE=Smoot;50269611]I don't know how they can get alot of content from WW1. Not alot of variety in the weapons and almost no vehicles to choose from. It's only going to make a small group of people extremely happy. It's going to feel like hardline. I have a feeling BF4 will last longer. BF2142 deserves a remake. Tons of unique vehicles and tactics. Titan mode was game changing for me. it was a really good display of being different from the typical COD hurr durr robots of the future shit.[/QUOTE] So what you're saying is, you have know clue to what you're talking about when it comes to WW1. Besides that this is Alt Universe WWI...

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50269638] nobody's "losing faith", alt history ww1 is a fucking awesome setting[/QUOTE] Still don't know what to expect - Battlefield franchise evolved since 2002 and I still can't believe that they would set their next game in that period.

[QUOTE=spekter;50269661]Most people "losing faith" are people who literally know squat about the setting. I know barely anything but enough to know they've got plenty to work with. As I said if they can have a decent variety of vehicles or even skew the realism element then there's enough to fit the formula.[/QUOTE] "new" and as-yet undocumented things about WW1 are being discovered every day from research, archaeology and surviving artifacts. there's more to it than anyone knows and people are acting like they were knocking each other in the head with rocks it's fucking stupid the potential to represent chemical warfare alone makes for a game in and of itself, nevermind the almost retarded amount of variety and bizarre prototypes you can play with when you do a little digging. it's more likely that they'll have to cut down on some of the possibilities just to keep a coherent formula. there's THAT MUCH there. who cares if you can't put a flashlight or a heartbeat sensor on your gun with a convenient rail system??? does that really make or break the game? i'm thinking no. consider that ww1 aircraft actually perform within an envelope that enables them to interact much more with infantry since they're more slower and more maneuverable [B]sword combat[/B] horses that can spook instead of blindly doing what you tell them there ARE tanks come on - you'd have to be ignorant to deny the unexplored possibilities here for a triple-A game

I'm still utterly baffled at the name "Battlefield 1" There were multiple meetings with multiple people and execs and marketing people and they kept [B]that[/B] name and actually ran with it? What is even

I don't think DICE would do WW1 if they didn't have lots of content to offer. If they've decided WW1 is a good setting, then I bet we can expect a pretty good lineup of gear and vehicles.

Everyone complaining about the setting is ignorant to how crazy trench warfare, and chemical warfare can get. Lets not forget the Alt Universe twist, so you have no damn clue what weapons and tech will be available to us, so stop making stupid speculations. WWI is an untapped market in the video game industry, there aren't many WWI games, and few of them are good. [editline]6th May 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=SHITBULLET;50269692]I'm still utterly baffled at the name "Battlefield 1" There were multiple meetings with multiple people and execs and marketing people and they kept [B]that[/B] name and actually ran with it? What is even[/QUOTE] They should have went with Roman Numeral, and not number.

[QUOTE=Mkt778;50269737]Dude, leave em' alone. Not everyone will be excited about this for various reasons. Every war is interesting and you like ww1, we get it. My favorite war to study is Vietnam.[/QUOTE] I adore 'Nam but that doesn't mean I suddenly have to dislike every other war. Don't worry, our dear 1960 won't get mad at us

[video]https://youtu.be/0456vAP8Dn0[/video] even though it probably wont be WW2 i cant stop listening to the ww2 games themes. this one plays them both, then backwards im stoked

has the alt universe thing actually been confirmed?