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

Why are you all believing the game is gonna be alt-history. There's nothing leading towards that.

I love the cool little White Rabbit remix Battlefield Vietnam did for its menu theme. Such a cool song.

[QUOTE=Mkt778;50269754]Just in general - [I]It's a gamble.[/I] The game could be horseshit or it could be great. I really hope it'll be great. But seriously stop with the fucking "HOW [I]DARE[/I] YOU DISS A WAR KNOWN FOR STALEMATES?!" attitude.[/QUOTE] Pretty sure it's the ignorance that's annoying. Some people are all like "There's not enough content in that era to pull this off, or the settings aren't interesting. When that's factually incorrect, then there's the element of Alternate Universe. If you don't have a basic understanding of something, you shouldn't jump to conclusions.

[QUOTE=Mkt778;50269737]Dude, leave em' alone. Not everyone will be excited about this for various reasons. Every war is interesting and has its ups and downs. You like ww1, we get it. My favorite war to study is Vietnam.[/QUOTE] It's one thing not to be excited about it when you know what it is, but to be completely ignorant about the setting and then declare yourself uninterested because of reasons that are patently false is really stupid. "I hate games set in Europe because it's all fields and trees!" would be just as dumb to say.

[QUOTE=Hauptmann;50269773]Why are you all believing the game is gonna be alt-history. There's nothing leading towards that.[/QUOTE] And 2 days ago there was nothing leading towards WW1 except the same leak that say it's Alt Universe.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50269668]"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[/QUOTE] On top of this, less weapon mods/unlocks would be better. They should force players to focus on objectives instead of just grinding kills to unlock X mod for their preferred weapon. Bad Company 2 worked so well because there wasn't a focus on unlocking shit and you got more points actually doing objectives and helping your team stay alive.

[QUOTE=RichyZ;50269818]but that could mean anything, i think a lot of people are assuming alt history means steampunk/dieselpunk when its probably going to be slightly anachronistic weapons and inventions with everything being fielded at the same time to give variety[/QUOTE] Exactly my point, that could mean anything. Nobody should be jumping to conclusions.....

[QUOTE=RichyZ;50269818]but that could mean anything, i think a lot of people are assuming alt history means steampunk/dieselpunk when its probably going to be slightly anachronistic weapons and inventions with everything being fielded at the same time to give variety but anything can happen i suppose, i mean shit fc primal and a aaa ww1 fps who the fuck knows what else can happen this year[/QUOTE] People are assuming alt history largely because of Codename: Eagle which a lot of members of DICE worked on and it'd be an obvious way to add some zanier stuff to the game. I for one would really love a dieselpunk lean on this but I'm expecting anachronism more than anything else.

[QUOTE=Mkt778;50269846]I think it's perfectly fine to be concerned about that since this is the largest de-evolution in the series we've seen. And the second thing is a literal mater of opinion. I do find the first world war interesting but a [I]Battlefield[/I] world war I could be anything. I think the Farcry primal example is probably on point; sure does sound nice on paper but most people I knew ditched it after a week. Sounds cool on paper[/QUOTE] Primal fucked up because they weren't remotely creative about it. Adding a proper melee system with a dedicated block button and other actual gameplay elements, not distractions, would have given it that honest survival feel. There's a million things they could have done with Primal but it's Ubisoft so shoving out another asset-swapped Far Cry is the easiest course of action.

[QUOTE=Mkt778;50269846]I think it's perfectly fine to be concerned about that since this is the largest de-evolution in the series we've seen. And the second thing is a literal mater of opinion. I do find the first world war interesting but a [I]Battlefield[/I] world war I could be anything. I think the Farcry primal example is probably on point; sure does sound nice on paper but most people I knew ditched it after a week. Sounds cool on paper[/QUOTE] Farcry Primal was litterally Far Cry 4 with rocks, used the same basemap too. Don't compare an uncreative game to war era. The only thing being De-evolved is the level of technology in the era, and again, if alt universe is in play you can't say de-evolution, as we don't know.

Everyone saying it's going to suck because it's WWI are why all shooters are modern/future.

151 posts great. I am not pleased but hey, nothing is confirmed yet and you can't love every single game a developer creates. I just wonder how long the servers for BF4 will be staying up. Can't wait. Just 50 more minutes

[QUOTE=Mkt778;50269937] I'm just try to stand up for the unpopular opinion. [/QUOTE] There's a big difference between opinion, and ignorance. [editline]6th May 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=LoNer1;50269950] I just wonder how long the servers for BF4 will be staying up.[/QUOTE] Why is this even a concern of yours? Every single Battlefield PC title is still up and running MP, whatever game was affected int he game spy shut down was worked into Origin.

[QUOTE=Mkt778;50269987]That still doesn't really justify calling people everything under the sun over it but w/e[/QUOTE] When did anyone call you anything, but your knowledge of WWI ignorant? Sensitive much?

[QUOTE=Mkt778;50270040]Wrong choice of words; I meant the general "If you aren't a fan of this setting then you are stupid and blindly ignorant and just scared of change! Go write a 500 page thesis on the first world war and tell me that this bf won't be interesting!" attitude a lot of people are having.[/QUOTE] It doesn't take much googling to find out more about the setting and realize just how much there is to work with as I myself have just found. Is it really a bad thing for wanting people to gain some better understanding before passing judgement?

[QUOTE=Mkt778;50270040]Wrong choice of words; I meant the general "If you aren't a fan of this setting then you are stupid and blindly ignorant and just scared of change! [/QUOTE] And nobody said that either! You're not stupid, you simply have an ignorance to the events of WWI. And now you're being annoying because you can't admit you're don't have much of clue to the WWI era, and now you're being stupid.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50269796]It's one thing not to be excited about it when you know what it is, but to be completely ignorant about the setting and then declare yourself uninterested because of reasons that are patently false is really stupid. "I hate games set in Europe because it's all fields and trees!" would be just as dumb to say.[/QUOTE] If you wrote tons of reports on WW1 in HS you must not have done very well on them considering your argument still boils down to "no variety, just trenches nothing to do"

You can keep dodging the point but that won't make you any less wrong

jesus christ you guys he's literally just saying he's not a fan of WWI and isnt sure if its gonna make for a good game is that worth the bombardment

[QUOTE=Mkt778;50270160]I don't think that was ever my argument; I more so told you to stop being an ass over people who held that argument. Mine was just that it's not my favorite era and I don't think it would make a good bf setting, and my father wouldn't play it which kinda' kills it a bit for me. (That's more a personal thing)[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=ShadowSocks8;50270162]jesus christ you guys he's literally just saying he's not a fan of WWI and isnt sure if its gonna make for a good game is that worth the bombardment[/QUOTE] I'm not some rabid bf fanboy by any means but WW1 is an extremely interesting period in history to me and I don't think it's fairly represented in mainstream media at all. To hear people parrot popular myths and misconceptions about it as an argument against it gaining the representation it deserves gets under my skin and I'm not the only one who's set off by it. WW2 gets a lot of the credit but I don't think any single event affected our development as a society more than the Great War.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50270183]I'm not some rabid bf fanboy by any means but WW1 is an extremely interesting period in history to me and I don't think it's fairly represented in mainstream media at all. To hear people parrot popular myths and misconceptions about it as an argument against it gaining representation gets under my skin and I'm not the only one who's set off by it.[/QUOTE] youre getting 'set off' by some guy on the internet going "ehh ive written papers on WWI not really a fan not sure if itll make a good game" his opinion is hardly worth an outcry, he's just sharing his thoughts...

[QUOTE=ShadowSocks8;50270212]youre getting 'set off' by some guy on the internet going "ehh ive written papers on WWI not really a fan not sure if itll make a good game" his opinion is hardly worth an outcry, he's just sharing his thoughts...[/QUOTE] Yeah, because obviously 'set off' means I'm smashing things around in my room and screaming. No, I'm sharing my thoughts on his thoughts. Meanwhile, you're the white girl in every worldstar video yelling STOPPPPPPP GUYS STOPPPPPPPP. :v:

Guys, I'm not sure war is a good setting for BF, I don't think i'll like this new game

"not smashing things around my room and screaming" this right here is the forum equivalent to that [QUOTE=Grenadiac;50270142]You can keep dodging the point but that won't make you any less wrong[/QUOTE] "admit that your dissenting opinion is wrong IMMEDIATELY" [editline]6th May 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Grenadiac;50270217]Yeah, because obviously 'set off' means I'm smashing things around in my room and screaming. No, I'm sharing my thoughts on his thoughts. [B]Meanwhile, you're the white girl in every worldstar video yelling STOPPPPPPP GUYS STOPPPPPPPP. :v:[/B][/QUOTE] nice ad hominem

"What is humor, I have obviously enraged you to the point of insulting me, nice ad hominem fkn loser i got u now"

this has devolved into nonsense, its the halo thread all over again let's just wait and see what the game actually fucking looks like before we all bitch and moan

Think about it another way. WW1 is not really part of our education here at least so many peoples thoughts (even my own) are sceptical of what a WW1 Battlefield could be. Sure the people that research outside of their education know things but that's the same for anything. People are in their right to be sceptical because we're taught that it's generally boring. Not really our fault. DICE have a great opportunity with this because it is bringing up a lot of discussion just because its WW1. If it were a generic modern BF 5 we wouldn't really be having this talk. They could just change our initial thoughts with a trailer and that's a good thing. The fact its WW1 is gauging my interest as I personally know nothing other than 'WW1 is boring'.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50270242]"What is humor, I have obviously enraged you to the point of insulting me, nice ad hominem fkn loser i got u now"[/QUOTE] He's not worth the reply. Surprised he didn't come at me.

Guys, the next BF won't be bad because of the setting, it will be bad because of the shoehorned in meticulous progression and endless weapon unlocks that will barely fit the setting

[QUOTE=Pinut;50270257]Think about it another way. WW1 is not really part of our education here at least so many peoples thoughts (even my own) are sceptical of what a WW1 Battlefield could be. Sure the people that research outside of their education know things but that's the same for anything. People are in their right to be sceptical because we're taught that it's generally boring. Not really our fault. DICE have a great opportunity with this because it is bringing up a lot of discussion just because its WW1. If it were a generic modern BF 5 we wouldn't really be having this talk. They could just change our initial thoughts with a trailer and that's a good thing.[/QUOTE] Even the education that's there is not really 100% right. I took AP European History in high school, and I ended up teaching a lot of that section because they had so much wrong, like holy shit. Pays off to be a WWI nerd :v: [editline]6th May 2016[/editline] If you want an interesting book about a specific battle, check out "First Over There", it's about the United State's first real battle of the war. It's written on a very personal level, with a lot of letters and diary entries from people who were there and focuses a lot of individual people. Very good book, and if you're interested in late war tactics it's worth a read.