[QUOTE=Raidyr;39924970]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]
Yeah and Sunrise made Mobile Suit Gundam and most Gundam series, but those are still spinoffs.
Betting on Russians v Americans.
Chinese showing up.
I don't even see how they can significantly change anything to justify replacing Battlefield 3 so soon. Obviously there will be new maps, weapons, vehicles and better graphics but that does not warrant a replacement game being announced less than a year after BF3 was released. It should of been a new Bad Company or something like a BF2143.
[QUOTE=nightlord;39925235]I don't even see how they can significantly change anything to justify replacing Battlefield 3 so soon. Obviously there will be new maps, weapons, vehicles and better graphics but that does not warrant a replacement game being announced less than a year after BF3 was released. It should of been a new Bad Company or something like a BF2143.[/QUOTE]
Maybe it will be like BF:V, some minor graphics improvements and gameplay style change.
[QUOTE=nightlord;39925235]I don't even see how they can significantly change anything to justify replacing Battlefield 3 so soon. Obviously there will be new maps, weapons, vehicles and better graphics but that does not warrant a replacement game being announced less than a year after BF3 was released. It should of been a new Bad Company or something like a BF2143.[/QUOTE]
BF3 was released October 25, 2011, this is march of 2013. Thats a good year, year and a half.
Now, gearing up for End Game [I]and then[/I] also announcing BF3s replacement? That's shitty. They're not even done releasing all of BF3s DLC and they're talking about the next one.
What if... what if by "modern" they simply mean in the current theme setting...
and then they have a map with a [I]prototype[/I] of something from 2142 on it, or something that is very obviously 2142 related, or news reports of heavy climate change or or or something.
[QUOTE=nightlord;39925235]I don't even see how they can significantly change anything to justify replacing Battlefield 3 [B]so soon[/B]. Obviously there will be new maps, weapons, vehicles and better graphics but that does not warrant a replacement game being announced less than a year after BF3 was released. It should of been a new Bad Company or something like a BF2143.[/QUOTE]
[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]
It's not soon in the grand scheme of things. It's following the usual development cycle of BF games.
[QUOTE=WaffleCopter;39925220]Chinese showing up.[/QUOTE]
PLA and MEC pls
[QUOTE=legolover122;39925284]It's not soon in the grand scheme of things. It's following the usual development cycle of BF games.[/QUOTE]
No it isn't, the cycle so far hasn't had a direct replacement being released right after. E.g 2142 didn't make Battlefield 2 completely obsolete as it was a completely different setting.
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;39925274]BF3 was released October 25, 2011, this is march of 2013. Thats a good year, year and a half.
Now, gearing up for End Game [I]and then[/I] also announcing BF3s replacement? That's shitty. They're not even done releasing all of BF3s DLC and they're talking about the next one.
What if... what if by "modern" they simply mean in the current theme setting...
and then they have a map with a [I]prototype[/I] of something from 2142 on it, or something that is very obviously 2142 related, or news reports of heavy climate change or or or something.[/QUOTE]
A year and a half compared to Battlefield 2 not being replaced for 6 years.
[QUOTE=nightlord;39925353]No it isn't, the cycle so far hasn't had a direct replacement being released right after. E.g 2142 didn't make Battlefield 2 completely obsolete as it was a completely different setting.
A year and a half compared to Battlefield 2 not being replaced for 6 years.[/QUOTE]
But that timeline completely ignores the fact that they put out a "battlefield" game every couple of years. BFBC 1 and 2 may be spinoffs or whatever and aren't "true" battlefield games, but they were still done by DICE and therefore DICE's effort and studio was still dedicated to a "Battlefield" project.
I find their timing shitty, but the reasons for it are different.
[QUOTE=Killer900;39924190]Lol no way in hell I'm buying it at launch after the Simcity fiasco, or maybe even at all.[/QUOTE]
I'm not buying Battlefield 4 at launch because I don't want to get fucked over by EA AGAIN after they shove Premium BF4 in my face and tell me I need to spend ANOTHER $59.99 for it.
[QUOTE=Orkel;39924316]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]
Not to be a dick. But how did you find BF3 revolutionary? I found it to be a step towards other games except for the large map and vehicle aspect.
Why is Battlefield in italics?
[QUOTE=mac338;39924330]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]
"Died quickly"? Thanks to the continued DLC support it's one hell of an active game.
I'll reserve my judgement till I see what DICE came up with. It can't really suffer from always-online shenanigans because, well, it's a multiplayer game. I've yet to see anyone give 2 shits about BF3's singleplayer (hope they saw that was a waste of budget).
Yeah, [I]Battlefield [/I]is so [I]good[/I].
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;39925395]But that timeline completely ignores the fact that they put out a "battlefield" game every couple of years. BFBC 1 and 2 may be spinoffs or whatever and aren't "true" battlefield games, but they were still done by DICE and therefore DICE's effort and studio was still dedicated to a "Battlefield" project.
I find their timing shitty, but the reasons for it are different.[/QUOTE]
A new modern day Battlefield game will make Battlefield 3 obsolete, whereas a different setting wouldn't to the same degree. I don't have a problem with a new Battlefield game being announced. I don't like that it's the same setting. There has been a "Battlefield" Game released each year, but they haven't been something that replaced the previous years game because they were completely different. People won't have much a reason to play Battlefield 3 because Battlefield 4 will be in the same setting and will have more features and better graphics, meaning it's a much better version of BF3.
[QUOTE=Joazzz;39925332]PLA and MEC pls[/QUOTE]
20 bucks says all of the MEC playermodels and vehicles are going to be ripped from Bad Company 1 with some light editing.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;39924970]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]I meant spinoffs in regards to numerical iterations. Like 1942 to 2 introduced an entirely new engine and gameplay mechanics. From 2 to 3 did the same. Now is 3 to 4 going to do that? Probably not, but you are right in saying that it will be interesting to see how they can make the Modern Warfare type setting still seem relevant.
[editline]15th March 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=legolover122;39925149]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. [B]They didn't do 2142.5 with BF3, they made a new game with BF3.[/B][/QUOTE]I agree with you in regards to 3 being a new game.
[editline]15th March 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=legolover122;39925284]It's not soon in the grand scheme of things. It's following the usual development cycle of BF games.[/QUOTE]Not in numerical renditions it's not.
Watch, they are going to follow in maxis's steps and make it a "more social" battlefield.
[QUOTE=SPESSMEHREN;39925404]I'm not buying Battlefield 4 at launch because I don't want to get fucked over by EA AGAIN after they shove Premium BF4 in my face and tell me I need to spend ANOTHER $59.99 for it.[/QUOTE]
Premium pack was pretty much a GOTY edition. And since when was it required to get the DLCs? I played for ages only having the karkand pack and I could find vanilla servers just fine. I only recently got premium and I played for over 200 hours just fine.
[editline]15th March 2013[/editline]
Like I would understand if it was like max payne where it kept trying to throw you into DLC matches, but it doesn't. 60 dollars (40 if you are smart and wait for a sale which it frequently is on) for 5 15 dollar DLCs plus a bunch of other cosmetic stuff if you are into that kind of thing. It's entirely optional, but people keep saying WELL THEY ARE FORCING US TO PAY THE MONEY TO BUY THE DLCS.
Can you play vanilla without paying more? Yes? Then you aren't being forced to buy it.
This applies with every game with DLCs that don't effect vanilla.
i, for one, am sort of looking forward to this, mostly because they said that they're going to 'use 100% of the engine's potential'
of course that could always be blatant lies
[QUOTE=Joazzz;39925981]i, for one, am sort of looking forward to this, mostly because they said that they're going to 'use 100% of the engine's potential'
of course that could always be blatant lies[/QUOTE]
I won't be preordering this time, they mislead us quite a bit before release off BF3 in order to gain more pre-release purchases.
I don't like the direction the Battlefield games are going in. 2142 was great, but I didn't really have too much fun with Battlefield 3.
[QUOTE=legolover122;39925149]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.[/QUOTE]
Show-offy graphics are nice and all but the filters and the over-touch ups to make it look "SO REAL HURR" ends up making it an eye sore. And it makes the game feel like a drag and depressing to play. Even the movement felt stiff. I actually think the color adds a lot to how pretty is. It adds style.
I mean... add a high res texture mod to BF2142 and then...
[img]http://i.cubeupload.com/xGEClE.jpg[/img]
That can't compete with BF3 man.
[QUOTE=T-Sonar.0;39926055]Show-offy graphics are nice and all but the filters and the over-touch ups to make it look "SO REAL HURR" ends up making it an eye sore. And it makes the game feel like a drag and depressing to play. Even the movement felt stiff. I actually think the color adds a lot to how pretty is. It adds style.
I mean... add a high res texture mod to BF2142 and then...
[img]http://i.cubeupload.com/xGEClE.jpg[/img]
That can't compete with BF3 man.[/QUOTE]
Looks really cartoony even with those high-res textures.
[QUOTE=gbtygfvyg;39926133]Looks really cartoony even with those high-res textures.[/QUOTE]
Personally I think it looks better than what devs try to do with "realistic" graphics.
[QUOTE=T-Sonar.0;39926055]I mean... add a high res texture mod to BF2142 and then...
[img]http://i.cubeupload.com/xGEClE.jpg[/img]
That can't compete with BF3 man.[/QUOTE]gonna need a shader/lighting system overhaul, more detailed maps and completely new effects too
[QUOTE=T-Sonar.0;39926055]Show-offy graphics are nice and all but the filters and the over-touch ups to make it look "SO REAL HURR" ends up making it an eye sore. And it makes the game feel like a drag and depressing to play.[/QUOTE]
I found playing in colour blind mode helped with that. Not completely though but it was a nice change.
Hopefully more optimized than the last one and [I]not fucking russians this time[/I].
The little that I played in the campaign, the Russians were only mentioned a couple times as completely separate characters, but not the entire nation.
How about you people vote with your wallets? Gamers are worse than the people who talk trash about Michael Bay's Transformer movies and then they go out and see it.
People bitch about online only games? Then they go out and buy it, complain for the 2 days that it's down and then it's fine from there.
People bitch about games moving to matchmaking rather than server browsers? They buy it anyways.
People bitch about the lack of modding tools. They buy it anyways. See a pattern?
A lot of people will defend it and say "well, what did you expect?"
My response to that? If you support garbage products, expect more of them.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
