Battlefield Hardline

[iNero]

 

 

 

 

 

BATTLEFIELD HARDLINE COMING THIS FALL

 

On behalf of everyone at EA and Visceral Games, I’m fired up to confirm our next project – Battlefield Hardline. The game launches this fall and it’s a brand new series in the Battlefield franchise, set against the backdrop of a genre we all love – the war on crime and the battle between cops and criminals.

 

Several years ago, I was at an internal EA meeting in Barcelona with creative leaders from across the company. It was there I met Karl Magnus Troedsson, the GM of DICE, for the first time, and we immediately began talking about games – I’ve always loved Battlefield and KM was a huge fan of Dead Space, which I was working on at the time. We started talking about different ways we could work together, different ways we could take Battlefield and action games in a new direction. It was then that this project that became Battlefield Hardline was born.

 

There’s been a lot of buzz today about Battlefield Hardline – we’re getting ready for E3 and fans found some details on our website about what we’re working on for the show. We’ve been reading all of your comments and we’re excited to be going into more detail soon on the ways we’re adding new twists and turns to the foundation of Battlefield multiplayer and more about how we’re bringing our strengths at Visceral to single player.

 

I hope you’ll join us for the official world premiere on June 9 at Noon PDT, and sign up for updates on the new game at our web site www.battlefield.com/hardline.

 

 

http://www.battlefield.com/hardline
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:2p78MiCN_rcJ:%5Burl%5Dwww.ea.com/news/battlefield-hardline-coming-this-fall+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca%5B/url%5D

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Update:

 

Apparently we get an announcement on E3.

https://twitter.com/shinobi602/status/469707492579348481
https://twitter.com/shinobi602/status/469709667116285952

 

Title atm is:

Battlefield: S.W.A.T

 

But like he said, it seems like its not the final name.

 

Plus:

 

 

Visceral showed the press a new game today. Most likely BF.

 

Edited May 28, 2014 by iNero

[NYC PATROL]

Definitely possible another studio is working on one for late this year. I would prefer if the series took a little break. At least until Fall 2015/Early 2016. But of course they want to compete with CoD sales so...

Edited March 24, 2014 by NYC PATROL

[BLOOD]

@NYC PATROL

not just Battlefield,but also CoD and Assassins Cre Damn these 3 franchise are so milked (atleast CoD is part of the top 10 Best Selling Game Franchises) unlike the other two.

[iNero]

Definitely possible another studio is working on one for late this year. I would prefer if the series took a little break. At least until Fall 2015/Early 2016. But of course they want to compete with CoD sales so...

 

usually there was MoH releasing the year before BF. But since MoH is dead, I can imagine a yearly release. At least when there is another Studio on it.

I doubt a 2014 release though. My guess is 2015.

Or is there any big EA franchsie that gets a release this year? Besides the Sports Titles.

Edited March 24, 2014 by iNero

[NYC PATROL]

The Sims 4 is releasing late this year if that means anything lol. And other than that it's 2015 and on for big in development EA titles. (Mirror's Edge, Star Wars)

Edited March 24, 2014 by NYC PATROL

[FranklinDeRoosevelt]

It's just another milked and rehased FPS series.

[iNero]

wait wait wait

 

From Feb:

 

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/447888/police-themed-battlefield-5-release-date-set-for-2014-release-report-claims/

 

 

Apparently Visceral Studios are working on a Police Themed Battlefield for 2014. This could be connected.

[gnad.1992]

releasing a new BF every couple of years is not right IMO

 

I still enjoy BF3 and didn't play BF4 yet. I bought a PS4 AND BF4 and its sitting there collecting dust.

 

GTAO is addictive.

[iNero]

Well,

 

 

2002 - 1942
2004 - Vietnam
2005 - BF2
2006 - 2142
2008 - Bad Company
2009 - Heroes - BF 1943
2010 - Bad Company 2
2011 - Battlefield 3
2013 - Battlefield 4

[Terrato137]

I'm just looking forward to Final Fantasy XV.

[gnad.1992]

Well,

 

 

2002 - 1942

2004 - Vietnam

2005 - BF2

2011 - Battlefield 3

 

thats all I've played

 

so that gap between bf2 and 3 left me confused

Edited March 25, 2014 by gnad.1992

[FullMetal]

Annualization is not per say bad. It's actually bad when they produce pretty much the exact same nonsense with the exact same engine with minor tweaks, recycling of pretty much all the 'materials' from previous games/builds and chew out another lame ass uninspired and dull story.

 

On top of that... this was to be expected, no? Another Battlefield game this year/the year after?

[Daz]

The issue I have with this is the fact they purposely told us with Battlefield 3 that this was not going to be a yearly thing and something of quality to rival call of duty. What they ended up doing is ruining their franchise and turning into call of duty anyway, in some form or another.

 

In my eyes, Battlefield 2 was a spectacular game, the best multiplayer experiences I have EVER had online. It seems to have taken over 8 years for them to even get 64 players on a console version, and even then that is on next gen and not current gen. Despite the fact Frontlines: Fuel of War had 64 players years back.

 

I feel the only truely perfect Battlefield game on consoles was Battlefield: Bad Company 2. As well as the Vietnam DLC being the best multiplayer based DLC I have ever played. It was a perfect game. So creating that game over and over like Call of Duty does, wouldn't have been a bad thing, we just wanted more content for a great game.

 

Instead what we have now got is what seems like a massive design or engine change every game and the entire fabric of the game seems to play completely different as the game before it. As the new engine's demand more from the current gen consoles they scale back the graphics to the point where the maps are so f*cking bare in BF4 I know for a fact BF2 with low settings looked better than BF4 does right now on 360. It is a f*cking shambles.

 

Also note that BF4 right now is utterly broken, they managed to fix everything then break it all again. I can't stay on one server for a full round because every map change crashes my console. My assignments are resetting and my game settings (and singleplayer save previously) has totally corrupted every 4th time I turn the game on and constantly have to re-edit every single one of my vehicle loadouts each time I log on. To say it makes me want to hang myself is an understatement.

 

 

I am all for Battlefield, I feel it is easily the best series of multiplayer games I have played. It offers something truely unique that nobody can really match in terms of large scale military battles with all types of vehicles. However, unless they start stablizing their sh*t, it will be very difficult for me to buy into this again.

 

I felt that BF2/2142 were amazing, and truely unique, and that the console versions really didn't hit a peak until BC2, but after that it felt like it went downhill and gameplay seemed more similar to Medal of Honor (2010) than being anywhere close to BC2. And BF4 even changed that as well and seemed very weird. I actually preferred the multiplayer in Medal of Honor: Warfighter to BF3 and BF4. It stayed consistent at least and was fun to play.

 

There is just something totally missing with BF4, I can't quite put my finger on it, the maps just don't feel right and the rounds are empty and dead. I much much preferred BF3 and even that game I thought was a shambles in comparison to BC2 or BF2. All that game needed was the removal of the suppression effect on your accuracy and it would have been fine.

 

Sorry for the long post but I honestly have no idea what the point is in making BF5 right now.

 

I am more excited about Star Wars: Battlefront, from them. I hope they don't actually ruin that one.

[FranklinDeRoosevelt]

Well,

 

 

2002 - 1942

2004 - Vietnam

2005 - BF2

2006 - 2142

2008 - Bad Company

2009 - Heroes - BF 1943

2010 - Bad Company 2

2011 - Battlefield 3

2013 - Battlefield 4

Looking at the 2 year difference from BF3 to BF4, that is pathetic. It's the same sh*t, and you are waiting longer. EA f*cked up big time, especially the buggy mess that BF4 is. Otherwise you can see the annual trend in most of the list.

[Daz]

Yeah, and you also missed out Modern Combat on the 360 in 2006.

 

Shame that game wasn't better, I think the maps and vehicles were awesome, the game was great, it just sucked because of the awful controls and loadouts, it seemed like everyone was fat legged ice skaters. The guns didn't feel good either despite them looking somewhat good. Was a shame because they had some really interesting maps, better than anything we have seen in recent years. Submarine bases and the likes. I also liked the civilian van that had the minigun on top.

 

To be honest out of the entire list I only consider the first 4 and bad company 2 as proper battlefield games.

 

I learnt to like BF3, and some of the later DLC maps actually were much better than the base maps. But we get a new game that is utterly destroyed and all those map packs we spent the price of the full game on, are now left behind. And we always get them sold back to us and they are never the same. With second assault or back to karkand. They ruin the balance and feel of them and why people loved them in the first place.

 

New DLC pack out today for BF4, no doubt the game won't even run and the map pack is water based maps, so that ain't going to be anything great.

 

To me nothing beat the BF2 maps and DLC map packs.

[FullMetal]

BF2 was pretty great. Still think BF3 and BF4 are great games (they have/had their flaws. BF3 was 'properly fixed' apart from the exaggerated suppressing fire effect that made someone who was hitting someone correctly die from someone who was spraying like a motherf*cker and thus suppressing the one who was 'killing' him.

BF4 is good... great even. Playing on PS4/PC. The only main gripe thus far I had is that the PC version is a f*cked up mess. NEVER develop and bring out a game for 5 different 'systems' (4 different console platforms and the PC platform). You'll only get a clusterf*ck of bugs across all platforms, preformance issues on all of them and not to mention decisions have to be made to sacrifice certain platforms in favor of fixing/improving the game's versions on others.

[FranklinDeRoosevelt]

Dice should get their sh*t together and create a good single player campaign. This is long needed in FPS games. Repetitive multiplayer modes always get boring.

[Th3MaN1]

I loved the fact that BF3 was quite unique, it felt different to the BC games, and it stood out as one of the best-looking games graphically, and even technology-wise, I consider it a high standing point for FPS games, expect the fact that it didn't support 64 players. BF3 itself felt mechanically way better than any other FPS games to date, but while I consider BF4 a good game, it was given to us way to fast, and these are my short theories:

 

1 - It was rushed to combat Ghosts in sales, miserably failing (I think this is actually a fact, not sure though)

2 - This was supposed to be BF3, but DICE didn't have enough resources to work with, considering the power of the 360/PS3

3 - EA saw the true potential of the franchise and they decided to make DICE rush the sequels.

 

I mean, seriously, BF 3 sold around 16 mil. copies, so they have the money. Why not leave EA and make their own decisions?

[esmittystud101]

BF2 was pretty great. Still think BF3 and BF4 are great games (they have/had their flaws. BF3 was 'properly fixed' apart from the exaggerated suppressing fire effect that made someone who was hitting someone correctly die from someone who was spraying like a motherf*cker and thus suppressing the one who was 'killing' him.

 

BF4 is good... great even. Playing on PS4/PC. The only main gripe thus far I had is that the PC version is a f*cked up mess. NEVER develop and bring out a game for 5 different 'systems' (4 different console platforms and the PC platform). You'll only get a clusterf*ck of bugs across all platforms, preformance issues on all of them and not to mention decisions have to be made to sacrifice certain platforms in favor of fixing/improving the game's versions on others.

 

I totally agree with only bringing the game out on certain systems if that helps take away problems with the game. This cross gen platform has been a mess since Nov. Sorry current gen users. But games like BF4 should have only been NextGen/PC not current gen. Quit dragging feet on current gen. stuff. Next Gen is here to stay. People will catch up. They just like dragging their feet a bit. Look, I know not everyone has an extra $500-$1000 to drop on a new next gen. console. Neither did I. I charged on a credit card like the rest of America did. Its what America was built on. None of the current gen guys should complain about anything. They get GTA on there gen only. Plus, you pretty much got almost every top game out there. But I think the developers are finally washing up with current gen. Big titles coming out in the next few years I see are next gen/pc only. The day cound't come any sooner.

[esmittystud101]

Dice should get their sh*t together and create a good single player campaign. This is long needed in FPS games. Repetitive multiplayer modes always get boring.

 

Yes , Yes, and more Yes. They need to put some more love into SP, which they haven't done in a long time on alot of FPS. Sorry, I don't play Halo or anything so I can't say how well that SP is.

 

But this trend of only playing the SP once and then never touching it again is pretty bad. Its the same for most FPS. It should be 30-50 hours minum. and have things added where it tempts you to play the SP again and again. Maybe a co-op should be offered only after you play through the SP the first time. That would really entise you into wanting to play it again if you can have friend or friends with you, right?

Edited March 25, 2014 by esmittystud101

[FranklinDeRoosevelt]

I agree. I mean look at Modern Warfare 1 and 2, they had really good stories that would keep you entertained. There's even a co op mode which you can play with your friends so you can get the best of both worlds of single player, as well as the casual multiplayer.

 

I had MW2 and that actually lasted me around a good 2-4 years. Now COD is a piece of sh*t. I also had battlefield 3, but I couldn't stand the game because the story was sh*t and the multiplayer was the only thing I could play but that was repetitive.

 

Dice need to make their own decisions from now on. They shouldn't be spoon fed by some retarded publishers who put pressure on developers to rush the games out for $$$$.

[Daz]

Well DICE has been a part of EA for a while now so no hope in that.

 

I felt MW2 was the game that jumped the shark and was the height of terrible gaming and consider that game instrumental in the downfall of FPS games entirely. That killed it for me.

 

BF3 was good, but not as good as BC2, that game was consistent as f*ck, never had any desync or lag issues, never got annoyed because my bullets never killed things when they should have etc. BF4 is good too but it sucks major wee-wees right now, especially on current gen. It looks beyond terrible. As if HD textures arent installed or something.

 

However I still don't know why they didn't include co-op, I enjoyed the co-op in BF3, though there was an extreme lack of missions, having a 4 player co-op set of missions would have been awesome. I also don't by any means consider the multiplayer in BF games to ever be repetitive. But it does however suck when servers aren't filled up and the rounds seem to either drag out, or just die and become very boring with not much happening. This might be due to 5 man squads in BF4, keeping players closer together, meaning less players spread out to be seen by others. I feel you need at least 32 players for these maps to feel populated in a decent way. Unless there is a gungho squad or two going around.

[iNero]

EA is publisher for DICE sinde the very first BF. They wont change that. DICE cant afford that much money to make such a huge game on their own. They get paid by EA and EA gets most of the revenue

[FranklinDeRoosevelt]

EA is full of cock mongrels, that's all I can really say. I mean they just got voted for the worst company 2 times and yet they don't try and at least turn their reputation around. Hell they just got nominated again this year along with Microsoft. The day they are out of the gaming industry, including Activision/Treyarch/Infinity Ward, it will be heaven for the industry.

Edited March 25, 2014 by FranklinDeRoosevelt

[Mista J]

To be fair, this year they lost in the first round to Time Warner Cable.

 

Until, the gamers, until we do something about it, FPS games will be recycled sh*t. We have to boycott them, make huge petitions to make them release every 3 years to allow good developement times apthat add improvement.

 

DICE are going to be f*cking swamped. Battlefield 5, Battlefront, Mirrors Edge. They're going to f*ck one up, and if it's Battlefront, I will seriously be done with EA.

[iNero]

Guys here probably overlooked my post.

 

BF5 most likely isnt developed by DICE.

Its still EA though.

[FullMetal]

I still believe actually CoD2 was the beginning of the end of the CoD franchise. I'm not saying I never enjoyed CoD2 (and CoD4)... it's just that they started dumbing down the franchise so hard it became ridiculous. And the singleplayer stories became HUGE jokes actually (whilst the singleplayer campaigns were totally awesome at the start of the franchise).

 

Battlefield doesn't per say need a singleplayer. But I was playing BF4 singleplayer again the other day on PC and I have to agree with Daz: the lack of Co Op was rather lame. I was also thinking why Dice didn't dare to make a Campaign/Storymode that's pretty much Co Op only? I mean, Left 4 Dead pretty much did a 'story' that's extremely enjoyable playing Co Operatively? If they'd actually (or heck even a different developer could do it if Dice doesn't dare to) focus on developing a game like that it could turn into something pretty unique and awesome.

 

You still can have cutscenes, you still can tell a story... it's just going to be that more enjoyable actually being able to play it co operatively.

[Th3MaN1]

I still believe actually CoD2 was the beginning of the end of the CoD franchise. I'm not saying I never enjoyed CoD2 (and CoD4)... it's just that they started dumbing down the franchise so hard it became ridiculous. And the singleplayer stories became HUGE jokes actually (whilst the singleplayer campaigns were totally awesome at the start of the franchise).

 

Battlefield doesn't per say need a singleplayer. But I was playing BF4 singleplayer again the other day on PC and I have to agree with Daz: the lack of Co Op was rather lame. I was also thinking why Dice didn't dare to make a Campaign/Storymode that's pretty much Co Op only? I mean, Left 4 Dead pretty much did a 'story' that's extremely enjoyable playing Co Operatively? If they'd actually (or heck even a different developer could do it if Dice doesn't dare to) focus on developing a game like that it could turn into something pretty unique and awesome.

 

You still can have cutscenes, you still can tell a story... it's just going to be that more enjoyable actually being able to play it co operatively.

Generally, people were not a fan of the co-op in BF3, so DICE scrapped it in favor of the multi-player. Sadly, asking for a decent single-player will not work here at all. Pretty much since the beginning, BF was a multi-player game. CoD, not really, but it started to with CoD 4's coming. I still consider the old MoH games to have the perfect single-player in an FPS game.

 

I also agree with the co-op stuff, why the f*ck did they take it out?

[FranklinDeRoosevelt]

To be fair, this year they lost in the first round to Time Warner Cable.

 

Until, the gamers, until we do something about it, FPS games will be recycled sh*t. We have to boycott them, make huge petitions to make them release every 3 years to allow good developement times apthat add improvement.

 

DICE are going to be f*cking swamped. Battlefield 5, Battlefront, Mirrors Edge. They're going to f*ck one up, and if it's Battlefront, I will seriously be done with EA.

Hell if they mess up Mirrors Edge 2, that's it. I can officially say they are THE worst company in the world, not just in gaming and that they deserve to be put in a cage like an animal and be tortured.

[Zancudo]

They're working long hours doing their best to bring you a quality entertainment, though they not always succeed at that due to several circumstances. Yet you want them "to be put in cage like an animal and be tortured".

 

If you call them "the worst company in the world", because they happened to fail at making your highly-anticipated game as amazing as you imagined it to be, then I don't have words for you.

 

Seriously, what's wrong with people today?

Edited March 25, 2014 by Zancudo