Jump to content
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. GTANet.com

    1. GTA Online

      1. Los Santos Drug Wars
      2. Updates
      3. Find Lobbies & Players
      4. Guides & Strategies
      5. Vehicles
      6. Content Creator
      7. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Blood Money
      2. Frontier Pursuits
      3. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      4. Help & Support
    3. Crews

    1. Grand Theft Auto Series

      1. Bugs*
      2. St. Andrews Cathedral
    2. GTA VI

    3. GTA V

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    4. GTA IV

      1. The Lost and Damned
      2. The Ballad of Gay Tony
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
    5. GTA San Andreas

      1. Classic GTA SA
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    6. GTA Vice City

      1. Classic GTA VC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    7. GTA III

      1. Classic GTA III
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    8. Portable Games

      1. GTA Chinatown Wars
      2. GTA Vice City Stories
      3. GTA Liberty City Stories
    9. Top-Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Redemption

    1. GTA Mods

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Red Dead Mods

      1. Documentation
    3. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    4. Featured Mods

      1. Design Your Own Mission
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Rockstar Games

    2. Rockstar Collectors

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Movies & TV
      5. Music
      6. Sports
      7. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. Announcements

    2. Forum Support

    3. Suggestions

Battlefield 2042


scorseses
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'm kinda super late to this, but here's a good video regarding this. This was released in November of 2019. 

 

 

What I gathered from the video:

  • The next addition will not release until fiscal year 2022 (April 2021 - March 2022), possibly October 2021 release
  • It has been over a year (as of now) since the release of BF5. 3 years between BF5 and BF6 if Oct 2021 release. 
  • A lot of features have still not been added to BF5 that will possibly be added with later updates.
  • Bad Company 3 possible launch title for next generation of consoles? Impossible...? :( (BC3 is merely a rumour as of now)
  • As to what the next game will be like in terms of setting and stuff, it is completely unknown.
  • PS5 and XB1 will be out by the time BF6 arrives, I'm sure everyone is aware about this by now.

 

My thoughts:

  • His prediction regarding October 2021 is pinpoint accurate considering the majority of BF titles are released in the fall.
  • I think they should take a little longer on development so the game will have less bugs, BF4 as a title was buggy as hell at launch. My opinion, don't release the game until Fall 2022 or 2023.
  • I believe they should return to a modern setting, DICE only did BF1 because they wanted to magnet fans into their series from the COD series because Call of Duty wasn't listening to their fans.
  • Please, for the love of god, please do not release BF6 on current-gen. A new Battlefield has so much potential with next-gen graphics. 
  • Disconcerting about the dripfeed features with BF5, hopefully this tactic will not be implemented in BF6's existence. 
  • Bad Company 3 would be spectacular, but unfortunately it remains a rumour. 

 

Give your thoughts regarding this in the thread, and post any videos that may contribute to the topic at hand. 

Edited by gig
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Turan said:

Just give me a modern setting and you’ll have my attention DICE. 

I concur. I admired Activision's efforts to create a game like modern Battlefield titles, but it really never satisfied me. In my opinion, they were just trying to reel in fans they lost from 2016 when DICE released BF1.

 

I feel DICE is the only one who can satisfy in terms of Battlefield titles, especially modern games. Despite BF4's buggy launch, it reeled me into the series. I need to start playing it again though, but I am not sure how active people are on that game anymore. In my opinion, BF4 was the last good Battlefield (as of now). 

Edited by gig
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eh, two years is a decent amount of support I'd say. Not every game needs to be a 5 year game as a service beast like something like Rainbow Six Siege.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Jason said:

Eh, two years is a decent amount of support I'd say. Not every game needs to be a 5 year game as a service beast like something like Rainbow Six Siege.

You make a fair point, I mean after all, BF4 had content until July of 2014 after it's release. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cosmic Gypsy

I used to play Battlefield all the time. Never picked up the latest one though. I'm definitely excited to see what next gen Battlefield looks like, hopefully i can get back into it.

 

Bad Company 3 would be amazing though

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 Years of support is defiantly fair, but 2 years of sh*t support that apparently caused more problems than anything, is something else.

  • Like 3
7Rj3AZw.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yea the quality of the support is another thing entirely, I remember hearing about a TTK and balance change that if I recall turned pistols into AWP's and rifles into water guns or something like that lol. Glad I avoided it in hindsight, seems like it's a mile away from BF4.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thisisdagger

Battlefield 5 is the first one since 2 i skipped and the way EA/Dice treated their fanbase made me pretty much not bother with them anymore.

Planetside 2 is my main "battlefield" kind of game now

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/24/2020 at 10:45 AM, gig said:

Please, for the love of god, please do not release BF6 on current-gen. A new Battlefield has so much potential with next-gen graphics. 

What would you think if they released for the current gen and then upgrading to the new gen, like GTA V? That would include players from both consoles, meaning more money for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pedriko said:

What would you think if they released for the current gen and then upgrading to the new gen, like GTA V? That would include players from both consoles, meaning more money for them.

Well, would you want DICE to be limited to current-gen's capabilities? By the time BF6 comes out, it will almost be a year since next-gen released so I don't even know if they'll release it on PS4 and XB1. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, gig said:

Well, would you want DICE to be limited to current-gen's capabilities? By the time BF6 comes out, it will almost be a year since next-gen released so I don't even know if they'll release it on PS4 and XB1. 

Silly question, but how does the developers know wich capabilities will the next gen support?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Pedriko said:

Silly question, but how does the developers know wich capabilities will the next gen support?

I would assume they would go by the specs, but I am not too sure. 

 

Anyone is welcome to correct me regarding this if this is misinforming. 

Edited by gig
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Releasing it cross-gen has it's downsides, so does releasing it 1 year into the gen, so does releasing it at the very end of the gen. DICE aren't gonna to have an amazing grasp on the hardware by the time it releases in 2021, that know how always comes later in the generation.

 

Technical prowess has been the least of DICE's issues with their games lately though. They need to go back to the drawing board massively and give Battlefield a big refresh.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Jason said:

They need to go back to the drawing board massively and give Battlefield a big refresh.

Battlefield Heroes remaster? 😳

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Jason said:

that know how always comes later in the generation.

Is this the reasoning behind BF Hardline being released on PS3 in 2015? Afterwards in 2016, they released BF1 on next-gen only. So this could mean DICE will be making next-gen games only around 2024-2025, give or take?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, gig said:

Is this the reasoning behind BF Hardline being released on PS3 in 2015? Afterwards in 2016, they released BF1 on next-gen only. So this could mean DICE will be making next-gen games only around 2024-2025, give or take?

No. What I'm referring to is the fact that developers don't learn all the kinks of the hardware until years after. So, for example, compare GTA IV which released 2-3 years into a generation to GTA V which released at the very end, V was technically far more impressive (pls no one start about physics). The best looking games always coming at the end of a generation aint a coincidence, basically.

 

I don't know what the deal with Hardline was, it was such a weird game in hindsight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never was a fan of WW1-2 settings, so i skipped BF1 and BFV and never paid much attention to them. My favorite game of the franchise was BF4, i find it most polished and not annoying part. Yet there's clearly balancing issues.

 

For next Battlefield, im expecting a near modern setting and a couple of steps back in terms of feautes. I recall weapon customization in BFV was quite different from what i used to see and looked more like a skill tree. I suppose that limited custom variations etc.
Also now you get points for landing shots on enemies and i disagree with that. Such way too casual features was the thing i disliked about last BFs and i was glad that BF4 never had those (getting points for hitting vehicles unlike in BF3 is a small exception).

 

One of my friends actually hopes for something like Battlefield 2142. They can definitely go for it, since it's been a while for a futuristic Battlefields. But then, im skipping this part too, i would like to shoot famous well-known guns, not blasters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*gta star*

BFV could have been a remarkable game - It had the fundamentals with it being WW2 based (There's so much they could have done in terms of locations etc). Sadly, DICE messed this game up big time & pulling the plug really was the easy way out. The "live service" was just awful, content was literally drip fed, patches being released that caused more problems than they fixed... The list goes on. In my opinion, the best content that was eventually brought to the game was the Pacific chapter (Wake Island etc). The only maps apart from these that I enjoy are Panzerstorm for Tank gameplay, Arras, Rotterdam & Twisted Steel... I hardly play the others.

 

BF1 was a great game & they really did a good job of it, but being WW1 based, it limited what could actually be delivered in terms of weapons, content etc. However, they still released much more than BFV did! If anything, it should have been the opposite... BFV should have done more than BF1 ! 

 

BF4 was & is a fantastic game, I preferred it to BF5 in many ways. Graphically, it may not have been as good, but it was so much fun. It had variety, BFV didn't. 

 

BF6 probably has been in the very early stages of development for a while. I just hope the next title is a modern one & that its ready to be released, with plenty of content from the outset & minimal bugs/glitches (BFV wasn't anywhere near being ready to be released, it was a flop from the start). I hate the "live service" that DICE introduced to BFV, they simply cannot deliver it. I'd rather a paid DLC system, as at least you know the content is going to come at some point. DICE claimed with BFV that a paid DLC system split the player base because some people buy premium or deluxe editions of the game, which include DLC maps & others just buy the base game. So they went with a "live service" for BFV & what did we get? We got delay after delay, patches to fix another patch, hardly any maps, changing weapon mechanics, reverting weapon mechanics back because players went mad... It really was a joke. DICE effectively split the player base with their "live service" because many (including myself) are playing older titles because they simply offer a better experience that BFV can't match. 

 

They have to nail this next title... It can't be a repeat performance of BFV. They have plenty of time to work on things, to make this next game a true Battlefield to remember like BF2, BF3 & BF4 to name but a few. 

Edited by *gta star*
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

thisisdagger
12 hours ago, *gta star* said:

BFV could have been a remarkable game - It had the fundamentals with it being WW2 based (There's so much they could have done in terms of locations etc). Sadly, DICE messed this game up big time & pulling the plug really was the easy way out. The "live service" was just awful, content was literally drip fed, patches being released that caused more problems than they fixed... The list goes on. In my opinion, the best content that was eventually brought to the game was the Pacific chapter (Wake Island etc). The only maps apart from these that I enjoy are Panzerstorm for Tank gameplay, Arras, Rotterdam & Twisted Steel... I hardly play the others.

 

BF1 was a great game & they really did a good job of it, but being WW1 based, it limited what could actually be delivered in terms of weapons, content etc. However, they still released much more than BFV did! If anything, it should have been the opposite... BFV should have done more than BF1 ! 

 

BF4 was & is a fantastic game, I preferred it to BF5 in many ways. Graphically, it may not have been as good, but it was so much fun. It had variety, BFV didn't. 

 

BF6 probably has been in the very early stages of development for a while. I just hope the next title is a modern one & that its ready to be released, with plenty of content from the outset & minimal bugs/glitches (BFV wasn't anywhere near being ready to be released, it was a flop from the start). I hate the "live service" that DICE introduced to BFV, they simply cannot deliver it. I'd rather a paid DLC system, as at least you know the content is going to come at some point. DICE claimed with BFV that a paid DLC system split the player base because some people buy premium or deluxe editions of the game, which include DLC maps & others just buy the base game. So they went with a "live service" for BFV & what did we get? We got delay after delay, patches to fix another patch, hardly any maps, changing weapon mechanics, reverting weapon mechanics back because players went mad... It really was a joke. DICE effectively split the player base with their "live service" because many (including myself) are playing older titles because they simply offer a better experience that BFV can't match. 

 

They have to nail this next title... It can't be a repeat performance of BFV. They have plenty of time to work on things, to make this next game a true Battlefield to remember like BF2, BF3 & BF4 to name but a few. 

 

Unlike many others I am really not a fan of the modern day setting. I would have loved a WW2 version FAITHFULL to the era and not what we got. And I still remember the never ending flood of modern fps in the early 2010s. One DECENT ww2 game would have been perfect but DICE had to do their big coming out that time... Well the writing was already on the wall with BF1 and the German scout.

 

But alas in a modern day version they can at least go full diverse I guess. We w

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bad Company 3 or they can cancel everything they have planned. Tired of these "normal" Battlefields. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Revert all changes back to BF4, update it, make sure it has a LOT of maps and weapons/attachments on day one, and it will be a winner.

 

IMO we don't need a bs singleplayer campaign, but it could be cool to have co-op missions.

 

Battlefield 2 was my all time favorite. Bad Company 2 (including vietnam) was the best ever battlefield game on consoles, but I doubt we will get a game like that again when everything has shifted to faster cod style gameplay. BF3 though a disappointment that it wasnt anything at all like bad company 2, it was great but had issues with suppression and netcode. BF4 fixed the netcode issue and suppression issue and was probably the last perfect game, though I felt that the maps on BF3 were a lot better than BF4 maps. Also it came out during a next gen console wave so not everyone played it like I did.

 

Hardline was interesting, cool in concept, but limited in what they could do with it. It made no sense to have tanks or jets or heavy attack helicopters. I liked the civilian and police style weapons, but they made a STUPID choice to lock certain weapons to kits. I have NO CLUE why they keep doing this, everyone knows BF4's choices were so great, having DMRs and carbines and shotguns open to all classes, it gave you options if you didnt want say an LMG as support. and IMO I dont think kits should have ANY unique items other than its kit specific tool or function. Any gun or equipment should really be on any kit, except maybe bolt actions locked to sniper kit. Also with hardline it was being developed off the BF3 system so it had all its netcode and lag bullsh*t issues so it never played as good as BF4 did.

 

BF1 was cool, but as above, it had very limited space to grow, there were such a lack of variation of weapons, and they filled them all up with variants instead of actual new guns, which was pretty annoying. But the game looked and played really well, I just got bored to f*ck of the same old sh*t maps and lack of weapon variety and attachments. The game looked so good that we couldnt wait for WW2 to look like this...

 

BF5 could have been really cool, but they for some stupid reason decided to make a WW2 game that felt NOTHING like WW2 whatsoever. It felt like BF1 0.5 and any iconic WW2 battle, weapon, vehicle or landscape wasnt included in favor for some bullsh*t experimental unused crap that really didnt give off a WW2 atmosphere, which was its biggest downfall. It took like over a year or more just to get a god damn M1 garand in the game, I mean for f*ck sake? How can they f*ck that up so bad? I understand back in the day WW2 games were super popular and it was done to death. But we havent had a next gen WW2 game showing all those iconic battles for well over a decade. I was dying to relive D-Day and Stalingrad and The Pacific. But we got none of that sh*t. Just more sh*t that felt like some random WW1 fight in a field.

 

So I really am worried they will have all the bullsh*t Battlefront style crappy UI menus with nerfed down kits that have limited choice and options. Which is why I really just want them to go back to the drawing board on this one. Go back to BF4, then expand on that. More options more choice for how we want to play and not limit us. Locking sh*t off into sh*t kits just makes people either not use the kit what its for just for the gun, or not use the kit at all because of its sh*t guns. Let us customize it all, just keep bolt actions on sniper kits, ammo on support, health and revive on medic/assault, and repair tool on engineer. If I want a rocket or C4 as support with ammo bags and a carbine, I should be able to do that.

 

I don't know if I trust them to do the right thing anymore. I am getting pretty sick of all the social justice bullsh*t they are pulling as well.

Edited by Daz
  • Like 2
kT8ve9H.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

*gta star*
On 5/14/2020 at 11:31 PM, Daz said:

Revert all changes back to BF4, update it, make sure it has a LOT of maps and weapons/attachments on day one, and it will be a winner.

 

IMO we don't need a bs singleplayer campaign, but it could be cool to have co-op missions.

 

Battlefield 2 was my all time favorite. Bad Company 2 (including vietnam) was the best ever battlefield game on consoles, but I doubt we will get a game like that again when everything has shifted to faster cod style gameplay. BF3 though a disappointment that it wasnt anything at all like bad company 2, it was great but had issues with suppression and netcode. BF4 fixed the netcode issue and suppression issue and was probably the last perfect game, though I felt that the maps on BF3 were a lot better than BF4 maps. Also it came out during a next gen console wave so not everyone played it like I did.

 

Hardline was interesting, cool in concept, but limited in what they could do with it. It made no sense to have tanks or jets or heavy attack helicopters. I liked the civilian and police style weapons, but they made a STUPID choice to lock certain weapons to kits. I have NO CLUE why they keep doing this, everyone knows BF4's choices were so great, having DMRs and carbines and shotguns open to all classes, it gave you options if you didnt want say an LMG as support. and IMO I dont think kits should have ANY unique items other than its kit specific tool or function. Any gun or equipment should really be on any kit, except maybe bolt actions locked to sniper kit. Also with hardline it was being developed off the BF3 system so it had all its netcode and lag bullsh*t issues so it never played as good as BF4 did.

 

BF1 was cool, but as above, it had very limited space to grow, there were such a lack of variation of weapons, and they filled them all up with variants instead of actual new guns, which was pretty annoying. But the game looked and played really well, I just got bored to f*ck of the same old sh*t maps and lack of weapon variety and attachments. The game looked so good that we couldnt wait for WW2 to look like this...

 

BF5 could have been really cool, but they for some stupid reason decided to make a WW2 game that felt NOTHING like WW2 whatsoever. It felt like BF1 0.5 and any iconic WW2 battle, weapon, vehicle or landscape wasnt included in favor for some bullsh*t experimental unused crap that really didnt give off a WW2 atmosphere, which was its biggest downfall. It took like over a year or more just to get a god damn M1 garand in the game, I mean for f*ck sake? How can they f*ck that up so bad? I understand back in the day WW2 games were super popular and it was done to death. But we havent had a next gen WW2 game showing all those iconic battles for well over a decade. I was dying to relive D-Day and Stalingrad and The Pacific. But we got none of that sh*t. Just more sh*t that felt like some random WW1 fight in a field.

 

So I really am worried they will have all the bullsh*t Battlefront style crappy UI menus with nerfed down kits that have limited choice and options. Which is why I really just want them to go back to the drawing board on this one. Go back to BF4, then expand on that. More options more choice for how we want to play and not limit us. Locking sh*t off into sh*t kits just makes people either not use the kit what its for just for the gun, or not use the kit at all because of its sh*t guns. Let us customize it all, just keep bolt actions on sniper kits, ammo on support, health and revive on medic/assault, and repair tool on engineer. If I want a rocket or C4 as support with ammo bags and a carbine, I should be able to do that.

 

I don't know if I trust them to do the right thing anymore. I am getting pretty sick of all the social justice bullsh*t they are pulling as well.

BF2 was my personal favourite too. My goodness, I put some hours into that game! It was fantastic... Strike at Karkand, Wake Island, Gulf of Oman, Dragon Valley, Road to Jalalabad - Just a few of the classic maps that I thoroughly enjoyed.

 

In reference to BF5 though, there were Pacific maps? Wake Island, Iwo Jima, Pacific Storm & Solomon Islands.  Sadly, there were no other iconic battles included in the game, like Stalingrad or D-Day. I can't for the life of me understand why they released a WW2 game & left many iconic battles out of it. The Pacific maps they released were the best in the game, in my opinion. I understand what you mean about BF5 not feeling like a WW2 game. I find the only game mode that gives you that experience is Breakthrough, as it feels like a proper battle. The difference that mode makes to even the worst maps that you might not even like playing is remarkable. So you could play a round of Conquest on a map lets say that you don't necessarily like & it just feels boring running around in circles capping flags. Play the same map on Breakthrough & it feels like a different game! 

 

BF1 was a cracking game & they actually made a lot of effort with it, delivering lots of content in terms of maps (Much more than BF5 for example). However, you mention lack of weapons & attachments. They tried to keep things as realistic as they could, so they couldn't add weapons to the game that didn't exist at the time. That's why there were many 'experimental' versions of weapons, but even then, they stretched the truth a bit because some were prototype weapons that weren't actually used in the war. You can't put loads of weapons in a WW1 game, if you want to keep it realistic anyway because most of the other weapons were developed after WW1. On that note, there weren't really any weapon attachments that they could have introduced to BF1 either because they didn't exist in that era. BF5 was the game where they should have introduced more weapons & attachments, not BF1. BF5 was supposedly a WW2 game, therefore, historical accuracy meant that there were so many weapons that they could have added to the game - We didn't get them though. 

 

BF4 was & still is a fantastic game. That was the true definition of a modern FPS game in my opinion, but I absolutely loved BF2 as well. With BF2 & BF4, they have the fundamentals to create a truly fantastic game for the future. Release quality maps from the start, iconic ones too that the BF community want like Wake Island, Strike at Karkand etc etc.

 

I hope DICE learn from their mistakes with BF5, their next title has to be better.

Edited by *gta star*
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cosmic Gypsy

Every one here seems to love BF4, am i the only one who thinks 3 is way better? I think 4 is the same apart from the fact some of the maps had a disaster gimmick where a huge building would fall down or the entire map would flood. I thought this was too much for the PS3 at the time and very gimmicky. Next gen consoles could probably make it better though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archangelsky

I am not sure what I want or expect from the next BF, I played a little bit of BF1942, then went onto BF.Vietnam, BF2, BF:Bad Company 2, BF3 and BF1.

I never played BF4 because I had a huge fps burnout during that time and after about 12 months without playing any fps games I returned to BF3 and went straight to BF1.

 

For me I had high hopes for BFV, and I wanted a WWII setting with nice graphics, but I lost motivation again and I never played it, I pre-ordered but cancelled. I am happy either way but I assume they will go for a modern area fps, if it was up to me I would not mind either modern or a new Vietnam game. Another alternative would be an 80 cold war fps setting which could be interesting. I will follow it when it is announced whatever it is UNLESS it is sci-fi then I just move on I have no interest in sci-fi at all at least not as a BF-series game. In addition, I am not sure but I will see, having played so many fps games and have been a gamer for over three decades my reflexes are not as good now being over 40 as they were 15-20 years ago and that is a "problem" for me because I have always been a way above average fps gamer so I suspect I will have a low tolerance in playing bad, either that or I have to change my playing style. I did very well in BF1, even though it was faster paced then BF3.

 

A sidenote, but being an "older" fps gamer now is one of the reasons why I love RDR2 online so much, its slow paced even at its fastest and so reaxing, competitve fps games are quite high pump always "on" adrenaline so I am not sure if it is for me anymore having played so well in the past, but ever since quiting BF1 over 18 months ago now I am still courious of how long I will be albe to play good in a fps game as I age, and if the next BF game looks interesting I guess I will find out 🙂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, *gta star* said:

BF2 was my personal favourite too. My goodness, I put some hours into that game! It was fantastic... Strike at Karkand, Wake Island, Gulf of Oman, Dragon Valley, Road to Jalalabad - Just a few of the classic maps that I thoroughly enjoyed.

 

In reference to BF5 though, there were Pacific maps? Wake Island, Iwo Jima, Pacific Storm & Solomon Islands.  Sadly, there were no other iconic battles included in the game, like Stalingrad or D-Day. I can't for the life of me understand why they released a WW2 game & left many iconic battles out of it. The Pacific maps they released were the best in the game, in my opinion. I understand what you mean about BF5 not feeling like a WW2 game. I find the only game mode that gives you that experience is Breakthrough, as it feels like a proper battle. The difference that mode makes to even the worst maps that you might not even like playing is remarkable. So you could play a round of Conquest on a map lets say that you don't necessarily like & it just feels boring running around in circles capping flags. Play the same map on Breakthrough & it feels like a different game! 

 

BF1 was a cracking game & they actually made a lot of effort with it, delivering lots of content in terms of maps (Much more than BF5 for example). However, you mention lack of weapons & attachments. They tried to keep things as realistic as they could, so they couldn't add weapons to the game that didn't exist at the time. That's why there were many 'experimental' versions of weapons, but even then, they stretched the truth a bit because some were prototype weapons that weren't actually used in the war. You can't put loads of weapons in a WW1 game, if you want to keep it realistic anyway because most of the other weapons were developed after WW1. On that note, there weren't really any weapon attachments that they could have introduced to BF1 either because they didn't exist in that era. BF5 was the game where they should have introduced more weapons & attachments, not BF1. BF5 was supposedly a WW2 game, therefore, historical accuracy meant that there were so many weapons that they could have added to the game - We didn't get them though. 

 

BF4 was & still is a fantastic game. That was the true definition of a modern FPS game in my opinion, but I absolutely loved BF2 as well. With BF2 & BF4, they have the fundamentals to create a truly fantastic game for the future. Release quality maps from the start, iconic ones too that the BF community want like Wake Island, Strike at Karkand etc etc.

 

I hope DICE learn from their mistakes with BF5, their next title has to be better.

A lot of that Pacific content and other parts weren't available at launch. It took a good year or more to get any of that, I had long since ditched it by then.

 

And my point was they pretty much put themselves into a corner with WW1 because really there could have been a lot of weapons, but just not enough for each kit because of the lack of choice with automatic and semi automatic weapons. They definitely didn't go for historically accurate as like you put, some weapons barely existed as prototypes and many had attachments and sighting systems that weren't on those particular guns. Not that I was asking for made up sh*t, but we could have got more lever and bolt action rifles, more pistols and shotguns for example. WW2 had more than enough choices, even aside from iconic ones, at least somewhat well known firearms that were used weren't even included, in favor for extremely out of place and unheard of weapons. Which I am fine with, but I consider those to be last tier weapon unlocks, anything common should be available at the very start of an unlock tree.

 

But really when you go historic you give yourself limited places to expand with content. I always wanted a new Vietnam title, but at this point even that would be limited and they would f*ck it up as well. I want modern, but not too modern, I don't want exo suits and too much high tech gear. Just some every day modern sh*t at this current point in time.

kT8ve9H.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

*gta star*
6 hours ago, Daz said:

A lot of that Pacific content and other parts weren't available at launch. It took a good year or more to get any of that, I had long since ditched it by then.

 

And my point was they pretty much put themselves into a corner with WW1 because really there could have been a lot of weapons, but just not enough for each kit because of the lack of choice with automatic and semi automatic weapons. They definitely didn't go for historically accurate as like you put, some weapons barely existed as prototypes and many had attachments and sighting systems that weren't on those particular guns. Not that I was asking for made up sh*t, but we could have got more lever and bolt action rifles, more pistols and shotguns for example. WW2 had more than enough choices, even aside from iconic ones, at least somewhat well known firearms that were used weren't even included, in favor for extremely out of place and unheard of weapons. Which I am fine with, but I consider those to be last tier weapon unlocks, anything common should be available at the very start of an unlock tree.

 

But really when you go historic you give yourself limited places to expand with content. I always wanted a new Vietnam title, but at this point even that would be limited and they would f*ck it up as well. I want modern, but not too modern, I don't want exo suits and too much high tech gear. Just some every day modern sh*t at this current point in time.

I agree, the Pacific maps should have been available from the start of the game, as should the other iconic battles like D-Day for example. 

 

I said in my previous post they tried to keep BF1 as realistic as they could & also mentioned that they stretched the truth on some things, in particular because many of the weapons that were in the game were prototypes, or experimental versions of weapons that weren't actually used in WW1... They did this to give us more weapons. Maybe the attachments in the game weren't totally a true reflection of WW1, which in effect ditched the historical accuracy because many weapons/attachments in BF1 weren't actually used in the war, or very little or maybe didn't even exist. From a map perspective though, BF1 did have a good choice of maps based on realistic battles & that's where the historical accuracy comes in to play. Cape Helles was based on Gallipoli, Fort de Vaux looks remarkably similar to the real world location, Zeebrugge is also based on the real battle that took place in WW1. These maps for example aren't totally like the real world locations, as buildings were made bigger etc, but DICE were very clever with their map design & made maps that were remarkably similar to the actual battles that took place. This in turn created an aspect of realism/historical accuracy, so there were French maps, Russian maps etc - This is true to WW1.  

 

A WW1 game is always going to be limited, like you say. Battlefield in general isn't a totally realistic franchise as such though, its not ARMA for example...If I wanted to play a realistic FPS, it wouldn't be Battlefield.  However, I want to have fun & that's what Battlefield offers! BF1 was fun, yes it wasn't exactly to the 'T' with historical accuracy, but it did have maps based on real world battles. I understand why they sacrificed things to make the game more enjoyable & to be fair, I think BF1 was a brilliant game. It was their best selling title of all time, so I guess they got something right. 

 

 

Edited by *gta star*
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I personally hope it isn't modern. I'm sure it will be, but we had BF2, BF3 and BF4 all modern in a row. Arrguably BFH too. I'd prefer a new Battlefield Vietnam or Cold War era setting but I know it won't happen...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I think modern has its best chance of success. Especially at this time we are in now with a lot of games trying to copy the Escape From Tarkov look and weapon customization and detail and weapon features. However yes a Vietnam would be awesome, as we really never got a full vietnam title from dice since BF:V which was well over 15 years ago now. The Vietnam DLC for BC2 was awesome, I wish it was its own game. But it is too late to now revisit that game engine.

 

I think the best balance of modern weapons and historic settings would be vietnam, and if that is a bit dingey and dull at times. I would love to see a Desert Storm battlefield. If it had a story it could span from flashbacks to the 1980s with engagements in Grenada and Panama, then transitioning to Iraq and then Somalia with a final black hawk down style map. It would offer modern enough equipment whilst still being historic. I always loved the Conflict Desert Storm games and always wanted a battlefield to be centered around one. I feel they offered better contrast of enemy divisions and actual enemy tanks and helicopters than the 2003 iraq war would have done and certainly anything set in afghanistan. If they were good they could jump from Vietnam all the way to present day with select few battles in each war since the 60s. Multiplayer maps never really cared about the map setting with the correct weapons. So I don't think anyone would care that much if our CAR-15 had a red dot on it in a multiplayer Vietnam map. Black Ops 1 never cared when it had red dots on MP5K's in levels set in 1963 when that gun hadn't been invented yet, let alone the sighing system. That game still had success and I never heard anyone bitch about that other than me.

 

And in the end it could always be a fictional war, or a semi-realistic war. The war was real but the battle in the certain location and year being made up. Either way I want some classic 80s guns.

  • Like 1
kT8ve9H.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.