>tfw the poll for the next big Battlefield game is current set with WWII winning by a large margin
>tfw no comfy ice age mechs
>tfw no titan mode
>2143 will never be a thing
Still, I want a new WW2 battlefield, that is not the abortion called 1943
>tfw Dragon Valley was god tier
>tfw Comm Ops was god tier
>tfw DICE LA literally saved BF4
>tfw DICE Sweden destroyed Battlefront
>tfw DICE is working on 3 games for this year
>tfw BF5 will probably be made by DICE LA
Maybe, just maybe, it won't be garbage.
I guess I can repost this. It was posted like 4 months ago on /v/ I believe. I copied it.
>Dice Stockholm Employee here. Not providing proof. Not doing anything to compromise myself. Def not going on the shitty Reddit. Next Battlefield game is 2143, we don't have the name set in stone yet, but it is the same setting as 2142. The one thing we are very worried about is that people are going to say we copied CoD because of the Future shit. I know most of /v/ hates BF, but I just wanted to tell someone. The gameplay is still pretty much Battlefield 3/4 style though, so don't get comfy thinking you will have the old clunkiness back. Another thing to note is that the Naval Conquest Mode from BF4 was a test for a better, less shitty version of Titan Mode in 2143. Despite our best efforts, EA will not let us ditch premium and they are forcing us to do a SP Campaign again. One thing we did manage to fight for, for now atleast, is Dedicated Servers and a Server Browser (Battlelog.) They pushed HARD for Battlefront not to have it, but that is not the case for 2143.
I mean, it was a shitpost on /v/, it was probably fake. Everyone, including EA, has been pointing fingers saying SP will probably be dropped because it is terrible. They dropped it for SWBF even. EA has also been saying Dice Stockholm has 2 teams and 1 is working on hardline patches while the other is working on SWBF2.
>not wanting another WW2 FPS
the last good WW2 shooter was cod:world at war
it's been too long. plus i'm a huge naziboo so any WW2 games gets my dick going
>tfw Dragon Valley was god tier
Nigga I have done nothing but play this map since it released. It has been hilarious reading all the mad in chat about how the map is too big when people try and play the whole map instead of objectives. I went 32 and 0 last game doing nothing but Gunning in a Viper, it was a blast. Also the remixed BF2 music was nostalgia bomb af
It isnt dead, its true there are not many players but you can hop on a filled server any time of the day.
The game has some really good ideas and when it works it's really fucking fun, sadly the technical side is a broken mess. The game looks, runs and feels like shit.
I think he meant that it's clunky, which is true. I'm 200 hours in the game, but I feel like I'm actually controlling a mech-exoskeleton and not a real human being.
A WW2 fast paced shooter ala Battlefield might be cool
>Is BF3 Premium Edition worth getting?
With BF5 around the corner take basic BF4 while waiting for it.
It was a chore and only did it for the m249.
You never played 2142 did you? That game was fucking amazing and a sequal has the potential to be bretty gud (provided dice don't butcher it. Funny joke I know) but I guess the 11 year olds weren't concious enough to have experienced it
Tried both, Ghosts was an uninteresting shit with one of the most boring settings I've seen so far, but BF4 was by far the worst I've played out of cinematic shotan games. It was incredibly inconsistent and full of inane plot holes. Didn't play Hardline.
I don't believe this simply because it's a well known fact EA doesn't actually exert much pressure on their studios to cut or include anything beyond DLC and microtransactions.
Bioware, Maxis, doesn't matter which - if you look at stuff employees say EA's main flaw is that when they buy a studio out they fail to retain the upper level talent and give them such a big budget that they then expand their own scope hugely, and without their old leads they crumble under the pressure.
There's no fucking way EA would demand an SP campaign if the devs didn't want to add one, especially the team who saved 4.
Vietnam is a shitty war, thats why.
The game would be either hiding and placing booby traps all day as the VC, or burning down empty swamps as the US.
There's a reason Vietnam games are so unpopular.
Black Ops was pretty
funespecially the singleplayer. Granted, that was because they had the whole conspiracy/cia shady shit/super technology mystery thing going on but it was a good ride
>people want WWII shit again
>not superior sci-fi shooters
God, why is everyone so retarded. Can't wait for a boring game with no movement options and the same weapons everyone has seen a million times.
That's what I'm saying, it relied more on the behind the scenes/cold war side of Vietnam more than the war itself. It did have some pretty cool levels where you fight the VC tho
At least it was better than BC2.
That was one of the worst campaigns I've ever played and the multiplayer suffered from the worst hit detection I've ever had to suffer through.
>sci-fi shooters gives devs more freedom to do crazy stuff
>people would rather have safe "realistic" shit instead since it doesn't go out of their comfort zone
it doesn't help that the Battlefield fanbase nowadays mostly consist of COD fans who also hate the future shit for the same reasons
>no piloted aircraft carriers and battleships
why even bother? Plus, what made 1942 so great was the plethora of mods to choose from, but the BF modding community died out after Vietnam barring the BF2 realism mod.
Although I have been dying for some WWII games as the market is over saturated with "Modern Shooters" I think the only way a shooter can be old fashioned and modern is if you take the Black Ops approach where its staged in an early to mid Cold War era and there are some high tech weapons that are all secret black ops type shit but for the most part they keep it pretty basic, rugged and old fashioned.
I mean you could still keep in drones and shit where as in a WWII game you are much more limited in tactics and warfare, still I feel like vehicle combat would be much more interesting and you could be much more stealth.
I don't want to play shooters without wallruns and slides anymore. And I want movement like that in a battlefield game together with future vehicles and so on.
But the fans have spoken, we want semper fi mosin nagant kill the nazis and nips ooraaah again.
>people played WW2 shooters for eight years
>"dude that's so lame change a bit fuck"
>make modern ones
>"wahhh why all of this shitty futurist shit i want muh old noble wars back!"
you CAN'T go into cycles you stupid fucks. they still haven't done the korean war, a near-future one or a proper vietnam game. chill out. even an actual middle eastern war, or some russian kgb shit.
If they set it in the 60s-70s they can still push modern super tech stuff (within reason) and make it seem really top secret and scarce.
Wouldn't work well with a WW:II game but id love a WW:II game bad but only if the singleplayer is half decent as I can imagine the multiplayer for that getting stale pretty easily, however at the same time I can see that changing shit for shooters and making things interesting, you couldn't just lock on and shoot down planes like in BF now.
>they can still push modern super tech stuff (within reason) and make it seem really top secret and scarce.
So a super secret thing that fights in "large" scale battlefields?
WW2 would be a huge step back for the BF series.
A very limited amount of weapons, all single fire, no attatchments with no sights and only iron sights available. No gadgets, only sticky and frag grenades.
A WW2 BF game wouldbe a heavily stripped down version of BF with next to no content.
Yeah, lets go with that instead of having a load of new and interesting stuff with different vehicles and weapons.
>tfw we're finally going back to ww2
>bombing german bunkers with naval guns
>rushing omaha beach
>glorious ww2 weapons
Really hope COD will follow up and make a crazy ww2 jet-pack super nazi soldier shooter.
>A very limited amount of weapons, all single fire, no attatchments with no sights and only iron sights available.
Watch some documentaries or something.
This should do you some good.
>thinking this is bad
>thinking grind and unlocks are good
please leave /v/
RO2 tried and the best they could come up with is unlocking bayonets, drum mags and bipods, which should have been standard issue.
WW2 has no unlocks unless you make Battlefield 1946 scifi-WW2
>not on the eastern front or Africa
Western front is over done and blew out of proportion.
>call of duty announces world at war 2
>jet-pack is a 3 killstreak or item pick-up
>remove regenerative health
>players spawn with 2 hp packs that heal 40 hp
>super nazi and allied tech allows for fun times weapons
>perks and killstreaks out the ass
>awesome maps in england, germany, murica, russia and nippon
OUR RECON PLANE WILL FIND THEM
yeah, then infinity ward and EA and treyarch and whatever will deal with that in 2020
WW2 FPS games were always the best. just simple shootan and killan instead of 500 different attachments and jetpacks and other retarded shit
do you honestly enjoy all that extra garbage? the feeling you get with an m1 garand when you pop some kraut in the face with the last bullet in your clip and hear that ping is just the best
World War 2
>40vs40 or greater.
>dismemberment and gore.
>fully destructible environments.
>bullets, shells and explosions do realistic damage through walls, barriers and foliage.
battlefield once again returns to form.
I wouldn't mind Battlefield modern warfare setting if they actually had the balls to go all out.
Stop this shadow war bullshit in some shitty jungles and just go full World War 3. It's not like the recent Battlefield singleplayer stories have mattered.
Opens up a lot more possibilities for maps too rather than just jungle and woodlands.
The setting and era doesn't really matter, if it is a good game it will be good.
But, WW2 has been done to death and compared to what we have in modern shooters is basic and stripped down.
Modern shooters have also been done to death but at least they offer good variety with fresh and new weapons, vehicles, gadets and attatchments.
Sci-fi hasn't been done to death and there is a lot of things you can do with it.
You can have completely different weapons, settings, vehicles, ships, location even on different planets.
Would you rather have the same bland settings of WW2 battles with basic weapons in a game we have seen many times.
Or would you rather have something completely diffetent and new with a sci-fi shooter?
people will both ironically and unironically say WW2
There was like 2 that I can remember. Metro and Seine crossing. Both set in France, but they were very closed and limited maps. No air vehicles or anything.
I just wish they would go all out and do whatever. Like a city map that actually feels like a city with air vehicles and everything.
It's a step in the right direction but the rest of the maps all still follow the woodlands/desert/outdoor theme.
Siege of Shanghai is a pretty bad map too.
I just want cool urban combat in BF.
The next big battlefields already in development and is coming out in less than 10 months.
Whatever poll you read has absolutely ZERO effect on ANYTHING. GOOD DAY.
>can't pilot the fucking mechs in BF4 final stand
gay as fuck senpai
Yeah some of the BF4 maps are pretty good with this but again theres only like 2 city maps that are very shallow. Shangai is a very linear map, Dawnbreaker is also very linear and small (compared to most open and big maps like Rogue Transmission and others)
well time to skip that one.
just kidding i'd skip it regardless. Fixing the game when you've released all the expansions is not good.
BF4 is finally both fun and stable. 2+ years after release.
I am not paying another $120. They had one chance to convince me paying that much at release was worth it and not only did they blow it, they convinced me the series is irrevocably in decline.
There have been TWO BF games out since then and both have been terrible. Small creature comforts and quality of life updates (as well as fixing the fucking netcode which should have been done BEFORE LAUNCH) will not convince me that they deserve anything more than $20 for the entire game, not just a sliver then a big black DLC dick in my ass.
And only one skyscraper that you can actually enter. Every match on that map ends up being a CQC battle over who gets to control it until someone blows it up and gets permabanned from the server.
>they offer good variety with fresh and new weapons, vehicles, gadets and attatchments.
>meanwhile every BF game has the same vehicles, the same weapons, the same gadgets
>the jets on dawnbreaker
what were they even thinking?
I literally don't care about the setting. I just want the game to be about shooting and aim/positioning and whatever instead of adding in a ton of random shit to lower the skill ceiling and make it appeal to casuals.
>no titan mode
Go play 2142 if you wanna move titans next to each other for that awful lag
I don't give a shit what's good for the company or what makes the most sense financially; I want another skill-based shooter. CS:GO gets old after 4k hours, Promod is dead. UT is dead, Quake is dead, etc.
>>the jets on dawnbreaker
Jets on that map is retarded, there is nonspace to fly because the map is so small. Plus the jet can't do anything other than fight the other jet making it pointless anyway.
Fucking DICE man.
Of the popular FPS out right now, it's easily the most skill-based. It's a far cry from the beta and 1.6 days (and other arena FPS) and has some absolutely retarded randomness in it, but it's the best we have right now.
I just want some urban combat maps that actually have something in them rather than just stupidly placed skyscrapers that might aswell be mountains.
Imagine the bigger maps in BF4 like Silk Road and Rogue Transmission but as cities. Something to fill up all that empty space
> everyone and their moms was tired of ww2 games before cod4 came out.
I honestly don't think this is true. Back in the day we had mainly good WW2 titles, and they weren't overdone like semi futuristic fps games are now.
What I wanna see is an urban map the size of Dragon Valley, balanced entirely for infantry combat only. No vehicles except one jeep per team that can be used as transport. No overly huge buildings, and rooftop access on the level of pearl market and flood zone. Tell me you wouldn't play the shit out of that as long as it was well balanced
If we do end up going back to WWII I hope DICE includes some battleship action scenes. Just imagining that type of Aircraft carrier scene from BF3 on a WWII setting onboard of a Battleship or Aircraft carrier makes me moist.
bonus points if we get to play the Germans or the Japs this time around
were you even alive in the early 2000s? call of duty, BF, and medal of honor were shitting out ww2 games at the same rate as modern/futuristic FPS now. the argument of quality is purely subjective, but not even 10 years ago, the ww2 shooter was the generic shootan game
>but you have to be like 15 years old to think this. everyone and their moms was tired of ww2 games before cod4 came out.
So you are 15 then? Because every shooter up until CoD 4 was WW2 and everyone and their dog was bored of it.
One of the reasons CoD 4 was so successful was because it was a modern shooter. You can stop pretending to know what it was like ehen every fps game was WW2.
A bit of the same. I want a relatively small sized European city, lots of apartment buildings and shops. No skyscrapers but few tall buildings compared to the others.
Good rooftop access and open streets.
As long as there's not fucking armoured vehicles I'd more likely enjoy it. Tanks, LAVs, AA, Amtrak, and BMPs throw the balance of way too much and a lot of the time they feel like they're there just for the sake of being there
>were you even alive in the early 2000s?
I was, and there was a big quantity of WW2 games, but most of them were actually good and we didn't get bored as fast as we get now with CoD releasing every year, Battlefield every 2-3 years and other titles.
> 1943 will never be released on PC
I like vehicles, DICE have just forgotten how to properly implement them and seem to just plonk them in high concentration on most maps without actually giving any thought as to how they affect the game. Add to that all the ridiculous vehicle upgrades in bf3 and 4 and you realise the best thing to come out of the two games are the Close Quarters expansion, and Guilin Peaks.
yeah I do think vehicles need an overhaul
they should go for a more realistic approach imo
tanks should be able to choose 2 ammo types (HE, AP, Smoke, canister etc) and an mg
they should also be stronger but have weaker armour
I just want one game with a convincing middle eastern faction/campaign. Every one is so damn generic. Even something corny like C&C Generals. Just something more to convince me I'm playing a game set in the Middle East than a bunch of sand and people yelling in indistinct Arabic.
I remember everyone pleased COD4 ditched WW2, and everyone trashed World at War because it "took a step back" and returned to WW2 again.
I frequently heard "Don't worry, Treyarch don't really get it anymore, Infinity Ward will bring the goods. Why would I want iron sights when I get laser scopes and silencers?"
BF4 is close future already. America most likely close to winning the war, PAC forms to conteract this, PAC wins, US never recovers. There are alraedy hover tanks and Titans on some of the maps.
you could easily do a WW2 BF and have great variety simply by including all of the prototype stuff most people don't know about like Sturmtigers and the Horten Ho jet fighters. and infrared sights and etc etc.
WW2 with some liberties taken can be amazing. CoH2 nailed this.
it was a fake.
>WWII winning by a large margin
I can't tell if this is misguided nostalgia or just plain retardation from people who were born after 9/11.
>40vs40 or greater.
Tribes had 64v64 in 2001 along with full vehicular (both air and land) and infantry combat, jetpacks, top notch graphics and big maps.
Battlefield: Star Wars instead opted to go for less than 32v32 this time around... We both know these shits aren't going to touch bigger player count with a gun smaller than Gustave.
>come back after 9 months
>old platoon kicked me out after inactivity
>can't decide/find one that fits me
>stuck forever in pubs with pub teammates
>only once in a great while do I get a good squad
>consistently 1st or 2nd because I'm not retarded, but I'm just slightly above average and everyone is shit
Thinking about CMW or rTr, I guess they'd have a teamspeak at least. I can't find any hc platoons that are recruiting.
There's quite a big chance those people never experienced WW2 shooters. I mean, the only options they have is a F2P garbage game and niche PTSD simulator. Can't think of any other recent WW2-themed games, that are not completely alternate history.
I'l give you the Dicker Max.
Even one of the most recent WW2 games people still play will be 5 years old this year. Hardly anything good is coming out in regards to WW2. I would rather not have anyone AAA bother with WW2 either. They'll shit all over it with the more modern concepts for gameplay.
>mfw I don't care whether it's 2143 or 1944 because I really want both of them
Seriously, either setting with faction-locked weapons and actually different vehicles would be boners to space for me.
AAA ww2 games would be the shittiest fps of all time.
1942 were cool since you had shitloads of different vehicles and guns all available to you.
modern model is few vehicles and grind to unlock shit.
ww2 games were the simple fps style, no gadgets no unlocks, no modular shit. you knew everytime that the guys you were fighting had rifles and iron sights.
Alternate reality Battlefield when?
I want Blimps with rail guns and Rocket man style jetpacks with flaming swords and Mass effect like mind powers. Also crazy ridable creatures with cannons attached to them and multiple seatable1940's like automobiles with gatling guns attached.
>all these people who haven't played Battlefield 2142
Do people not even remember the based as fuck Battlewalker charges? The temporary invincibility, the AA gun on top? The APCs with EMP cannons and pod launchers built in? It wouldn't just be a retread of Black Ops III, a game that came out like 7 years after 2142.
>multiple seatable1940's like automobiles with gatling guns attached.
Take your pick, they built a million different types of those in WWII.
And to expand on my retarded idea the blimps harness that mass effect mind power bullshit to alter gravity to super charge their rail guns into shooting giant metal rods and shit bellow them. The rods can only shoot down since they use gravity and blimp to blimp combat is based on the occupants who use *Rocketeer (not rocket man) style jetpacks to fight ship to ship. And the mother fuckers on one faction used their mass effect brain powers to tame all the crazy beasts in this world so they strapped guns to them. Then those nigger other teams guys use technology and hybrid bullshit like i mentioned earlier with the cars.
That sounds great.
Brits vs Germans vs Russians and maybe a German pov campaign please
I think Brits + 'Strayans vs. Japan should be included. I've never seen that in a game before.