Thread: Rumors of BF5 being set in WWI

I agree. My favorite maps from bf2 and 2142 were the ones where attackers had to force their way into the map, establish a foothold, and make incremental gains.

One of my favorite scenarios was trying to breech the defense in jalalabad or karkand as attackers. Symmetry is okay on certain maps, but it shouldn't always be the norm. Unique weapons for each side and asymmetrical map placement and objectives wouldn't be a bad thing

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

attackable uncaps/commander assets.

vehicles that don't respawn 20 seconds after destruction, or auto-repair, or have some sort of magic impenetrable force field.

team and class specific load-outs, no more everyone gets to choose from the same pool of weapons. Half the fun/challenge is learning to work with what applies to your role. you want an AK, but you're on the US side...you better pick up an enemy kit then. You want a Designated Marksman Rifle, then you need to choose a Marksman/recon class, not medic or engineer. A suppressor on an LMG? Cmon now.

dumb bombs and MGs on aircraft that are viable and can actually do damage to infantry and vehicles.

speaking of commander assets, any WMD (arty, cruise missile, C130, etc) should also have FF damage regardless of game mode. Though I would prefer FF-on across the board, I can deal with infantry based FF-off, but dropping a cruise missile/C130 hail-fire on a flag with friendly and enemy should not magically kill just the enemies.

/mini-rant?

Originally Posted by nmeboat

attackable uncaps/commander assets.

vehicles that don't respawn 20 seconds after destruction, or auto-repair, or have some sort of magic impenetrable force field.

team and class specific load-outs, no more everyone gets to choose from the same pool of weapons. Half the fun/challenge is learning to work with what applies to your role. you want an AK, but you're on the US side...you better pick up an enemy kit then. You want a Designated Marksman Rifle, then you need to choose a Marksman/recon class, not medic or engineer. A suppressor on an LMG? Cmon now.

dumb bombs and MGs on aircraft that are viable and can actually do damage to infantry and vehicles.

speaking of commander assets, any WMD (arty, cruise missile, C130, etc) should also have FF damage regardless of game mode. Though I would prefer FF-on across the board, I can deal with infantry based FF-off, but dropping a cruise missile/C130 hail-fire on a flag with friendly and enemy should not magically kill just the enemies.

/mini-rant?

Hi All,
Like this topic.

As pointed out. A reveal is only days away and it will be interesting to see how this goes.

Got to say I agree with this post I have just quoted. Also if there was a "Fucking like that post button" instead of "like" I would have hit that with the ones I have liked.

I am not an expert on game development or it's distribution, but it would seem that Electronic Arts have a big say in what happens with this title. They love to build games that you have to purchase bolt on's. The Sims is an example of such. Malibu furniture....extra kitchen devices...so on and so on. Look at BF 4 and the offers for short cut bundles. Who wants to buy that shit any way. Oh thank you, a gold battle pack with a flashlight and tri beam. Might as well have given me a set of maracas and a tape of the geezer Manilow singing Copacabana.

I would be very surprised if any effort has gone into a battlefield experience that is so fun, so complete that we do not have to wait for the offer of more bundles or dlc's......and being so let down by them that you feel like a teen on his first date who did not get a stinky finger.

That being said. I hope they bring forward a game that we all harp back to the days when we were putting in mad sore eye weekends. And going to sleep of a night thinking of new strategies to outwit the cunningly good players this server has produced over the years. Part of the fun as was stated by GMG was not so much the winning. But the sense of accomplishment that was in such a diverse game.

You could lose but have held the line, wrecked their base. All good fun.

Any way. I leave you with the Geezer Manilow. Do not make BF 5 like copa la ca bana.

I like that manilow fella... Saw him live about 20 years ago too.

Originally Posted by Kanati

I like that manilow fella... Saw him live about 20 years ago too.

So wrong..........NOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!

2143 or bust

There's a reason many of us have 1000+ hours in BF2 and only a few hundred in BF4. Hell, Im level 100+ in BF4 after some 250 hours of game time. I didn't get much past half in BF2 with some 500 ranked hours (a lot of priming and PR hours). Curious to see what EA gives us next...

It still all about the money. Honestly, game studios don't want games that are awesome and cool four, five, or even six years after they've been sold. BF2142 would have done far better if Battlefield 2 still didn't have full servers night after night. That's called a "tail" in the game industry. An initial spike of sales when the games come out and long tail of smaller, yet consistent, sales for yeas in come cases.

EA doesn't care if the game is fun. EA doesn't care if the game is crap. They just want 10 million people to buy the game within 3 months of launch so they can pay DICE to build them another one. You'd be incensed with all the cool ideas devs come up with that publishers shoot down because of perceived value. And if they can make clones of other games by re-skinning a popular game, then they will and laugh all the way to the bank.

New features and new games modes scare the hell out of publishers. "What if it gets bad reviews?! What if no one buys it?!" That's how most companies think, because in most companies one bad title can ruin a studio. If Gears of War 4 was anything but a massive hit, it would bankrupt The Coalition because of it's 100 million dollar price tag. Publishers are scared to death of change.

We talk about a new feature or idea like it's 'no big deal', the 'fans will love it'. You gotta think EA was scared to death when they went to the Frost Engine. When Battlefield Bad Company came out and both it, and BF3, fell on their faces. They made a Call of Duty clone using the Battlefield franchise name. Helo's were nerfed. Jet's are useless. Tanks, while powerful in the right hands (and on the right maps), are barely capable of turning a battle. Battlefield lost it's identity to pander to all those afraid of air power. The pussies whined, and the pussies won.

If anything, an older style game (WWI) would take all the super powerful modern killing assets off the field and put you in tanks barely more than tractors. And put bolt action rifles in your hands and force you to get good at a low tech DMR. I'll be surprised if they can actually make a game that's fun and rewarding to play with that as their chosen backdrop.

We'll see.

Never knew most of this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mw9KcLTUCzY

Installing BF2 revive https://battlelog.co/

I want to have fun playing again.