Support NeoGAF

[Mushroomer25]

This would be potentially exciting, a fascinating twist on the series ripe with innovative potential.

They'll never do it. Unless this has a surprise time travel twist, and the multiplayer is still generic modern war.

 

[Evolved1]

mustard gas grenades
early tank design
moustaches
mud

Battlefield 5 |OT| Moustaches and Mud.

 

[tattooed_dwarf]

Very very unfortunate news.

I'm so glad the AAA industry moved away from older eras for shooters and I dug the modern shooter aesthetic. It could be worse, I guess. It could have been a WW2 shooter.

Why not have many options? Why encourage having every shooter series set on same time?

 

[El_Chino]

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[Lord of Castamere]

I agree, but it isn't because WWI is missing anything necessary to make a good battlefield game. It has cars, tanks, planes, automatic weapons, snipers, battleships, aircraft carriers, zeppelins. Pretty much everything except missiles. It won't happen because most people don't know anything about WWI, and assume it was fought like and 18th century war, not a 20th century war. Seems like too risky for EA. Would be great if it happened.

How would you do an attachment and weapon system vast enough for Microtransactions? Battlefield 5 had like over 50 weapons, rating from pistols to dmrs to lmgs etc. How would you manage a vehicle system with various unlocks and a RPS system? Anti air>Jet>Fighter Jet>Anti tank>Tank>Lav>Anti air. While also having various attachments for each vehicle?

It isn't happening people.

 

[Moon_frogger]

Verdun is a great game dude. You should check it out if you like team based, hard core FPSes like Red Orchestra. It kinda makes me feel a bit bad for the Verdun team tho, cause they have built this game from a free browser based game into what it is now, they've put so much work into it, from a tiny team of only a few guys, and now this Dice game will probably kill them if it proves popular

It's 24.99 canadian I think. I'm definitely getting this.

 

[_woLf]

this would be the first battlefield game I would be excited for since bad company 2.

Make it happen EA

 

[Walpurgis]

Battlefield: A series known for its vehicular combat.

WW1: A war known for infantry fighting and artillery bombardements.

I guess they got some primitive tanks later on but. Um. Attacking heavily fortified positions on foot where the defence has a huge advantage over the offence doesn't sound like a fun battlefield game.

Sounds like the greatest Battlefield game to me (BC2 Rush).

 

[orthodoxy1095]

A tactical shooter in WW1 would be killer. After having early 20th century fatigue like many, I've been itching to return to the era to see what current-gen can do with it.

That said, I have my doubts. It seems like modern warfare games fit the current business model of shooters better. How do you exploit WW1 for microtransactions in a sensible way?

 

[wowbaggerBR]

mustard gas grenades
early tank design
moustaches
mud

The crazyness of going over the top, the no men's land barbed wired hell, the dug out fortress being boob trapped by both sides, aristocratic officers turning the life of the soldier in hell, the early assault troops in the german forces.

We need this game right now.

That said, I have my doubts. It seems like modern warfare games fit the current business model of shooters better. How do you exploit WW1 for microtransactions in a sensible way?

The same way you do with all those shooters: customization options and shortcut packages.

 

[m_dorian]

If true, i am coming Battlefield and i am excited about it. I am not a smup fan nor an MP one but this, if done well, is something i want to experience.

 

[SomeRandomWeirdGuy]

WWI would be amazing. Instant buy if true. Show me the horrors of WWI with DICE audiovisual quality

 

[jelly]

Commander mode, Lions lead by Donkeys.

 

[KiefbladeMaster]

WWI would be incredibly boring to play. I'm not keen on sitting in a trench with a rifle that, when an experienced soldier is using it, is capable of firing only 15 rounds a minute.

No one wants to sit and 'soften' the enemy sides with artillery fire, or literally camp at a machine gun for an entire match. Gas masks would be mandatory in loadouts.

 

[Rebel Leader]

WUT WHAT?


Consider me interested!

 

[NoPiece]

How would you do an attachment and weapon system vast enough for Microtransactions? Battlefield 5 had like over 50 weapons, rating from pistols to dmrs to lmgs etc. How would you manage a vehicle system with various unlocks and a RPS system? Anti air>Jet>Fighter Jet>Anti tank>Tank>Lav>Anti air. While also having various attachments for each vehicle?

It isn't happening people.

What a tragedy if they couldn't do microtransactions. What are you, the EA brand manager? Seriously though, there is more than enough weapon and vehicle variety to handle unlocks (even though it would be a better game if they skipped that crap, and went back to a BF1942 style game).

You can see several hundred WWI infantry weapons listed on this wiki page. Everything from brass knuckles, bayonets and swords to a myriad of pistols, shotguns, sub-machine guns, rifles, sniper rifles. There is no lack of content to do a shooter.

 

[Mugenjin]

How would you do an attachment and weapon system vast enough for Microtransactions? Battlefield 5 had like over 50 weapons, rating from pistols to dmrs to lmgs etc. How would you manage a vehicle system with various unlocks and a RPS system? Anti air>Jet>Fighter Jet>Anti tank>Tank>Lav>Anti air. While also having various attachments for each vehicle?

It isn't happening people.

BF2 had none of unlock/attachment bullshit and it was my favorite. But yeah I agree that WWI is not going to happen exactly because it lacks those features which seem to be expected nowadays in order to have some progression system.

 

[-ImaginaryInsider]

Please let there be a varying array of luxurious mustaches to unlock.

 

[MattyG]

I can't see this happening as a mainline Battlefield, EVER. It'd be absolutely ridiculous if it did, but I doubt it.

 

[Fahzgoolin]

WW1 could not be done in an interesting Battlefield way IMO.

Verdun does a great job as a WW1 shooter, but that's all you can really do with that time period for a game.

WW2 is just easier to adopt into a game and makes more sense. As a developer you would have to deviate from reality/history quite a bit to make a satisfying Battlefield game.

 

[wowbaggerBR]

PSVR + Battlefield 5 in WWI, going over the top trenches, dodging machine guns and whatnot. I'm sold, DICE, just do it.

 

[Darren_z33]

So you were hyped for a game that you knew nothing about. That doesn't seem like a good idea.

If this was some new IP that I knew nothing about, I'd understand. But I've played and loved every battlefield (apart from hardline) game released, why wouldn't I be hyped about a new one?

 

[VibratingDonkey]

A WW1 Battlefield obviously could work, the problem I'm having is with believing that one of those will ever happen, again.

I don't expect DICE and EA will ever get out of the headspace of Battlefield requiring progressing forever through thousands of things to unlock randomly, to retain player interest and accommodate for microtransactions. So they would have to make up a bunch of shit to justify the hundreds of hours they want players spending unlocking it.

Additional effort for additional risk, potentially lower sales/higher marketing costs because people equate the idea with words like "boring" and "trenches". Why bother?

 

[Feel_The_Pain]

Maybe it was supposed to be WW II

 

[NoMoreTrolls]

Trench warfare would be boring as fuck. I hope this listing is wrong--WWI doesn't seem like a great war to make into a video game.

 

[Storm Raider]

PSVR + Battlefield 5 in WWI, going over the top trenches, dodging machine guns and whatnot. I'm sold, DICE, just do it.

Would be absolutely amazing.

 

[MMaRsu]

Trench warfare would be boring as fuck. I hope this listing is wrong--WWI doesn't seem like a great war to make into a video game.

ww1 doesnt neccesarily mean trench warfare

 

[Lord of Castamere]

What a tragedy if they couldn't do microtransactions. What are you, the EA brand manager? Seriously though, there is more than enough weapon and vehicle variety to handle unlocks (even though it would be a better game if they skipped that crap, and went back to a BF1942 style game).

You can see several hundred WWI infantry weapons listed on this wiki page. Everything from brass knuckles, bayonets and swords to a myriad of pistols, shotguns, sub-machine guns, rifles, sniper rifles. There is no lack of content to do a shooter.

No, I'm looking at things through the lens of reality. Not wishful thinking, or what I want. It doesn't matter what you or I want, what matters is what they'll do, and they're not going back to the old ways for a mainline game. They'll continue pushing in the direction that's continually made them more money.

 

[Paasei]

Would be very interesting to see how they want to make that fun for everyone. Don't believe this to be true, however.

But yeah, trench warfare would be very stale and could be very boring. There were tanks, submarines and aircraft as well, but meh. Also scouting over the map in an airballoon and maybe zome zeppelins is something I could think of.
Some old fashioned fort attacking/defending might bring a twist.

Only the very start wasn't based on trench warfare when Germany went through Belgium all the way to Paris.

 

[G_Berry]

You all need to listen to Dan Carlins hardcore history podcast. Specifically the Blueprint for Armageddon series.

The shit that went down in WW1 was seriously bad ass.

 

[NoPiece]

WW1 could not be done in an interesting Battlefield way IMO.

Verdun does a great job as a WW1 shooter, but that's all you can really do with that time period for a game.

WW2 is just easier to adopt into a game and makes more sense. As a developer you would have to deviate from reality/history quite a bit to make a satisfying Battlefield game.

Verdun is a great game done by a small team that focuses solely on infantry. But WWI also had vehicles, cavalry, tanks, naval battles with subs and battleships, and was the first war with airplanes. That pretty much covers everything you need for a good battlefield game.

 

[Lord of Castamere]

ww1 doesnt neccesarily mean trench warfare

It doesn't matter. That's the reputation it has. To the point that even enthusiasts are constantly repeating it every page. How are casuals going to fare? Your marketing would be an uphill battle from Day 1.

 

[TemplaerDude]

It doesn't matter. That's the reputation it has. To the point that even enthusiasts are constantly repeating it every page. How are casuals going to fare? Your marketing would be an uphill battle from Day 1.

It has Battlefield in the title. It will sell.

 

[lawnchair]

can we gas people to death?

 

[ROUGE_BLOCK]

can we gas people to death?

That would be an interesting game mechanic

 

[NoPiece]

It doesn't matter. That's the reputation it has. To the point that even enthusiasts are constantly repeating it every page. How are casuals going to fare? Your marketing would be an uphill battle from Day 1.

There are two issues, whether it would be a setting that allows for a good Battlefield game (absolutely yes), and whether it would be a easy game to market and sell (absolutely not). I said in an earlier I didn't think EA would let this happen. But it would be an amazing game, and the people who complain about bolt action rifles and boring trench warfare just don't know enough about the war. Unfortunately that's why we probably won't get the game.

 

[Lord of Castamere]

It has Battlefield in the title. It will sell.

Pretty sure Hardline didn't do too well with Battlefield slapped onto it, and that made far far more sense in a modern gaming climate.

 

[Spizz]

Pretty sure Hardline didn't do too well with Battlefield slapped onto it, and that made far far more sense in a modern gaming climate.

Did EA really market Hardline? I honestly can't remember, I want to say they just kinda sent it out there. I remember a beta, that's it.

If the game has Battlefield 5 in the title and comes out holiday time with a strong marketing push, I think it'd sell well.

 

[Tainted]

Holy shi ... I was only just saying recently in a CoD thread here that I would love to see a WW1 themed AAA shooter.

A WW1 battlefield is way more interesting to me than a WWI CoD .... Please be true

 

[FLAguy954]

.... Fuck, that is disappointing if the game really is WW1-based.

Unlike some people here, I feel that the futuristic shit is hardly played out and has brought creative ideas to the FPS genre.

 

[Big_Al]

It would be awesome but it won't happen, pretty certain it'll be another modern military game or at the very most some kind of flashback level to WW1, but that'll be it at most.

 

[Crono27]

I'd much rather have ww2. But ww1 wouldn't be bad either. Hopefully it's true ND if not give me ww2

 

[Elfforkusu]

A tactical shooter in WW1 would be killer. After having early 20th century fatigue like many, I've been itching to return to the era to see what current-gen can do with it.

That said, I have my doubts. It seems like modern warfare games fit the current business model of shooters better. How do you exploit WW1 for microtransactions in a sensible way?

$0.25 per respawn

Every player is bankrupt by the end of the first week

 

[Two Words]

They're really embracing the camping play style of Battlefield, huh.

 

[whyman]

So the cat is out of the bag... I understand my words has no meaning here but I would be VERY suprised if this turned out not to be true. Anyway looking forward to it!

 

[Lord of Castamere]

There are two issues, whether it would be a setting that allows for a good Battlefield game (absolutely yes), and whether it would be a easy game to market and sell (absolutely not). I said in an earlier I didn't think EA would let this happen. But it would be an amazing game, and the people who complain about bolt action rifles and boring trench warfare just don't know enough about the war. Unfortunately that's why we probably won't get the game.

I don't disagree with you entirely. I just think we're approaching this from different view points, and that's causing the clash. I think a WW1 game done in the vein of classic Battlefield, would be a perfectly doable game and great, but I only think EA would do it if it had a >30$ pricetag. Releasing a WW1 game as a mainline title is a marketing catastrophe.

Is a WW1 game with all of Modern Battlefields trappings possible? Probably, but it would be difficult to make. Completely new assets across the board, new mechanics and balance systems, back to the drawing board of vehicles entirely etc. Why would they do it? What do they gain? If they want to take the game backwards in time to capitalize, there are other wars more fitting. It's not like their options are limited in that respect. It just doesn't make sense.

 

[-Pyromaniac-]

mustard gas grenades
early tank design
moustaches
mud

I need this in my life

dice


pls

So the cat is out of the bag... I understand my words has no meaning here but I would be VERY suprised if this turned out not to be true. Anyway looking forward to it!

pls

 

[Khronico]

The prospect of a WW1 Battlefield game is far more exciting to me than a possible scifi/future Battlefield game.

For the single player aspect, there's such a range of conflicts/battles/skirmishes/moments that you can take from WW1 and weave into an emotionally powerful narrative. Unfortunately the past battlefield games haven't exactly had well written or interesting campaigns, but the opportunity for something really good is there.

In terms of MP, the Battlefield formula would need tweaking to fit the technology and tactics of the time, but I think it would have the potential to be an interesting and enjoyable departure from the normal FPS multiplayer stuff (See: the PC exclusive MP FPS Verdun).

 

[Kane Zakharov]

BF2 had none of unlock/attachment bullshit and it was my favorite. But yeah I agree that WWI is not going to happen exactly because it lacks those features which seem to be expected nowadays in order to have some progression system.

Weapon unlocks were introduced to the franchise in BF2. It was alongside the very grindy rank progression system.

All signs point to a sequel to 2142. The franchise isn't a trendsetter, so a WWI setting is extremely unlikely.

 

[TemplaerDude]

Pretty sure Hardline didn't do too well with Battlefield slapped onto it, and that made far far more sense in a modern gaming climate.

There are no hard sales numbers on Hardline so I don't see how you can make that statement with any confidence, they've only said they were "happy with it's sales".

Did EA really market Hardline? I honestly can't remember, I want to say they just kinda sent it out there. I remember a beta, that's it.

If the game has Battlefield 5 in the title and comes out holiday time with a strong marketing push, I think it'd sell well.

Yup! Took the words out of my mouth.