-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Battlefield 5 retail listing at World of Games (Swiss), "tactical shooter in WW1"
- Thread starter Ondore
- Start date
John Harker
Definitely doesn't make things up as he goes along.
for the record, i did say directionally
Lord of Castamere
Member
Actually that's not true. They're the most played, which makes sense given that the smaller maps end quicker than the big maps.
Chuck Norris
Banned
Will be about a magical infiltration unit who had automatic weaponry and everything ou expect in a BF game
ElRenoRaven
Member
I'd be all over this. WW1 & WW2 games need to make a comeback. Been tired of this future and modern combat shit for a long long while now.
Nikodemos
Member
The Great War could work, as long as the campaign was laid out chronologically and jumped around the world. The Western Front should be the very last place you fight in, since it was only in late-1917 - 1918 when things started actually going somewhere. Otherwise, the missions should be located in the East, the Orient and Africa.
hawkeyye293
Banned
I still don't understand why they don't do one map ww1, one map ww2, one vietnam, one current day, one future, etc. I have to believe eventually they will do this but it just seems like the answer to alot of problems. Eliminate the single player, create the engine and just do different time periods within the game. Seems like a simple solution that would make alot of people happy. I'd like it.
starchild excalibur
Member
As someone who's absolutely slogging through BF: Hardline right now, any Battlefield game that doesn't take place in the present or the future has me intrigued.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
There's no reason you can't have campaigns set in the opening weeks of the war in the west, before the static war set in. Even then, you there were still large attacks, even if they didn't achieve too much. But realistically, Battlefield and CoD campaigns see you crossing like, a few hundred meters or a km at most per mission, while you stop and have shooting galleries from time to time. I can definitely see there being at least one mission where you defend against a pointless assault, and at least one more mission where you're seeing Gas deployments. They're iconic things you'd have at least once.
I'd be interested in doing German campaign in the West or East. You could even have Australian / New Zealander missions lol.
PodcastFips
Member
Yeah, especially the COD games after Black Ops 1 with their jet packs and other futuristic sci-fi perks just passed me by. Booooring.
TemplaerDude
Member
Well... yeah... and my point is that alone is why it will sell. I have no idea what you're trying to say anymore?
DaciaJC
Gold Member
Heh. Now that you mention it, I wonder if that's how DICE managed to get the idea greenlit by EA.
XxRampage07xX
Member
If it's true then rush mode in the game will be amazing.
flipswitch
Member
Takemymoney.gif.
-Pyromaniac-
Member
Lets overanalyze all Harker posts. This was from a topic in December asking about hopes for Battlefield 5. He said:
What if it's WW1/2 in setting but completely made up by Dice. Their own locations and battles and whatnot. Am I close?!
What if it's WW1/2 in setting but completely made up by Dice. Their own locations and battles and whatnot. Am I close?!
sunshine and gasoline
Banned
Was not expecting this at all. While I would prefer a more futuristic BF like Battlefield 2142 I suppose that one based around WW1 could be interesting.
-ImaginaryInsider
Member
Have it start bright and clean with the old world romanticism of war, then have it degrade into the madness as more and more modern weaponry is rolled out.
There is a ton of potential with both the single player and multiplayer.
There is a ton of potential with both the single player and multiplayer.
Morning Star
Member
How are some of you still saying that WWI was only trenches? I haven't really enjoyed an FPS since World at War and I think WWI would be a perfect setting. If done right, which in all likelihood will not happen, it would bring the genre back for me.
10/10 would imagine again.
10/10 would imagine again.
Yes. YES. YES.
Switch Back 9
a lot of my threads involve me fucking up somehow. Perhaps I'm a moron?
The First World War is my most studied historical topic. I find it fascinating, and I never tire of consuming books, podcasts and documentaries about the subject.
Having said that, I would much rather a shiny and new current-gen Vietnam or WW2 battlefield game. I know they've been done before, but there's just so much more variety in weapons and vehicles.
PLUS BF:Vietnam had the dopest soundtrack ever. Cranking CCR while cruising around in a Huey never got old.
Having said that, I would much rather a shiny and new current-gen Vietnam or WW2 battlefield game. I know they've been done before, but there's just so much more variety in weapons and vehicles.
PLUS BF:Vietnam had the dopest soundtrack ever. Cranking CCR while cruising around in a Huey never got old.
Moon_frogger
Member
My thoughts exactly. I really hope this is real.
Smokey_Run
Member
Oh man, that sounds so good if executed properly.
Lord of Castamere
Member
I'm saying that it won't sell to the degree that a mainline title will be expected to sell. You can't just slap Battlefield on anything and expect it to sell. Casual audience isn't going to jump at a title so far out of their comfort zone regardless of name.
Evolved1
make sure the pudding isn't too soggy but that just ruins everything
If DICE really did drop an insanely profitable modern setting in favor of WWI, then you can bet the house that trailer and reveal are going to drop jaws.
There's no way they change course unless this new thing is dynamite.
Trailers and marketing is how BF3/4 rose so high when CoD was reigning supreme. DICEA muscled in on that turf through compelling marketing. The games are also awesome, but since Bad Company 2 they've been so good at cutting gameplay trailers that get people hyped and talking.
That is an insane amount of weapons to balance. It isn't simple at all.
Head.spawn
Junior Member
Glad to not see another fucking jetpack, wall-running 360no-scope clone.
darkwing-buck
Member
Fine point here!
NJDEN
Member
I feel like anyone who has a background in history and anyone who has played at least a few of the Battlefields would know how unreasonably insane this sounds...
World War II would be the earliest. Variability of firearms as well as the tactics / battlefields of the period are not conducive to a mainstream Battlefield game. I'm having a hard time seeing it as even a spin off. I'm not saying a World War I fps wouldn't work, but it has no place as a Battlefield IP.
World War II would be the earliest. Variability of firearms as well as the tactics / battlefields of the period are not conducive to a mainstream Battlefield game. I'm having a hard time seeing it as even a spin off. I'm not saying a World War I fps wouldn't work, but it has no place as a Battlefield IP.
Gordon0Freeman
Member
Can you recommend any documentaries or books for someone like me thats a novice?
Would love to learn some stuff if this rumor is true.
Mr_Antimatter
Member
A WWI FPS could be interesting, if done right. The key would be trying to capture the utter insanity and brutality of it all.
Switch Back 9
a lot of my threads involve me fucking up somehow. Perhaps I'm a moron?
Start with Dan Carlin's "Blueprint for Armageddon" podcast. Covers a ton of ground and everyone on GAF loves it.
Apocalypse: World War One is a cool five-part documentary series with lots of rare footage, available on YouTube as well!
Books, well, there's a billion. Personal faves are
The Great War - Peter Hart
The Somme - Peter Hart
The Guns of August - Barbara Tuchman
The War That Ended Peace - Margaret MacMillan
Storm of Steel - Ernst Jünger
Gordon0Freeman
Member
Will definitely utilize the weekend for this stuff. Appreciate it bro
Net_Wrecker
Member
This can be crazy if they translate the madness that was WW1 into a really dirty, really physical, really intense shooter. The imagery of 1914 machinery, garb, and locations. The tanks, biplanes, horses, bayonets, swords, grenades, trenches, flamethrowers, artillery, tanks, etc. all on the same battlefield with no lock on tech, no OP launchers, less on screen indication, less visibility, etc. I'm shocked that people can't see the potential in this game and really think it would be matches consisting entirely of stalemate firefights.
There isn't nearly enough content to be a Battlefield game. The tanks were garbage, the firearms were relatively limited (in which some carried over into early WW2), you had horses (some of these in WW2 though lol), but the planes could be awesome. Thousands upon thousands of miles of trenches and gas warfare.
I can't see this fitting the Battlefield formula. WW2, obviously can and would work as a BF game though, and still have the romantic gloom to be found in those times. The variety of weapons, vehicles, and settings would be there.
It'll end up be something futuristic, and I will be upset because i'm tired of modern, near-future, and future-future games. Only thing plausible is that they will release content packs for this game in different eras, which would be kind of interesting. And that they have TitanFall 2 coming out within a year as well which is obviously future-future setting so maybe they wouldn't saturate the market.
I can't see this fitting the Battlefield formula. WW2, obviously can and would work as a BF game though, and still have the romantic gloom to be found in those times. The variety of weapons, vehicles, and settings would be there.
It'll end up be something futuristic, and I will be upset because i'm tired of modern, near-future, and future-future games. Only thing plausible is that they will release content packs for this game in different eras, which would be kind of interesting. And that they have TitanFall 2 coming out within a year as well which is obviously future-future setting so maybe they wouldn't saturate the market.
When they have Battlefront in their wheelhouse, DICE probably has a bit more leeway with Battlefield.
It's just pure facts though, unless this an alternate-universe kind of WW1, there's just simply not enough content to make it a typical Battlefield game.
I'll gladly eat crow though if I'm proven wrong. Will we have to wait until E3 for a reveal?
I can't believe so many people here are excited about WWI setting. It promises to be insanely boring, with horrible weapons and horrible fights. What will we have, pigeons instead of drones or a 32v32 mode in which both sides sit in a trench for 30 minutes?
Plus it just screams a sales bomb, people don't want to play these games. There's a reason nobody makes WW2 games anymore, and this is twice as uninteresting.
Also, why change the winning formula? They made so much money with these last few games, are they willing to throw it all away and chase everybody towards CoD?
It's a stupid idea, and I hope it's not true. And it probably isn't. It would be a franchise suicide.
Plus it just screams a sales bomb, people don't want to play these games. There's a reason nobody makes WW2 games anymore, and this is twice as uninteresting.
Also, why change the winning formula? They made so much money with these last few games, are they willing to throw it all away and chase everybody towards CoD?
It's a stupid idea, and I hope it's not true. And it probably isn't. It would be a franchise suicide.
Morning Star
Member
Laying it on a bit thick there.
John Harker
Definitely doesn't make things up as he goes along.
People seemed to like Wolfentenins alternative take on history