• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Battlefield 5 retail listing at World of Games (Swiss), "tactical shooter in WW1"

Alternate reality WWI is kind of interesting, but not if they shoehorn in futuristic tech.

Just, no lock-ons, is what I'm saying.
 
I find it hard to believe they'd try to make a WWI game with the Battlefield formula since the ground vehicles wouldn't be that interesting, but I'd love the change of pace and the setting if they did.

I just want them to return to WWII with full naval battles again. Hell, imagine El Alamein on FB3 or Berlin with destruction leaving the map looking completely different by the end of the match. Go back to having the factions actually mean something instead of every player getting every weapon to choose from. Asymmetry isn't always a bad thing and it sure as hell doesn't mean it has to be unbalanced as plenty of other WWII games have pulled it off.

Hell, give me ANY historical setting again. At this point, anything would be an improvement over this modern or near-future warfare craze that has made all games feel the same with everyone using the same damn guns on both sides caring more about their KDR than winning. That won't change of course since the personal progression era is still going strong, but having set sides would help and the rollback in technology would make sniping on top of a hill 1000m away from the nearest objective a lot more difficult on top of still being useless.

I miss the good ol' days of playing 1942 and the numerous mods that accompanied it.

WWII games never got stale for me as a setting, but it was the gameplay that made it stale since most games felt exactly the same with no real improvements. BF:1942 was unique and I think a BF:1944 or 1945 could feel unique again since it would change the gameplay up again. A simple game isn't always a bad thing since it makes skill and teamwork more important than having the best gun unlocked.

At least Rising Storm 2 will give us a good Vietnam game again. :D
 
RoboPlato said:
Alternate reality and I'm on board harder than anyone else is despite not wanting a WWI theme. I LOVE stuff like Wolfenstein, Resistance, and The Orders alternate history arsenals.
Click to expand...
Same. I too am now interested in what they're conjuring up. A classic WWI game for me would have been dire.
 
JumPeRJumPzZ said:
And if you know something John, spill it ;)

I hate this " i know it but you dont approach". When you start something, finish it.
Click to expand...

Harker has already given enough. He doesn't need to blow out the whole game.

Its an alternate reality WWI shooter. Thats enough for some fun speculation. The reveal must be imminent considering retailers already accidentally listed it.
 
JumPeRJumPzZ said:
And if you know something John, spill it ;)

I hate this " i know it but you dont approach". When you start something, finish it.
Click to expand...

John doesn't usually doesn't give more than hints unless it's regarding sales data. This latest post was a more than I expected to hear.
 
John Harker said:
People seemed to like Wolfentenins alternative take on history
Click to expand...

Oh-my-GIF.gif
 
I would seriously not mind if the direction shooters go in next is alternate history WW1/2. Just go crazy with that shit. Steampunk it up.
 
IvanJ said:
There's a reason nobody makes WW2 games anymore, and this is twice as uninteresting.
Click to expand...

The reason they don't make WW2 games anymore is that people got fatigued of that setting, kinda like what people are going through now with current/near-future/future settings. Where people were tired of playing with Tompsons and M1 Garands, i'm tired of all the AK's and M16/M4 variants.

And there is nothing uninteresting about WW2. Diverse settings. Diverse weaponry and vehicles. No lock on non-sense. Though I will agree that WW1 isn't as interesting as WW2. I'd take a hyper realistic, with realistic gore WW2 game on a great game engine with incredible sound, something DICE is easily capable of doing.

Alternative history would be interesting and I've been asking for a WW2 game where you either play as the Axis or one where they conquer Europe for a long-long time. Alternative history with "alien" tech or artifacts/supernatural stuff? I wouldn't be nearly as interested in.
 
Evolved1 said:
Just, no lock-ons, is what I'm saying.
Click to expand...

lol, good luck with that now.

Nuclear energy or quantum fluctuations or whatever the hell have been found decades earlier than real life, and gives access to all kind of retro-future tech to 1914 armies. Get ready for lock on, lasers, wallhacking radars, nightvision scopes, hovering steampunk tanks, robot attack dogs, etc.

wait

I might have just convinced myself this will be great with what was supposed to be a sarcastic post wtf
 
Net_Wrecker said:
lol, good luck with that now.

Nuclear energy or quantum fluctuations or whatever the hell have been found decades earlier than real life, and gives access to all kind of retro-future tech to 1914 armies. Get ready for lock on, lasers, wallhacking radars, nightvision scopes, hovering steampunk tanks, robot attack dogs, etc.

wait

I might have just convinced myself this will be great with what was supposed to be a sarcastic post wtf
Click to expand...
lol
 
People were sick of the world war setting after World at War and I think it's the perfect time to bring it back. I am greatly interested in Battlefield 5 now.
 
Do the people saying it would make for a boring setting due to sitting around in a trench for 5h only to get out and die from a machine gun think modern warfare actually consists of sprinting around hip firing machine guns whilst taking multiple bullets 24/7? Games already strip down warfare to what is considered "fun" so I don't think setting something in World War 1 will inherently make it as "boring" as the standstill on the Western Front would imply. And light tanks were invented later in the war too which weren't slow as shit either.

Having said that, they should go balls deep on the realism and have gas attacks that make you vomit up mucus so you take off your gas mask and get hit with mustard gas, exposure to artillery makes you develop shellshock and you get sent home to receive shitty therapy no therapy, the German soldiers get a Bolshevism move that just makes them quit the game, and then on Christmas you get to have rad football matches in No Man's Land.
 
People seem to think that WW1 was horrible, so a game about it would have to be horrible as well. It's like they think Battlefield is a realistic representation of war.
 
secondspace said:
People seem to think that WW1 was horrible, so a game about it would have to be horrible as well. It's like they think Battlefield is a realistic representation of war.
Click to expand...
Lol it has to do with content more than anything else, weapons in ww1 pale in comparison to ww2.
 
If you look at other articles about this news,the comments are ridiculous. Many people are saying that WW1 was a "boring" war. What exactly is a "boring" war?I'm sure the soldiers who actually fought would disagree.
 
UnforgivenTwin said:
If you look at other articles about this news,the comments are ridiculous. Many people are saying that WW1 was a "boring" war. What exactly is a "boring" war?I'm sure the soldiers who actually fought would disagree.
Click to expand...

actually, i'm pretty sure any soldier is going to tell you that war in general is pretty boring, exept for the short exeptions when a battle is going on.
 
El_Chino said:
Lol it has to do with content more than anything else, weapons in ww1 pale in comparison to ww2.
Click to expand...
Dude, bolt action rifles kick ass. They're some of my favourites in games, especially when you have to manually bolt them like in Red Orchestra. And other than that they already had handguns, machine pistols, stationary machine guns, flame throwers, grenades and mobile artillery. Sure, all of those were worse than their WW2 counterparts, but that's something you can take liberties with if it makes the game more fun.
 
patapuf said:
actually, i'm pretty sure any soldier is going to tell you that war in general is pretty boring, exept for the short exeptions when a battle is going on.
Click to expand...
Well yes,but I'm talking about in context of these large historical battles. I just saw your edit. It pretty much sums up my response :)
 
Palculator said:
Dude, bolt action rifles kick ass. They're some of my favourites in games, especially when you have to manually bolt them like in Red Orchestra. And other than that they already had handguns, machine pistols, stationary machine guns, flame throwers, grenades and mobile artillery. Sure, all of those were worse than their WW2 counterparts, but that's something you can take liberties with if it makes the game more fun.
Click to expand...
I know that but then it essentially becomes "Battlefield: Shoot across trenches"
 
El_Chino said:
I know that but then it essentially becomes "Battlefield: Shoot across trenches"
Click to expand...
No, it doesn't. This might make your head explode but there were people not in trenches in World War 1. And:
Palculator said:
Do the people saying it would make for a boring setting due to sitting around in a trench for 5h only to get out and die from a machine gun think modern warfare actually consists of sprinting around hip firing machine guns whilst taking multiple bullets 24/7? Games already strip down warfare to what is considered "fun" so I don't think setting something in World War 1 will inherently make it as "boring" as the standstill on the Western Front would imply. And light tanks were invented later in the war too which weren't slow as shit either.
Click to expand...
No video game gives you war as it's actually fought so there's no need to get hung up on apparently the only word people associate with World War 1.
 
Palculator said:
No, it doesn't. This might make your head explode but there were people not in trenches in World War 1. And:

No video game gives you war as it's actually fought so there's no need to get hung up on apparently the only word people associate with World War 1.
Click to expand...
You don't say?

There's a reason why there hasn't been many WW1 shooters...
 
I think even those of us who desperately want this understand that it would be an unfathomably bold move that probably wouldn't be green lit as a main series game. If it's true, wow at ea giving that creative freedom. It would be a breath of fresh air for sure
 
Moon_frogger said:
I think even those of us who desperately want this understand that it would be an unfathomably bold move that probably wouldn't be green lit as a main series game. If it's true, wow at ea giving that creative freedom. It would be a breath of fresh air for sure
Click to expand...

Yup thats what im thinking. Really happy if true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

EA Names Battlefield 6 ‘The Best-Selling Shooter Game of the Year’
Sales-Age 
34
532
DirtInUrEye replied
Shooter Monthly Podcast: ARC Raiders, Battlefield 6 and Arena Breakout Infinite
1
243
Guilty_AI replied
Erosion | Gameplay Trailer (Twin-Stick Western Open-World Action Roguelike Shooter)
8
109
TerribleAtThisGame replied
Over The Top: WW1 - Official Playtest Launch Teaser Trailer
Trailer 
0
77
IbizaPocholo replied
Tactical Shooter Ready Or Not Is Getting A VR Mod
Trailer VR Platform 
9
712
Wonko_C replied
Top Bottom