I hope it means more cringeworthy reveal streams like the Jakku and Outer Rim Battlefront reveals. Nothing like forced eSports and terrible commentary to get me to want to buy DLC.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
BATTLEFIELD World Premiere Event May 6 4PM ET/9PM BST
- Thread starter JumPeRJumPzZ
- Start date
- Status
I hope it means more cringeworthy reveal streams like the Jakku and Outer Rim Battlefront reveals. Nothing like forced eSports and terrible commentary to get me to want to buy DLC.
ATOMICJORGE
Member
Yes the General Mondragón started working on the rifle design in 1891
Remember the last hype then it was 4XP? They have a history of over hype.
Tal Shiar Agent
Banned
So Harker is saying it's WW2 and not WW1 but more a Secret Weapons of World War II themed game?
Okay you got me...
He's been saying WW1 the whole time. Just less alt history now and more of a focus on prototype weaponry.
Patrick Bateman
Member
I actually like the idea of Secret Weapons of WW2.
OdysseusVA
Banned
CyberPunked
Member
I know it's probably going to be near future, but I'd love some real 'Halo' level future.
John Harker
Definitely doesn't make things up as he goes along.
When did I say ww2?
You did say WW1 right?
OdysseusVA
Banned
DiddyInAHellcat
Member
I hope for this
Tal Shiar Agent
Banned
Thats why I asked.
Thanks for the info mate. So glad to hear there's no steampunk shit or alternate reality bollocks. Can't wait for the reveal now.
more like this bro LOL
At least the flying speed will be realistic in these games now.
TacticalHotdog
Member
Shotguns in WW1 Trench Warfare were so effective that the Germans issued a diplomatic protest against the American use of shotguns, alleging that the shotgun was prohibited by the law of war." A part of the German protest read that "t is especially forbidden to employ arms, projections, or materials calculated to cause unnecessary suffering" as defined in the 1907 Hague Convention on Land Warfare.
In retrospect, this is pretty rich coming from the country that was the first to deploy mustard gas on the battlefield
Nothing really. I just don't like getting one-shotted by shotguns
This is the story I'm going with now.
Empyrean Heaven
Member
Sorry, but World War I does not work as a concept for a video game, trench warfare or not. There's no clear villain like in WWII, and a much more complex narrative. Not to mention it's a far less dramatic war, and most consider it unnecessary, unlike WWII, where Hitler needed to be stopped.
jrolson
Member
This reminds me of the "Hunt For The Red Baron" game I used to play back in 2000...
Such a great game and had lots of fun dogfighting...
Tell that to the hundreds of ANZACS who stormed Gallipoli. Sounds like you need a history lesson.
Empyrean Heaven
Member
One problem. The US wasn't involved.
The bigger reason for less WWI video game appeal is probably the USA not being in most of it.
The trench warfare argument is a common misconception of course. Plenty of other, interesting theatres of battle in WWI.
The trench warfare argument is a common misconception of course. Plenty of other, interesting theatres of battle in WWI.
Ain't that the truth.
TacticalHotdog
Member
I don 't see why video games can't work with a more complex narrative. There are many interesting things you could do with a World War 1 game without being restricted to just trench warfare. Hell, Ubisoft even demonstrated this with Valiant Hearts
Raven77
Member
BAD COMPANY, in my opinion, was the start of the decline of the Battlefield franchise. The maps were too small and very linear, and shoe-horned in a storyline and single player.
These things are not what Battlefield is, a large scale, multiplayer only game. If I want a campaign I can play one of any of the hundreds of shooters released every year.
If it is Bad Company 3, I will be very upset.
These things are not what Battlefield is, a large scale, multiplayer only game. If I want a campaign I can play one of any of the hundreds of shooters released every year.
If it is Bad Company 3, I will be very upset.
There's no way BF5 will be during WW1. Just check out the weapons and vehicles
https://www.google.ca/search?espv=2...1c.1.64.img..5.14.1244...0i8i7i30.NRaPz1YBmpY
https://www.google.ca/search?espv=2...1c.1.64.img..5.14.1244...0i8i7i30.NRaPz1YBmpY
Elitist1945
Member
Your point being?
Read the last few pages my man.
Diva Starz: Mall Mania?
No, Shrek.
Not quite xD They have made a WWI game, two WWII games, 2 Vietnam games (kinda), more modern games than I can count, and 1 future game. So are well versed in all eras of war and gameplay.
The Faceless Master
Member
Battlefield History
I think that'll be a pretty unpopular opinion around here, but I have a hard time disagreeing. I didn't play BC1 beyond the multiplayer beta, but I did play BC2 and found it to be disappointing overall. Every Battlefield has had its issues, but BC2 was my least favorite just by the core of its design.
RalliSport Challenge?
DaciaJC
Gold Member
I share the same opinions.
What does that matter for a multiplayer shooter?
GlenChivas
Member
There is no way this game ends up being WW1 themed.
Other than the people in this thread asking for it, no one else would buy it. Not one average person would see that and go "Yay, bi-planes, trench warfare, and mustard gas".
EA likes money and they would be stupid to think they could put this out against whatever CoD is doing and come out on top. No matter how much CoD fatigue the general public may be feeling there is no chance in hell they would pick Kaiser Fighter 2016 over CoD Space Marines.
Other than the people in this thread asking for it, no one else would buy it. Not one average person would see that and go "Yay, bi-planes, trench warfare, and mustard gas".
EA likes money and they would be stupid to think they could put this out against whatever CoD is doing and come out on top. No matter how much CoD fatigue the general public may be feeling there is no chance in hell they would pick Kaiser Fighter 2016 over CoD Space Marines.
Stiler
Member
Why does that make it not work? To me that is what makes it a far more compelling game then WWII, because we have already done many WWII games and narratives.
The best "villains" (imo) are not the clear-cut villains that are "EVIL" but people who are doing what they think is right or just and the complications of man vs man that drives them.
Not sure how you can say it's less dramatic.
JumPeRJumPzZ
Banned
Aw we are still hating in EA.
IMO EA isnt that awful greedy company anymore.
And why is there no way? There is always a first time. And trying something fresh is a good thing. And im really confident that DICE will deliver.
endlessflood
Member
In tens of the MP experience, I'm not sure what the benefit of a WW1 setting is over a WW2 setting. The battleground locations are roughly the same (apart from possible trenches). Uniforms and factions aren't vastly different.
WW1 vehicles will generally be slower, and with a lot less diversity - that could work well for aerial vehicles, but I think the ground vehicles would suffer a lot in comparison to the fun gameplay opportunities offered by the faster WW2 variants.
With weapons, WW1 again offers a lot less variety and classes of weapon in comparison to WW2, at least AFAICS. Maybe the prototype weapons angle helps there, and I'm certainly not advocating the kitchen sink approach to weapons that BF3 and BF4 took - I was much happier with BFBC2 weapon options in terms of number and variety - but I still think the ground vehicle diversity and speed of WW1 makes for poorer gameplay opportunities, and that's the deal breaker for me.
WW1 vehicles will generally be slower, and with a lot less diversity - that could work well for aerial vehicles, but I think the ground vehicles would suffer a lot in comparison to the fun gameplay opportunities offered by the faster WW2 variants.
With weapons, WW1 again offers a lot less variety and classes of weapon in comparison to WW2, at least AFAICS. Maybe the prototype weapons angle helps there, and I'm certainly not advocating the kitchen sink approach to weapons that BF3 and BF4 took - I was much happier with BFBC2 weapon options in terms of number and variety - but I still think the ground vehicle diversity and speed of WW1 makes for poorer gameplay opportunities, and that's the deal breaker for me.
While a straight up WW1 is probably my last choice of setting but I trust DICE can make the gameplay match the core BF experience and present it well. In the long run just having a good BF game is what matters to me, not so much the theme.
BTW I hope we get a sweet trailer with this. DICE sure knows how to cut a trailer.
nuclearaddict
Banned
They did it before and it was a fun expansion pack.
Stiler
Member
You generally had more variations of weapons in WWII, but the technological gap wasn't as large as it was in WWI
For example, in WWI near the start of the war you had fighting with cavalry. Then with the MG's/artillery many forces stopped using horses for that purpose (which in time gave way to tanks for that role). Horses still served in other roles (scouts, messengers) and in some areas were still used in combat later on but not nearly as much as the start.+
The start and end of the war was a very different type of battlefield vs WWII where the gap wasn't nearly as big in terms of the technology or tactics.
To give you another example of some things they used:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leach_Trench_Catapult
which got replaced by things like:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stokes_mortar
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_inch_Medium_Mortar
Then you had things like melee combat. Generally starting with Bayonets and then people saw how useless they were in tight quarters since it was usually attached to a long weapon.
This gave way to using things like spades(shovels), to trench clubs (basically wooden maces with steel and other things at the end) to trench knives(many o which were made from the bayonets), axes, and other things you probably didn't expect to hear about them fighting with in WWI.
Then look at airplanes. Starting out they were mostly used for recon, seeing where troops were and other things. Then slowly started taking a more active role. From dropping things down on the enemy (including darts/arrows) to nades, gas, etc. They generally used regular guns inside to fire at other planes but these were quite inaccurate. then an MG on the tail but these were generally for defensive purposes and fighting other planes. Then came the synchronisation gear, which allowed them to mount mg's at the front to fire through the propellor without hitting the blades. This started the huge push of aerial combat in WWI.
UnforgivenTwin
Member
Uhhh...yes they were.
- Status