>new battlefield being announced next week
What do you want to see and what do you expect?
>>336002325
Battlefield fucking 2143
>>336002325
2142 Setting
They better keep Krylov FA37
>>336002325
CoD.
>>336002325
2143
but all things so far point towards a WW2 theme
2143
It was hinted at in all the BF4 DLC
>>336002427
what game is that jesus christ how horrifying
>>336002325
Battlefield with wizards and shit
But Eternal Crusade 40k is good for that since I doubt it'll happen
Fuck off normie
>>336002325
Stop being hyped, you know it will suck
>>336002470
The fuck are you talking about, Davis? The games themselves tease 2143.
>>336002484
Asscreed #239482
They've already said they're going back to their roots, it's gonna be a classic WW2 game, boring as fuck, bland as fuck, and full of shitty DLC...
I wish BF2 was still active, even the rebirth barely gets 100 players a day.
Bad Company 3 or no buy. They'd fuck that game up too though...
>>336002325
They already hinted at a WW2 game
>>336002484
Fallout 4
>>336002470
u wot m8
All things points to 2143
>DLC ends with "is this beginning of new long cold war?" (obvious bf2142 reference)
>eastern front (2142 war started with Minsk map)
>Pan Asian Coalition vs EU (2142)
GET FUCKING HYPE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6m0_2-OuJU
>>336002507
LOL yep.
Suprisingly Rainbow Six Siege is their only unbroken game in years.
>>336002564
Battletoads 3
>>336002484
It's a joke mod for FO4
Scripted destruction events and bot tier team mates.
>>336002545
Bad Company 2 was one of the best Battlefields.
Shame they royally fucked up 3 and 4 was somewhat a return to form until they fucked it up then unfucked it with patches
>>336002609
Game ran so bad for me i cant play it.
>>336002325
I'd love to see and actual fps where people participate not camp at choke points or snipe like scrubs. It's like people are so concerned about their k/d ratio they won't play the game correctly
>>336002325
>What do you want to see
A proper futuristic setting
>what do you expect?
WW2 or modern warfare shit to pander to kids
>>336002660
Curious, what dictates an improper futuristic setting?
>>336002649
Then you're playing the wrong franchise.
I want the ww1 shit that was rumored. Fuck all this futuristic and semi-futuristic garbage. ww2 may be overdone but the constraints of history made these fucks tap their creativity far more than JETPACKS AND JETPLANES ever did.
>>336002742
2142 was basically ww1 on Minsk map (trenches and shit)
I want to see a BC2 clone but I only expect yet another Battlefield 3 clone.
Why was BC2 so much fun? The garand? The maps? Also Vietnam was fun as fuck. I expect 2142 setting g to keep up with black opz
>people genuinely thinking it will be ww2
Protip: you can't fill a WW2 game with 10 billion tacticool unlocks to skinner box people into thinking it's a good game
I want to see a good game, regardless of setting. I know I will be disappointed though. I hope it's a World War 2 shooter on a grand scale and or graphics take second seat to gameplay. Games don't have to all look realistic, that shit is has come and gone. I hope they don't just focus on graphics because that shit doesn't work on the hardware we have, and most people don't care anymore.
>>336002802
BC2 was a flook that turned out to be a great game.
Not even the devs know why it was so good.
>>336002325
>What do you want to see and what do you expect?
I don't want to see anymore BF games. I haven't found them remotely fun outside of Project Reality mod for about 5 years. I expect it to be either WW2 or something in the future. The modern day is tapped out so they probably won't make another one of them.
Because of how the DLCs worked, telling a story sorta leading up to the next game, the next BF will probably be 2132
>>336002802
It was your first Battlefield you played more than 5 minutes.
>>336002802
>Why was BC2 so much fun?
Because it was your first battlefield game
>>336002726
There is none
A futuristic setting is always the proper choice
>>336002325
I expect all the same guns, vehicles and maps since it's the same era.
I want a Battlefield which is greatly optimized with graphics on the level of BF3 (there is really no need for anything more) with no single player set either in the future or in an alternate universe because this shit all looks the same with all the best stuff from all the BF games, also no motion capture (wasted money), no expensive voice acting (it should be done by devs) and no marketing campaigns (everybody knows about it, spread the word on forums/4chan/reddit and that's it, everything else is wasted money)...that's about it.
>>336002847
>implying it has to be a "historical ww2" shooter
It could easily be an alt history game where the war never ended and continued to go on for years. Just like that one anime where nuclear tech and jet engine capabilities where never invented, it prolong the war for years.
>mfw it will be another Battlefield 3 reskin
>mfw all the fanboys get annoyed at DICE for not catering to their specific autistic needs for a shootan gaem
If you plebs want a WW2 game so much then Red Orchestra 2 needs more players.
>>336002946
I got the feeling you are not going to get what you want.
>>336002649
Pray for the return of arena shooters.
>>336003012
You're crazy if you think DICE would even consider something as interesting or require as much creativity as an alternate history setting.
>>336003058
RO2 has had a long prosperous life. Verdun, the WWI shooter, needs more players.
>>336002802
Console kiddies first BF, besides that it was a pretty meh battlefield.
>>336002802
It wasn't a serious game and the maps were designed around a single game mode. That is really why it was so great. I wouldn't called Bad Company a Battlefield though, even though it is counted as a title, I think it belongs in it's own IP. I wouldn't be surprised if a new Bad Company comes out and they drop the Battlefield name from it entirely.
>>336003069
I already know I won't get that. I just can't help my standards. I'd rather not play than go below my standards.
>>336003114
WW3 in an alternate universe where Germans won WW2.
Both sides would be
>AngloAmerican Union
>Germanian Empire
>USSR
>>336003114
I'm just saying that it's a possibility. I have no real hopes here.
>>336002742
You're in luck.
>>336002325
Hopefully nothing in 2142 setting.
Sorry, but I woulcn't trust the guys making BF games nowadays an indie showelware remake, let alone a sequel to the best Battlefield game to date.
>>336003218
If Germans won WW2 there wouldn't anyone but Germans left.
>>336003012
are you referring to Skycrawlers?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10wV05aNu9o
Something with more balanced maps than battlefield 4.
And hopefully they won't simplify mechanics even further.
I bought BF4 during the Christmas sale for 30ish dollars with all the maps and have been having a blast. An fps hasn't given me this electric feeling of fun since 2007-2008. And I have played a lot of fucking shooters. I look forward to 2143 a year or two after launch. Maybe they'll surprise everyone and get it right day 1.
>>336002802
the maps were compact enough where you didn't have to wander around for half an hour to find some action, and the game was designed around close combat
it was basically a mix of CoD and BF and it turned out really good for some reason
>>336002325Battlefield Heroes 2
>>336002486
holy fuck that would be amazing actually
2143 is the only hope this game has of being good
>>336003820
man that shit was so good
did they really have to take it down? I'm sure deader games are still being supported
>>336003662
Yeah I sure wish we had more amazing maps like Port Valdez that are literally no cover 3ft wide chokepoints.
how realistically can these major companies go back to WW2
people are now used to fast movement, robots, modern guns etc I reckon they'd be bored with WW2
Interesting to see where they go though, hopefully it's 2143 but I wouldn't mind using the godly M1 Garand again
>>336002484
Pretty sure 2143 was hinted since BF 1943 released.
>>336003917
Well that's what happens with F2P games. Once they're done, they're gone fucking forever. Well, Quake Live at least restructured itself in a state that's playable and not shutting down permanently.
Other than being dead, BFH unfortunately grew so many other problems along the line. The game basically became a social experiment for EA and they didn't give a fuck. The guy Salvenius in this link was a former community manager
>http://bfhn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?id=6283
>Most of the time the RTE users expressed great concern over upcoming content (Lasers for example) but sadly due to lack of ears at Easy and deadlines, most of what RTE expressed was put to one side
I'll miss flipping jeeps and tanks with Blasting Strike and burning faggot Commandos who think they could knife me. RIP in peace.
I'm on my knees begging papa EA to give me Bad Company 3 that isn't a DLC shitfest
>>336004808
>>336004692
It's not realistic at all. Companies want people to be hooked onto something these days, getting a pointless rank or an unlock for a weapon. It would probably look barebones to some.
>>336004576
port valdez was just poorly designed though, it had nothing to do with size
>attackers have to climb down this huge hill with 0 cover to reach the first fucking objective, which is inside a small crater people can just throw nades and C4 in
I mean what the fuck
>>336005148
Literally every map in BC2 is poorly designed except Panama Canal.
If you go here http://www.battlefield.com/games,
They've changed 1942's cover to look more like BF3/BF4's cover but kept all the games vietnam and after the same.
>>336005218
nah
there are more good maps than bad maps, although most maps have at least one bullshit part
>>336002582
it's broken as shit. the netcode sucks hard. shields are useless because of this.
>>336002325
I don't want another BF. Stop.
>>336002427
>2143 comes out
>it's US vs. China
>and everyone has the same weapons and all vehicles behave the same across both factions
I really want 2143, but at the same time I'm scared all the bullshit from 3 & 4 will be brought in and ruin large chunks of what made 2142 so good in the fist place.
>>336002325
>>What do you want to see
EA and DICE disappearing forever.
>and what do you expect?
Yet another shitty game.
>>336005934
This, I'm kinda glad they aren't touching bad company or 2142. I don't think modern Dice could do them justice.
>>336006779
>That pic
I'm still butthurt.
>>336006779
I think DICE could easily release a mod for full price with included spyware, just like 2142.
>>336005263
At least rush works and is fun, unlike Battlefield 4 rush which is always either getting steamrolled either not being able to capture the first base.
In bfbc2 even if you're just one player you could still somehow push and plant a charge on MCOM, maybe due to arcadey physics or just overall map balance.
In Battlefield 4 one player is not able to do shit, no matter how good you are.
>>336009349
>which is always either getting steamrolled either not being able to capture the first base
That's literally every rush game ever and it's actually worst in BC2.
>>336006779
It's simple. Back in the day BC2 was in direct competition with MW2 and they had to say that to get more people on their side. Nowadays BF stands solid on it's own and they can afford to do whatever the fuck they want.
>>336009414
No, the maps were balanced and neither attackers neither defending team had an upper hand.
As an attacker for example you could always flank/get to high ground and snipe the defending team. People actually used all classes, recons were not useless because they had mortar strike to destroy cover and best sniping positions to get a lot of kills were usually the most helpful ones.
For example first base on arica harbour had this huge hill with rocks and it was the main location you could find recons at, from both teams. So pretty much all recons tried to get on top of it because if they did they could either snipe attacking team with ease or to shoot the defending team backs. You could also see the whole battlefield and drop mortar strikes easily.
>>336010181
>No, the maps were balanced and neither attackers neither defending team had an upper hand.
Holy shit did you ever actually play BC2.
>>336010324
Yes i did. And it's better than battlefield 4.
>mfw everyone expect it to be BF5
>mfw it will be Bad Company 3
>>336010402
Literally the only thing BC2 does better than BF4 is the audio.
>>336010475
Just play Battlefront 2015 you fucking retard.
>>336002325
I expect generic modern military FPS #43598347
Honestly who buys this garbage in 2016?
Consider suicide.
>>336010681
>who buys this garbage
What are the alternatives?
Shitty indie games with pixels instead of graphics or weaboo junk with text clicking gameplay and reading?
What I want?
JUNGLE MAPS WITH HIGH TREE/BUSH DENSITY
What you want?
I don't know.
>not Battlefield Vietnam 2.0 starring Mark Wahlberg and Tom Hanks
>soundtrack by Credence Clearwater Revival
