Posted by Vinny_Says (5911 posts) 1 year, 5 months ago

Poll: Battlefield 1944? (65 votes)

It will happen 18%
It will never happen 23%
It might be a downloadable title like Battlefield 1943 45%
Show me the results 14%

We have to go back....

The team over at DICE has a lot more to worry about right now then what the next game may be, but if and when all of this sorts itself out I would love to see them take a real shot at World War 2 again. Battlefield 1943 was a fun and well made game but it felt too small and limited. The new generation is here and I don't think EA is just going to leave either console behind in favor of an all-PC focused Battlefield title. I hope this is the moment they had been waiting for to take the next step (rather than the intermediate step/ refinement that is BF4 over BF3).

The reason I would want them to go back to 1944 is because they've gone too deep in some aspects of the game and scaling back might be the best thing for them right now. There's also a sort of...aura....surrounding the entire conflict, almost as if a legend rather than actual events. This feeling you don't get when you're fighting over Zavod 311 (literally translates to Factory 311, how fucking inspired).

  • Old weapons may be lame, but new weapons are such a clusterfuck. I don't need 3 different 4x scopes, but of course xxsmokedawg420xx will get pissed off if you don't include the m145 scope, and this leads to the weapon customization screen being impossible to navigate (especially with a controller). A solution? Go back to a time when attaching a pistol or ergo grip wasn't necessary. There are plenty of shooters on the market that don't require unlocks and accessories and are still super popular. Sure you can keep weapon boosts and stat increases through video game magics but there's really no need for much of this esthetic nonsense.
  • There was more to World War 2 than France, Stalingrad and the Pacific Islands. There are still so many battlefields that were never explored in these games. The reason so many games during the PS2/Xbox era felt so similar is because they would limit you to playing as either the Americans, Germans or Russians, and often in the same battles over and over. The thing with Battlefield is that there doesn't need to be this limitation. You could play as the Italian Blackshirts as they retake Fort Capuzzo from the British Hussars and you don't need any fancy story around it. Fight for the Polish or the Germans over Hill 262, have a naval battle against the Vichy off the coast of Casablanca, fight it out in Henan as either the Chinese or Japanese. A map that recreates the siege of Malta could have different squadrons represent different countries that took part in the battle (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, etc.). There's no shortage of battles and operations that can still be recreated. And if you must, do Stalingrad again or the the D-Day landings, only to see how pretty they can look (just imagine the Rush gametype set up as the Utah Beach landings).
  • It needs to distance itself and stand out. The future of first person shooters is well...the future. The next Call of Duty, Titanfall, Destiny, Halo 5, all of these games are set in the future with future guns and future tech. I'm sure they will be great games but it would be nice to have one game out there that feels truly different from the others, if only to add some variety to the mix. There are still ww2 shooters like Red Orchestra 2 on the market but they appeal to a very specific segment of the audience. A series like Battlefield has enough clout to go back and not alienate its entire fanbase or the mainstream consumer. You show a cool scene from your WW2 game that looks good at E3 and you're guaranteed to have your average joe talking about it.
  • Modern Warfare is almost too simple. I'm not saying it doesn't take skill to pull off a clean victory in Battlefield, but when you can simply lock on to a tank and blow it to bits it cheapens the experience. The other day I got into an artillery truck and simply pointed the virtual in-game screen at an orange dot and got a kill. It would be way more satisfying if I could get into an anti aircraft gun and shoot down a Mustang as it's flying over. It's fun to obliterate ground troops in my Havoc helicopter, but it would be way cooler if I had to line up my run correctly and drop my bombs right on top of a camper inside a building. Then again maybe I'm wrong and the whole reason these games are so popular is their ease of access.
  • The campaign can either go or stay. This is the one aspect to these games I can't really comment on properly. DICE are a strange bunch when it comes to campaigns. When they finally took a real shot at it they nailed it. Bad Company had such an awesome story with a fun and unique cast of characters, but that's because they didn't limit themselves to the serious aspects of warfare (see point no.2). It would be a lot harder to take such a lighthearted approach to WW2 and I feel like they would rather just play it straight and drop another snoozefest on us. This is why I'm conflicted. There have been plenty of works that poke fun at the conflict and it would be great to merge the Bad Company essence into a potential Battlefield 1944 but then again who knows if DICE could ever pull off a good campaign again. So they can either spend all their resources on multiplayer and just add a bot mode for singleplayer or they can take yet another shot at making us care about a Battlefield campaign, at this point I don't know what I would prefer.

So there it is, what started off as a simple 2 option poll turned into a big wall of text. What Do you guys want to see from this series from this point on?

#1 Edited by ikilledthedj (369 posts) -

Im on board, spent many hours back in the day in internet cafe's playing "42".

Since MW1 everyone said oh WW2 is shit its all future now that's the only we are going to make makes now future future future, now its over done and played to death, give us something new. hell even go Battlefield 1901 or 1760 do some real crazy shit. it doesnt even have to be based on real life events.

DICE should Roll the DICE and see what they come up with

#2 Edited by Clonedzero (4206 posts) -

I'd much rather a battlefield 2143.

Shooters are jumping from modern bullshit to more future stuff because it gives the developers more creative license and control. Lets them add more mechanics and interesting things. I dont think we'll see a big AAA WW2 game anytime soon. It's just too limiting. (I.E you can only have the guns they used, the vehicles they used, and the settings they fought in)

It makes total sense to do future stuff. spaceships, drop pods, mechs, power armor, laser cannons, teleportation pads, personal jetpacks, speeder bikes, hover cars. The possibilities are endless. Hell one team can play bug people that can crawl on walls or something

But when you do a specific time period to set a game like battlefield all it does is limit it. Thats why all these "modern" shooters in the last couple years are more in the line of 20XX to allow for some funky semi-realistic gadgets. I just see a historical timeperiod setting for a big crazy shooter to be rather limiting

#3 Posted by moffattron9000 (388 posts) -

It'll happen, after all there are new consoles to put it on.

#4 Posted by Vinny_Says (5911 posts) -

@clonedzero: Exactly why it needs to go back in my opinion. When every shooter takes place in the future you'll lament the homogenization of the genre. The possibilities of future warfare may be infinite, but they still seem limited at some point, probably by our own imagination. All the things you listed are just things we envision the future to be like in every piece of fiction. I have yet to see something truly groundbreaking when it comes to this stuff, something more than a teleportation pad or a mech suit. What that is requires a mind much greater than my own though...

I just feel like you could make a much tighter and more refined experience if you know exactly what your limitations are. It's the weird "other side" of having limitless possibilities in your fiction. That's just how I see it though.

#5 Edited by Canteu (2866 posts) -

BC:2 was my favourite, in no small part to the Vietnam expansion.

This will never happen, even if I wish it to be so.

1943 was amazing also. Their WW2 stuff is so much better than their modern era shit.

#6 Edited by KaneRobot (2182 posts) -

I don't know, I guess I'd take a look at it if nothing else.

More than that though, I think I'm actually ready to see someone take another crack at the WW2 stuff. It has been a while. With the new consoles it could be pretty incredible.

#7 Posted by Gruff182 (959 posts) -

I'd much rather they went 2143. Titan mode was fantastic.

Can't see them working on 2 sci-fi shooters though.

#8 Edited by ArtisanBreads (4707 posts) -

Switching Call of Duty to World War II would get me to play it for sure at this point, and I haven't played the last few. It'd be refreshing.

And 1942 was one of my very favorite games. Seeing World War II on something like Frostbite 3? With all the destruction? It would be very cool. I'm imagining getting to blow a bridge Saving Private Ryan style if you lose it.

I also really like WWII shooters because the guns are fewer but all feel very distinct and are fun to use in their own way in different games. They also have more clear trade offs I think, so in well balanced games there has been a really nice mix to the combat (I think CoD 1 and 2 were really great and I could have fun and do well using all the different gun types). I think 1942 also did this well too, but the shooting wasn't as good. I still had a lot of fun being a medic with a SMG. But I think since then DICE has made way better gunplay, so they could really nail a WW II setting. They did very well in 1943, even if it was more limited.

We get enough sci-fi shooters that don't really feel all that different (we often see the Aliens influenced Space Marine image). Sometimes it looks sleeker than others. And we get our modern shooters. I think at this point we could really user a WW II FPS. The "Modern" setting with drones, airstrikes, the same modern guns in all the game, red dot sights, etc is everywhere. It would be a nice change of pace.

As for the campaign, I do think they could go serious with it but that would mean probably more Band of Brothers or Saving Private Ryan. I like that enough that I can get over if its not done all that well (always enjoyed Brothers in Arms, not that the story was bad). And a nice thing is they have a guideline (history) and some parameters. They can choose to represent battles. T

o me one of the worst parts of a lot of these modern shooter campaigns is the dumb conflicts they have and the different terrorist groups trying to use some WMD. THEN THESE ROUGE COMMANDOS. It's boring. Besides Spec Ops: The Line none of the stories have been interesting.

With a few of the modern CoD games (I'd say 4 for sure) they got the feel of interesting fake battles, but I think there was more of an impact in WWII to creating real conflicts. At this point I've seen so many "war on American soil" stories that they become cliche quickly.

#9 Posted by MariachiMacabre (7097 posts) -

Battlefield 1947. You play a soldier who's been home for a couple of years now, studying at law school and raising a family. You can customize the family dog.

#10 Posted by ArtisanBreads (4707 posts) -

Battlefield 1947. You play a soldier who's been home for a couple of years now, studying at law school and raising a family. You can customize the family dog.

I'm going to dog prestige.

#11 Posted by MariachiMacabre (7097 posts) -

@mariachimacabre said:

Battlefield 1947. You play a soldier who's been home for a couple of years now, studying at law school and raising a family. You can customize the family dog.

I'm going to dog prestige.

Dog Prestige is exclusive to Premium members. You also get an exclusive breed, the Shar Pei.

War is hell.

#12 Posted by Example1013 (4855 posts) -

stop talking shit about my gamertag, and yes, I do need that m145 scope, it's something a casual like yourself wouldn't understand

#13 Posted by Subjugation (4787 posts) -

I'd much rather a battlefield 2143.

Boom. +1

#14 Posted by ArtisanBreads (4707 posts) -

Everyone remembers DICE is making Star Wars Battlefront right?

#15 Posted by OGinOR (331 posts) -

@artisanbreads: You said "Star Wars: Battlefield", right? That's what I heard and I'm sticking with it...

#16 Posted by Vinny_Says (5911 posts) -

@mariachimacabre said:

Battlefield 1947. You play a soldier who's been home for a couple of years now, studying at law school and raising a family. You can customize the family dog.

I'm going to dog prestige.

Am I missing any limbs and how does it affect gameplay? Also what's the pre-order law school I get in the limited edition?

#17 Posted by Casey25 (146 posts) -

Ideally I would like the mechanics and intelligent gameplay design of Red Orchestra 2 with the impressive visuals and sound design of DICE games.

#18 Posted by Vuud (2052 posts) -

I don't think CoD or Battlefield would ever go back to WWII because the guns did not have tons of tacticool attachments to unlock.

#19 Posted by ArtisanBreads (4707 posts) -

@oginor said:

@artisanbreads: You said "Star Wars: Battlefield", right? That's what I heard and I'm sticking with it...

That's exactly what it will be though. Which means zero chance of 2143 but maybe a lot of the ideas come over.

#20 Posted by MariachiMacabre (7097 posts) -

@artisanbreads said:

@mariachimacabre said:

Battlefield 1947. You play a soldier who's been home for a couple of years now, studying at law school and raising a family. You can customize the family dog.

I'm going to dog prestige.

Am I missing any limbs and how does it affect gameplay? Also what's the pre-order law school I get in the limited edition?

For preordering, you get the Limited Edition at no extra charge. It includes 4 exclusive law schools and 5 startup firms eager to hire you once you graduate. Obviously, Premium is a fantastic value full of awesome bonuses, including new colors for your dress pants, and sweater vests, and, even cooler, new haircuts for you and your family. Period appropriate, obviously. Beyond that, though, we're not ready to talk about and we're very excited to reveal more in the coming months and at E3.

#21 Edited by believer258 (12849 posts) -

Battlefield 1943 was a ton of fun and I'd go back and play something like that again.

In fact, at this point, I'd love to see any popular shooter strip out all that loadout bullshit. Four classes, perfectly balanced, no variation. Make players learn how to creatively use what they have instead of making them climb up this experience treadmill to open up a hundred things they'll hardly look at. That makes for a good Skinner box but it's not really good gameplay. It's too mindless and uninteresting.

#22 Posted by weegieanawrench (1948 posts) -

I spent a lot of time with BC2 and 43 and I would be down for another journey into WW2. I feel like it's time to go back, we've spent plenty of time fighting with modern and future guns.

#23 Posted by soulcake (428 posts) -

I like to see a Battlefield based on the Korean war you still have you're old skool weapons but some new toys come into play like early jets and stuff. still a M1 garand with a laser sight and a muzzle breaker ain't that bad :D