Where would you like to see the Battlefield series go from the Great War?

Keep dreaming

"DICE's World War I shooter Battlefield 1 continues to be a huge hit. Publisher Electronic Arts announced this week that the game reached 21 million players as of the end of June. Here is EA's exact wording on the milestone: "Battlefield 1 had more than 21 million players joining the game as of quarter end." This is up from 19 million a few months ago."

Behemoths would be kinda weird in Vietnam era indeed. Not sure what they used beside trucks, tanks, boats and helicopters.

I think Vietnam would be the best bet since WW1 proved that people are ready for big changes in BF (not like the Vietnam DLC :P).

We already had BF Vietnam and later Battlefield Bad Company 2 Vietnam.

Cybertron

WWII or Medieval era. I would love to see something like Mount and Blade with the level of polish of DICE games.

Id like to see the Pacific Theater WW2 with elements of battleships, subs, planes, and ground. Not just having battleships as behemoths. Might need to increase the player count.

I loved the series Battlestations, and would always think how rad it would to have first person ground combat along with the vehicles.

A very serious take on mostly human fantasy with rifles and cannons and siege engines mayybe also wyvern and centaurs (air and cavalry units). Slightly more character customization. More fantastical architecture to wage war on. Somewhat cooler than real weaponry (more decorated) but they have to keep its tone and look very serious or people would be pissssed.

You could have mini zeppelins for multicrew airships and maybe a giant tank that looks a little alike the crawler in Star Wars. Or something else... I mean it would give them a little more freedom to have fun with map designs, environments, environmental hazards and vehicle designs without giving up much of the real war to the death tone.

Maybe this sounds weird to ask for, but I think it's totally possible to have a very serious game set in a bit of fantasy and have it be really cool and in terms of gameplay advances much more exciting. And serious enough for old BF veterans to actually be totally into it. It shouldn't look wonky or whimsical in any way.

If they want to go realistic-y I hope that they will really take a look at tools in R&D. Basically the reason I suggested the above is because I find the gear in BF1 very boring and I hope they'll make getting new gear fun again. Cornerguns, remote control mines, drones, hacking tanks, etc. I want more fresh stuff. Maybe a system that incorporates friendly fire in a light way. (Less damage to friendlies, delayed respawn times when teamkilling like in RO?) That could be a horrible idea. I dunno, I just want something fresh.

Maybe you guys wouldn't be tired of futuristic settings if you didn't purchase crap games with futuristic settings. I'd personally love to see a BF 2143. 2142 was awesome with great ideas to build upon.

Yeah I also absolutely loved 2142! That's why I was suggesting a slight fantasy take because I think 2142 was so great because they got more freedom to create new weapontypes and new vehicles. I really would love a big budget 2142 type BF game! I can imagine that because of Battlefront 2 coming out, the public would be a little less excited about it than us.

Let's get medieval on this b*tch. If we are talking fields of battle, what better place? Archers, horses, fighters why not?

No, it didn't.... There was and is absolutely no skill gap or competitive play to speak of. It is watered down in every sense. The game took SEVERAL steps back in every major category, and improved in absolutely nothing. They stripped staples of the franchise, and tossed in "get by" mechanics, more cinematic bs (that did NOTHING for gameplay), slowed it down, made it even more unrealistic, added power ups, gave ridiculous amounts of health to people on HORSEBACK, somehow made hit boxes even worse (didn't think it was possible), horribly unbalanced classes and weapons, vehicles that are entirely too difficult to disable, etc. As far as it not have futuristic crap.. it didn't. The "aim assist" ESPECIALLY with pistols is damn near auto aim lock on though. There wasn't any jetpacks, but there were invisible boundaries and magical bullet sponging horses and light vehicles. No invisibility... Sure, I give you a couple of the things I said, but the main takeaway of the sentence is that I wanted a skill gap, team based play, and a competitive mode or two. All of which the game had none.... The other things were hinting toward the fact that none of it was done well.

Yeah, it's just my opinion, but is also the opinion of just about everyone else I play online with as well. Just about everyone on my friends list played it for a couple days and went back to BF4, and that's not because the game is good or took the series in the right direction. I fully expect BF5 or BC3 to completely do away with those shit mechanics and graduate past middle school.

You act as if BF4 didn't have any invisible walls. Hell, even BF2 had invisible walls where it'd kill you for going out of bounds.

The aim assist? You must be playing on consoles. Every gun has aim assist, so I don't know what your gripe with this is? I play on PC, so I don't really experience that.

Lol, yes, because BF4 and all the other games didn't have vehicles that made you invincible or took lots of damage. You do realize you can kill a guy on a horse with one rocket gun, right? You can also shoot him in the head for extra damage. He has armor, what do you really expect? He has crap guns, so it's not like he has an advantage at all. You can usually easily see them coming, and if everyone focus fires them, they die instantly.

Sure, people can pick up a super soldier kit, but you can kill them instantly with a bayonet or even one rocket gun will take them out. Just play smart if you see them. Stick with your team(you know, like a team should), and you won't have any problems with super soldiers.

BF4 had trucks with machine guns on them that took 2 rockets to kill, so I'm really not seeing what this baby whining is all about.

And, everything else you mentioned was just a bunch of words with no examples behind them. You basically just say, "Well, it's crap! But I can't tell you why nor give specific examples!"

Also, hitboxes feel exactly the same as BF4. Maybe you just suck at aiming?

Back up to PC quality instead of further down towards console mediocrity.

Steampunk, alternative history.

I miss when games tried to be games instead of trying to be realistic.

Battlefield 2143 FTW!!

If you don't know the history of the franchise or the difference between invisible walls and invisible out of bounds boundaries that start a countdown timer until inevitable death, then I don't even know where to start....

Also, yes of course I play on console and not shitty PC. Why the hell anyone plays shooters on a PC is completely beyond me.... to each their own though. Well, other than the fact that there are more options, and aren't funneled into playing shit games like BF1. As for me, I pretty much turn off aim assist on any and all console game, but when every other player are given pistols that practically aim themselves it is OP as hell. Perhaps the game is just much better on PC and is meant to be played on it.. don't know, haven't played it on PC so I can't compare the two. All I can say is that on console the game is shit. I know I may be in the vocal minority when it comes to speaking out against playing shooting games on console is better than PC, but that's the way feel. There is less cheating, and everyone is for the most part playing with parity, and its not an issue or too many ways to exploit the hardware and or software. Plus I feel there is a larger skill gap with a controller and stick skills than a keyboard and mouse, but that isn't what this is about. Also you said "every gun has aim assist"... ok, well on that front, yes that is true to some extent. However, some have MORE, and that is the problem. If all the weapons had the same amount or none it would be much better. I come from the Goldeneye and SOCOM days when there was no aim assist, and still play that way to this day. I often rent my own servers and turn aim assist off so that anyone in the room playing can not enable it. Moving on though..

Either way, unless the game is just 100 times better on PC... which I entirely doubt, then the game sucks. There is a reason why it lost so many players so fast.

I can guarantee you that my dislike for this game has nothing to do with not playing smart or not being good (as if there is really a way to track that on a game like this especially when all the "top players" just sit in indestructible tanks all game). The game is just shit. Also, as far as vehicles in other BF games, no, they did not make you invincible and all of them had pretty simple ways of disabling them. Although I'm not a big Conquest player, and would rather play modes that either don't have vehicles at all, or very few. Sure, I know Battlefield is known to most as large scale battle game with vehicles and blah blah blah... however, the last couple games BEFORE BF1 implemented a competitive mode. I prefer one life games and game modes, and I know it's easy to say that BF isn't really known for that, or "go play CoD", but the problem is that in BF4 and BFH their competitive modes were just plain better. I'm sure if BF1 had a competitive mode that I wouldn't hate it nearly as much as I do, but I just can't help but feel that BF1 was obviously for a younger audience and less skilled shooter players. Which is ok.. I just hope that they get back to their roots with a deeper and more difficult game in their next iteration, that's all.

Also, hitboxes feel NOTHING like BF4 since the game plays completely different in just about every aspect and weapons are entirely imbalanced. My hit percentage is always near the highest if not the highest of anyone I know, and I pride myself on my skill on the sticks, aim is never a problem. Funny that is even brought up when I play with aim assist off the vast majority of the time, but how were you to know.

Look, you can defend this cookie cutter, baby training wheels game all you want, but there is a reason its numbers dropped so fast in comparison to BF4, and PS4 is the only community that really still plays the game. BF4 by comparison still pulls in a good amount of players seeing as though the game has been out much longer.

Either way, I'm done arguing about the shittiness of BF1. The game blows and everyone knows it. The only people in denial are the players with the attention span of a fruit fly and go off chasing squirrels every few seconds. It was a HUGE step back in the evolution of the BF franchise and anyone who can not see that is blind.

I could give you a thousand reasons the game was a big step back, but fanboys like you would find a way to justify all the majorly obvious flaws like you already have tried (although none of them made a damn bit of sense seeing as though they were wrong). It's what you do. Now go jump in a tank or plane and rack up a 72-1.... boy you're so good... lmao

Anyways, I'm glad you like the shitty game. I'm done with this conversation because BF1 isn't worth a discussion.. I simply feel as though it is the worst BF game to date, but then again you are probably one of those who thinks Skyrim is the best Elder Scrolls as well... am I right? Yeah.. I'm right.

Well for one you are not obligated to pay a monthly subscription to enjoy your games online.

For two a mouse is just a way better means to control real movement than an analog stick will ever be, it just lacks the same amount of control and that is why almost all console shooters (including battlefield) have aim assist.

And for me personally, because I like playing shooters in 21:9.

No other game had its numbers drop so fast as BF4 because that game launched horribly broken.

I was thinking about asynchronous play. It is kinda big in board games and I always like it a lot. Like in Netrunner you have a player who plays a hacker vs a player who plays a corporation and they play very differently. The hacker takes on jobs for some coin to build himself a rig and puts himself at risk sniffing around in the corporate servers that are protected by firewalls the corporation plays in an attempt to hide their real agenda's. In Trieste you have the city guard, the thieves guild and the merchants playing against each other each with different goals and methods. The city guard has the power to lock people up and the merchants have the power of coin. In the Fury of Dracula you have Dracula pitted against 4 hunters. Combined and well equipped, the hunters can kill Dracula but if one hunter is caught offguard he is toast, and Dracula will grow in strength as he travels, corrupting the lands.

I don't know about you, but to me all these concepts sound amazing. Your mind can come up with many ways to make this interesting. I like asynchronous designs a lot.

I suppose in video games an example would be Natural Selection. It's a game of aliens vs marines and both teams work very differently with their own economy. Or Star Craft maybe? The Zerg play very different from the other teams.

So I was thinking about the Anglo Zulu wars... You could have one team be twice the players as the other team and less technologically advanced.... that sort of stuff. But it's harder to make it work with fewer people... So I'm not sure it's a good idea. Maybe someone here can think of a good way to implement interesting asynchronous play into BF. Vietnam is an obvious candidate. What would you think of having an alien race in 2143 aside from say 2 or 3 human sides that plays/moves very different? Think aliens like in Edge of Tomorrow - a bit tar-like - that can climb surfaces easily and when prone can be very hard to spot but they can't fire from prone... that sort of stuff.

Vietnam. The dense jungles, small villages, helicopters, sound track...it could be so good. Go with a Bad Company vibe, with less humour and this could be one of the best BFs in a while.

In fcat, I don't think I have thoroughly enjoyed a BF game since Bad Company 2 anyway. Having recently completed the BF1 campaign and gone deep into the mp...it's a relaly shallow experience. The mp maps are big but similar in the wya they are arranged and the campaign is bloody while trying to be thoughtful. Stick to being a game.