Rumor: Battlefield 2143 Possibly Leaked - Update: Fake

[Steven Bogos]

Rumor: Battlefield 2143 Possibly Leaked - Update: Fake

A handful of blurry images reportedly show the existence of Battlefield 2143.

Update: Well, looks like we've been fooled again. The reddit user [https://www.reddit.com/r/Battlefield/comments/3bckis/bf2143/] who first posted the images has come out and admitted that he faked them. Sorry folks.

Original Story: Here's one from the rumor mill that you should probably approach with extreme caution: someone over at reddit [https://www.reddit.com/r/Battlefield/comments/3bckis/bf2143/] has dropped a handful of blurry screenshots he claims proves the existence of Battlefield 2143 - the long awaited sequel to 2006's Battlefield 2142. First, why don't you check out the images for yourself:

[gallery=4348]

Yes, the images are potato-quality, but they are relatively convincing. Then again, we have been fooled by elaborate hoaxes like this in the past (such as that embarrassing Rayman in Smash Bros. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/139842-Rayman-Leaked-as-New-Super-Smash-Bros-4-DLC] incident...), so we are regarding this one with extreme suspicion.

For the record, if this is the real deal, would sort-of line up with DICE's plans to release Battlefield 5 in 2016 [http://www.videogamer.com/xboxone/battlefield_4/news/battlefield_5_to_feature_more_destruction_due_in_just_a_few_years_2.html]. The decision to return to the future-based world of Battlefield 2142 would also be spurred on by the success of recent sci-fi hits Titanfall and Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare.

We've reached out to EA and DICE for comment, and are also keeping a close eye on the reddit thread where the images came from, to see if there's any update on the situation.

Source: reddit [https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/3bcz7l/battlefield_2143_has_possibly_been_leaked/]

Permalink

 

[Lil_Rimmy]

I dunno. This was one of the greatest Battlefield games, only because of the great fun that was Titan mode, but they managed to screw up the original one as well. You had to buy DLC to play the bloody multiplayer, and Titan mode wasn't available with bots.

It wasn't near Battlefield 2 levels of awesome, but it was still really fun, especially the way it played around with the new tech (one of the coolest things were the APCs and helicopters that let you drop pod freely around the map, so someone would fly past a base and 10 people would all drop-pod out, or an APC would park outside and suddenly soldiers would launch from it into the air and into the base), but the fact that they handled the old one rather poorly and what with all the new things we have seen from them (Battlefront...) I don't have high hopes.

I have some though. A tiny, little, tingling amount of hope.

 

[tehFozzeY]

At this point it's pretty obvious they aren't gonna bring back any of the things that made the original Battlefield games, 2142 in particular, so great - sophisticated squad system, non-regenerating health with longer respawn times, wide open maps, etc.

Instead, as one of the screenshots clearly indicates, we're getting a fully-featured singleplayer campaign, again. Not because people care about it, but because Call of Duty did it. So I'm calling another Battlefield: Hardline here, a few cosmetical tweaks to the already established formula with tiny maps, hectic respawning and a myriad of ADD unlocks.

They're simply squeezing the last bits out of the franchise as they run it into the ground.

You had to buy DLC to play the bloody multiplayer

Pretty sure you're getting that wrong. There's only one piece of DLC (which were rightfully called "expansion packs" back in the day), and it adds a couple of maps, vehicles and unlocks. Definitely not required to access the multiplayer.

 

[SecondPrize]

Well, if DICE from the early to mid 2000s travels forward in time and develops it then I could get excited about it. That seams highly unlikely so my hype level is ERROR CANNOT BE FOUND. I put thousands of hours into bf2 for about 7 years consistently as well as a few hundred into 2142 and I just cannot give a fuck about this news.
Expansion packs that BF used to get are a far cry from the DLC they do now. It's just a few maps that splits the player base each time another one comes out.

 

[vallorn]

Yeeeahhh this is the same company that managed to utterly cock up Battlefront of all games series's, colour me unhyped about them squeezing the name for money while their game has nothing to do with the old ones.

 

[RicoADF]

I shall wait and see even if this is true, EA has been very hit and miss lately. Some games have been good some horrible. Their very much in the "wait for reviews/others opinions" bag.

 

[Lil_Rimmy]

You had to buy DLC to play the bloody multiplayer

Pretty sure you're getting that wrong. There's only one piece of DLC (which were rightfully called "expansion packs" back in the day), and it adds a couple of maps, vehicles and unlocks. Definitely not required to access the multiplayer.

Well, I looked it up and it looks like I may be wrong. The expansion pack was the Northern Strike and I definitely recall that when trying to log into the multiplayer it told me something about said pack and then I couldn't play. However, this is years ago, so in all likely hood I've completely misremembered it and it was actually my cd-key was wrong or something (remember those wonderful things?) and I just remember it being linked to the DLC or whatever.

What I do know is that I had to buy two copies of the game, because I put the first one into a laptop that immediately scratched the disk to the point of it being unable to run. Still, bought another copy and had my fun with it. Twas a good game.

 

[Tsaba]

well.... why wouldn't they? EA took the route of COD and are pretty darn close to making a new one each year... so yeah. Got my bet for next years leak being BF 1944.

 

[fix-the-spade]

#EDIT. Boooooo horrible fakers.

Well, if they can go avoid the trajectory EA has so far taken with BF4/Hardline/Battlefront then it will be interesting.

BF4 has steadily come good (much like BF3 did) but Hardline is already dead and nobody who played Battlefront at E3 had much nice to say, so this one could go either way.

Pretty sure you're getting that wrong. There's only one piece of DLC (which were rightfully called "expansion packs" back in the day), and it adds a couple of maps, vehicles and unlocks. Definitely not required to access the multiplayer.

Once Northern Strike came out servers defaulted to requiring it before allowing a player to join (like the 'needs this DLC to connect' check on BF3/4 servers), you could turn it off in the server options, but many didn't notice or bother.

2142 also had a bug where the account server would 'forget' CD Keys that were genuine, effectively deleting player's accounts at random. EA were very helpful during that little episode, they told me I could certainly have a new product key, all I had to do was go to a shop and buy myself a new copy of Battlefield 2142.

 

[Lil_Rimmy]

Well, if they can go avoid the trajectory EA has so far taken with BF4/Hardline/Battlefront then it will be interesting.

BF4 has steadily come good (much like BF3 did) but Hardline is already dead and nobody who played Battlefront at E3 had much nice to say, so this one could go either way.

Pretty sure you're getting that wrong. There's only one piece of DLC (which were rightfully called "expansion packs" back in the day), and it adds a couple of maps, vehicles and unlocks. Definitely not required to access the multiplayer.

Once Northern Strike came out servers defaulted to requiring it before allowing a player to join (like the 'needs this DLC to connect' check on BF3/4 servers), you could turn it off in the server options, but many didn't notice or bother.

2142 also had a bug where the account server would 'forget' CD Keys that were genuine, effectively deleting player's accounts at random. EA were very helpful during that little episode, they told me I could certainly have a new product key, all I had to do was go to a shop and buy myself a new copy of Battlefield 2142.

Well there you go, that sounds about right! Yeah, the way I recall it is that I tried to load up into the multiplayer servers, it then flashed up an error/no message and then displayed the ad for the Northern Strike.

It was so long ago though that I can barely recall what I did to fix it, but then I had to buy a new copy due to the disk being destroyed so that's probably how it was fixed anyway. Ah, memories.

 

[laggyteabag]

I am certainly happy that everything is starting to head to the near future era. Sure, guns are guns are guns, but at least developers have to put a little imagination into the designs and the functions.

 

[hawkeye52]

All they have to do to not fuck up this one is just make it like 2142 and include maps such as Camp Gibraltar, Port Tunis and Cerbere Landing.

6 man squads with a squad leader only spawn as well while they are at it. I don't even really know why they are bothering with a single player campaign as the best battlefields to date were 1942, 2142 and BF2 and I am pretty sure that they didn't have a single player campaign as it doesn't add anything to what the core game is. That being a teamwork orientated multiplayer game.

 

[MCerberus]

I have no faith that DICE remembers the main draw of the battlefield series was insane parodic silliness. So they're not going to run with it like 2142 did.

Captcha: Lipstick Pig. Even captcha has cutting words for modern BF games.

 

[dangoball]

Is no one going to address that War... War never changes? No? Dammit DICE, you can't just take our long held believes away from us! Heresy, heresy I say!

As for the rest of it, meh, I'm not really a shooter person so I don't even know why I clicked on this. To stay in the loop, I guess.

 

[shadoe14]

If this were 2011 I would be more excited for this than even Fallout 4. 2142 was my absolute favorite Battlefield game, despite the fact that is was the most buggy. I want this to finally be the game that DICE realizes that they have been running Battlefield into the ground and start to return it to form, but it won't be. This is EA and DICE after all.


That being said, If i hadn't completely lost hope in anything EA/DICE made, These are the things I would be wanting:

1. Titan mode. Now I'm rather certain that they will have some sort of titan mode in a sequel to 2142. Honestly, that is probably the main reason they are actually making it; but this is modern day DICE after all, They don't have the best reputation when it comes to including things that 9-10 year old games had.

2. Full Squads. One of the few things they did right in Battlefield 4 was bringing back 6 man squads and the commander. In my opinion these are vital parts to a game that is supposed to be focused on teamwork. So I do hope they make a return. Also as a side note, I hope they have only the squad leader and the leader's drop pod beacon as spawn points. It would be incentive for the squad to stick together and protect the leader.

3. More vehicles. One of the few things I didn't like about 2142 was the lack of certain types of vehicles. While the ones we had were great, I really wanted more different types. For example, I think it would be cool to add some fighter/bomber units to each side for some of the larger maps, maybe some long range artillery units and (this is probably just me feeding my obsession with giant walkers) maybe something like a giant superheavy walker along the lines of the Mammoth MkII from Tiberian Sun. I mean come on, Who wouldn't want to control something as epic as this?

Spoiler

4. No Overly Sci-Fi things. Now this one most likely needs some explaining. One thing I liked about 2142 was how while it was obviously futuristic (Hovertanks, Orbital Stikes, etc...) It didn't feel the need to add a bunch of the common things you see in Futuristic games like jetpacks and lazer guns. This made it feel futuristic, but allowed the gameplay to still work similarly to Battlefield 2.

5. NO REGENERATING HEALTH!!! For the life of me I can't figure out how health regen makes any sense in a game that is based around teamwork. The whole point of the medic class is to heal their teammates. In my opinion, having to rely on your teammates to heal you helps reinforce the idea that this is a team game, and that Lone Wolfing it isn't the best idea.

6. Easy to use Guns. Now this one may be a bit more controversial, but i will try to explain why I think it is a better fit for Battlefield. Ever since I first played 1942, I always saw the main point of the game as teamwork. When I played online, I didn't see the best players as the people with the best KD ratio, or the ones with the biggest killstreak. I saw the best players as the ones who communicated with their team the best, and worked the best together especially when Battlefield 2 introduced squads. In Battlefield 2 a good squad who communicated, had a diverse squad composition, and worked together could easily take down Dozens of players who didn't. Anyone who played the old Battlefield games knows how hard it can be to clear out a position that a good squad is protecting. Now in the more modern Battlefield games that is still the case. A good squad can be almost unstoppable, but in order to be a good squad you now need to make sure that you are VERY proficient with your gun. You see, DICE tried to make the guns in Battlefield more realistic. They made them have plenty of recoil, they made the bullets have drop off and much more. Now most people would say this is a good thing, and in some ways it is, but who it isn't good for are the new players who try out the game a while after it is released. At this point the people who have been playing since release have mastered the guns, they know exactly how much recoil to expect, what the spread is, it's range of efficiency, etc... while the new player has to take many hours of gameplay to learn these things. This leads to many situations where a new player will see an enemy with his back towards him a little ways off, the new player will start shooting a whole clip at him; but then the other player, a veteran, will turn around and take down the new player with 2 shots from the exact same weapon. Now I know what alot of you are thinking, "It's a FPS, of course the one who takes the time to learn the intricacies of the weapons should win." and for the most part I agree with you; But I think that the Teamwork aspect of the game should be much more important the the gunplay aspect of it. In the older Battlefield games, the guns were relatively simple. They had very little recoil no bullet drop and were pretty accurate. This made the guns rather easy to use. If a new player saw an enemy a little ways in front of him he could start shooting and (so long as he didn't have EXTREMELY bad aim) he could usually kill him. This made people a little more even, so how could you win if both teams could use their guns about as well as the other? By using the best tactics and teamwork. Going back to my example of a squad defending a position in the older games. They are very hard to take down, even with a large number of people; but if you had a squad that was just as smart and had even better communication, you usually could figure out how to flush them out. So basically, I think that making the guns easier to use will make people have to rely more on teamwork and tactics rather than just playing hours upon hours just to learn how to effectively use the guns.

7. Battles on the American Continents. This is more of an "Expansion Pack" Idea than it is a main feature. As many who played 2142 will know, the battles almost exclusively took place in Europe and Northern Africa. This makes sense considering the factions were the "European Union" and the "Pan Asian Coalition". But I think as an expansion, It would be cool to see the wars going on in America at this time. For Example, it could have Battles around Mexico, The Caribbean, and Venezuela, Where what's left of the USA is invading Central and Southern America in order to secure land for its people as the ice wall creeps further south through the US.


Anywho, there is a wall of text for anyone who is interested in the opinions of a random person on the internet.

 

[Erttheking]

I know nothing about the original 2142 and I know that 2143 will completely drop the ball on what people liked about the original because EA seems to pride itself on fucking everything up.

 

[cikame]

Firstly "War is changing" is a super bad tagline, especially because this would be set 1 year after the previous game, so i doubt very much would have changed.
Secondly, how the hell do you take photos like that? "I decided to take pictures of a blur and a line of text", if i was excited about something and took a picture, i'm probably going to get a snap of the thing i'm excited about, like a huge mech or a cool looking environment, not a line of friggin text.

Despite that sometimes these 'leaks' turn out to be true, so we'll see.

 

[Mikeybb]

I hope this is true and having waxed on about how much I love this game in the past, I'll not repeat it here.

I'll just get working on the choreography for my celebratory 'happy dance'.

Step, step, turn, twirl, mime loading, twirl step, twirl.