Poll: Battlefield 4 by 2014, too soon?
- Thread starter Conza
- Start date
Recommended Videos
What difference is 4 going to have over 3? different campaign and a slightly updated multilayer with new maps, guns and tanks...Come on all it needs is an update surly, but ye oh wait this is EA we are talking about I guess it does not matter battlefield would sell with little to no effort, sigh.
What I would like to see are stand alone expansions or DLC, adding new maps and maybe even a simple story campaign worked in using the multi player mechanise maybe maybe not against bots or other players. With each expansion being a new theme, place and age: modern, past future. That would be fun I think and would feel better than a whole new game.
What I would like to see are stand alone expansions or DLC, adding new maps and maybe even a simple story campaign worked in using the multi player mechanise maybe maybe not against bots or other players. With each expansion being a new theme, place and age: modern, past future. That would be fun I think and would feel better than a whole new game.
Nah, I think it's fine. I was able to stand the wait between 2 and 3 because 2 was so good I still have it installed on my comp. A couple years seems about right for 3.
By making that statement you were sure to get someones attention. While I don't care about people's opinions, their reasoning behind them intrigue me. So tell me, what sucked with Battlefield 1942 and Battlefield 2? Spare me the post-EA cancer that is Dice today, but both 1942 and 2 are groundbreaking games for a reason and is widely regarded as such.Khazoth said:
Or does "modern generation" mean Xbox 360 era and forward? Because then I can understand certain people's annoyance.
Operation Metro is a failure in game development for 64 Conquest and I have no faith that DICE will patch in more space to fight on.Platypus540 said:
A lot has changed since 2005 but it won't be as substantial in the next 3 years.
Considering they copied COD again in an soulless manner instead of lampooning it, I'd say forget single-player in an main BF title and focus that development for the Bad Company series.
I think we should expect more out of what was suppose to be a dev's magnum opus.
They could have done that for the CQ maps to fit 64 players but they didn't.
Seriously, Bad Company helped build the fan base but EA is ditching it despite that Bad Company 3 will probably make them more money? I mean, 2005-2011 showed that the Battlefield formula has a lot flavors and I'm sure BF fans would have no problem with yearly releases of different types of BF games until DICE is ready to release 4 but EA seems to not care anymore despite the fact that COD is slowing down the money train given that MW3 has not beaten BO's record and BO2 is now giving away actual content incentives for people to buy it which shows that gamers are slowly growing tired of the yearly release formula but EA, as usual, isn't really looking towards the future, at all. It also doesn't help that we are getting tired of the modern-day themed shooter given we now figured out what EA is trying to do but, once again, EA doesn't listen, notice, or care and would rather gamble away with more M4s & AKs then laughter, parkour, mechs, John McClane, John Woo, or something else.
The complete DLC pack they are rolling out costs around £50, so it virtually costs as much as a new game in itself. If Battlefield 3 came out in 2011, followed by a major DLC in 2012 and then a Battlefield 4 in 2013. Then they will release another major DLC in 2014 which costs as much as a new game itself- so they are pretty much aiming to release a AAA title each year.
It saddens me that they arn't going to bring 2142 to the console market, my guess is that EA feels that releasing another modern warfare shooter is more profitable. In some ways you've got to blame the consumers here through- if people are all going to buy into a certain type of game then publishers are only going to meet that demand. My advise would be to not buy Battlefield 4- and i mean, how can it be better or different than Battlefield 3? You can get loads of weapons already in BF3, and all the best maps from the battlefield series on there already.
It saddens me that they arn't going to bring 2142 to the console market, my guess is that EA feels that releasing another modern warfare shooter is more profitable. In some ways you've got to blame the consumers here through- if people are all going to buy into a certain type of game then publishers are only going to meet that demand. My advise would be to not buy Battlefield 4- and i mean, how can it be better or different than Battlefield 3? You can get loads of weapons already in BF3, and all the best maps from the battlefield series on there already.
Well just look at the release dates of other titles carrying the Battlefield name:
Battlefield 1942 2002
Battlefield Vietnam 2004
Battlefield 2 2005
Battlefield 2142 2006
Battlefield: Bad Company 2008
Battlefield Heroes 2009
Battlefield 1943 2009
Battlefield: Bad Company 2 2010
Battlefield 3 2011
Battlefield 4 2013/2014
If you look at it that way it's completely reasonable, I don't know why people are complaining. In fact, if Battlefield 4 does come out in 2014, it will acrually be one of the longest gaps between games.
Battlefield 1942 2002
Battlefield Vietnam 2004
Battlefield 2 2005
Battlefield 2142 2006
Battlefield: Bad Company 2008
Battlefield Heroes 2009
Battlefield 1943 2009
Battlefield: Bad Company 2 2010
Battlefield 3 2011
Battlefield 4 2013/2014
If you look at it that way it's completely reasonable, I don't know why people are complaining. In fact, if Battlefield 4 does come out in 2014, it will acrually be one of the longest gaps between games.
Even if you only count the 'main series' there is still a similar gap that there is now between BF3 and BF4.NuclearShadow said:
2014 isn't too early but it was definitely announced TOO SOON. Before they even bothered announcing sequels to BF 2142 and/or 1943.