Poll: Battlefield 4 by 2014, too soon?

[Trololo Punk]

Thanks to Call Of Duty. A lot of shooter fans are probably used to their games coming out every year (or so). Guess it's just EA trying to compete.

Maybe they'll do something interesting with it. Perhaps....

 

[bullet_sandw1ch]

Not at all, I do hate to draw the comparisons here but, look at their targeted competition... They release every 12 months.. You want too soon? Every CoD after CoD3 has been a year too soon for my tastes.

isnt it crazy that if they followed a once every two years schedule, COD:MW2 would have only come out last year? i think its downright amazing.

 

[Khazoth]

It could be twenty years and it'd still be too soon.

Battlefield is one of the worst games to exist in this modern generation of gaming.


And now that i've thrown my opinion in hard enough to blind someone I will add the following.


Gaming Industry: Grow an imagination and stop remaking the same three shooters


Realistic Shooter

Gun Wanking Fantasy

Typical Sci Fi setting


(Its insane that we have phrases like "Typical fantasy setting" and "typical sci fi setting")

 

[natster43]

Maybe. It will depend on if it changes and adds a lot of stuff like 3 did. If it is more just 3 with extra guns then it is too soon.
Also why couldn't they announce Battlefield 2143 or Bad Company 3? I would be more pumped for that.

 

[Razentsu]

By 2014? I think that's fine. But an announcement now would be too early.

 

[willsham45]

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.

 

[SecondPrize]

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.

 

[Lordmarkus]

It could be twenty years and it'd still be too soon.

Battlefield is one of the worst games to exist in this modern generation of gaming.

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.

Or does "modern generation" mean Xbox 360 era and forward? Because then I can understand certain people's annoyance.

 

[Khazoth]

It could be twenty years and it'd still be too soon.

Battlefield is one of the worst games to exist in this modern generation of gaming.

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.

Or does "modern generation" mean Xbox 360 era and forward? Because then I can understand certain people's annoyance.

I only vaguely remember Battlefield 1942 but it was a pretty alright game. I do mean the games that have been made more recently.

 

[BBboy20]

Larger scale

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.

different vehicles/weapons

A lot has changed since 2005 but it won't be as substantial in the next 3 years.

a better campaign mode.

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.

the usual stuff.

I think we should expect more out of what was suppose to be a dev's magnum opus.

since they can always try to make larger maps/teams

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.

 

[Nickolai77]

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.

 

[Liberaliter]

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.

 

[StBishop]

No. You're lucky it's not being released 12 months after the first one.

2 years is fine. 3 years is plenty, and in many people's eyes, too long.

 

[Liberaliter]

I think the real issue is if it goes onto the current consoles. The consoles of course couldn't handle what the PC version could and thus console gamers got a really dumbed down version beyond just graphically. There isn't going to be any improvement worthwhile if it isn't a PC exclusive which just isn't going to happen.

I suspect what we will see is a new single player story and basically the same multi-player just with new maps and reskinned weapons and vehicles. So they are likely just pulling a CoD move.

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.

To be fair two of those games were more of stand alone expansions, and then you have spinoffs which aren't considered the main battlefield line. The main series is what should really be considered in the list regards to this subject.

Even if you only count the 'main series' there is still a similar gap that there is now between BF3 and BF4.

 

[MammothBlade]

2014 isn't too early but it was definitely announced TOO SOON. Before they even bothered announcing sequels to BF 2142 and/or 1943.