Battlefield V


#1

All over their social media today. Live announcement on the 23th May. Rumours seem to point towards WW2 (boring) or a possible Vietnam (V for Vietnam) depending on where you read.

I can tell you what it doesnt seem to be, 2143!! ITS NOT FUCKING 2143!!! THATS WHAT WE ALL FUCKING WANT!


#2

From what I’ve heard, it’s going back to WW2… :confused:


#3

Not 2143
WW2 again


#4

meh. I thought I was missing WW2 stuff. But no. meh.

I’d vote for a different decade… either based around cuban missile crisis… so early 60’s … or cold war in the 80’s… Then you could have my favourite plane as a kid, the F-4 Phantom…


#5

What if it’s battlefield Victory and it’s just about all of the logistical side of ending the war on VE day :smiley:


#6

you mean it could secretly be the economic recovery management game no one’s wanted for all these years? where you play as a government minister trying to push legislation through to stimulate economic growth while sanctioning the ‘losers’ of the previous war to try and get ahead in the new world’s free market?

shit, there’s almost definitely a legit game idea somewhere in my cynicism; i’ll try not to let that happen again.


#7

What about Korea?

I can’t think about many games based around the Korean war off the top of my head. Some interesting game modes could be based around the push and pull over the 38th parallel.

If it takes longer to get 2143 and they do it justice so be it, it just seems cheap to keep circling back to the same stuff so often:

1942 - WW2
BF2 - Contemporary
BF Vietnam - Vietnam
2142 - Future
BC - Contemporary
BC2 - Contemporary
BF3 - Contemporary
1943 - WW2
BF4 - Contemporary/near future
BF1 - WW1

If it is Vietnam then I feel better about that than going back to WW2 or contemporary war.

Saturation is probably the wrong word, but when COD are pushing WW2 and and contemporary with CODWW2/BLOPS and Dice have WW1 with BF1, why the hell would they add to that with another WW2 game?!

get off my lawn


#8

… goes off to play Hearts of Iron


#9

There was a bc2 vietbam expansion to throw in your mix mind.


#10

i’d by that for a dollar


#11

As much as I enjoyed BC2, I really disliked the Vietnam expansion for it. Only thing I enjoyed in it was the machine guns on the river boats.


#12

going by the team flags it’s WW2


#13

Great another ww2 game rehashed. They badly need to move into a different war/era. All these fps games are getting boring now.


#14

Yeah - does look WW2… but ww2 was a big theatre (clue is in the World part lol), so it depends where they focus. If it goes down the 1943 route… then expect Wake Island as Limited Edition DLC if you pre-order… like Karkand was for BF3.

I’m pretty sure that in 1942, for all that I played of it, there were many more controllable vehicles… as in capital units. There was a multi-position bomber you could fly and a fleet of destroyers and other naval craft. It’d be lovely if they went down that route - because no one else has recently.

If it is just another Normandy landing campaign, based on Omaha Beach (because that was the only beach in WW2, right?) followed by maps of Bocage based on Operation Market Garden… followed by maps based on Berlin and Monte Casino… I’ll probably say no thanks.

If they try and take a twist on WW2… say - focus on the Siege of Malta… then maybe there would be something worth looking into.


#15

I’d like one based around C&C Red Alert (and the sequels), then it’s a different war no one else will have done, but without being an entirely fantasy/sci-fi setting. Still mostly contemporary (or at least 20th century) stuff, but with scope to allow the weird shit that happens in those games. Alternatively, whatever other alternate history scenario they can dream up for the sake of avoiding issues over the IP.

I think we’ve run out of real-world conflicts that would make compelling FPS games; pre 20th century it’s a different type of game due to the way firearms work, though you could probably scrape enough other wars to do some kind of anthology for the single player (similar to bf1) and just dump all the assets into the traditional multiplayer game modes; Falklands, Suez, Bosnia, Korea, Mau Mau Uprising (Kenya?), Aden/Yemen. The types of warfare involved wouldn’t flesh out a whole game but they could fit specific scenarios.

I’m not particularly WW2ed out; there’s been a bunch of games but I think the last one i played significantly was Heroes and Generals which is a few years ago now. If it was just a remake of 1942 on the BF1 engine then I’d probably be pretty satisfied. Before H&G it’d be getting back to W:ET which is over a decade ago. Didn’t get into Hell let loose, or Day of Infamy (yet) on account of the gameplay and lack of players respectively, and that 30-40 minutes i wasted on that recent CoD beta doesn’t count; again it was the gameplay that held no appeal.

I can definitely see Atlantic/Pacific/North African theaters being different DLC, with central/western europe being the core campaign stuff.


#16

Sniper elite (3/4 cant remember which one) went for the African campaign which was different. You could go down that route, but was there enough American interest in that one for them to release it? Cos at the end of the day, WW2 didnt start until they got involved.

Pacific could be interesting. Would love to see the 2 man bombers coming back in to play, not seen them since BF2.


#17

Yeah, Kenya. My dad was posted there in the late 50s. Didn’t get sent to Aden though, even though he was supposed to. Anyhow, both conflicts were particularly unpleasant - so not sure how well they’d be converted into videogames. I’d also imagine a lot of people of a younger genration hadn’t even heard of them.

With regard the more fantasy angle… that’s where BF2 did so well… made-up but convincing factions… USMC vs PLA and MEC of the middle east and far east irrespectively. Opened up a very large table of weapon choices. They even introduced an EU army in one of the DLCs


#18

And some of the best weapons in the whole game with it!


#19

I honestly didn’t think WW1 would ever make a decent game, but bf1 is solid; it puts minimal focus on the trench warfare that i’ve always associated with ww1 (because of blackadder, and the crushing loss of life), but it focused on enough other parts to have the variety you need to pull off the multiplayer portion.

Don’t let the USMC hear you say they’re a made up but convincing faction! I believe MEC and PLA were used because presenting real-world countries as the villains in non-historical wars is generally frowned upon, so rather than ‘Russian-backed Iraqi/Iranian’ and ‘Damned Dirty Chinese’ armies, they made up acronyms. No need to do that for the USMC or the EU though, because they’re the goodies :slight_smile:

*I hate to be ‘that pedantic guy’, but ‘PLA and MEC of the middle east and far east respectively’ has either in the wrong order, and now I’ve read it I can’t unread it. But if you edit your post and reply asking what the hell I’m on about, I can convince myself I’m just going nuts.


#20

Yep you are right Jes.

The bombers you had pilot and multiple gunners, same with ships.Was fun getting a squad of you in a bomber and fending off the fighters