Battlefield 4

What they should have done is alternate the THREE series, if they're going to go down that road.

Year 1: MOH
Year 2: Battlefield Bad Company Series
Year 3: Battlefield Series

or drop a MOH inbetween them.

Make BFBC more the console style game (smaller squads, singleplayer, etc). Make Battlefield the more PC orientated game. Don't bother with SinglePlayer, as MOH can do that. Instead, give us bots and objective support for a co-op style game. Save you a ton of time. No new maps to develop.

The issue I see here is that BF4 is coming out before a new generation of consoles. So how exactly are they going to improve on it? We all know it will be developed console-first. If BF4 was announced as a WW2 game, I might be interested simply because I felt the '42 game required a tad more skill (no lock ons, limited assist, limited full autos, etc). Just like Desert Combat (because things were "hacked" together).

I like your idea. A Battlefield game every two years is not a big issue since we have had that in some form since BF: Vietnam. I think it's the "Battlefield 4" that is causing alarm, since it is unlikely to provide any significant improvements or changes in such a short time. Bad Company 3 would be a more sensible choice, since it has differentiating features from the staple Battlefield franchise (smaller maps and player caps, greater emphasis on destruction, tongue-in-cheek tone to its single-player, etc). DICE says it wants to come back to Bad Company 3, and I think emphasising what made those titles great and find a way to further differentiate the Bad Company franchise from traditional Battlefield games so they can scratch different itches would be a good decision. It would also free up Battlefield 4 from trying to incorporate too many "Bad Company-isms" such as one-giant-chokepoint maps (Operation Metro) and the Rush game type.

COD is essentially the only proof that the rate of improvement will decline, but it is very damning. It will be interesting to see how much improvement Danger Close has been able to do in the two-year development cycle when MOH:WF comes out.
 
Last edited:
COD is essentially the only proof that the rate of improvement will decline, but it is very damning. It will be interesting to see how much improvement Danger Close has been able to do in the two-year development cycle when MOH:WF comes out.

Based on the videos I have seen of MOH:WF, not much....other than prettying up the graphics with Frostbyte 2.
 
They should just wait until the next generation of consoles to release BF4.
 
Pay 70$ to preorder a game that'll most likely drop to a much lower price shortly after release, to wait a year or so to access a beta.
 
Pay 70$ to preorder a game that'll most likely drop to a much lower price shortly after release, to wait a year or so to access a beta.

That is the digital deluxe version....The regular one costs $60
 
I like your idea. A Battlefield game every two years is not a big issue since we have had that in some form since BF: Vietnam. I think it's the "Battlefield 4" that is causing alarm, since it is unlikely to provide any significant improvements or changes in such a short time.

That's just being silly about terminology then. What the game is called really doesn't matter. Had they wished, BF3 could instead be Battlefield 8. They decided to go for different naming on their games for whatever reason. That's fine but it doesn't matter if they then change said naming.

Getting worked up about what they call it is silly.
 
That's just being silly about terminology then. What the game is called really doesn't matter. Had they wished, BF3 could instead be Battlefield 8. They decided to go for different naming on their games for whatever reason. That's fine but it doesn't matter if they then change said naming.

Getting worked up about what they call it is silly.

You've completely missed the point.
 
I hope BF3 has a 2 year run (free of a newer BF game). MOH is something else, I don't mind it co-existing with BF3, but it better not be "PAY FOR BF3 DLC AND BAM BF4 HERE IT COMES"
 
So I guess this means pretty much zero chance of mirrors edge 2 anytime this decade.
 
consoles are already WELL past their prime and BF3 had to be EXTREMELY limited on them. What the hell are they going to add in BF4 on some weak ass ps3/360?
 
I wish they would just stop with the new game every year for multiplayer driven games. Just give me a new set of maps every 3-4 months for $15 bucks. Period.

I don't mind paying for content (as many on here seem to think it should be free), but I don't want to have to go inbetween games to play maps that I love. Just come up with a "battlefield" game and keep working to update it. People (minus the cheapskates on here) will pay for the content.
 
Who would pay that much for MoH? The last one felt like a disaster... and I got it for free.
 
Also, would anyone be really stupid enough to fall for the same marketing trick again? Pre-order an incredibly crap game just for the privilege of getting to play the beta a whole two days before it is opened to the masses? No thanks.
 
BF2 -> BF3 - 6 years

*Fixed* Lol

I'd actually probably get more excited if it was BFBC3
I like BF3 better than BFBC2 but they could have some interesting gameplay variety ideas if they split the series quite distinctly. I don't even mean console and pc split but just general gameplay.

Something about "bf4" in a year and a bit feels.....kinda cheap
 
I wouldn't have a problem with this if BF4 would be released for the new console generation. Now, maybe the plan is to coincide with the new Xbox since it is rumored to be around holiday 2013 and I think BF4 is slated for release in like november. If people remember, CoD 2 came out at launch on the 360 and I can imagine that a big name like BF would draw a lot of traffic towards a new console.

But we could all be mistaken. This could be a simultaneous launch or a lesser version that will get launched on both the 360 and a better one on the next xbox. I am hoping so, because there is no way I am buying BF4 if it is on the 360 again. BF3 was a disappointment to me, and I don't think BF4 will be any better if developed for current tech.
 
I'm just hoping that Planetside 2 ticks all the boxes that BF3 failed miserably at fulfilling. That way I can consign the series to the same absolute irrelevance that I hold Call Of Duty.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, I know BF4 is going to be more shit. battlefield as we knew it, died in 2142...

BF3 should have been called BC3 and they should just continue from there because BC and shit like COD/MOH are what killed it off.
 
Based on how BF3 was handled, I don't see how anyone is surprised at this.

EA is turning it into the next CoD milk-fest series.
 
So long as it is better than cod i am ok with it. Cod issues are more with quality than anything else.
 
give me a fucking frostbite 2 WW2 game EA

i want my fucking battlefield 1942 redone with amazing graphics.





i still remember normandy beach... nothing will ever be that bad ass
 
give me a fucking frostbite 2 WW2 game EA

i want my fucking battlefield 1942 redone with amazing graphics.

Agreed. WWII was kind of played out for awhile, but I think I'm ready to see one in the awesome new engine. :cool:
 
Omg they're making Quake 2 only a year after Quake, and then Quake 3 only 2 more years later, id software is full of shit, I hate you!
 
Omg they're making Quake 2 only a year after Quake, id software is full of shit, I hate you!

Personally, the yearly schedule doesn't bother me so much as the fact that games that end up on a yearly schedule tend to go to shit very soon afterwards.

There's only so much quality you can put into titles that are re-hashed every year.

I mean, hell if a quality title could come out every year in a series I really liked, so much the better. That's not how it plays out, though.
 
Personally, the yearly schedule doesn't bother me so much as the fact that games that end up on a yearly schedule tend to go to shit very soon afterwards.

There's only so much quality you can put into titles that are re-hashed every year.

I mean, hell if a quality title could come out every year in a series I really liked, so much the better. That's not how it plays out, though.

With COD, yes. What other franchise is doing that though, I'm honestly curious. I thought BC2 was an absolutely fantastic game. BF3, while it has some flaws, I still think is a damn good shooter. They obviously spent a huge amount of time on it, so even if it fell a bit short, it wasn't due to lack of effort.

I'm just surprised that there is so much premature whining going on that a game is coming out 2 years after the original. We bitch when a game takes 10 years, we bitch when it takes 1-2. Just what exactly is the timeframe games should come out in?!
 
With COD, yes. What other franchise is doing that though, I'm honestly curious.

Pretty much any sports series, and while the legit reason for that is roster updates, pretty much all of that could easily be in a free patch. I'm not sure what others, but perhaps a more relevant question is, which series that have a yearly release schedule actually continue to produce quality titles that significantly improve on the previous version? I can't really think of any.

I'm just surprised that there is so much premature whining going on that a game is coming out 2 years after the original. We bitch when a game takes 10 years, we bitch when it takes 1-2. Just what exactly is the timeframe games should come out in?!

I dunno....4? :p

But seriously, my point was that yes, bitching about a game coming out every year or so for a given series would be pointless, except we have already seen examples where yearly schedules create mediocre sequels.

Anyway, we also clearly have differing opinions on the Battlefield series, since I barely played BC2 MP at all (didn't care for it) and BF3 I played for about 25 hours and then never touched again, save for some random co-op with friends trying to get them unlocks. Personally I feel like the last decent BF game was BF2 (never really played BF2142, but I hear it was also good).
 
As soon as I posted that I thought about sports series; I guess I never play sports video games so it doesn't really enter my thought process. I guess what I'm saying is that outside of COD there really isn't any major game franchise (FPS/RTS/RPG/etc) that has ever had a regular annual release cycle. COD obviously sucks, so out of a sample of 1 sure it stands to reason.

However I'd rather wait and see at this point; the BF series isn't even going annual, it's going every 2 years which with the engine built is a reasonable amount of time, IMO. If they screw it up, sure I'll jump on the hate bandwagon. But until then, I'll stay cautiously optimistic. It isn't as if they have to create an interesting storyline; it's all art assets, engine and gameplay tweaks.
 
Based on how BF3 was handled, I don't see how anyone is surprised at this.

EA is turning it into the next CoD milk-fest series.

I don't understand why EA just doesn't buy Activision. It'd be their type of play, buying something right before it's used up. They're trying so hard to imitate it, why not just own it?
 
Wait .. $70 for MOH? Lol.

It comes as no surprise to me. They're going to just pump them out. Maybe they'll have day one DLC "Back to Caspian". After the disappointment I had with BF3 and how it was basically an evolution of Bad Company, I could only expect this. They'll probably add the stuff people wanted in 3. I would have rather seen small side titles in-between. Like a revisioning of '42.

70 dollars for terd. Now that is funny!
 
I dunno....4? :p

But seriously, my point was that yes, bitching about a game coming out every year or so for a given series would be pointless, except we have already seen examples where yearly schedules create mediocre sequels.

Anyway, we also clearly have differing opinions on the Battlefield series, since I barely played BC2 MP at all (didn't care for it) and BF3 I played for about 25 hours and then never touched again, save for some random co-op with friends trying to get them unlocks. Personally I feel like the last decent BF game was BF2 (never really played BF2142, but I hear it was also good).

This.

The reason you have these smaller sequels inbetween major releases is they're easier to produce and can be handed off to a secondary studio since they require minimal coding/etc (most are just scenario/weapon changes). What could BF4 possibly bring to the table? Most major games always have small releases in-between because a QUALITY title takes time.

AC2
AC:Revelations
AC:Brotherhood
AC3

BF2
BF2142
etc etc
BF3
..BF4?

What're they going to do? Swap out the Russians for North Korea or another Middle East alliance? I can already see the weapon line up for the US. Cobra becomes Apache. F/A 18 becomes F22. Huey becomes Blackhawk. They need to bring in another "Allied" country (Britian, Germany, something). You can only play in an M1 so many times.
 
Last edited:
I don't understand why EA just doesn't buy Activision. It'd be their type of play, buying something right before it's used up. They're trying so hard to imitate it, why not just own it?

Activision Blizzard is a much larger and valuable company than EA. Activision Blizzard's market cap is more than 3 times higher than EAs.
 
Activision Blizzard is a much larger and valuable company than EA. Activision Blizzard's market cap is more than 3 times higher than EAs.

they are worth a shit load of money. i mean just think about the millions and millions and millions of dollars being raked in from wow subs.. those mother fuckers dont even have any debt.. they paid off investor debt like it was nothing hahahah they bathe in money
 
um, if BF4 came out next year how would it be on a yearly schedule? BF3 was released in October 2011. I will be about ready for another BF game in about a year anyways, and I already feel as though I got my moneys worth out of BF3, and still have 3 expansions to enjoy in the coming months.
 
We know for sure that EA will do a BF4 be it 2013 or 2014, the question is what will happen to BF3? Will EA use the kill switch on BF3 multiplayer a year after BF4?
 
We know for sure that EA will do a BF4 be it 2013 or 2014, the question is what will happen to BF3? Will EA use the kill switch on BF3 multiplayer a year after BF4?

Makes me sad thinking about the fate of BF3. It's a good game that gets too much hate thrown at it and will be pretty bummed the day it's killed off. There's not much I'd change about it and am curious to see how DICE will differentiate BF4 from BF3.
 
Confirmed.

REDWOOD CITY, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- Electronic Arts Inc. (NASDAQ:EA) today announced access to the exclusive beta for Battlefield 4™, the next entry in DICE's award-winning shooter series, to players that pre-order Medal of Honor™ Warfighter Limited Edition* prior to the game's launch on Oct. 23. The most authentic shooter this holiday, Medal of Honor Warfighter is the only game that puts players in the boots of the world's most aggressive, precise and disciplined warfighters, fighting battles that are ripped from headlines around the globe. Powered by the ground-breaking Frostbite™ 2 engine, Medal of Honor Warfighter delivers tomorrow's technology on today's platforms with advanced gameplay, visuals and sound design.

The exclusive Battlefield 4 beta will be available in Fall 2013. Additional details regarding Battlefield 4 will be revealed at a later date.

"Though Battlefield and Medal of Honor Warfighter each offer players a completely unique experience, they are united by their underlying technology base — Frostbite. These are two of the hottest shooters, coming together to deliver a one-two punch of action, intensity and shooter entertainment," said Frank Gibeau, President of EA Labels.

Written by U.S. Tier 1 Operators while deployed overseas, Medal of Honor Warfighter is set to deliver this year's most authentic military shooter experience inspired by real warriors, real operations and real places. From rescuing hostages in Abu Sayyaf's stronghold in the Philippines to assaulting Al-Shabaab's "Pirate Town" on the Somali Coast, Medal of Honor Warfighter puts players in the boots of today's most highly trained and skilled warriors to experience missions that have a dotted line to real world terrorist threats. Medal of Honor Warfighter features real world hotspots in the single player campaign and introduces international Tier 1 Operators from 10 different nations in multiplayer allowing players to show their national pride online.

"Frostbite 2 is an amazingly powerful technology that challenges us to break the multiplayer mold. The unique premise of global warfighters in Medal of Honor Warfighter has inspired us to pioneer new multiplayer concepts such as Fire Teams and the idea of having Tier 1 Operators from around the world go head-to-head in online competition," said Greg Goodrich, Executive Producer, Medal of Honor.

Developed by Danger Close Games, Medal of Honor Warfighter will be available in North America on October 23, 2012 and in Europe on October 26, 2012 for the Xbox 360® video game and entertainment system, PlayStation®3 computer entertainment system and PC. For more information on Medal of Honor Warfighter, please visit www.medalofhonor.com, and for the latest news visit www.facebook.com/medalofhonor or follow on Twitter at www.twitter.com/medalofhonor. Press assets are available at www.info.ea.com.

* Conditions and restrictions apply. See http://www.medalofhonor.com/bf4-beta for details.

http://investor.ea.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=692465

I bet someone is going to get fired for letting the cat out of the bag this early.
 
Back
Top