Thoughts?
Personally I wish it wasn't by EA but I'm happy as fuck we're finally getting a shooter based
on World War I.. I want to parade around as the Lawrence of Arabia slicing people's heads
off.
Well it's DICE. Dice has fixed a lot of their mistakes with battlefield 4, keeping it supported and releasing new content far after launch. But then once again the business model is poor, having to shell down $50 for "Premium". I am sure EA has a lot to do with it, pushing them to release games faster. I am really stoked for this game, and excited. I have always wanted to see the frostbyte engine in that period of time, I would have preferred WW2 though. I just hope the campaign isn't generic bull crap, but has a good narrative and storyline, rather then just shooty shooty bad guys, explosion explosion. We'll see. But I am decently excited.
I was hoping for Battlefield 2143 (Since BF2142 was amaziiiing) but a skill-based shooter without any gadgets or guns that do the work for you? Fuck yeah.
(May 7, 2016, 02:26 AM)Enzyme Wrote: [ -> ]I was hoping for Battlefield 2143 (Since BF2142 was amaziiiing) but a skill-based shooter without any gadgets or guns that do the work for you? Fuck yeah.
PLEASE don't fuck this up DICE.
You have to give it to Battlefield, it's a bold move with the time-setting. They're doing the exact opposite of what Call of Duty is doing, as Battlefield are taking it back to the roots while COD is taking it into the future (COD4 remastered hype though).
I think it's clear which one has made the more popular choice.
*coughs*
That like/dislike ratio:
Battlefield:
![[Image: d2df61d09b41cc44bc26409e967c56b2.png]](https://i.gyazo.com/d2df61d09b41cc44bc26409e967c56b2.png)
Call of Duty:
![[Image: f9095693aa03e95562dad573d2b65484.png]](https://i.gyazo.com/f9095693aa03e95562dad573d2b65484.png)
Comment banter.
Downside of BF1: EA.
A smart move by COD: Cod4 remastered.
If they will release COD4 remastered separate/alone then I'll buy the hell out of it, but BF1 is definitely getting into my game-collection.
I don't know how they're going to pull this off. The war was boring. Essentially, you sat in a trench, hoping not to get disease or perhaps your head shot off by a stray bullet, shrapnel, or both. On the occasion your leader decides to charge, you'll probably die within two seconds, because charges into no man's land is essentially suicide.
The war only spices up after people finally draw the conclusion that perhaps artillery, tanks, and planes supporting infantry charges would be a good idea, and I hope that's what bf1 purely focuses on.
BTW, tanks suck in world War 1, they were used as bait / meat shields to protect advancing infantry.
(May 7, 2016, 05:55 PM)jarz Wrote: [ -> ]I don't know how they're going to pull this off. The war was boring. Essentially, you sat in a trench, hoping not to get disease or perhaps your head shot off by a stray bullet, shrapnel, or both. On the occasion your leader decides to charge, you'll probably die within two seconds, because charges into no man's land is essentially suicide.
The war only spices up after people finally draw the conclusion that perhaps artillery, tanks, and planes supporting infantry charges would be a good idea, and I hope that's what bf1 purely focuses on.
BTW, tanks suck in world War 1, they were used as bait / meat shields to protect advancing infantry
I wouldn't mind slow advancements, sitting in a trench, biding my time and moving up the field ever so slightly only when supported by my team mates and artillery. I've grown very tired of the fast paced shooters and I'm hoping this
game might make certain strides toward a new type of shooter, but it likely wont. Odds are it'll aim to please the group
of people who need explosions thrown in their face every minute to make the game exciting.
Quote:On the occasion your leader decides to charge, you'll probably die within two seconds, because charges into no man's land is essentially suicide.
This is actually what I think might fuel the game, the anticipation to try and go up and over and the fear of being shot
down instantly might drive players to improve their ability to take cover, avoid shots, run fast and scramble.
(May 7, 2016, 04:07 PM)Enzyme Wrote: [ -> ]You have to give it to Battlefield, it's a bold move with the time-setting. They're doing the exact opposite of what Call of Duty is doing, as Battlefield are taking it back to the roots while COD is taking it into the future (COD4 remastered hype though).
I think it's clear which one has made the more popular choice.
*coughs*
That like/dislike ratio:
Battlefield:
Call of Duty:
Comment banter.
Downside of BF1: EA.
A smart move by COD: Cod4 remastered.
If they will release COD4 remastered separate/alone then I'll buy the hell out of it, but BF1 is definitely getting into my game-collection.
IGN mentioned that the core price of COD:IW will be $80 rather then $60, and they will not be selling COD4 Remastered separately. I really hope that is not true though, COD4 was great.
Finaly someone was wise enough to stop useless Modern warfare style games, history still has lot to offer.
OT: I am waiting more Rising Storm 2: Vietnam
Featuring iDubbbzTV daddy
Looks good but COD 4 Remastered it all I want to play, never really enjoyed Battlefield, I think it will be hyped to much.
![[+]](/forums/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
Spoiler![[Image: 025f9206fcfa8978673d6d6a5382934b.png]](https://i.gyazo.com/025f9206fcfa8978673d6d6a5382934b.png)
![[Image: e59aa57f07c69dd7f6e8de995996cd07.png]](https://i.gyazo.com/e59aa57f07c69dd7f6e8de995996cd07.png)