569 replies to this topic

[Pav:3d]

CommanderJB, on 6 Feb 2009, 3:26, said:

Battlefield 1989 for the win!
*Dreams of Battlefield and World in Conflict uniting...*

For me that would be the best game ever, bar none

[KiraSama]

Sobek, on 6 Feb 2009, 2:33, said:

Enough with WWII! We need a Civil war, or Medieval Based Battlefield game! That would be pretty awesome.

DO IT NAO!

funny enough i played mods of exactly that for the original battlefield 1942(along one based in medieval japan, gundam mod, star wars mod and battlefield 1918)

[TunguskaM1]

Making an Afghan War battlefield would be very cool. They used so many guerrila tactics that would be very cool to implement in Soviet missions. Anyways, Cold War BF would have always been better.

[DerKrieger]

If they wanted a WW2 feel, they could have made a Battlefield: 1950 set during the Korean War. I can't think of any video games set during the Korean War.

[Hobbesy]

Scope, on 5 Feb 2009, 19:51, said:

Sobek, on 5 Feb 2009, 20:33, said:

Enough with WWII! We need a Civil war, or Medieval Based Battlefield game! That would be pretty awesome.

DO IT NAO!

NO at least not for Battlefield. I think WWI might be a good setting for Battlefield as it would be rather repetitive for a CoD style FPS.

Oh yes, running back and forth between trenches for eight hours a day. That wouldn't get boring at all! A better setting would be the Korean War, as Krieger said.

Edited by Høbbesy, 06 February 2009 - 22:52.

[BeefJeRKy]

As opposed to Battlefield 2 where you run between flags?

[deltaepsilon]

Scope, on 7 Feb 2009, 0:27, said:

As opposed to Battlefield 2 where you run between flags?

Except that you can also fly aircraft, pilot various vehicles, and have access to various weapons and weapon systems.

[Rich19]

CommanderJB, on 6 Feb 2009, 3:26, said:

Battlefield 1989 for the win!
*Dreams of Battlefield and World in Conflict uniting...*

DO WANT!

Edited by Rich19, 07 February 2009 - 00:05.

[Lizzie]

CommanderJB, on 5 Feb 2009, 22:26, said:

Battlefield 1989 for the win!
*Dreams of Battlefield and World in Conflict uniting...*

I'd be up for that.

[Foxhound]

CommanderJB, on 5 Feb 2009, 22:26, said:

Battlefield 1989 for the win!
*Dreams of Battlefield and World in Conflict uniting...*

Yes.

YES!

[KiraSama]

deltaepsilon, on 7 Feb 2009, 0:36, said:

Scope, on 7 Feb 2009, 0:27, said:

As opposed to Battlefield 2 where you run between flags?

Except that you can also fly aircraft, pilot various vehicles, and have access to various weapons and weapon systems.

WWII invented aircrafts?

also Spanish Civil War to for the middle ground between WWI and WWII

[Rayburn]

Unfortunately, there weren't any Americans involved in the Spanish civil war which is why such a scenario would be quite unlikely to be seen in a game.
Remember, some gamers simply cannot identify with any group or character other than the one that resembles their own country.

Edited by Rayburn, 07 February 2009 - 15:56.

[Mr. Mylo]

BF 1953 Fictional WW2... that would be great or a cold war based Bf...

MR. Mylo

[E.V.E.]

I am seriously getting sick of all those WW2 Games, just like everyone else.
Nothing will ever impress me from that Era again.

Not only was it always the Topic in School, World War 2, no there are also tons of FPS of it.
I can't see it anymore.

- E.V.E.

[BeefJeRKy]

I think we'll need a good 5 years of no WWII FPSes before we are get sick of the other stuff. Perhaps we need some totally new settings as well? A future conflict in Antarctica perhaps?

[CommanderJB]

Well, to be fair, BF2142 was pretty original, had lots of ice, and was in a fictional future, plus it had no America. I mean, it still had Russian bad guys and British-sounding Western good guys using quasi-American equipment, and they got enough flak for even that. A shame really.

[RaiDK]

Battlefield: Red Alert?

[General Kirkov]

A Battlefield Vietnam Redux would be funner IMHO or a fictional Cold - Hot war

[CommanderJB]

I suspect that may have been your subconscious talking, because EA got there first:

I get the feeling Vietnam is still a little close for some, though I may be wrong. I think part of the trouble is that it doesn't appeal to either the 'classic' market, who still love WWII for whatever reason, or the modern/military enthusiast market built around BF2/COD4 etc.

[BeefJeRKy]

CommanderJB, on 7 Feb 2009, 19:06, said:

Well, to be fair, BF2142 was pretty original, had lots of ice, and was in a fictional future, plus it had no America. I mean, it still had Russian bad guys and British-sounding Western good guys using quasi-American equipment, and they got enough flak for even that. A shame really.

Well I'll be honest, 2142 wasn't as appealing as BF2. Mayne because tthe high tech made certain things obsolete. There was also less variety in classes though perhaps BF2 overdid it. Maybe an Afghani based Battlefield game could be something to explore.

[TehKiller]

the setting of BF2142 was good but the gameplay wasnt (and yes this is coming from a person who played the game for a longer time and got sick of it)...though mods always repair those issues

[CommanderJB]

I still love it TBH - quite a lot more than BF2, though that's partially because I've spent far more time with it. IMO the class system in 2142 works far better than in its predecessor; the thing that threw people was I think the unlocks. Once you're a few ranks up that's when the game really does become interesting, though I'll be the first to admit it's frustrating when you start off. Titan mode is still three times as intense as anything BF2 has to offer except in very special circumstances. If you get moderately experienced teams, it can devolve into a grenade spam, but there are ways of getting around that, and it's definitely seat-of-your-pants playing in a good Titan match. I've yet to play Northern Strike but I understand it's also pretty intense stuff as well, and the vehicle crop is nicely varied.
Plus no jets in 2142. That counts for a lot in my book, all of it positive.

[General Kirkov]

CommanderJB, on 8 Feb 2009, 1:57, said:

I suspect that may have been your subconscious talking, because EA got there first:

I get the feeling Vietnam is still a little close for some, though I may be wrong. I think part of the trouble is that it doesn't appeal to either the 'classic' market, who still love WWII for whatever reason, or the modern/military enthusiast market built around BF2/COD4 etc.

No I want them to redo it hence the "Redux" bit at the end

-Edit- oh wait did they make a new version with the new engine?

Edited by General Kirkov, 08 February 2009 - 20:07.

[Hobbesy]

Redux just has a few bonus disks.

[WNxMastrefubu]

Sobek, on 5 Feb 2009, 20:33, said:

Enough with WWII! We need a Civil war, or Medieval Based Battlefield game! That would be pretty awesome.

DO IT NAO!

Battle Field Civil wars would be cool. it could have like 10 civil wars...