Where do you want the next battlefield to take place?

[Minmaster]

Re: Where do you want the next battlefield to take place?

dude have you even played on the new engine? the frostbite dx engine does allow for some of those very things, (destructible environment) as well as extreme draw distances.

[hellR1de]

Re: Where do you want the next battlefield to take place?

Engine can't handle it.

I'm sorry, but you're assuming that it will start from the current 2142 engine? I think it won't. Besides, since Nvidia aquired Ageia's PhysX engine and incorporated it into their latest chipsets, I think it could be quite possible...

Re: Where do you want the next battlefield to take place?

2142 just with more stuff destructable terrain etc ... imagine titans on city maps you could ahhnihalate the buildings below, and some form of geo-mod something like that of CoH, also more indoor combat, 2142 would be so much more diverse if you could actually OPEN THE FRIGGIN DOORS.


but overall i would like more consistency as in your buttons actually working when you press them or your gun not randomely losing all accuracy

Engine can't handle it.

[hellR1de]

Re: Where do you want the next battlefield to take place?

Since the timeline of the series has only been going forward from the beginning, I'd like it to be a little more futuristic that 2142 but not too much (not another Battlefront).

First, I think that the scoring system in 2142 was a good step forward compared to BF2 to incite teamplay and should be pushed further still.

Another thing that I'd like to have are customizable/deployable vehicules. In regards to customization, it could either be decided by the established commander, or engineers could do it on the field, depending on some items that could be picked up like dead troop kits.

In terms of deployment, it could be done by engineers on the field. For instance, a kind of APC could be deployed as a mobile field base to heal and resupply, with a mounted gun. I remember seing something similar in Tribes 2, but there could be several other applications.

I think it could be interesting to have different weather for each map, decided randomly at the beginning of the map and the effects on terrain, vehicules, equipment and soldiers could change, according to it.

[Chris--My--azz]

Re: Where do you want the next battlefield to take place?

2142 just with more stuff destructable terrain etc ... imagine titans on city maps you could ahhnihalate the buildings below, and some form of geo-mod something like that of CoH, also more indoor combat, 2142 would be so much more diverse if you could actually OPEN THE FRIGGIN DOORS.


but overall i would like more consistency as in your buttons actually working when you press them or your gun not randomely losing all accuracy

[JunoPPCLI]

Re: Where do you want the next battlefield to take place?

A WIC time period would be neat. But thats basically just Desert Combat all over again.

[Kradath]

Re: Where do you want the next battlefield to take place?

I really would love to see a warm-Cold War Battlefield. So the setting of WiC, this would totally drag my in.

Re: Where do you want the next battlefield to take place?

GO NAPLEONIC ERA! Yea riding horses and being a bayonet whore would be awesome. But really, future is cool, modern seems to be getting old with COD 4 and BF2 still around.

[jake_]

Re: Where do you want the next battlefield to take place?

No more games in the past. There are already too many WWII and such games.

Sci-fi is never good becuase we can't accurately predict that far into the future whereas near-future is more likely to be accurate (or at least believable), same with present as you can incorporate new stuff into it too. Past events are too locked. There is a set way things turn out, set weapons, etc.

Present day and near-future are the best bets for success, imo.

[Minmaster]

Re: Where do you want the next battlefield to take place?

wow it's hard to believe near future got so many votes when the current BF game is already set in near future. gimme battlefield korea dammit!

[Minmaster]

Re: Where do you want the next battlefield to take place?

heh i know about the crude form of grenades they had but they were very unreliable and dangerous, so not exactly something you can easily resupply and spam like we do in battlefield games.

[AvalancheDiode]

Re: Where do you want the next battlefield to take place?

Near Future. DANG, judging by the poll results, it seems like all we want is for EA to fix 2142 and release a map pack or two :cry:

Your wish is just about to come true.:thumbsup:

at least there won't be any nade spamming. :yay:

You sure 'bout that?

http://www.historynet.com/grenade-the-little-known-weapon-of-the-civil-war.htm

exerpt

"Grenades had been used in battle for hundreds of years before the Civil War, and were well known to the military men of the 1860s. In his 1861 Military Dictionary, Colonel Henry Lee Scott described a grenade as “small shell about 2-inches in diameter, which, being set on fire by means of a short fuze and cast among the enemy’s troops causes great damage by its explosion.” For troops attacking fortifications, Scott recommended the use of “blindages,” a French term for armored shields, as protection from grenades."

Re: Where do you want the next battlefield to take place?

Canada!!!! :d

[Minmaster]

while i wouldn't mind a civil war game, it's going to run into quite a bit of problems if it tries to portray some sort of realism and make the game enjoyable. i don't know if it's possible. some reasons:

1. nobody is going to like a gun that takes forever to reload after one shot. to make things worse, the enfield and springfield rifles were pretty inaccurate at range. although breech loading carbines were around, they were very rare and not issued to regulars. even modified rifles for sharpsooters (snipers) were still nothing like the sniper rifles that gamers are used to.

2. there's not many vehicles. there is horse driven wagons i guess that can mimic the APC, and of course horses for cavalry. everyone's going to be fighting for the damn horses. but cavalrymen fought with sabers! :hmm: no armor like vehicles, although there was one ironclad battle and no aircraft, except hot air balloons used for scouting. there were also movable artillery, but those took more than 1 man to operate and horses to move around.

3. the sheer number of soldiers to portray the realism from battles is not possible. in many early battles of the civil war, huge columns of men just marched into volleys of lead. one well placed canon shot can wipe out a chunk of a column and who's gonna want to march into enemy fire and get slaughtered when you can hide behind defenses or artillery and pick people off? although the latter part of the war evolved into a more defensive trench warfare with more skirmishes than head on suicide runs, the most famous battles like gettysburg or antietam involved a lot of dumb head on assaults.

4. what med packs? amputations galore. :dead:

at least there won't be any nade spamming. :yay:

unzen, if you had bothered to read the first post, you would have noticed i said:



but you are right, at least as far as weapons are concerned, i am little sick of the AK47-M16-G36C guns of modern warfare. however, it's the vehicles that's exciting and we are not quite sick of that yet.

Lol - I did read it. I was just reiterating the fact that EA/DICE would base the next BF on what is currently popular - they would be stupid not too.

The Civil War idea was funny. It could just be that bad, that it may just work! What do you do if your gunpowder gets wet on a rainy map, though? :p