Where do you want the next battlefield to take place?

definitely stick with the 2142 format. seeing how Tribes 2 was like the greatest online game ever, and BF2142 is almost similar to it, stick with what works. every game has bugs, i think people really need to stop complaining! 2142 is by far the best game i play today, and it seems like people are starting to return to it. COD4 got boring fast, UT3, great graphics but no one is playing it and its basically just a futuristic version of COD4 to me. Crysis online is just flat out lame, but the game was made for single player anyway. if only had 2142 had graphics like crysis or cod4...but theyre fine and it doesnt make people have to buy whole new computers just to play it. i just wish 2142 had more maps or was able to have maps be made by anyone just like Tribes 2, that game had an insane amount of maps available.

[Minmaster]

meh...i'm sick of the near future now after spending so much time with 2142. however i wouldn't mind a map pack or two and actual fixing of bugs. :p

[Fingulfin]

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:

[vanilla]

I voted for modern warfare. As DesertFalcon already mentioned NOT in the desert. I know there's good reasons to stay in desert - it keeps the performance on most computers high. But there should be more maps in close places, real cities etc.

[Minmaster]

hehe 2 ppl voted for american civil war! (are they serious?) and surprisingly near future is in the lead with 3 votes at the moment despite bf2142 being the current bf game on the market.

I had to vote 'near future.'
One of the things I like I like about 2142 is that, even though it is technically sci-fi, it's not entirely implausible.
If you have access to the Military Channel on cable or satellite, watch a couple episodes of Future Weapons. Many of the things we use in 2142 (Pilums, EMP mines, sentry guns, railguns) are actually under development today. They don't have the techno-sophistication they do in the game, and I don't believe we'll see Titans or hover tanks by 2142, but it at least adds a certain amount of realism to the game.
So I'd love to see a prequel to 2142.
How did the battles start? Where did the ice come from? What happened to the North American forces? (Are they they fighting their own battles? Or did the US, Canada, and Mexico join forces?) etc......

[Minmaster]

actually warfare technology-wise combat of korean war would be more similar to WWII than 'Nam.

[DesertFalcon]

Well korea would be like a clone of vietnam,WW2 is overdone, Future stuff is boring, and modern combat would be better if theyd moved out of the GOD DAMN DESSERT!

I don't know how they would keep the game interesting with single shot guns that take awhile to reload so im going to vote modern combat. Allthough a civil war game would be fun if the found a way to make the gameplay more fast paced.

[Minmaster]

i've heard the next battlefield game might be modern warfare again, but ignoring that, where would you want the next battlefield to take place?

present times modern warfare
near future like 2142
way into the future - sci-fi (space/other planets)
WWII
WWI
Korean war
Vietnam war
Napoleonic war
American civil war

and no, nothing before 1800's please.

i think a battlefield game set in the korean war would be pretty cool. the korean war hasn't been done in FPS so it will be a pretty fresh thing. i know the korean geography is pretty interesting with a lot of hills which caused a lot of capturing, losing, recapturing of hills especially near the 38th parallel and that sounds like it can work well in a battlefield game. there were some epic battles; amphibious landing at inchon can be like omaha beach, and battle for seoul can be the urban warfare, and of course the famous air battles at MiG alley. other interesting maps can be pusan perimiter (the base rape map) and battle of chosin reservoir. but the problem with korean war is that not many people know much about it so it might not interest the game makers. but this would be my first choice.

i also think an updated version of WWII can work well too. now that we have better pc game technologies, BF1942 re-done might be cool too. 1942 is still the BF game that i had the most fun playing, but i do worry about how well they will tackle tricky things like carriers (sorta like a moving titan with 30 people inside, before dice stopped titan movement). WWII genre was at one time overdone to death, but now that most have moved on, i think a revisit to WWII might be a good idea.

the near and far into the future are not interesting at the moment because we just had 2142 and i'm not big on sci-fi. same goes for vietnam, which was pretty recent and had questionable success (although i enjoyed it very much). present modern times like BF2 might be the next BF game, but i don't really understand why they are going back to it so quickly if it's true. personally, i don't mind if it's true, because BF2 is the one game i skipped in the BF series.

i am a pretty big american civil war buff, and as much as i want a good civil war game, i just don't think it will work as a battlefield game or as any fps game. imagine trying to shoot with inaccurate muzzle loading rifles that take forever to reload (although there were breech loading carbines, but rare) and cavalry charges with sabers! plus the marching formations and frontal assaults would mean loads of kills for the artillery guy and everyone would probably fight over the canons! still the battles near the end were more skirmish style battles instead of suicidal charges, but the sheer # of people thrown into battles can never be replicated with a battlefield style gameplay. same goes for napoleonic warfare.

anyways vote for what you want and share your thoughts. :salute: