Where do you want the next battlefield to take place?

[DarQraven]

I voted other.
Why?

The only options presented here are forward and backward in time.
I'd like to see the BF series go sideways.

In other words: non-real war/time period.

A steampunk battlefield would be COMPLETE awesomeness, and you know it.
I'm not suggesting some kind of traditional fantasy 'orcs and elves' setting (although that might just work), but a little creativity would be really cool.

In short: FICTIONAL setting.

[Minmaster]

I say make another version of BF:2142 better, more factions, more weapons and customization, and more classes like in COD4 when your are in offline multiplayer

i'm for trying something like 2142 another time in the future. i think 2142 was a bit ahead of its time and was not really ready for prime-time. for one, titans were a great idea in concept, but they really weren't able to efficiently program the whole titan mode to run acceptably on any PC other than the highest end. i just don't think it makes sense to do another 2142 right away, the BF franchise needs a change of scenery at this time.

i'm totally for doing something totally new, that hasn't been touched in any fps game really. that's why i vouched for the korean war.

i do like the 3 faction idea though, i do hope it gets incorporated in the future. just make it so that it's 1 vs 1 vs 1 not 2 vs 1. or maybe make a mercenary faction that doesn't take sides, and can fight against either or both of the factions.

[sempf]

maybe also how the eu and the pac became what they are in bf2142. a world war eu vs afrika and pac vs australia and us. australia and us seems to be conquered.

[Lotek19]

Modern times, but in Israel...there is a he** of alot of conflict there.

[Guest]

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......

Win. Win. Win.

[Stev0esque]

MODERN WAR!!!!!!!! and maybe focus on the army and airforce and the british army (not sas) if its a future setting base it on the 2142 war but add in a few more factions like some people have said like the U.S (or whatever they are then like the D.S.A [divided states of america] or something)

[Unzen]

Let's face it guys, it doesn't make a rats' *** what we want. EA/DICE will look at the biggest turnover in sales (namely BF2) and also at the racks and racks of servers currently hosting COD4. The next BF will be modern day setting. That's what sells.

From a personal view, I'd love a prequel game to 2142. As others, just to learn more about how the PAC/EU conflict began and stuff. I'd also like some form of 'depot capture' game-type like in Crysis - where you can build tanks and stuff with points you've accumalated. The modern day stuff is boring now. Just how many FPS games can you play that uses an MP5, G36E or AK-47?

The desert setting in most BF games doesn't actually bother me (El Alamein from 1942 being my all-time favourite) - but I do have issues with FPS's that contain a lot of vegetation. As good as Crysis was, it was still infuriating to be sniped and shoot at by someone hundreds of yards away, through 15 tree branches. Realistic it maybe. But a good FPS, it doesn't make.

[Minmaster]

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

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?

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.

[Kradath]

I want my blaster by my side, so scifi please.

[Unzen]

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

[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:

[Fixxxer]

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

Canada!!!! :d

[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."

[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.

[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!