I'd be up for a BF game based around the cold war. NATO vs. Warsaw Pact. Make it bigger and make the maps with some sort of real world location. Fighting your way into East Berlin would be awesome. Something like the kind of war in Red Storm Rising.
- Index »
- Games »
- Battlefield Series »
- Battlefield 2 »
- BF3, will it happen, will it happen soon..?
Hahahahaha!-[Silver.Inc* wrote:
0014: not done (jesus vs rest, 64 player jerusalem server, damn crucifix whores)
+1 for the best laugh of the evening
Havnt they now licenced the unreal engine for the next development?turkeybacon wrote:
Another thing, by the time BF3 comes out they might be able to code their engine tighter, and allow bigger games like 128 player or even more! That would be sick, imagine a 200 person game on a map 2.5x the size of daqing!
Anyway im with you on the 128 player thing, was supposed to be promised in the current version but never materialised.
pretty sure Somalia was potrayed in Delta ForceSgt_Sieg wrote:
Here are some possiblities.
Korea: What an odd mix between Vietnam and WWII tech. That might be interesting.
WWI: I think the game would consist of "Someone [poison gas] Someone Else" x500. No fun.
Anything earlier than that: Shitting weapons, no fun.
Grenada: Wait, what was actually a war?
Somalia: An evolved and more deep (of course fictional) version of the conflict in Somalia during the early '90's might be interesting, sounds a lot like BF2 though.
it will happen when someone puts everyone who works for EA/DICE in a rocketship and blast them to the other galaxy.
Battlefield WWI... hmm trench warfare = shotguns!!! Meh, no good. But 0014, hell yeah!
I would like to see 1942 redone with ebtter graphics and better inf fighting. Squad based more would be cool to. The coolest thing would be if they did like on band of brothers, A snow forest, with all the holes that you hide in and wait, theres 1 flag in the middle, sandbags around it. Man I should make video games
battlefield 905 ad
battlefield 905 ad
Last edited by DirtyMexican (2006-10-27 15:42:51)
bastogne nade spammingDirtyMexican wrote:
I would like to see 1942 redone with ebtter graphics and better inf fighting. Squad based more would be cool to. The coolest thing would be if they did like on band of brothers, A snow forest, with all the holes that you hide in and wait, theres 1 flag in the middle, sandbags around it. Man I should make video games
battlefield 905 ad
artillery, your area
Last edited by I{endo (2006-10-27 19:08:02)
You want big battles play planetside (trust me its good fun)turkeybacon wrote:
Another thing, by the time BF3 comes out they might be able to code their engine tighter, and allow bigger games like 128 player or even more! That would be sick, imagine a 200 person game on a map 2.5x the size of daqing!
People will have alot faster machines with more memory by then, broadband connections are ever increasing. 64 players is just not that realistic. Theres plenty of other additions they could make to the modern war franchise, no way is it dead imo. And if somehow it is, I'll have to move onto another series (maybe AA)
Gernades weighed as much as a loaded gun back thenI{endo wrote:
bastogne nade spammingDirtyMexican wrote:
I would like to see 1942 redone with ebtter graphics and better inf fighting. Squad based more would be cool to. The coolest thing would be if they did like on band of brothers, A snow forest, with all the holes that you hide in and wait, theres 1 flag in the middle, sandbags around it. Man I should make video games
battlefield 905 ad
artillery, your area
if u dont see servers, it is probably that u dont have latest patch and u have picked "show same version servers only"
Battlefield started with a year (1942), then moved on to a letter (V), then to just a number (2), so if they keep it up it will be BF_ instead of BF3, but who knows
If you look at it, vanilla BF1942 left out a lot of material, but then again mods like FH and BG made up for that.
World War I has not been done, and I think it could be very intense, not a boring battle. If you have enough people, it could be very intense and fun battle. If they include 128 person servers, you could have one team defending their trench and the other crossing No Man's Land, possible with a smoke screen, or artillery barrage. It would be a difficult battle and a strategical one. Going from crater to trench could get boring, but I think it would be fun. Smoke attacks could just be a commander option similar to the current Artillery option.
The Korean war was different than WWII. New tanks, introduction of helicopters, etc, etc but there would be repeating content, but none the less, a different style of gameplay.
If you look at it, vanilla BF1942 left out a lot of material, but then again mods like FH and BG made up for that.
World War I has not been done, and I think it could be very intense, not a boring battle. If you have enough people, it could be very intense and fun battle. If they include 128 person servers, you could have one team defending their trench and the other crossing No Man's Land, possible with a smoke screen, or artillery barrage. It would be a difficult battle and a strategical one. Going from crater to trench could get boring, but I think it would be fun. Smoke attacks could just be a commander option similar to the current Artillery option.
The Korean war was different than WWII. New tanks, introduction of helicopters, etc, etc but there would be repeating content, but none the less, a different style of gameplay.
I hope they bring BF3 out, just like BF2 style but new maps, better graphics, more vehicles, MORE maps etc, coz i think 2142 is SHIT!
Waste my money
Waste my money
ROFL!!!!!-[Silver.Inc* wrote:
0014: not done (jesus vs rest, 64 player jerusalem server, damn crucifix whores)Pernicious544 wrote:
Or they can make something else and show us all what a one-trick pony they really are.
no! because Any battlefield series, if it has a number. HAS TO HAVE A 2 IN IT!. (1942, 2, 2142.) vietnam and SW dont count.
"3. wtf is a 3?"
~EA
"3. wtf is a 3?"
~EA
On-line missions... where you have to compete with everyone else on the map. Like a sniper map, there's a mark and the first one to take out the mark wins. Somewhat like a real sniper, you have to pick your spot, hope you're not found. Depend on intel to determine where the mark will be, and get it done.
Squad play, how about hostage rescue. A pre-determined amount of enemies are inside a bldg with hostages. You have to go in with a squad and kill all the enemies before they can reduce your tickets to zero or kill the hostages, which means you have to get to them in a certain amount of time, and limit the enemy from knowing you are in their bldg. Same could be done with an airbase, like USAF Combat Control.
Or even more realistic... you have to figure out how to win a war when the politicians won't give you the manpower/equipment you need to get the job done.
Squad play, how about hostage rescue. A pre-determined amount of enemies are inside a bldg with hostages. You have to go in with a squad and kill all the enemies before they can reduce your tickets to zero or kill the hostages, which means you have to get to them in a certain amount of time, and limit the enemy from knowing you are in their bldg. Same could be done with an airbase, like USAF Combat Control.
Or even more realistic... you have to figure out how to win a war when the politicians won't give you the manpower/equipment you need to get the job done.
hes rightMong0ose wrote:
Want some cheese with that whine?spawnofthemist wrote:
bf2 is old now.
whiners killed it.
nerfed everything.
congrats to the nubs.
and i dont like cheese
*edit* 'he' meaning spawn
Last edited by Chief_(OwNaGe) (2006-11-01 19:13:12)
I think the next battlefield should be famous battles throughout modern history. Similar to Alliance: The Secret War http://www.alliancethegame.com/
Gives a ton of possibilities and gives everyone a little bit of something they want. I know I prefer flying the old piston planes of 1942 to the planes of BF2. Dogfighting was just a lot more fun in 1942.
And in the meantime I'm going to Quake Wars, at least till BF3. Game looks very good and should be out 1st quarter of 2007. It's worth checking out.
Gives a ton of possibilities and gives everyone a little bit of something they want. I know I prefer flying the old piston planes of 1942 to the planes of BF2. Dogfighting was just a lot more fun in 1942.
And in the meantime I'm going to Quake Wars, at least till BF3. Game looks very good and should be out 1st quarter of 2007. It's worth checking out.
I think BF3 will be similar to BF2 but with LOTS of improvements.
Better graphics, more toys, better physics, everything.
Not that BF2 is 'bad' IMO, however every game can always be improved upon.
I just hope they realise they're on a winner with this game & keep a lot of things the same, but with new maps, some extra weapons, plus the improvements I mentioned.
Better graphics, more toys, better physics, everything.
Not that BF2 is 'bad' IMO, however every game can always be improved upon.
I just hope they realise they're on a winner with this game & keep a lot of things the same, but with new maps, some extra weapons, plus the improvements I mentioned.
Yes they did license the Unreal 3 engine.Mad Ad wrote:
Havnt they now licenced the unreal engine for the next development?
I guess Battlefield 3 is using the WW2 theme but is totally redone with destructable environment and new maps, more vehicles etc.
Indeed, the game is totally newbfriendly and made for the mentally slow player so that even he is able to make some kills. It's great for public newbbadgestatswhore playing but right now it totally sucks as a competition game.TrashBlinD wrote:
BF2142 is already nerfed.
I hope the next Battlefieldgame is going to be faster because i don't want to fall asleep in front of the monitor.
I think I'm going to post this every time I hear "bunny hopping is newb/unrealistic get rid of it."
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/ar … ?id=146916
Quote of Dice from the interview:
Want fun, action, and a slight nod to realism by drawing on all the cool realistic stuff but leaving the boring parts behind? Leave bf2 alone, PLZ.
(How is it NOT obvious that bf2 sticks to its video game roots by relying on fake/unrealistic qualities for maximum fun??????)
....
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/ar … ?id=146916
Quote of Dice from the interview:
Exactly. Before I even read that interview, I knew that bf2 was meant to be more of a fun game than some realistic bs. Want realism? Go join the army. Too much realism? Go play America's Army and die from 2 bullets to wait 10 minutes each round.For us, it's about having fun. We don't do 100% realistic real-world simulations - we have real-world recognition instead, with action.
Want fun, action, and a slight nod to realism by drawing on all the cool realistic stuff but leaving the boring parts behind? Leave bf2 alone, PLZ.
(How is it NOT obvious that bf2 sticks to its video game roots by relying on fake/unrealistic qualities for maximum fun??????)
....
I hope that BF3 is modern combat or something similiar but better, and on top of all, I hope it is a major improvement to bf2's gameplay, instead of some bs side-grade/downgrade like bf2142 is:/-[Silver.Inc* wrote:
If you want realism go play America's Army.Zukabazuka wrote:
No it was because you guys used bunny jump to the limit and even more, that's why they took away it. Squad jump was taken away because everyone was using it instead of being in a squad with only 1 leader.
The game was ment to a bit realistic and when half the games come from CS and UT they think bunny jump is normal.
If bf2 was real,
-Planes would be shot down with 1 missile
-Players wouldn't be magically revived/healed
-Support packs would weigh tonnes each, as they even refil tank shells (I think?)
-When close to a wall and prone, you wouldn't be able to magicllay turn around 360 degrees, with your feet going into the wall.
-Going prone and standing up would take alot more time
-Planes wouldnt magically reload/repair when driving over the airfield
-A single wrench wouldn;t repair everything
-Claymores would have more than a mile blast radius
-F35's would own the complete and utter fucking shit out of anything short of a nuke
-You wouldn't magically be outside the tank and then get inside with the touch of a button, and no visible doors etc. Same with choppers/jets
-C4s could be thrown like tennis balls
-You wouldn't magically re-incarnate after 15 seconds
-In turning like you would in bf2 jets, flipping and stuff, you'd blackout in real life = death.
-Entire kits wouldn't magically drop when someone dies, with no animation of the person putting on their kits clothes, etc. You would have to physically strip the person to make it like bf2 does.
Could think of lots more...
You want realism, join the army.
Last edited by lendll (2006-11-02 02:57:19)
Ha..... Democrats06 will be the title....Kerry will be the main charactersilo1180 wrote:
Or even more realistic... you have to figure out how to win a war when the politicians won't give you the manpower/equipment you need to get the job done.
BF3 is probably going to be WWII redone. . . .new maps, more armies, more hardware, new engine etc.
Go back to their bread and butter so to speak. . .
If not, expand on the modern battlefield. . . i.e. Israel/USA/UK armies vs. Hezbollah/Iran/al-Qaeda/Insurgent armies. Tons of modern senarios, great map locations, weapons etc.
How kick ass would a conquest map set in fallujah between USMC vs. Insurgent guerillas?? Or a city map (Gaza) full of Palestinian guerillas vs. Israeli forces??
Go back to their bread and butter so to speak. . .
If not, expand on the modern battlefield. . . i.e. Israel/USA/UK armies vs. Hezbollah/Iran/al-Qaeda/Insurgent armies. Tons of modern senarios, great map locations, weapons etc.
How kick ass would a conquest map set in fallujah between USMC vs. Insurgent guerillas?? Or a city map (Gaza) full of Palestinian guerillas vs. Israeli forces??
Battlefield:World Domination
IMO EA to take all world powers, every major country with powerful army's, they only release versions according to the country release, if your in Russia, you only get the Russian Army version, released in the US you only get the US version, Canada etc etc and so on, your country must fight with other countries, for World Domination, with real world physics/ballistics, no prototype jets (J-10 )
all of this with real world Branch's, such as marines navy's army airforce for each country, you must sign up for one and specialize in that particular field, this would require a teamwork mentality and well, these are games, buncha bunny hopping noobery's at that so so much for this game
if this game ever comes to light, I'll meet you on the Battlefield, for World Domination, ready to whack your ass with my hockey stick
IMO EA to take all world powers, every major country with powerful army's, they only release versions according to the country release, if your in Russia, you only get the Russian Army version, released in the US you only get the US version, Canada etc etc and so on, your country must fight with other countries, for World Domination, with real world physics/ballistics, no prototype jets (J-10 )
all of this with real world Branch's, such as marines navy's army airforce for each country, you must sign up for one and specialize in that particular field, this would require a teamwork mentality and well, these are games, buncha bunny hopping noobery's at that so so much for this game
if this game ever comes to light, I'll meet you on the Battlefield, for World Domination, ready to whack your ass with my hockey stick
was there a BF1? or was that bf 1942?
Bf1
bf 1942
bf2
bf2142
bf3?
If this is the case, i would rather wait for bf3 than play 2142
Bf1
bf 1942
bf2
bf2142
bf3?
If this is the case, i would rather wait for bf3 than play 2142
- Index »
- Games »
- Battlefield Series »
- Battlefield 2 »
- BF3, will it happen, will it happen soon..?