or maybe we should do like a star trek war.. with all the star trek ships like Voyager and Enterprise
- Index »
- Games »
- Battlefield Series »
- Battlefield 2 »
- Which time period do you think the next BF should take place in?
yeah kill for Mars? why they all want the same..FoodNipple101 wrote:
I think they should put a battlefield space battle. With the Russians and US fighting for Mars or something would be unique
I agree that WW1 and Civil War would be very bland, seeing as the tactical fighting of the time was very regimented and almost fool hardy. If anything BF could start looking at the wars of the future, Im sure theres enough prototype weapons currently being researched and tested for the future such as laser weaponary and unmanned vehicles. I guess the only problem with developing a game on an event that doesn't exist is that you have no real basis apart from what has happened in the past. Im guessing it will be a bit like the C&C series, such as tesla towers and stealth tanks, as well as ion cannons and Obelisks of light. Maybe even the idea of chem troops. Well all I can say is "time will tell, sooner or later time will tell".
there are so many futuristic shooters out there, it's cliche and been done umpteen times already.
lasers and rockets and railguns and plasma and hovercraft and space fighters etc etc etc
yawn.
lasers and rockets and railguns and plasma and hovercraft and space fighters etc etc etc
yawn.
How about something not with the US? The Russian invasion of Afghanistan; The Iran-Iraq War; The Spanish-American War (Just off my head); The Russian-Japan War... All good and of the modren area (warfare-like)..
The Korean War is good too...
The Korean War is good too...
EA's target audience are 13 yr olds with ADHD, i doubt they even know other countries exist.
how about an alternate history? let's say after germany and japan were defeated in ww2, the soviet union and the western allies began fighting immediately instead of facing off in a cold war. essentially a world wide thing with korean era technology.
also, i want to see more varied locationis. european towns, middle eastern deserts, asian jungles, those have all been done to death. how about something in australia, or non-desert africa, or anywhere in latin america?
how about an alternate history? let's say after germany and japan were defeated in ww2, the soviet union and the western allies began fighting immediately instead of facing off in a cold war. essentially a world wide thing with korean era technology.
also, i want to see more varied locationis. european towns, middle eastern deserts, asian jungles, those have all been done to death. how about something in australia, or non-desert africa, or anywhere in latin america?
lol
god there is just so many different times they could put it in....i think they would all be pretty cool,
the Native americans vs U.S though would kinda be wierd with mostly arrows for the Natives and single shot guns for the rest, though they could pick up packs...
the Native americans vs U.S though would kinda be wierd with mostly arrows for the Natives and single shot guns for the rest, though they could pick up packs...
you do know australia is in Iraq and Afghanistan, therefore it's their war to and he has a right to bitch about it.FoodNipple101 wrote:
Ok im gonna be nice since heart attack is cool. Hey man honestly your shouldnt have an opionion on OUR war. Its ours well end it when we wanna end it. We are allies with you and probably help you more then you help us. And thank god your not in france. Now if ya wanna make fun of them go ahead cause they do nothing but stink this planet up. But honestly man dont bash the war im sick of it. People are doing for your guys freedom and you repay them by saying WE SHOULDNT BE OVER THERE YOUR WRONG AND CARELESS. No wonder there dying no morale. just really man grow up and worry bout whats in your country rather then ours.
Well yes but if all the BF games were realistic like the whatever% survival rate then it would be frekin retardedfaust82 wrote:
WW1 rifles usually killed in 1 shot. Want to know why? 1 shot in chest = 1 wounded soldier, with a 25% survival chance. 1 shot in gut = 1 dying soldier. 0% survival chance, even if they got him to the field hospital. These stats lasted well into WW2.H0ly(rap wrote:
well yea but they just wouldnt be able to kill in 3 shots or whatever like these other ones.
A WW1 game wouldn't work too well though, since the wars of the day were pure infantery storm scenarios. No tanks, just lorries to get the soldiers to the front, and possibly some steelplated cars with machineguns onboard to keep an assault going. And imagine the casualties... there was very little door-to-door fighting. There was mainly trench battles with one side storming the machine guns of the other side, getting cut down, and then the other side tried storming your side's machine guns only to get cut down in return. Add some random and very unprecise artillery, and you have a 40.000-dead-a-day scenario.
Few wars have claimed more soldiers than WW1.
Relating to the brainless nationalist blatant idiocy.
This just adds to the theory that some Americans are pure imbeciles, and that usually THEY run the country.
I don't see how I could take you any more seriously when reading such statements as
"if ya wanna make fun of them go ahead cause they do nothing but stink this planet up."
and then he talks about growing up....
You my sir are in lack of proper education and have hard times writing in what is...probably...the only language you know.
I am not an anti-american....far from it, as a European, I'm part of the few. But you just make me sick.
In short, it's like giving the relativity theory to a mongoose
Over and out
This just adds to the theory that some Americans are pure imbeciles, and that usually THEY run the country.
I don't see how I could take you any more seriously when reading such statements as
"if ya wanna make fun of them go ahead cause they do nothing but stink this planet up."
and then he talks about growing up....
You my sir are in lack of proper education and have hard times writing in what is...probably...the only language you know.
I am not an anti-american....far from it, as a European, I'm part of the few. But you just make me sick.
In short, it's like giving the relativity theory to a mongoose
Over and out
Last edited by Vartan (2005-12-04 18:26:52)
lol
YOUR ABSULTLY CORRECT
USA SUCKS ASS
THEY WILL KILL US ALL
YOUR ABSULTLY CORRECT
USA SUCKS ASS
THEY WILL KILL US ALL
I'd like to see a more urban-warfare focus, like having 64 players on the 32 player map, but you could go inside all the buildings.
I'd say Sci' fi' because they made from ww2 to vietnam to 2007. I think it is time for some sci' fi' gaming, I mean sure a prequal(or whatever it is spelled) for bf42 would not be a bad idea, but lets not do it.
The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.
USA wants the world to be a free place without any communism country.H0ly(rap wrote:
lol
YOUR ABSULTLY CORRECT
USA SUCKS ASS
THEY WILL KILL US ALL
The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.
People should realize that as someone said above, WW2 was the first practically 'mobile' war, where squad tactics were applied. Civil War=no because troops stood in lines waiting to fire, then they would duck and reload their rifles for 30-50 seconds, and then they'd stand up, aim and fire again. That would absolutely suck, it'd get boring after 5 minutes. WW1 would also be pretty lame, stay in the trenchs for cover then try to take the other trenches only to be mowed down in no-mans land. That's why they haven't made any (or many) first person shooters based on wars before world war 2. Quite frankly, the officers relied on reinforcements and lots of men, it would be a huge failure for the gaming industry.
For me, BF Korea or remake world war 2 in BF1944 or something, with new graphics, better guns, better squad combat then BF1942.
For me, BF Korea or remake world war 2 in BF1944 or something, with new graphics, better guns, better squad combat then BF1942.
I'm thinking that the future would rock. You know...Iran, North Korea, France, and Venezuela. lol
I found it funny a guy in Nebraska said USA sucks ass. After living in a third world country for a couple years, I can tell you that I am glad to be a US citizen.
How about this, make a game that doesn't promote stat padding.
How about this, make a game that doesn't promote stat padding.
Wow there are some interesting post on what direction BF should take.. Here is my idea. I say it should be global war. Have many more counties in the game like Germany, France, Australia, and Indonesia. You know countries like that. And have the game based around the world kind of like it is now, but make the game in a sense that by winning each map u take control of an area of the world. I say make it more of a progressive game in which u would fight a naval battle leading up to an invasion then the next map would be a land / sea battle. Then maybe move it to jungle warfare and then have it turn to urban warfare. Example. Say like US was invading China. There would be probably some battles in the ocean even before land battles started. Then u would have a battle at a port or bay. Then an attack on the capital or something like that. Kind of combining Risk with BF. I think that would make for a great game. This way u are not fighting on just random maps but a series of maps that would show like a series of a war. What do u guys thinK?
Kind of going along with Sticky Bombs idea. I would like to see an actual online campaign. It restarts every week, and teams fight on fronts trying to gain territory. So you leave for a day, come back and your team has gained territory or lost it and the front has moved. That would be just a fun game to play for me I guess.
Oh sorry, winning would be determined by what percentage of territory your team had at the end of the week. You can't switch teams, and tons of bonus points are given for each victory.
Oh sorry, winning would be determined by what percentage of territory your team had at the end of the week. You can't switch teams, and tons of bonus points are given for each victory.
Last edited by Deuceman (2006-01-05 12:11:58)
I like the Online campaign idea, and i know it will just be me but i'd like to see a medieval or something along those lines gritty hand to hand horses swords sheilds arrows etc. but thats because i'm a history/ weopons buff and i sword fanatic lol
I think a BF game based on the korean War would be cool. Or a revamped BF:V would be nice.
If I had to live in Nebraska I would say that it sucked ass too, oh wait I live in SC this place sucks ass.Deuceman wrote:
I found it funny a guy in Nebraska said USA sucks ass. After living in a third world country for a couple years, I can tell you that I am glad to be a US citizen.
Wait. I have it.
BATTLEFIELD: GRENADA
BATTLEFIELD: GRENADA
As an American, I am shocked and appaled at the hilarity of this idea. I LOVE IT!the_heart_attack wrote:
i think they should make bf war on terror!!!
none of the players no really why they are there and you say you know where the flags are but then as the round gets longer you get lucky and capture one but then realise you have no clue where the others are are.
plus the rounds go on long after it should have ended!
- Index »
- Games »
- Battlefield Series »
- Battlefield 2 »
- Which time period do you think the next BF should take place in?