KitGuru KitGuru.net – Tech News | Hardware News | Hardware Reviews | IOS | Mobile | Gaming | Graphics Cards
With Star Wars: Battlefront now out of the way, DICE is set to return to the Battlefield series this year with a new mainline entry to the series. EA has already confirmed that Battlefield 5 will be coming this year but now it looks like we may have a rough idea of its release date and setting, with a potential leak pointing towards a return to World War I.
This information comes from Swiss online store, World of Games, so it is worth keeping in mind that it may not be entirely accurate. However, according to the site, we can expect Battlefield 5 to arrive on the 26th of October, which is a similar release date to Battlefield 4.
The description for the game paints it as a tactical multiplayer shooter set in WWI. It is common for game publishers to inform retail chains about their future plans for the year and occassionally, that information gets out ahead of time. However, this could very well turn out to be fake.
That said, E3 season isn't too far off so we should hear more then and get confirmation on what DICE is up to with this year's Battlefield game.
KitGuru Says: There has been a surge of modern day/futuristic shooters over the last few years so returning back to an older setting could be a nice change of pace. Are any of you big fans of Battlefield? Would you like to see the series go back to World War I?
World War I? Is this a typo or is this really going to the Great War?. The article makes mention of ‘returning to World War I’, but I’m fairly certain the Battlefield series has only been set in WW2, Vietnam, the future, and modern times…
I was wondering that too. But hey either way it’ll be cool to see a Battlefield without all the lock-on crap.
Aren’t the world wars overdone already which is half the reason CoD, Battlefeild and the rest all moved on? There’s only so much you can do that’s historically correct and adding some sort of crazy twist is nothing short of risky
WW2 yes, but most games don’t focus on WW1 at all.
About 10 years ago with World War 2 sure but not World War 1. Currently we have a situation where modern and future is being overdone right now. A WW1 or WW2 Battlefield today would feel so much fresher than a modern or future Battlefield would. Consider the changes in game engines and technology since then as well- that will make a difference to what can be done with the genre. Also I’m pretty sure the current majority of Battlefield players probably haven’t actually been playing since BF1942 anyway, even if they like to use the “done to death” argument to hide their fear of iron-sights and dumb-fire everything lol. 😉
DICE has now officially killed the Battlefield series.
Boy you are not overreacting to an unconfirmed rumor at all.
I know i’d rather have another alternate timeline theoretical World War 6 simulation over a stupid real historical setting
This means we might get a amazing single player campaign again.
Yesssss. All the FPS games started to get boring and too complicated after Modern Warfare 2. I never asked for a thousand gun modifications and silly power-ups, just give me a rifle with iron sights and a HUD with a health meter and a ammo counter!
Honestly, if this is actually going to be WWI based, I’m 100% going to finally invest in a newer console to be able to play it. Last couple Call of Duty’s I haven’t even played due to how far fetched and dumb they have gotten. I want realism. There is so many battles of WWI that can be touched on for a campaign, plus, a ton of options for multiplayer. The idea of a “No mans land” in multiplayer that gets riddled with machine gun fire, snipers, and artillery is exciting. Plus the fact Battlefield has vehicles, think of the Fokker vs Sopwith dogfights
Fake, they don’t have the balls to do a game like that.
If he means what the battlefield title has become since BF2 no, not at all.
So fake
Boy you are not overreacting to an unconfirmed rumor at all.
“Return to” a setting they’ve never been to before? Hmm.
Excited for this if true! WWI would be unique, and I really miss the historical settings. I still believe 1942 and Vietnam were the best of the Battlefields.
I really hope this isn’t true, I would rather see a Vietnam or Korean war game than a WWI game. The way that the wars were fought around this time would make a BF match a living hell for how long it would take to finish a match.
This guy gets it. Since BF2 DICE has sent the franchise downhill.
I want Battlefield 6 to be about the Revolutionary War. Imagine shooting muskets with a 30 second reload time. I grew up playing WW2 games, had my fill. I didn’t have much faith in DICE moving BF5 in the right direction. BF4, blah. BF Hardline, even worse and finally Battlefront, dead months after release.DICE didn’t even make BF2, they hired the team that created the mod used them to create BF2, then fired them. DICE are a bunch of Swedish hipsters now.
Meh. I’ll believe it when I see it. On top of that, didn’t EA already make a statement to the time frame and say it would be another modern period?
Not DICE. EA. EA acquired DICE after BF2 and it’s gone downhill from there. BF2 and 2142 were the high points.
If they do it, it’s probably because of Verdun’s popularity.
This is WW1 the fighting was COMPLETELY different from WW2. Literally the only thing that was similar was the Russians using the Vintovka Mosina.
Try playing Verdun. It is terrific, and the matches aren’t that long.
You forgot the bayonet. That’s very important!
(Germans still get scopes for their snipers, though.)
Only FPS that is in WW1 is Verdun.
I’m sure they mean “return to” as in a sense of time. We will be returning to WW1 in time, but not as a previously published title.
Just what the bloody hell are we supposed to do in WWI? Trench warfare?
Get out your shovel and dig a trench for xp.
❝my .friend’s mate Is getting 98$. HOURLY. on the internet.”….two days ago new McLaren. F1 bought after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly. paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn. More right Here:;/119➤➤➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsJobs/GetPaid/98$hourly…. .❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:::::;/119……….
Faaaaaaarck Yeeeeeeeessss! I’m so sick of this modern crap. Back to wars that actually mattered! If it’s anything like Verdun I’ll buy it on day one.
Standard myopic modern idea of what WW1 was like. You honestly have -no idea- whatsoever
I just worry that a WW1 setting will feel a bit one dimensional now.
Psh everyone knows WWI sucked. Trench warfare and the waiting to die is boring. What made Battlefield series great was their use of vehicles. Prop planes and 1.5mph tanks ? yawn.
Well DICE sold their soul to EA, so I still blame DICE.
Nothing more exciting then planning 4 shots ahead, FIRE, kneel. FIRE,
Verdun is the only ww1 game i have liked so i really hope they do a good job with this its really something we havnt seen very often. i will be looking forward to this for sure.
Been done before http://www.thetrench1916.com/
But I’m glad they’re finally making more WWI FPS’s. People say they’d be boring, but I tend to disagree. They just need some innovation. NecroVision series and Call of Cthulhu: The Wasteland were interesting because they had Lovecraftian themes. A clean WWI FPS could still work if theirs a variety of mission including trench raiding/peaceful penetration, going into no-man’s land at night on recon missions, or fighting off waves of soldiers and tanks with AT/sniper rifles or machine guns, and so on.
I was speaking about WW1 in the context of gameplay in a Battlefield game but your delicate sensitivity over reached and took me out of context.
I want you to qualify your assertion that my view is a – “myopic modern idea of what WW1 was like” – when i haven’t even offered my view on what WW1 was like.
I’d love to.
It’s obvious you were speaking about WW1 in the context of gameplay in a Battlefield game. So was I. If all you can imagine a battlefield game in WW1 to be is trench warfare, than you have just about as tiny an idea of the variety of fighting in that war as everyone else who thinks it was only trenches.
Now, I could just tell you to go read a book, but that’s a dick move so just briefly:
The opening of the war was highly mobile. Troops rushing across the countryside in a series of flanking attempts, eventually became the ‘race to the sea’ which laid down the initial front lines.
On the Eastern Front, the Russians fought the Central Powers in prolonged and highly mobile actions making use of a lot of horse bound cavalry. That entire front never bogged down into the trench system as much as in the west. A similar situation happened in the Middle East, with horse and even Camel cavalry rushing around shooting and bayonetting the hell out of each other.
Out to sea, the submarine and modern battleship came of age. This was the first war that truly revealed the horror and potential of submarine warfare. Battleships pounded shores and enemy ships, the battle of Jutland probably being the biggest fleet on fleet clash.
Also coming of age was the Warplane. Powered aviation was barely a decade old at the start of the war and yet by 1918 fighters tore across the sky in colossally huge dogfights and bombing raids. Huge bombers like the Gotha V and Caproni Ca.3 were themselves dwarfed by giant airships that roamed the skies, dropping bombs as far as London.
Of great importance to the war was Artillery. Careful mapping, spotting and aiming of bigger and bigger guns during the war caused immense damage to the enemy. And no satellite view to make it easy here- just raw, manual skill.
The Dardanelles campaign was an amphibious assault, like a mini Operation Overlord, to knock Turkey out of the war. Beach landings, hill fighting, sniping, mounted guns, you name it.
Austria-Hungary and Italy clashed along their border in the high-alpine Dolomites, over 2000m above sea level in bitter cold mountain peaks and ravines, with the threat of avalanches looming with every gunshot.
The Australians even mounted a campaign to knock out German bases in Papua New Guinea. Bam: Jungle warfare right there.
For crying out loud, the British even mounted commando operations, like the Zeebrugge raid on U-boat docks in the dead of night.
Spies. Tanks. Flamethrowers, Poison gas. Aircraft Carriers. Big Bertha. Rail guns. Tunnel warfare. Mines. It goes on and on and on.
All of these elements can translate to a Battlefield game. They could be incorporated to provide a Battlefield game with equal or greater variety than any previous game in the series.
So you’ll forgive me for thinking that, when someone like you wonders what WW1 has besides trenches, it sounds like a 6 year old asking what WW2 could possibly offer beyond Omaha Beach.
/rant.
“All of these elements can translate to a Battlefield game. They could be incorporated to provide a Battlefield game with equal or greater variety than any previous game in the series”
Wrong. A Battlefield game is not a simulator.
A Battlefield game is a particular thing, there’s very little freedom when you consider the conventions in gameplay that it’s created for itself – Weapon modularity is huge.
You want them to step away from that? Well… i confine myself to the plausible.
“So you’ll forgive me for thinking that, when someone like you wonders what WW1 has besides trenches, it sounds like a 6 year old asking what WW2 could possibly offer beyond Omaha Beach.”
My seeming lack of imagination regarding WW1 in a game isn’t based on ignorance of WW1, if anything, it’s knowing full well that Battlefield and WW1 in the same sentence is the tall order that it is. Nearly everything you’ve written down is either beyond the scope of the game or is not up to par, begging for filler.
You infer an imaginary opinion coloured by your own, which adds bias. It really does sound as if you walk through life with a big chip on your shoulder, resentful toward anyone that does not share your affliction to live in history.
Oh you came back? Alright then:
Point out for me the part where I mentioned a simulator. Never said it, my friend. A variety of vehicles, locations and armies has nothing whatsoever to do with whether a game is a simulator or not. If I described the features of GTA San Andreas, would you think *that* was a simulator? If I described the fauna and geology of Yoshi’s Island in great detail, would you think that was a hardcore sim too?
I’m starting to wonder here just how far back your history goes with Battlefield. Mostly because there was a time when a single Battlefield game could quite possibly contain all the features I listed. Did I say ‘could?’ Actually I meant ‘did’. Highly mobile warfare and all that exists in all Battlefields, but once upon a time Battlefield had all the other trimmings too.
*Surface fleets engaging each other, the Battleships pounding away as Carriers frantically launched aircraft into the battle. Submarines too, fully operable and dealing silent death in the very same battles.
*Fighter planes and bombers massing in the skies. While later games only feature a pair or so of planes per team, at one stage Battlefield had maps capable of giant aerial furballs involving 20 aircraft or more at a time.
*Spotting and aiming artillery manually. Yep. Done before in Battlefield as well. Without satellite view. Tried and tested. As were amphibious assaults, alpine areas, jungle fighting, special operations, flamethrowers and pretty much everything else. With bots even! Not only is it possible, it’s already been DONE. Successfully. The only lack of freedom going on here is in your imagination.
You don’t think a lack of customisation can be done? Why not? It worked just fine in Battlefield before. Series’ that had customisation and removed it are doing perfectly well. The aforementioned GTA series, plus ones like Need For Speed and The Sims all had huge customisation options, removed a whole lot in later games, and they still sold like hotcakes. Not even an issue.
I’ll admit a WW1 game may seem like a tall order, but really only to someone with such a limited understanding of what a Battlefield game can be as someone like yourself.
Yes. 10 days ago.
When you laid out your inappropriate game play scenarios with which developers could derange and mangle into the Battlefield project, you did not moderate yourself. This lead you to include some incompatible examples of what would be a successful Battlefield game play encounter.
Ultimately, what is to be considered today is that the current evolution of Battlefield, as a concept, is an ensemble of the popular mechanics derived from years of experimentation. They’ll keep doing things the “McDonalds” way.
The rest of what you have to say is words grasping at straws, even the nonsensical. Citing different games and even different genres….
You want BF:WW1 to work because you’re bored but in the end it’s a pipe dream.
So I’ve been keeping you waiting a whole 10 days. Sorry about that- would’ve replied earlier but having a life gets in the way sometimes.
‘inappropriate game play scenarios’, ‘derange and mangle’, incompatible examples’… blah blah blah
Seems pretty clear that you’re the one flying off the unmoderated handle here. I get it- you don’t like WW1. And that bias leads you to think it can’t work in a Battlefield setting. I don’t know if it’s your lack of imagination issue, or what I’m now pretty sure is a simple ignorance about previous games in the series, but either way, it doesn’t matter. You think BF:WW1 can’t be done. Well, you are wrong, plain and simple. And here’s why:
I’ve already pointed out how all the gameplay elements that made up WW1 (trench combat aside) not only CAN work in a Battlefield game but in fact HAVE worked successfully in previous Battlefield games (in some cases several games), but you still seem incapable of visualising it. Fortunately there have been others who have been free of your problem:
Not long after the release of Battlefield 1942 in 2002 (that’s the first Battlefield by the way), work began on a total conversion mod to recreate the gameplay in a Great War setting. First released in ’04, “Battlefield 1918” gained enough praise and support to step-up its development. The player community provided feedback with the developers throughout the build process, and in 2011 the final build of the mod was released. If you can’t imagine Battlefield style combined-arms-warfare in a WW1 setting, do yourself a favour and educate yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fLU2TXvFNg
And if you think that doesn’t count because it’s a mod rather than an in-house developed game? Well I’ve got a shock for you: There IS already a WW1 Battlefield game. You see, back in 2000 a modest little Swedish game company called Refraction Games released a plot driven FPS filled to the brim with WW1 vehicles. While its singleplayer campaign was mostly forgettable, it was the multiplayer that really blew people away. Never before had people seen planes, tanks, ships and motorbikes able to furiously battle it out against each other all at the same time. EA Games was so impressed by the gameplay on offer in this little gem that they bought the company and set the team working on making a game with multiplayer just like it. That team, now renamed DICE, delivered their first game for EA two years later.
That game, was Battlefield 1942.
So while you might not have even heard of a Battlefield game until BF2, Bad Company or perhaps even BF3, those of us who were around from the beginning know all about what Battlefield and DICE can REALLY achieve, and have already done so in the past.
Yes, even a WW1 setting. You see, you talk of DICE’s years of experimentation, yet not only do you not know the full extent of that ‘experimentation’, but you consider anything different to a modern-warfare-with-gun-pimping-mechanics game to be ‘nonsensical’. This is exactly why your view of Battlefield’s capabilities is a standard, myopic, modern view. It’s the same sort of view that had some say Battlefield wouldn’t work in the future, before 2142 came out and proved you all wrong. The same view that said Call of Duty 4 won’t work in the modern era, before that too came out and proved you wrong. Any time a new game tries something bold, there are voices just like yours that say it can’t be done because *they* are incapable of seeing it. I use other games to illustrate how customisation in game design isn’t the sacred pillar you think it is, and all you see is nonsense? Oh well. Your problem, not mine. I’m done trying to help you see the potential.
I’ll leave you with this footage from the WW1 game Refraction Games made before they created the first Battlefield. Then you can really see how this ‘pipe dream’ could be expanded. Sit down and see just how far beyond your tiny imagination we’ve all been, and could be again:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJKzI5YIZ2Q
I am reading every word because i believe in the usefulness of a debate, unlike those protesters in Illinois that wanted to “Shut Trump Down” acting as though they’re living in a Banana Republic. Where you among them?
Let’s start from the beginning.
You open with an offhand remark about me not having a life. I’m not surprised. It’s a cliché.
Generalisations, suppositions, a dash of overreach – Like ingredients to a Chef. Here’s something… “You think BF:WW1 can’t be done…”
No. It can be done but what i’ve maintained even though it’s always lost on you, is that it won’t be a success. Why? Well for the reasons i’ve explained in my previous reply.
Yet again your argument centres around the baseless opinion that i am ignorant of WW1 and oblivious to Battlefields history, this is how you allege that i lack imagination and so on. This assumption has lead you to not only use it as fodder for the indictments but as the bulk of your argument for the success of a Battlefield game set in WW1.
“This is exactly why your view of Battlefield’s capabilities is a standard, myopic, modern view”
You’ve paraphrased your original indictment on WW1 into a new indictment about Battlefield’s capabilities. I’ll assume that you want both indictments to stand. However, you’ve still not qualified yourself on either point. On either WW1 or Battlefield’s capabilities this, “standard, myopic and modern” view that i’ve supposed to have expressed on this forum are curiously non existent.
When you get down to it. You overreach, patchwork paraphrase, falsely indite and even attempt to belittle, all to try and jam through your delusion – A yearning for a successful Battlefield set in WW1.
It doesn’t stack up, you don’t stack up. One day, someone will come along and make the case but after two weeks of watching you spin your wheels on the subject, it’s not you.
Peace out… Unless you’ve something new.
Haha whatever man- for such a firm believer of debate, your choice to write at length about nothing but semantics instead of say, retorting, citing your own examples, supporting your arguments or even denying my assumptions or trying to set them straight speaks volumes. Assuming you’re ignorant of Battlefield’s history is a compliment, by the way. Nobody who’s seen the earlier games in action could be as deluded as you that a successful WW1 setting is impossible. But now that I’ve brought you up to speed you don’t even have that excuse anymore, so any further myopia about WW1 setting working in Battlefield gameplay (as was *always* the point) is all on you, buddy.