Battlefield 4 confirmed by EA

Battlefield: 1944 or GTFO..

Well, that's a shitty way to announce a game now isn't it?

I would like to see a sequel Battlefield 2142 next year. That one game mode where you must destroy the other teams spawn was so awesomely fun.

Guess this is the future for Battlefield..

EA have officially gone the Activision route.. Medal of Honor may as well be called Battlefield: Medal of Honor as the games are going to be so similar. EA are just trying to go the annual route without it looking so obvious. The one thing Battlefield had over Call of Duty is that it never felt like just an expensive content booster for the years previous entry, now it's exactly that.

I can't blame EA as gamers these days seem to lack any ability to say no to these big companies so of course they are going to exploit us. I just hoped it wouldn't happen to Battlefield a series that put pride in the fact that unless it was a small expansion you may not see a new one for 5+ years. I liked that it meant the series didn't overstay it's welcome.. Now I wasn't a huge fan of Battlefield 3 and I don't think DICE having 18 months to make a game is going to help raise the quality bar.

Battlefield is now aimed at the Call of Duty kiddies.. Don't be surprised if Battlefield 4 is close quarters personified especially given that everyone and their dog bought the close quarters DLC for the latest version.

Close quarters dlc is awesome. Stop whining. As long as they don't release a new one every year it will be all good. Bf4 will be next gen. The pay dlc for bf3 is quite worth the 15$, it's not crap like in other games.

quote Tenklis

Close quarters dlc is awesome. Stop whining. As long as they don't release a new one every year it will be all good. Bf4 will be next gen. The pay dlc for bf3 is quite worth the 15$, it's not crap like in other games.

What I was saying is the support the DLC got may in a business mind cause EA to focus on that. I mean Battlefield 3 sold 15 million units to Modern Warfare 3's 25 million, now how does one make up that extra 10 million? Well, by turning Battlefield into Call of Duty but with amazing graphics. I've seen you Tenklis get butt hurt every time someone has a go at Battlefield 3, you're a fan boy and you are being exploited the most as you'll accept anything won't you?

blacklabel Have you actually played Medal of Honor 2010 and Battlefield 3 or Battlefield Bad Company 2? They are nothing alike, the only thing they share is the similar multiplayer and even then MoH 2010 is still different to BF3's and BFBC2's

This time around DICE won't be doing MoH's multiplayer and the whole MoH game will be on one engine only rather than divided into two.

As for Battlefield being aimed at CoD kiddies...of course it is...who else is the game going to be aiming for? Battlefield fans have shown they are quite happy with BF3, I know I am. CoD's fans are somewhat happy with their franchise although some of them are dropping off and going to Battlefield

My advice Black, get that stick out of your arse...the only thing bad that I can see EA doing is falling into the same trap that they had with alternating the NFS titles where one studio worked on one title and another studio worked on another, releasing them year after year..however rather than using one IP they are using two...whereas their competitors, Activision are going the NFS alternating route and just using one IP

quote ShadowJ

My advice Black, get that stick out of your arse

why should he? he said nothing wrong. i thought he had a particularly valid point - bad company 2 and MoH felt very, very similar (probably because MoH was pretty much just a mod of BC2) and they run the risk of getting three IP's stuck into the same mould with different textures. at lest with one game you have the excuse of it being a continuation of storyline and experience instead of a whole new game.
That being said good luck to them if they can make each experience feel completely isolated from one another, not just another FIFA-esque "same game in a shiny new box with a different bloke see you again next year" release.

just as long as they don't ruin the bad company games with trying to make it too stupid/serious.

ShadowJ Honestly you just came across as a slight fanboy there, not a huge "I will die for the developers of this game" sort of one, just a slight one in the way you worded some of that, Also I pretty much agree with BlackLabel on this one. EA needs to be VERY careful with the way they handle these franchises.

Now you get a new MoH game every other year and a new BF game every other year, so EA is making bank right? Until the games start coming out every year, and start to flood the market. They start to feel like content packs for each other, and the quality starts to slide even more. It's the SAME EXACT WAY CoD fell into the quality slump A LOT of people feel they have, releasing too many games too quickly. Greed will ALWAYS ruin a game franchise that sees success with the yearly model, which is what it is starting to appear all of these franchises are heading for.

As for the whole "Aimed at CoD Kiddies" part of it, first of all that is the fanboy-ish part I was talking about, but secondly, sure, they should aim slightly at that market, but not by changing their formula or release calendar. They want to take their competitor's sales, but at the same time they could easily risk isolating their own fans. Who is to say that BF4 will be on par quality wise with BF3? Who is to say they don't make a ton of changes to make the game feel more like Call of Duty, just too draw those "Kiddies" in? We haven't seen anything about the next BF but yet a lot of people are assuming it is going to be the same formula, which sure, would be the smart route since quite a few people are taking notice, but they were still killed sales wise by CoD last release, so hell, "why not change it up a bit right?"

EA has been known just as Activision to have a slight "*bleep* the fans, lets make bank" sort of mentality toward games before, so it isn't a huge stretch.

As Far as I am concerned they would be wise to keep the two IP's as seperate as possible. Don't offer Beta access just to get those extra sales, don't link the two games what-so-ever. If you do you are likely to draw the "Those two games are just copies of each other" arguments, and granted with two FPS games, they are likely to feel really similar because there isn't much you can do to make a game in this genre stand out unless you set it in space, or in the future, or give people guns that aren't real and do insane shit like turn people into cows or make the sing and dance. Two games based on Warfare will ultimately end up feeling incredibly similar.

quote ShadowJ

Have you actually played Medal of Honor 2010 and Battlefield 3 or Battlefield Bad Company 2? They are nothing alike, the only thing they share is the similar multiplayer and even then MoH 2010 is still different to BF3's and BFBC2's

Actually, coming from someone who played MOH: AA, BF1942, and BF2 extensively back in their respective eras, as well as having tried the three games you just mentioned, you're wrong. The three games you just mentioned are VERY similar stylistically, not to mention that they are each an insult to their predecessors--they're all CoD-esque games that deviate from the gameplay each franchise's fans were accustomed to and were expecting from the developers. Blacklabel was bashing EA for turning a once-lofty franchise, Battlefield, into another moneygrabber the way Activision did with CoD, and based on this news article, there's a lot of truth to that.

oni_hero So I'm a slight fanboy because I am not on the "let's hate EA bandwagon"? Give me a break...it's true, I like EA, I have no issues with them, I like their games and I will continue to play them for a long time to come. If someone has a valid reason for hating EA then so be it but just because I put up a fight against someone who hates something that I like...I am a fanboy?

People seem to forget where CoD came from but people also seem to forget that without the one, there wouldn't be the other. CoD and BF are just like Apple and Microsoft, they compliment each other, they are the reason why each year they are successful...kill one, the other dies.

Now I have made it known plenty of times that I dislike CoD and I do like BF but compared to what I was like 6 years ago, I would say I have grown up since then and accepted that some people just like CoD no matter what.

bl00 That's different...you are comparing MoH to what it was and to what it is now...in that case you are correct and I have no issues with being wrong in that respect but haven't all shooters gone the same way? Haven't all successful shooters within the last 10 years ditched their predecessors and become more modernised to appease the ever growing change within the gaming industry?

As to MoH 2010 and BF3 being similar...if you prefer the previous MoH's then yes you will see the similarity...it's no surprise considering the time they came out but if you have actually played MoH 2010 and BF3, they do actually play differently...this is coming from someone who has played a lot of BF3 and BC2...as soon as I touched MoH 2010 there was a difference and one that forced me to not play MoH 2010 ever since...not anything bad, just MoH 2010 isn't a game for me

The singleplayer was fine but multiplayer I just couldn't get into, unlike with BF3 I was straight in and continue to play it...that's why I argue that the games are different

However I have noticed that one thing hasn't been thought about regarding any of this...as times change, so do games...MoH mainly focused on WWII and yes it was great but how many WWII shooters did we have? A lot right...CoD was WWII, BF1942 was WWII then suddenly both franchises began to modernise themselves

Many games began to modernise themselves, leaving only a few to stay in the WWII era but now the competition was modern FPS, not WWII FPS....MoH took a nap but was revived in the modern age, following the modern day Tier 1 specialists

Now I'm not saying I agree with that, I don't see why not that they could have created another WWII MoH in the midst of the modern shooters but in EA's eyes....modern shooters is the way to go...
However my point and comment were directly associating MoH 2010 and BF...the two games that were talked about in BlackLabel's comments...I very clearly noted several times which games I was talking about in hopes that others wouldn't get confused that I was making a generalisation about the whole MoH franchise...one that I clearly acknowledge since I as well have played those games

fudgeboy Why should he indeed, well it might be me but where I come from, I wasn't raised to be pessimistic and judge books by their covers or slam something down before they ever get a chance to shine. Battlefield 4 has only just been announced...how the hell will you know if it will be aimed at CoD kiddies? Maybe EA will go "ok, our last attempt failed, let's go back to how we did it before"

It's a long shot but hey, religion teaches people to believe in miracles...my belief in a miracle that people will wake up and smell reality has to be the biggest faith drainer of them all

Oh it's EA related... what a suprise.

Well, a sequel is inevitable!

Plus, I think I'll have another reason to rent BF 4 from my local DVD store in the future instead of buying if it only has a short single-player campaign...

ShadowJ I honestly think you didn't read my comment all that well.. I called you slightly fanboyish for using the term "CoD Kiddies", and that is the entire reason I said you were slightly fanboyish. With this new comment however you have confirmed you are slightly biased, and hell, everyone is to an extent.... But when did he say he hated it? Also without the one there wouldn't be the other? Maybe when they first showed up, but now either one could vanish and the other's sales would skyrocket. The real problem I have is people are so open to EA whoring their series out like this when they should be standing for quality not quantity, tht is wha could help them topple CoD.