BF4 Anyone?

Pages: 1 2

2006-12-01 10:33:40

saber66: Member; +12|6447

Well, I know there a topic about this somewhere, i just don't feel like searching all over for it. But what do u guys think the next bf series game should be.

before talking about the new game, i noticed that bf2142 has more problems than bf2 did, and after lots of effort and becoming a brigadier general in bf2142, i got sick of it and bored. i actually went back to bf2 and am liking it way more.

my point is that ea/dice seemed to go downhill with their products and should start taking more time to create them b4 release (cause months of beta testing obviously didn't help)

well i think that EA should take a new bf project seriously and make a new bf4 modern combat

take some weapons and modify and look better, and add some. add lots of new bangs and whistles to it, decent amount of new maps, and of course better graphics as well as enhanced sound. come up with a new way to get troops in the game....like have something like aerial drops or troop transport planes (make huge maps in order to do this though). well, i think if they took their time and made a decent product, bf2 is a good game, they could make one hell of a new game, but they should take their time and create a product with as little flaw as possible rather than do what they always do: RELEASE A GAME AND IS ACTUALLY A BETA cause it has such big bugs in it.

if not a bf modern combat, maybe a new and improved WWII game

2006-12-01 10:34:51

killer21: Because f*ck you that's why.; +400|6582|Reisterstown, MD

What about BF3?

2006-12-01 10:41:16

p3lvicthrust: Banned; +16|6393

killer21 wrote:
What about BF3?

2142?

but its just a "mod" right? everyones whining ass says so.

lets call it BF: 2 1/2

Last edited by p3lvicthrust (2006-12-01 10:42:23)

2006-12-01 10:43:32

splixx: ChupaCABRA; +53|6730|Omaha, Nebraska

It is a mod... So BF3.. I will go with a beefed up WWII game.

Last edited by splixx (2006-12-01 10:44:10)

2006-12-01 10:44:44

JT_001: Member; +17|6411|Canada

Battlefield: Bad Company

Looks f*cking awesome.

EDIT: Screenshots: http://media.ps3.gamespy.com/media/713/ … mgs_1.html

Last edited by JT_001 (2006-12-01 10:45:46)

2006-12-01 10:47:39

CTD-CaptainBuck: BLEEDING BLUE; +71|6759|Tenn

BF3: EA pitted against the evilest of all enemies. Their advertising contracts.

2006-12-01 10:50:03

jsnipy: ...; +3,276|6514|...

I like a future game would be improved by expanding the scope ... i.e. 128 players per game .. maybe some multi-server persistence ...

2006-12-01 10:50:52

CruZ4dR: Cereal Killer; +145|6647|The View From The Afternoon

As long as it's more like BF2 rather than BF2142, I'm in!

BF2142 is too slow, too inaccurate and too problematic.

2006-12-01 10:54:37

Towelly: It's A State Of Mind; +399|6582|Your attic

Give me my god damn BF:MMO (with a little bit of RPG thrown in)

Imagine total global conflict with wars stretching all over the world with factions fighting on every front.

If anyone fails to grasp the basics concepts of this or raises any of the normal sceptical stuff I'll be more than happy to run them through why they are wrong and why it would kick ass.

2006-12-01 11:21:25

Jenkinsbball: Banned; +149|6539|USA bitches!

Towelly wrote:
Give me my god damn BF:MMO (with a little bit of RPG thrown in)

Imagine total global conflict with wars stretching all over the world with factions fighting on every front.

If anyone fails to grasp the basics concepts of this or raises any of the normal sceptical stuff I'll be more than happy to run them through why they are wrong and why it would kick ass.

Where do I sign up? Good idea.

2006-12-01 11:29:00

brett f: Member; +8|6595|Upstate SC

Dice FUBAR'd Tribes and anything beyond BF2 is likely to suck. 2142 is basically Tribes 2 meets Mechwarrior. (without the jet packs)

I'm new to BF2 world but I played Tribes for years.

I agree a better WWII would be a good next step.

Last edited by brett f (2006-12-01 11:29:50)

2006-12-01 11:29:38

thefousteph: Member; +8|6722

Towelly wrote:
Give me my god damn BF:MMO (with a little bit of RPG thrown in)

Imagine total global conflict with wars stretching all over the world with factions fighting on every front.

If anyone fails to grasp the basics concepts of this or raises any of the normal sceptical stuff I'll be more than happy to run them through why they are wrong and why it would kick ass.

I take a bit of your idea: BF3: WWIII

(I write BF3 cause BF2142 is 2.5)

The new war takes place 2050 or so (new tech but no fiction style) BF2142 without flashy Walker and Blue fuzzz

Wayyyyy more country involved (why not having more than 2 factions in the same map? or choosing your country b4 goin on the Battlefield)

I'dlike to get more points for defending a position (everybody goes on offense since it pays alot more) This would look more like a 'real' war scene. (instead of taking a post > loosing it > taking it back > etc.)

New gameplay element towards teamwork (BF2142 is a great step forward; what's next?)

New Game mode Objective oriented (each squad having different special goal instead of soldier's special goal to earn an interesting amount of point or perm unlock)

And please; Bring back descent Chopper - even if i get owned instead of owning with them, they are too hot to avoid!

2006-12-01 11:29:58

heggs: Spamalamadingdong; +581|6379|New York

that would be amazing towelly. they currently have a game kind of like that, ww2 something or other. graphics dont look that great, but the premise is there.

Remember Me As A Time Of Day

2006-12-01 11:31:14

malarkeycoon: Member; +16|6631|Cardiff

They could have something similar to bf2 but just get the landscape involved. Have the ability to knock down buildings or dig trenches. Bandwidth is almost at a level where it could handle that sort of action.

2006-12-01 11:33:14

CameronPoe: Member; +2,925|6547

Battlefield 3: UN Diplomacy Edition!

Battle it out in the UN General Assembly against the rest of the online community using witty riposts, security council resolutions, seconded motions, delay tactics and veto wielding! Play as France/Russia/China or USA/UK. Good clean wholesome fun for all the family...

2006-12-01 11:42:26

david363: Crotch fires and you: the untold story; +314|6730|Comber, Northern Ireland

would be cool to make it a worldwide thing, like the US and all its allies against iran or north korea and all its peeps

2006-12-01 11:47:54

Abstinuous: Member; +33|6422

all im gonna say is that if they make one more ww2 game i will invent the time machine and go back and shoot hitler in 1935

2006-12-01 12:28:34

Towelly: It's A State Of Mind; +399|6582|Your attic

Ok, as I have little else to do I will write down my basic concept for BF3/4/5/6/Whatever you want to call it.

The year is 2041, 30 years after the take over of almost the entire Middle East by the new Iraq/Iran Coalition and the formation of the Common Wealth of Africa the entire world is entered into a new and terrifying conflict.

The now ready Grand Chinese Army begins it's seemingly unstoppable march onto the rest of Asia in search of the commodity that was so wasted during the 2020/30's. They are in search of Oil, their supplies are now gone, their wells drained they fight towards the Middle East with the oil fields of the II Coalition. Seeing this as an opportunity to launch an assault upon their rivals the Russian army sends almost half of its army into China in an effort to force their force to withdraw and maintain Russia as the nation that controls more oil than any other.

For over a year the EU (which is now presided over as a single state), USA and the African Common Wealth all stay away from this war, this is mainly due to the terrorist attacks of 23rd July 2040 which crippled the US economy and harmed it's military strength, the weakened armed forces of the EU after fighting a lone war against Korea which it only won by a small margin and the Common Wealths' general disdain to bring war to their newly formed country.

However on the 10th of January 2042 the Russian President and the Chairmen of the People of China met in secrecy in what was intended to be peace talks to establish a cease fire, but when they left the meeting room something far more terrifying was born. The next day Russia declared war upon the EU, this in turn forced the USA into war with the Russian people. Later that week the Chairmen of China conferenced with the Leader of the African Common Wealth, after this meeting the Chancellor to the People declared war upon both the Coalition and the EU.

The date is now 18 March 2042, the forces of all Nations are poised, control of the world is on a knife edge and the the world is about to enter total war.

I can't be bothered to type out exactly how the game would work but I have a rough idea, I might type it up later. However you can guess how things would work, waging war on multiple fronts, the top ranks lead their troops into battle, I wouldn't mind seeing people have to qualify to use vehicles and the idea that tanks/planes/jets etc won't just re-spawn every few seconds, they have to be purchased, be this by a per minute system or in some different way.

2006-12-01 12:32:26

r2zoo: Knowledge is power, guard it well; +126|6587|Michigan, USA

Ea/Dice didnt ruin the game, stats did. There where alot less whining pussies in BFV and 1942, why? Becasue no one really gave a shit about their stats. Now you want a perfect game so you can further your e-penis via stats. Honestly, alot less problems where found in previous game, mostly becasue people played to play not to get the highest score possible. Look at stat padding, never happened before stats, becasue no one gave a damn. If you bitches would shut up and play what you have there would be no problems.

2006-12-01 12:35:11

explosivo: Banned; +262|6634

never mind all this taking there time over it.

get a fucking move on!

i want it yesterday.

2006-12-01 13:46:36

CaptainSpaulding71: Member; +119|6348|CA, USA

Permission to come aboard - this is my first post.

My friends and i were debating what would be cool for a BF3 kind of game and here are some of our thoughts:

1) concept of NPCs or neutral parties (civilians). These are bots but don't initially carry weapons. They can be men/women/children. if you kill them by accident, you lose fixed number of points (almost like a TK). if your team kills too many, the NPCs turn into an enemy to you and any of them can pick up arms against you. in the case that you kill them while they are armed, you do not lose points. we can argue about how you can win back their respect by perhaps healing them or something (which doesn't give you points for healing but gets them to be friendly again). Either way you don't earn points by killing them. they just act like a thorn in your side (somebody else that wants to kill you).

2) fully (or at least much more) destructible environment. A tank should be able to blow up small buildings or at least punch holes in walls. if you put 4985794578498 c4 packs on the hotel in Jalalabad, it would be cool to see the 30 story building implode. this is extreme but hopefully you can see where i'm going.

3) on the stats front, i think that they should allow multiple medals/awards in some more cases like expert medas for example - should be able to get multiple instances of these. we all know how hard it is to get 20 repair points in a round - why not be rewarded each time you get that. some people probably think it's easy - however i don't.

4) definitely opening the conflict to more than just 2 armies at a time (as was mentioned previously in this thread) would be an interesting dynamic. I guess my first point flows from this as well. you might have the opportunity to form alliances against an enemy.

5) think of ways to improve quality of squad and commander play to make it more enticing to play WITH the team instead of as lone-wolf.

6) maybe a subscription service that would pump out new maps once per month or something.

7) thinking outside the box (and yet probably was also mentioned) we could expand the map to link-up to other maps. maybe if we drove off the edge of karkand, it would connect to another server playing jalalabad or something. this way, we might be able to have a road-sign approach to selecting servers for battle. you could initially start the game in the middle of nowhere with some roadsigns that point to different maps/servers and then either walk/run/drive or fly there - then it connects to that server. following this idea, you could drive off the map and appear back in the middle-of-nowhere with the road-signs to pick another server. might make sense to have this ability only in certain areas of the edge of the map - like roads. it would suck flying off the edge of the map by accident when you didn't mean to, etc.

i don't know, just some ideas we were thinking about. what do you think?

2006-12-01 19:38:47

shellshox345: Member; +4|6684

I would like a CQB orientated game with small but detailed maps. For example a 64 player version of the Iron Gator, except with a bigger vessel so both teams can spawn on it, and more connecting hallways, there could be other maps like office buildings, hangars w/e. The only problem would tweaking the game play so the emphasis is on squad play, and not CS-style run-and-gun.

Or as a compromise between armor/aircraft guys and infantry guys you could have maps where there are wide open spaces between the flags, but have it be close and compact at the flags themselves that way you can have tanks fighting their way to the flag with planes overhead, but you made it to the flag the battle would turn into an infantry fight.

Whatever EA does I would really like to see bigger games; maybe they could have nights where they pool the power of several servers and have massive battles. That would be awesome.

2006-12-01 19:41:41

l41e: Member; +677|6639

CaptainSpaulding71 wrote:
Permission to come aboard - this is my first post.

My friends and i were debating what would be cool for a BF3 kind of game and here are some of our thoughts:

1) concept of NPCs or neutral parties (civilians). These are bots but don't initially carry weapons. They can be men/women/children. if you kill them by accident, you lose fixed number of points (almost like a TK). if your team kills too many, the NPCs turn into an enemy to you and any of them can pick up arms against you. in the case that you kill them while they are armed, you do not lose points. we can argue about how you can win back their respect by perhaps healing them or something (which doesn't give you points for healing but gets them to be friendly again). Either way you don't earn points by killing them. they just act like a thorn in your side (somebody else that wants to kill you).

2) fully (or at least much more) destructible environment. A tank should be able to blow up small buildings or at least punch holes in walls. if you put 4985794578498 c4 packs on the hotel in Jalalabad, it would be cool to see the 30 story building implode. this is extreme but hopefully you can see where i'm going.

3) on the stats front, i think that they should allow multiple medals/awards in some more cases like expert medas for example - should be able to get multiple instances of these. we all know how hard it is to get 20 repair points in a round - why not be rewarded each time you get that. some people probably think it's easy - however i don't.

4) definitely opening the conflict to more than just 2 armies at a time (as was mentioned previously in this thread) would be an interesting dynamic. I guess my first point flows from this as well. you might have the opportunity to form alliances against an enemy.

5) think of ways to improve quality of squad and commander play to make it more enticing to play WITH the team instead of as lone-wolf.

6) maybe a subscription service that would pump out new maps once per month or something.

7) thinking outside the box (and yet probably was also mentioned) we could expand the map to link-up to other maps. maybe if we drove off the edge of karkand, it would connect to another server playing jalalabad or something. this way, we might be able to have a road-sign approach to selecting servers for battle. you could initially start the game in the middle of nowhere with some roadsigns that point to different maps/servers and then either walk/run/drive or fly there - then it connects to that server. following this idea, you could drive off the map and appear back in the middle-of-nowhere with the road-signs to pick another server. might make sense to have this ability only in certain areas of the edge of the map - like roads. it would suck flying off the edge of the map by accident when you didn't mean to, etc.

i don't know, just some ideas we were thinking about. what do you think?

Methinks win.

2006-12-01 20:04:41

Cubanpenguin: Member; +35|6669|Kingston, Canada

I'd go back to World War 2 myself. BF1942 is pretty outdated so it wouldn't be like playing the same game again. And also there really aren't many places in history to go with out being boring as hell or insanely futuristic. An alternate history cold war could be pretty cool, but most of those weapons were used in either BF2 or BF Vietnam so it wouldn't be as exciting playing with the same stuff. Even though you'd be playing with most of the same WWII stuff the improvements to gameplay would be vastly improved so it really wouldn't feel the same as the old one.

But anyway my vote would either be for WWII or a Cold War alternate history.

2006-12-01 20:16:21

Cbnnttb: Member; +2|6460|USA

CaptainSpaulding71 wrote:
Permission to come aboard - this is my first post.

My friends and i were debating what would be cool for a BF3 kind of game and here are some of our thoughts:

1) concept of NPCs or neutral parties (civilians). These are bots but don't initially carry weapons. They can be men/women/children. if you kill them by accident, you lose fixed number of points (almost like a TK). if your team kills too many, the NPCs turn into an enemy to you and any of them can pick up arms against you. in the case that you kill them while they are armed, you do not lose points. we can argue about how you can win back their respect by perhaps healing them or something (which doesn't give you points for healing but gets them to be friendly again). Either way you don't earn points by killing them. they just act like a thorn in your side (somebody else that wants to kill you).

2) fully (or at least much more) destructible environment. A tank should be able to blow up small buildings or at least punch holes in walls. if you put 4985794578498 c4 packs on the hotel in Jalalabad, it would be cool to see the 30 story building implode. this is extreme but hopefully you can see where i'm going.

3) on the stats front, i think that they should allow multiple medals/awards in some more cases like expert medas for example - should be able to get multiple instances of these. we all know how hard it is to get 20 repair points in a round - why not be rewarded each time you get that. some people probably think it's easy - however i don't.

4) definitely opening the conflict to more than just 2 armies at a time (as was mentioned previously in this thread) would be an interesting dynamic. I guess my first point flows from this as well. you might have the opportunity to form alliances against an enemy.

5) think of ways to improve quality of squad and commander play to make it more enticing to play WITH the team instead of as lone-wolf.

6) maybe a subscription service that would pump out new maps once per month or something.

7) thinking outside the box (and yet probably was also mentioned) we could expand the map to link-up to other maps. maybe if we drove off the edge of karkand, it would connect to another server playing jalalabad or something. this way, we might be able to have a road-sign approach to selecting servers for battle. you could initially start the game in the middle of nowhere with some roadsigns that point to different maps/servers and then either walk/run/drive or fly there - then it connects to that server. following this idea, you could drive off the map and appear back in the middle-of-nowhere with the road-signs to pick another server. might make sense to have this ability only in certain areas of the edge of the map - like roads. it would suck flying off the edge of the map by accident when you didn't mean to, etc.

i don't know, just some ideas we were thinking about. what do you think?

i would also add the ability to open doors, climb out windows to escape if the enemy is coming in through the only entrance and a lot more types of vehicles

Pages: 1 2

Board footer

Jump to

BF2S Forums BF4 Anyone?

killer21 wrote:

Towelly wrote:

Towelly wrote:

CaptainSpaulding71 wrote:

CaptainSpaulding71 wrote:

Board footer