Not sure if this has been asked before but the way I see it, there was roughly 30 years between each of the last three Battlefield main titles. 30 years from BF2 would have been the year 2042, one hundred years from 1942 rather than 200? The technology in 2142 seems possible for 30 years from now not 150, at least for a game. Sure they used the whole "Ice Age" thing but I'm sure they could have saved it for Battlefield 2142 and used some other sort of dilemma us humans got ourselves into for Battlefield 2042. I fully enjoy the Battlefield series but the question I have is should they have jumped so far and not leave it open for BF3/2142? The possibilities of multiple types of hover vehicles and battle walkers, superior weapons with better targeting than BF2, and apocalyptic scenarios challenging infantry is what me and another pothead buddy were wondering...whoa man, yea why didn't they? Whats your take? Do you agree or disagree that they could have easily called it Battlefield 2042 and no one would have thought twice?
Pages: 1 2
- Index »
- Games »
- Battlefield Series »
- Battlefield 2142 »
- Should EA/Dice named its latest installment Battlefield 2042 ?
I think you've put WAY too much thought into this
Sober enough to know what I'm doing, drunk enough to really enjoy doing it
King_County_Downy wrote:
I think you've put WAY too much thought into this
I totally agree! It was some pretty good dope!
King_County_Downy wrote:
I think you've put WAY too much thought into this
No
joystick.
EA should stop fondling DICE's balls first
The number in the title doesn't really matter. What matters is that they were smart enough (go figure) no to go too futuristic and include lasers ans automatic targeting systems and stuff like that. Game would loose all gameplay with gadgets like that.
Guns with bullets and recoil > lasers without recoil
Guns with bullets and recoil > lasers without recoil
zeidmaan wrote:
The number in the title doesn't really matter. What matters is that they were smart enough (go figure) no to go too futuristic and include lasers ans automatic targeting systems and stuff like that. Game would loose all gameplay with gadgets like that.
Guns with bullets and recoil > lasers without recoil
This clearly shows you are ignorant. You only come here to bash about the game yet you know nothing of it.
DICE said they didn't like lasers. The only weapons that are close to laser is PAC walker and the speeder in the boosterpack, but then again it could be something else.
The rest of the weapons might have tracers in their shots so you know where you are shooting. Then there are RECOIL in this game. Sure automatic gunturret might be anoying and the support weapon is good on distance but not really in close combat.
This game is balanced compared to BF2
DICE said they didn't like lasers. The only weapons that are close to laser is PAC walker and the speeder in the boosterpack, but then again it could be something else.
The rest of the weapons might have tracers in their shots so you know where you are shooting. Then there are RECOIL in this game. Sure automatic gunturret might be anoying and the support weapon is good on distance but not really in close combat.
This game is balanced compared to BF2
...Mr.Billbo wrote:
Not sure if this has been asked before but the way I see it, there was roughly 30 years between each of the last three Battlefield main titles. 30 years from BF2 would have been the year 2042, one hundred years from 1942 rather than 200? The technology in 2142 seems possible for 30 years from now not 150, at least for a game. Sure they used the whole "Ice Age" thing but I'm sure they could have saved it for Battlefield 2142 and used some other sort of dilemma us humans got ourselves into for Battlefield 2042. I fully enjoy the Battlefield series but the question I have is should they have jumped so far and not leave it open for BF3/2142? The possibilities of multiple types of hover vehicles and battle walkers, superior weapons with better targeting than BF2, and apocalyptic scenarios challenging infantry is what me and another pothead buddy were wondering...whoa man, yea why didn't they? Whats your take? Do you agree or disagree that they could have easily called it Battlefield 2042 and no one would have thought twice?
Come on...
Seriously. What technology are you going to put in? Lasers? Why don't we just give everyone aimbots while they're at it?
It's fine how it is.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
man i want a 17th century style, loading muskets and stuff
That´s a really a great idea.I hope Dice will do something like that !Machine_Madness wrote:
man i want a 17th century style, loading muskets and stuff
you misunderstood i think. he isnt criticizing what they did, merely the time frame the game is set in. given the advancements in technology over time, its not unreasonable to think we will have surpassed current types of ammunition in 100+ years. hes just saying they shouldnt have set the date so far into the future. and hey, there is no need for name calling in a simple discussion.Zukabazuka wrote:
This clearly shows you are ignorant. You only come here to bash about the game yet you know nothing of it.
DICE said they didn't like lasers. The only weapons that are close to laser is PAC walker and the speeder in the boosterpack, but then again it could be something else.
The rest of the weapons might have tracers in their shots so you know where you are shooting. Then there are RECOIL in this game. Sure automatic gunturret might be anoying and the support weapon is good on distance but not really in close combat.
This game is balanced compared to BF2
Yep Zukabazuka you misunderstood me. I was saying that its a good thing that there aren't any Star Trek type of guns. Or hand held guns that aim automatically (I don't care about those useless drones).Omnideath wrote:
you misunderstood i think. he isnt criticizing what they did, merely the time frame the game is set in. given the advancements in technology over time, its not unreasonable to think we will have surpassed current types of ammunition in 100+ years. hes just saying they shouldnt have set the date so far into the future. and hey, there is no need for name calling in a simple discussion.Zukabazuka wrote:
This clearly shows you are ignorant. You only come here to bash about the game yet you know nothing of it.
DICE said they didn't like lasers. The only weapons that are close to laser is PAC walker and the speeder in the boosterpack, but then again it could be something else.
The rest of the weapons might have tracers in their shots so you know where you are shooting. Then there are RECOIL in this game. Sure automatic gunturret might be anoying and the support weapon is good on distance but not really in close combat.
This game is balanced compared to BF2
And as far as me not knowing anything about the game, my 340 hours spent playing it say otherwise
http://battlefield.ea.com/battlefield/b … ;Profiles=
I think you owe me an apology. Go on then I'm waiting
/taps foot on the floor repeatedly
Yeah....we will have magical energy weapons and giant hovering titans in 30 years....Mr.Billbo wrote:
\ The technology in 2142 seems possible for 30 years from now not 150\
Stop wasting your time smoking pot, get off your ass, and do something for the community. If we all sit around smoking pot, society will no longer function, and we can never hope to have the kind of technology we see in video games.
imagine the whole army bunnyhopping in the battlefield when all of them is reloading to getherRennkasper wrote:
That´s a really a great idea.I hope Dice will do something like that !Machine_Madness wrote:
man i want a 17th century style, loading muskets and stuff
next battlefield should be a remake with option for more players
or
a setting in space or a conflict on another planet earth against aliens or something
/edit: yeah the 17th century idea sounds cool
or
a setting in space or a conflict on another planet earth against aliens or something
/edit: yeah the 17th century idea sounds cool
Last edited by Thoruz (2007-03-27 09:52:43)
I'd prefer Bf2015.
Give or take 5 years.
Give or take 5 years.
Space war would be cool.. Flying around in a space suit fighting either humen or alienThoruz wrote:
next battlefield should be a remake with option for more players
or
a setting in space or a conflict on another planet earth against aliens or something
/edit: yeah the 17th century idea sounds cool
And huge battleships..
And the award goes to......OMNIDEATH for the most intelligent reply to my question!
What makes you think we wont have some outlandish technology in 30 years? The question was simple, do we honestly think military forces will still be using a "revolver" 200 years after WW2? A hundred years from 1942 sure! Like OMNIDEATH understood, I am not criticizing the developers, they have imo done a great job with the Battlefield series! As far as ammunition, I agree on the whole "laser" thing...this isn't a Star Wars game set in a galaxy far far away. My simple question was that after giving it some thought as far as technological advances in the last 30 years (and the last 100 for that matter) I feel they could of easily called it 2042! all the weapons, vehicles and technology is possible in 30 years! As far as the Titan...ITS A VIDEO GAME! So, in thirty years from now we don't have Titans, Tanks and attack vehicles with hovering capabilities...how do we know until we reach that era! All I was saying was it just made more sense as far as the EA/Dice history of how they did things and imo how they could have capitalized on launching "2142" with even more "outlandish/realistic weapons under a new engine/BF3.
As far as my game enhancing habit, I am able to laugh off insults against my imagination! You think they are "MAGICAL ENERGY WEAPONS" who is out there now? And as far as giving back to the community...it was a simple question and you couldn't even accomplish that! You don't even know who I work for! Thanks again OMNIDEATH!
What makes you think we wont have some outlandish technology in 30 years? The question was simple, do we honestly think military forces will still be using a "revolver" 200 years after WW2? A hundred years from 1942 sure! Like OMNIDEATH understood, I am not criticizing the developers, they have imo done a great job with the Battlefield series! As far as ammunition, I agree on the whole "laser" thing...this isn't a Star Wars game set in a galaxy far far away. My simple question was that after giving it some thought as far as technological advances in the last 30 years (and the last 100 for that matter) I feel they could of easily called it 2042! all the weapons, vehicles and technology is possible in 30 years! As far as the Titan...ITS A VIDEO GAME! So, in thirty years from now we don't have Titans, Tanks and attack vehicles with hovering capabilities...how do we know until we reach that era! All I was saying was it just made more sense as far as the EA/Dice history of how they did things and imo how they could have capitalized on launching "2142" with even more "outlandish/realistic weapons under a new engine/BF3.
As far as my game enhancing habit, I am able to laugh off insults against my imagination! You think they are "MAGICAL ENERGY WEAPONS" who is out there now? And as far as giving back to the community...it was a simple question and you couldn't even accomplish that! You don't even know who I work for! Thanks again OMNIDEATH!
Damn, beat me to it. Sword fights would be cool though. Three Musketeer squads.jkohlc wrote:
imagine the whole army bunnyhopping in the battlefield when all of them is reloading to getherRennkasper wrote:
That´s a really a great idea.I hope Dice will do something like that !Machine_Madness wrote:
man i want a 17th century style, loading muskets and stuff
You know that would be almost identical to BF2?jord wrote:
I'd prefer Bf2015.
Give or take 5 years.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
i wasted £30 on this game i dont care what year it was,as its a piece of shit.
Pages: 1 2
- Index »
- Games »
- Battlefield Series »
- Battlefield 2142 »
- Should EA/Dice named its latest installment Battlefield 2042 ?