It does? I did not noticed that. Now Im starting to get hopefull :D Just make it better then the one found in previous entries and you have a day one purchase from me :D

Yeah, they say that it will have a grittier story previous BF games. Which sounds like it could be awesome.

The problem with taking a break is all those addicted to cod will seek out replacements in the year off and they might actually see that cod is no where near the best out there making them less likely to return.  Activision needs to keep them hooked,  just they ain't doing it the right way. 

They could still keep players hooked to the current COD game. Just keep releasing DLC for an extra year.

I teach Government and one of the most overlooked parts of history that pretty much no one knows much about (other than the war of 1812) is World War 1. 2 is taught like crazy, but 1 is overlooked. A lot of people just think it was trench warfare, which was a massive part of it, and nothing really else, but there was a lot more to it. Not sure what they are going to do with this game, but the political landscape pre ww1 was one of the, if not the, most interesting political time ever. If they incorporated the Archduke's assassination and the black hand, multiple fronts, gas warfare along with tanks, it was be a good portrayal of this period. It would also be fascinating to allow someone to do a campaign from either side of the conflict.

Really, in ww1, there really wasn't a good side vs. bad side like there was with ww2 and many of the wars after it. The United States sided, financially and through weapon trades, with Britain and France more so because we were stronger economic partners with them then we were with Germany. Many of these countries were just doing what they pledged to do in their individual alliances and pacts with each other (hence the domino). No one was Hitler or Stalin level evil in ww1, which makes it fascinating. It was considered the last gentlemen's war (the gas kind of made people out to be more villains, but that was more towards the end when people were getting distracted).

Anyway, depending on how they go with the story in this game, it could be quite fascinating.

Hey maybe it will be good this time. battlefield 3/4 have a horrible campaign :P 

I don't like to be the moralist of the situation but I find the music commentary of both trailers quite terrible.
To use Space Oddity just after David Bowie died and associate it to a war game because of... space. wow.
And white stripes dub-step remix to commemorate the slaughter of an entire generation, that's remarkable.
They definetly both deserve an award for the good taste.

Anyway, speaking of graphics, Battlefield obviously.

Over half the games population probably don't even buy the dlc and it's not the same thing at all.  Activision will never skip a year.  And they don't need to with 3 devs getting 3 years per game.  

What they need is a new engine to bring the series up to standard and some better fucking ideas for the setting.  

I'm usually only excited for a BF game if it's a Bad Company, but the WWI setting looks great. IW, on the other hand, looks boring. I'm sick of the future setting, and it just keeps going further and further into the future.

hunter_alien said: The new CoD looks meh at best. BF1 looks cool as hell (that doesn't sound right) but I know that it probably wont have a single player campaign. Even so, I think BF1 easily edges it out and the trailer made me pumped

All Battlefield games have campaigns (even if most excluding Bad Company are meh).