By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Battlefield series is in a very good place.

Battlefield 1 has come out and DICE have managed to successfully bring the series back in time to a very basic period in terms of warfare.  

 

Tanks,  guns,  planes etc are all very simple.  yet they've pulled it off.  the gameplay,  graphics,  sound and online are all top notch.  it's off to a great start critically and in terms of sales.  expect big holiday numbers and decent legs thereafter. 

 

I think this puts the series in an enviable position.  it must have been risky bringing the series back so far in time.  but now that they've pulled it off the only way is up.  

 

WW1 is fresh and shooting fans really wanted less of the modern and futuristic stuff.  BF1 has provided that and will satisfy their itch.  But going forward battlefield will get sequels, usually a few years apart.  by the time the next battlefield comes around the fans will be really thirsty for some more advanced warfare. 

 

And that leads me to my point.  DICE won't have trouble after BF1 impressing fans with the next mainline BF they announce. Personally I think Vietnam is the next best thing.  it has choppers,  jets,  boats, tanks and many awesome weapons.  it won't be quite modern day and the setting is appealing. 

 

Let's say they go with Vietnam and a few years later they release another mainline entry.  by this stage if they go back to WW2 I think it would work.  again people would of had their fix of more modern Warfare and this would be the perfect follow up.  they could call it BF2.  WW2 has more advanced planes,  weapons and vehicles.  more exciting battles than WW1 so it would be even better than BF1. it would also satisfy what I'd imagine would be big demand for a proper WW2 shooter. 

 

So again let's assume they do Vietnam followed by WW2 what next? well the third mainline battlefield would probably be 8 years from now.  If they really did Vietnam and WW2 by this stage the fans would be super thirsty for modern Warfare present day battles again.  so they can do that.  Maybe a follow up to BF4 and call it BF5. 

 

So we have: 

BF: Vietnam 

BF2

BF5

 

What next?  

Well battlefield 2142 of course!  so you see from my OP,  DICE and EA have so many good options for the series.  it's in a really healthy place going forward. I think BF1 is the best thing they've ever done and in terms of sales it really paid off.  so high fives all round! 



Around the Network

While Dice brought the game back in name, it isn't by any stretch of the imagination a World War 1 game. They managed to avoid all of the risk by taking out most of the elements which would make the game unique and instead focusing on the past strengths of the series. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, but I struggle to really see the game as a change of pace.



I am really enjoying BF1 so far. Gunfights are intense and the presentation is top notch. Even playing on the ps4.



I think the BF 1 did so well because of two reasons:First, because of the quality and the will to take a risk and go to a WW 1 setting.For us, it was more than obvious that people were craving a more classic setting( or a more antique kind of warfare if you like, but for publishers and developers it was not an easy call, simply because that was not done for a long while and it was, as I stated, a risk.

The second reason that I personally think that is as important as the first one, is oportunity.BF 1 got lucky that COD is failing this year, due to several reasons that I wont list here,so that gives them the edge they needed.Much like with the PS4 with the XOne.One of the reasons the PS4 is so successful is that the XOne just made the worst decisions it could make at the start, and Sony capitalized on that.BF1 is doing the same with COD and to other shooters in a smaller degree.
Hopefully BF will keep up the quality and who knows, the next game could be based around WW II.That would be even more awesome.



My (locked) thread about how difficulty should be a decision for the developers, not the gamers.

https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=241866&page=1

Nautilus said:
I think the BF 1 did so well because of two reasons:First, because of the quality and the will to take a risk and go to a WW 1 setting.For us, it was more than obvious that people were craving a more classic setting( or a more antique kind of warfare if you like, but for publishers and developers it was not an easy call, simply because that was not done for a long while and it was, as I stated, a risk.

The second reason that I personally think that is as important as the first one, is oportunity.BF 1 got lucky that COD is failing this year, due to several reasons that I wont list here,so that gives them the edge they needed.Much like with the PS4 with the XOne.One of the reasons the PS4 is so successful is that the XOne just made the worst decisions it could make at the start, and Sony capitalized on that.BF1 is doing the same with COD and to other shooters in a smaller degree.
Hopefully BF will keep up the quality and who knows, the next game could be based around WW II.That would be even more awesome.

Good post.  

 

Battlefield is still behind cod in terms of sales but it definitely caught up a lot this year.  I'm sure many cod fans will buy BF1. I wonder will they be converted permanently to the series.  



Around the Network

I reeeeeaaaaaallllly like the suggested order of future Battlefield games in the OP:
Vietnamn
WW2
Modern BF


Battlefield 1 is super awesome, and the best Battlefield ever. I'm just so sad I'm hardly able to play it because my work days are so long and Im tired during the weekends. I hardly play any videogames anymore because Im exhausted by work.