Battlefield 4

http://games.on.net/2012/07/battlefield-4-appears-in-origin-listing/

.

BF4 already? Seems like BF3 just came out not to long ago.

BF4 already? Seems like BF3 just came out not to long ago.

KABCOOL

[QUOTE="KABCOOL"]

BF4 already? Seems like BF3 just came out not to long ago.

Jebus213

[QUOTE="Jebus213"][QUOTE="KABCOOL"]

BF4 already? Seems like BF3 just came out not to long ago.

mitu123

Or, better yet, Bad Company 2143.

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="Jebus213"] 2 year release cycle. Phoenix534

Or, better yet, Bad Company 2143.

Its too early for BF4 :)

BF3 is currently my most played game (online), just got last week the CQ pack..

Not officially announced, remember...

Eh, too early. Should be more of a four year cycle thing. In the meantime, they should release more DLC for BF3 for the next few years.

Eh, too early. Should be more of a four year cycle thing. In the meantime, they should release more DLC for BF3 for the next few years.

The_Capitalist

[QUOTE="Jebus213"][QUOTE="KABCOOL"]

BF4 already? Seems like BF3 just came out not to long ago.

mitu123

This might just be a placeholder as it was never meant to be put on origin. I'm thinking BC3 or 2143.

as a die hard battlefield fan, i do not approve of this. especially so soon.yellosnolvr

So, you wouldn't approve of any Battlefield games since 2005, considering there has been one made by the same teams every year since Vietnam and DLC content inbetween. Just because they didn't work on a PC version of Bad Comapny and BF1943, doesn't mean they set aside developers to work on the PC version of BF3 for all of those years.

• 2004 - BF: Vietnam
• 2005 - BF2
• 2006 - BF 2142
• 2008 - Bad Company (biggest break inbetween BF games, content for BF 2142 was still made in 2007)
• 2009 - BF 1943
• 2010 - BC2 (and the vietnam content pack came out in late 2010)
• 2011 - BF3
• 2013 - BF3 (rumored)

Remember, just because they didn't appear on the PC doesn't mean the team hasn't been putting out yearly release and/or content since 2004. I didn't even mention the DLC for BF2 or BF3. It doesn't matter the label they decide to name their game either. They also sqeezed in Mirror's Edge in 2008.

I don't know how you can be disappointed. This is how DICE operates and has operated since pretty much BF1942.

This is what gaming is now and I like it. No more waiting for 3-4 years for another one, always more content to play. Games only truely had the replayablity that they used to have when we didn't have a new game every few weeks to play. Now we get a game worthy of our time coming out at least monthly. Why keep going back to the old when we constantly have new stuff to play? That, and I finally have a job and money where I can afford more games than when I was a kid, I don't have to milk a game for every ounce of gameplay I can sqeeze out of it.

I'll pass on it, BF3 didnt get me hooked at all and i stopped playing before Back to Karkand stuff. Still play BF1942 and BF2 alot though.

[QUOTE="The_Capitalist"]

Eh, too early. Should be more of a four year cycle thing. In the meantime, they should release more DLC for BF3 for the next few years.

Jebus213

[QUOTE="Jebus213"][QUOTE="The_Capitalist"]

Eh, too early. Should be more of a four year cycle thing. In the meantime, they should release more DLC for BF3 for the next few years.

dakan45

To be fair, MoH and BF have some major differences. They are both military shooters, but their focus on two completely different styles of shooting and gameplay aimed at two very different audiences. Even with BF3's CQ pack, it's still caters to the big maps and vehicles much more. Next month we get the Armored Kill as well which has 4 very large maps that's the complete opposite of the CQ pack.

CoD, on the other hand, has been more or less the exact same formula since 2007.

Hopefully this is a real return to roots. Im fed up with DICE and their COD chasing. -ArchAngeL-777-

If it is scheduled for late 2013, it will probably appear on the next gen consoles which means they won't have to limit the game to 24 players as the hardware will be much better in the consoles.

I also don't agree with the notion that they are "CoD" chasing. In some aspects, the core gameplay of BF3 is actually more team oriented than BF2 was (no more AI driven artillery, UAV scans have to be done manually). Though it sorely lacked in communication and the game was clearly designed for 24 players. The CQ DLC pack is being offset by the Armored Kill DLC pack that is being released in September. There are much improved features from BF2 in BF3 (like the core shooting mechanics) that I guess you could call "CoD chasing".

If they are going to bump the numbers to 64 across all platforms, they'll have to re-implement features from BF2 like the 6 man squads and squad-leader spawning and they won't be able tomake maps filled with tons of chokepoints and are suited for 24 players.

[QUOTE="dakan45"][QUOTE="Jebus213"] There's going to be a new BF game every two years. There's going to be a new MoH every two years. BF4 next year then another MoH after that. That's how EA has the cycle of milkage set up. So no it isn't early. It's pretty much on time. The next BF game should be officially announced sometime close before, during, or after MoH:WF's release date.Wasdie

To be fair, MoH and BF have some major differences. They are both military shooters, but their focus on two completely different styles of shooting and gameplay aimed at two very different audiences. Even with BF3's CQ pack, it's still caters to the big maps and vehicles much more. Next month we get the Armored Kill as well which has 4 very large maps that's the complete opposite of the CQ pack.

CoD, on the other hand, has been more or less the exact same formula since 2007.

[QUOTE="dakan45"][QUOTE="Jebus213"] There's going to be a new BF game every two years. There's going to be a new MoH every two years. BF4 next year then another MoH after that. That's how EA has the cycle of milkage set up. So no it isn't early. It's pretty much on time. The next BF game should be officially announced sometime close before, during, or after MoH:WF's release date.Wasdie

To be fair, MoH and BF have some major differences. They are both military shooters, but their focus on two completely different styles of shooting and gameplay aimed at two very different audiences. Even with BF3's CQ pack, it's still caters to the big maps and vehicles much more. Next month we get the Armored Kill as well which has 4 very large maps that's the complete opposite of the CQ pack.

CoD, on the other hand, has been more or less the exact same formula since 2007.

There SP's have the exact same focus. That's for sure....Jebus213

That I won't disagree with. From reading the reviews and what people thought of it, I would say the majority of people were very disappointed by BF3's single player for that exact reason.

They did it really well in BC1. It had a slightly open feel despite being linear. It felt more like a Battlefield game during its single player unlike BC2 and BF3 did.

[QUOTE="-ArchAngeL-777-"]Hopefully this is a real return to roots. Im fed up with DICE and their COD chasing. Wasdie

If it is scheduled for late 2013, it will probably appear on the next gen consoles which means they won't have to limit the game to 24 players as the hardware will be much better in the consoles.

I also don't agree with the notion that they are "CoD" chasing. In some aspects, the core gameplay of BF3 is actually more team oriented than BF2 was (no more AI driven artillery, UAV scans have to be done manually). Though it sorely lacked in communication and the game was clearly designed for 24 players. The CQ DLC pack is being offset by the Armored Kill DLC pack that is being released in September. There are much improved features from BF2 in BF3 (like the core shooting mechanics) that I guess you could call "CoD chasing".

If they are going to bump the numbers to 64 across all platforms, they'll have to re-implement features from BF2 like the 6 man squads and squad-leader spawning and they won't be able tomake maps filled with tons of chokepoints and are suited for 24 players.

Somewhat but it has much more cod like stuff, than bc2 did. I would love to see a jump in player count. Its been proven possible by reality and the hacked servers during the beta.

[QUOTE="Jebus213"]There SP's have the exact same focus. That's for sure....Wasdie

That I won't disagree with. From reading the reviews and what people thought of it, I would say the majority of people were very disappointed by BF3's single player for that exact reason.

They did it really well in BC1. It had a slightly open feel despite being linear. It felt more like a Battlefield game during its single player unlike BC2 and BF3 did.

[QUOTE="yellosnolvr"]as a die hard battlefield fan, i do not approve of this. especially so soon.Wasdie

So, you wouldn't approve of any Battlefield games since 2005, considering there has been one made by the same teams every year since Vietnam and DLC content inbetween. Just because they didn't work on a PC version of Bad Comapny and BF1943, doesn't mean they set aside developers to work on the PC version of BF3 for all of those years.

• 2004 - BF: Vietnam
• 2005 - BF2
• 2006 - BF 2142
• 2008 - Bad Company (biggest break inbetween BF games, content for BF 2142 was still made in 2007)
• 2009 - BF 1943
• 2010 - BC2 (and the vietnam content pack came out in late 2010)
• 2011 - BF3
• 2013 - BF3 (rumored)

Remember, just because they didn't appear on the PC doesn't mean the team hasn't been putting out yearly release and/or content since 2004. I didn't even mention the DLC for BF2 or BF3. It doesn't matter the label they decide to name their game either. They also sqeezed in Mirror's Edge in 2008.

I don't know how you can be disappointed. This is how DICE operates and has operated since pretty much BF1942.

This is what gaming is now and I like it. No more waiting for 3-4 years for another one, always more content to play. Games only truely had the replayablity that they used to have when we didn't have a new game every few weeks to play. Now we get a game worthy of our time coming out at least monthly. Why keep going back to the old when we constantly have new stuff to play? That, and I finally have a job and money where I can afford more games than when I was a kid, I don't have to milk a game for every ounce of gameplay I can sqeeze out of it.

I say it's too early for Battlefield 4.:?

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="Jebus213"]There SP's have the exact same focus. That's for sure....Jebus213

That I won't disagree with. From reading the reviews and what people thought of it, I would say the majority of people were very disappointed by BF3's single player for that exact reason.

They did it really well in BC1. It had a slightly open feel despite being linear. It felt more like a Battlefield game during its single player unlike BC2 and BF3 did.

[QUOTE="yellosnolvr"]as a die hard battlefield fan, i do not approve of this. especially so soon.Wasdie

So, you wouldn't approve of any Battlefield games since 2005, considering there has been one made by the same teams every year since Vietnam and DLC content inbetween. Just because they didn't work on a PC version of Bad Comapny and BF1943, doesn't mean they set aside developers to work on the PC version of BF3 for all of those years.

• 2004 - BF: Vietnam
• 2005 - BF2
• 2006 - BF 2142
• 2008 - Bad Company (biggest break inbetween BF games, content for BF 2142 was still made in 2007)
• 2009 - BF 1943
• 2010 - BC2 (and the vietnam content pack came out in late 2010)
• 2011 - BF3
• 2013 - BF3 (rumored)

Remember, just because they didn't appear on the PC doesn't mean the team hasn't been putting out yearly release and/or content since 2004. I didn't even mention the DLC for BF2 or BF3. It doesn't matter the label they decide to name their game either. They also sqeezed in Mirror's Edge in 2008.

I don't know how you can be disappointed. This is how DICE operates and has operated since pretty much BF1942.

This is what gaming is now and I like it. No more waiting for 3-4 years for another one, always more content to play. Games only truely had the replayablity that they used to have when we didn't have a new game every few weeks to play. Now we get a game worthy of our time coming out at least monthly. Why keep going back to the old when we constantly have new stuff to play? That, and I finally have a job and money where I can afford more games than when I was a kid, I don't have to milk a game for every ounce of gameplay I can sqeeze out of it.

You are one delusional fellow. Happy to see you like spending your money on poorly constructed military shooters that were made for the purpose of suckering people like you into believing they are worthy of a full-price purchase. Now we know who has been funding this mentality in the industry as of late. Thanks bud.

Hopefully this is a real return to roots. Im fed up with DICE and their COD chasing. -ArchAngeL-777-

If they were to make a Bad Company 3, how would they change it to make it different from BF3 to warrant the name Bad Company? BF3 already seems like the next evolution of the BC franchise. If they had named BF3 BC3 I don't think anyone would of questioned DICE about it.

Bad Company 3: I'm interested in.

Battlefield 2143: sort of want.

Battlefield 4: I don't care a s***, specailly if uses battlelog. I didn't buy the Karkand Pack for BF3 and don't mind to spent a cent in the other 3 map packs.

[QUOTE="-ArchAngeL-777-"]Hopefully this is a real return to roots. Im fed up with DICE and their COD chasing. Zubinen

[QUOTE="-ArchAngeL-777-"]Hopefully this is a real return to roots. Im fed up with DICE and their COD chasing. Wasdie

If it is scheduled for late 2013, it will probably appear on the next gen consoles which means they won't have to limit the game to 24 players as the hardware will be much better in the consoles.

I also don't agree with the notion that they are "CoD" chasing. In some aspects, the core gameplay of BF3 is actually more team oriented than BF2 was (no more AI driven artillery, UAV scans have to be done manually). Though it sorely lacked in communication and the game was clearly designed for 24 players. The CQ DLC pack is being offset by the Armored Kill DLC pack that is being released in September. There are much improved features from BF2 in BF3 (like the core shooting mechanics) that I guess you could call "CoD chasing".

If they are going to bump the numbers to 64 across all platforms, they'll have to re-implement features from BF2 like the 6 man squads and squad-leader spawning and they won't be able tomake maps filled with tons of chokepoints and are suited for 24 players.

Bad Company 3: I'm interested in.

Battlefield 2143: sort of want.

Battlefield 4: I don't care a s***, specailly if uses battlelog. I didn't buy the Karkand Pack for BF3 and don't mind to spent a cent in the other 3 map packs.

Ondoval

If they were to make a Bad Company 3, how would they change it to make it different from BF3 to warrant the name Bad Company? BF3 already seems like the next evolution of the BC franchise. If they had named BF3 BC3 I don't think anyone would of questioned DICE about it.

MacBoomStick

I know already how it's going to be. It's going to be extremely flawed, console oriented, alot of wasted potential will be present, and I will criticize it at message boards all the effing time, but I will still buy a new GPU for it and spent over 100 hours in it. It's sorta like Pokemon at this point, I know I shouldn't be supporting this dev/publisher for not innovating and not supporting, but I can't imagine NOT buying it because the game is so much fun, despite the flaws.

Kinda wish they would just spend time fixing BF3 and releasing more maps. And removing that Blue tint that I still dont know why they added. Alpha looked 100 times better.

Kinda wish they would just spend time fixing BF3 and releasing more maps. And removing that Blue tint that I still dont know why they added. Alpha looked 100 times better.

SaviorXavi3r

[QUOTE="SaviorXavi3r"]

Kinda wish they would just spend time fixing BF3 and releasing more maps. And removing that Blue tint that I still dont know why they added. Alpha looked 100 times better.

SKaREO

It's been 6 months. Beating that dead horse over and over makes you look like a fool.

In other news, it seems that the beta is going to start in the fall of 2013. That's over a year away, plenty of time inbetween games. I prefer not having to wait for 4+ years for sequels.

They trying to sell me DLC fo BF3, probably shouldn't mention BF4 beta is only a year away. Fail business model is fail.SKaREO

[QUOTE="SKaREO"]They trying to sell me DLC fo BF3, probably shouldn't mention BF4 beta is only a year away. Fail business model is fail.kris9031998