DICE defends BF4 announcement... BF is now officially casual trash.

EA sucks

So... We're probably looking at yearly releases in the future, it's pretty much inevitable at this rate. DICE/EA want some of that Call of Duty moniez.

What's you're take on this, is DICE still trustworthy?

They need to compete with Activision somehow. And, there's always a new MOH.

i said awesome.

is that the correct answer?

i said awesome.

is that the correct answer?

platniumgamer

[QUOTE="platniumgamer"]

i said awesome.

is that the correct answer?

parkurtommo

i have failed you. and most importantly... i have failed bacon.

Sooooo...this means more BFvsCoD threads more often in the future?

Sweet those are usually always entertaining to watch.:lol:

Like everything else, I'll wait to see it first before dropping accusations on it

[QUOTE="platniumgamer"]

i said awesome.

is that the correct answer?

parkurtommo

Sometimes yearly releases actually keep the quality.

Burnout, MegaMan and Ratchet and Clank were once released yearly and they've kept their quality quite high throughout.

There maybe a chance we'd see yearly releases of BF to be actually good. Though, like COD and NFS there maybe a chance they'd suck.

i still never understood the fact that they needed BF to compete in the same arena as COD because they had MOH which was meant to do that. it angers me to see all three IP's diluted into the same damn thing.

If they manage to keep the quality, bring new, fresh and fun multiplayer modes, while keeping the singleplayer campaign over six hours, for those who love offline play, I'm all for it.

Developers are the ones who will suffer this horrendous tempo the most.

I was dissapointed with Battlefield 3.

[QUOTE="parkurtommo"][QUOTE="platniumgamer"]

i said awesome.

is that the correct answer?

platniumgamer

i have failed you. and most importantly... i have failed bacon.

Oh noes 2 years inbetween games!

It's not like any other major FPS series like Doom or Quake has ever done that...

Wait, both of those did it. So did Unreal Tounry and the Unreal series. I guess it's only a crime when modern games did it depsite that most FPS series have a new game every 2-3 years.

It's not casualized trash, you're just an ignorant idiot who cannot see the entire market. Do you like waiting 3+ years inbetween titles?

BTW there has been a new Battlefield game made by the same studio each year since BC1 launched. There was also only about a year inbetween Battlefield Vietnam, BF2, and BF 2142. Only kids believe that anything that has yearly/bi-yearly sequels is some new casual trash. It's been happening for 20 years.

Do you like waiting 3+ years inbetween titles?

Wasdie

Battlefield has been on a near yearly release schedule for awhile now.

Do you like waiting 3+ years inbetween titles?

Wasdie

Hell BF3 disappointed me in areas, hope BF4 can improve it.

Battlefield has been on a near yearly release schedule for awhile now.

Slashless

Let's not forget how EA has admitted that BF is now competing with CoD, I don't think that was their idea a few years ago.

They need to announce Battlefield 2143.

previous installments in the franchise have always been fairly distinguishable

parkurtommo

No they've all been just as terrible, uninspired, dull.

Let's not forget how EA has admitted that BF is now competing with CoD

parkurtommo

Because they're not complete tw@ts. They sure as f*ck can't make a quality game but they know who their competition is. I just don't see the problem. They've had yearly releases that you say have been "distinguishable" yet contradict yourself by saying that BF is now bad because it's becoming a yearly release franchise.

They should had used the Frostbite 2 engine on some other games before releasing BF3, Bf4 will use the engine much better with far better optimisation thanks to the time its been tested on other games. Too me it seemed silly testing the engine on a big name franchise like Battlefield.

[QUOTE="parkurtommo"]previous installments in the franchise have always been fairly distinguishable

Slashless

No they've all been just as terrible, uninspired, dull.

Let's not forget how EA has admitted that BF is now competing with CoD

parkurtommo

Because they're not complete tw@ts. They sure as f*ck can't make a quality game but they know who their competition is. I just don't see the problem. They've had yearly releases that you say have been "distinguishable" yet contradict yourself by saying that BF is now bad because it's becoming a yearly release franchise.

Got to do what you got to do I guess. Battlefield has kinda been on a yearly basis tho.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlefield_%28series%29

This is nothing new. Sure there was a 6 year gap between BF2 and BF3, but don't kid yourself because Dice has made 3 full games, 6 expansions and 2 F2P games in the meantime. If we look at the core/main games there is roughly a 2-year wait between the releases, with the expection of BF2->BF3.

The time between releases has nothing to do with whether or not BF is becoming casual. Dice themselves has said (with the release of BF3) that they're broadening the appeal meaning that they'll try to cater to both the "hardcores" and "casuals". This can easily be seen by how the Vanilla maps were mixed (although most of them were crap) and the following expansions - Karkand appealing to all kinds of gamers, close quarter to the "CoD-crowd" and the third one to the regular BF-gamers/veterans.

Why people B***c about this is beyond me. Would it have been better if they released BF3 -> MoH -> BF:BC3 -> MoH -> BF4 ??? Because that's not far from what they've already done and people STILL complained and still does.

There is nothing new in the amount of games Dice is releasing. Shortening the release of the main BF games has nothing to do with BF becoming more "casual" (appealing to more gamers).

[QUOTE="Slashless"]

[QUOTE="parkurtommo"]

No they've all been just as terrible, uninspired, dull.

[QUOTE="parkurtommo"]

Let's not forget how EA has admitted that BF is now competing with CoD

parkurtommo

Because they're not complete tw@ts. They sure as f*ck can't make a quality game but they know who their competition is. I just don't see the problem. They've had yearly releases that you say have been "distinguishable" yet contradict yourself by saying that BF is now bad because it's becoming a yearly release franchise.

So you really think that the team that worked on BF1942 didn't work on anything until BF2 in 2005 (yeah, 2005, not 2007)?

Who gives a crap what they call the game. It was a Battlefield game. It doesn't matter what it was a sequel to it matters that they were all following the same exact style of gameplay just with slightly different conventions.

If you didn't think that DICE didn't want to port all of the BF games to the consoles at one point you're mistaken. They had to cancel and BF1942 versionfor the Xbox. The only thing that has ever kept them from doing what they did with BC2 and BF3 and making the same game on all 3 consoles was tech. The gap was always too wide. They didn't have the power or they didn't have the tech to tie it all together properly.

This is just stupid. They've been pumping out games yearly since 2003. It doesn't matter what the hell they call them. It's been obvious since Modern Combat came out on the Xbox/PS2 that they wanted to go multiplat no matter what. They've finally made it where they can make pretty much the exact same game on the PC as they can on the consoles.

The only reason I am upset that BF4 is coming so soon is becuase I believe they could have waited one more year and fully taken advantage of the next gen hardware. It may be BF5 that takes advantage of next gen hardware.

I also don't believe Battlefield 4 is going to be the offical title of the game. They've already hinted at BF2143 and BC3. They aren't just going to ignore those.

2002Battlefield 19422003Battlefield 1942: The Road to Rome2003Battlefield 1942: Secret Weapons of WWII2004Battlefield Vietnam2005Battlefield 22005Battlefield 2: Special Forces2005Battlefield 2: Modern Combat2006Battlefield 2: Euro Forces2006Battlefield 2: Armored Fury2006Battlefield 21422007Battlefield 2142: Northern Strike2008Battlefield: Bad Company2009Battlefield Heroes2009Battlefield 19432010Battlefield: Bad Company 22010Battlefield: Bad Company 2: Vietnam2010Battlefield Online2011Battlefield Play4Free2011Battlefield 32011Battlefield 3: Back to Karkand2012Battlefield 3: Close Quarters2013/2014Battlefield 4

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlefield_%28series%29

This is nothing new. Sure there was a 6 year gap between BF2 and BF3, but don't kid yourself because Dice has made 3 full games, 6 expansions and 2 F2P games in the meantime. If we look at the core/main games there is roughly a 2-year wait between the releases, with the expection of BF2->BF3.

The time between releases has nothing to do with whether or not BF is becoming casual. Dice themselves has said (with the release of BF3) that they're broadening the appeal meaning that they'll try to cater to both the "hardcores" and "casuals". This can easily be seen by how the Vanilla maps were mixed (although most of them were crap) and the following expansions - Karkand appealing to all kinds of gamers, close quarter to the "CoD-crowd" and the third one to the regular BF-gamers/veterans.

Why people B***c about this is beyond me. Would it have been better if they released BF3 -> MoH -> BF:BC3 -> MoH -> BF4 ??? Because that's not far from what they've already done and people STILL complained and still does.

There is nothing new in the amount of games Dice is releasing. Shortening the release of the main BF games has nothing to do with BF becoming more "casual" (appealing to more gamers).

danish-death

[QUOTE="danish-death"]2002Battlefield 19422003Battlefield 1942: The Road to Rome2003Battlefield 1942: Secret Weapons of WWII2004Battlefield Vietnam2005Battlefield 22005Battlefield 2: Special Forces2005Battlefield 2: Modern Combat2006Battlefield 2: Euro Forces2006Battlefield 2: Armored Fury2006Battlefield 21422007Battlefield 2142: Northern Strike2008Battlefield: Bad Company2009Battlefield Heroes2009Battlefield 19432010Battlefield: Bad Company 22010Battlefield: Bad Company 2: Vietnam2010Battlefield Online2011Battlefield Play4Free2011Battlefield 32011Battlefield 3: Back to Karkand2012Battlefield 3: Close Quarters2013/2014Battlefield 4

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlefield_%28series%29

This is nothing new. Sure there was a 6 year gap between BF2 and BF3, but don't kid yourself because Dice has made 3 full games, 6 expansions and 2 F2P games in the meantime. If we look at the core/main games there is roughly a 2-year wait between the releases, with the expection of BF2->BF3.

The time between releases has nothing to do with whether or not BF is becoming casual. Dice themselves has said (with the release of BF3) that they're broadening the appeal meaning that they'll try to cater to both the "hardcores" and "casuals". This can easily be seen by how the Vanilla maps were mixed (although most of them were crap) and the following expansions - Karkand appealing to all kinds of gamers, close quarter to the "CoD-crowd" and the third one to the regular BF-gamers/veterans.

Why people B***c about this is beyond me. Would it have been better if they released BF3 -> MoH -> BF:BC3 -> MoH -> BF4 ??? Because that's not far from what they've already done and people STILL complained and still does.

There is nothing new in the amount of games Dice is releasing. Shortening the release of the main BF games has nothing to do with BF becoming more "casual" (appealing to more gamers).

SKaREO

So?

Did Vietnam not make some key changes with BF that played into the evolution of BF2. Did the BC series not have any impact on what happened to BF3?

Call them what you want, the influence is obvious.

2002Battlefield 19422003Battlefield 1942: The Road to Rome2003Battlefield 1942: Secret Weapons of WWII2004Battlefield Vietnam2005Battlefield 22005Battlefield 2: Special Forces2005Battlefield 2: Modern Combat2006Battlefield 2: Euro Forces2006Battlefield 2: Armored Fury2006Battlefield 21422007Battlefield 2142: Northern Strike2008Battlefield: Bad Company2009Battlefield Heroes2009Battlefield 19432010Battlefield: Bad Company 22010Battlefield: Bad Company 2: Vietnam2010Battlefield Online2011Battlefield Play4Free2011Battlefield 32011Battlefield 3: Back to Karkand2012Battlefield 3: Close Quarters2013/2014Battlefield 4

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlefield_%28series%29

This is nothing new. Sure there was a 6 year gap between BF2 and BF3, but don't kid yourself because Dice has made 3 full games, 6 expansions and 2 F2P games in the meantime. If we look at the core/main games there is roughly a 2-year wait between the releases, with the expection of BF2->BF3.

The time between releases has nothing to do with whether or not BF is becoming casual. Dice themselves has said (with the release of BF3) that they're broadening the appeal meaning that they'll try to cater to both the "hardcores" and "casuals". This can easily be seen by how the Vanilla maps were mixed (although most of them were crap) and the following expansions - Karkand appealing to all kinds of gamers, close quarter to the "CoD-crowd" and the third one to the regular BF-gamers/veterans.

Why people B***c about this is beyond me. Would it have been better if they released BF3 -> MoH -> BF:BC3 -> MoH -> BF4 ??? Because that's not far from what they've already done and people STILL complained and still does.

There is nothing new in the amount of games Dice is releasing. Shortening the release of the main BF games has nothing to do with BF becoming more "casual" (appealing to more gamers).

danish-death

[QUOTE="danish-death"]2002Battlefield 19422003Battlefield 1942: The Road to Rome2003Battlefield 1942: Secret Weapons of WWII2004Battlefield Vietnam2005Battlefield 22005Battlefield 2: Special Forces2005Battlefield 2: Modern Combat2006Battlefield 2: Euro Forces2006Battlefield 2: Armored Fury2006Battlefield 21422007Battlefield 2142: Northern Strike2008Battlefield: Bad Company2009Battlefield Heroes2009Battlefield 19432010Battlefield: Bad Company 22010Battlefield: Bad Company 2: Vietnam2010Battlefield Online2011Battlefield Play4Free2011Battlefield 32011Battlefield 3: Back to Karkand2012Battlefield 3: Close Quarters2013/2014Battlefield 4

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlefield_%28series%29

This is nothing new. Sure there was a 6 year gap between BF2 and BF3, but don't kid yourself because Dice has made 3 full games, 6 expansions and 2 F2P games in the meantime. If we look at the core/main games there is roughly a 2-year wait between the releases, with the expection of BF2->BF3.

The time between releases has nothing to do with whether or not BF is becoming casual. Dice themselves has said (with the release of BF3) that they're broadening the appeal meaning that they'll try to cater to both the "hardcores" and "casuals". This can easily be seen by how the Vanilla maps were mixed (although most of them were crap) and the following expansions - Karkand appealing to all kinds of gamers, close quarter to the "CoD-crowd" and the third one to the regular BF-gamers/veterans.

Why people B***c about this is beyond me. Would it have been better if they released BF3 -> MoH -> BF:BC3 -> MoH -> BF4 ??? Because that's not far from what they've already done and people STILL complained and still does.

There is nothing new in the amount of games Dice is releasing. Shortening the release of the main BF games has nothing to do with BF becoming more "casual" (appealing to more gamers).

SKaREO

I guess so. I was sort of kidding when I said "casual trash". Still, we can definitely count on BF getting more casual with each future iteration, now that it seems to be after CoD.parkurtommo

"more casual"

Once people start buying Serious Sam 3 and Hard Reset by the millions then you can tell me it's smart to make the games more "hardcore" by your pathetic standards.

[QUOTE="parkurtommo"][QUOTE="Slashless"]

Because they're not complete tw@ts. They sure as f*ck can't make a quality game but they know who their competition is. I just don't see the problem. They've had yearly releases that you say have been "distinguishable" yet contradict yourself by saying that BF is now bad because it's becoming a yearly release franchise.

Wasdie

So you really think that the team that worked on BF1942 didn't work on anything until BF2 in 2005 (yeah, 2005, not 2007)?

Who gives a crap what they call the game. It was a Battlefield game. It doesn't matter what it was a sequel to it matters that they were all following the same exact style of gameplay just with slightly different conventions.

If you didn't think that DICE didn't want to port all of the BF games to the consoles at one point you're mistaken. They had to cancel and BF1942 versionfor the Xbox. The only thing that has ever kept them from doing what they did with BC2 and BF3 and making the same game on all 3 consoles was tech. The gap was always too wide. They didn't have the power or they didn't have the tech to tie it all together properly.

This is just stupid. They've been pumping out games yearly since 2003. It doesn't matter what the hell they call them. It's been obvious since Modern Combat came out on the Xbox/PS2 that they wanted to go multiplat no matter what. They've finally made it where they can make pretty much the exact same game on the PC as they can on the consoles.

The only reason I am upset that BF4 is coming so soon is becuase I believe they could have waited one more year and fully taken advantage of the next gen hardware. It may be BF5 that takes advantage of next gen hardware.

I also don't believe Battlefield 4 is going to be the offical title of the game. They've already hinted at BF2143 and BC3. They aren't just going to ignore those.

BC2, the last good/fun/awesome BF game.silversix_

[QUOTE="silversix_"]BC2, the last good/fun/awesome BF game.SKaREO

[QUOTE="parkurtommo"]I guess so. I was sort of kidding when I said "casual trash". Still, we can definitely count on BF getting more casual with each future iteration, now that it seems to be after CoD.Wasdie

"more casual"

Once people start buying Serious Sam 3 and Hard Reset by the millions then you can tell me it's smart to make the games more "hardcore" by your pathetic standards.

Of course, BC3 is bound to happen considering BC2's ending. Another thing that's worth mentioning is that EA announced BF4 very soon after BF3... it just tells you that they want to make as many BF games as possible, as soon as possible... parkurtommo

Well the idea in gaming is to make money. Usually that means using a product you know will sell well.

Waiting 3+ years inbetween games doesn't magically make them better. Usually that means they are running with much smaller teams and getting caught up in areas that aren't actually gameplay. They are getting caught up with content creation, licenseing, tech, audio, art, and a lot of other things.

With game studios as large as they are now, especially the size of DICE, a lot of the BS that caught up smaller studios doesn't exist. They can pump out content in less than half the time.

[QUOTE="danish-death"]2002Battlefield 19422003Battlefield 1942: The Road to Rome2003Battlefield 1942: Secret Weapons of WWII2004Battlefield Vietnam2005Battlefield 22005Battlefield 2: Special Forces2005Battlefield 2: Modern Combat2006Battlefield 2: Euro Forces2006Battlefield 2: Armored Fury2006Battlefield 21422007Battlefield 2142: Northern Strike2008Battlefield: Bad Company2009Battlefield Heroes2009Battlefield 19432010Battlefield: Bad Company 22010Battlefield: Bad Company 2: Vietnam2010Battlefield Online2011Battlefield Play4Free2011Battlefield 32011Battlefield 3: Back to Karkand2012Battlefield 3: Close Quarters2013/2014Battlefield 4

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlefield_%28series%29

This is nothing new. Sure there was a 6 year gap between BF2 and BF3, but don't kid yourself because Dice has made 3 full games, 6 expansions and 2 F2P games in the meantime. If we look at the core/main games there is roughly a 2-year wait between the releases, with the expection of BF2->BF3.

The time between releases has nothing to do with whether or not BF is becoming casual. Dice themselves has said (with the release of BF3) that they're broadening the appeal meaning that they'll try to cater to both the "hardcores" and "casuals". This can easily be seen by how the Vanilla maps were mixed (although most of them were crap) and the following expansions - Karkand appealing to all kinds of gamers, close quarter to the "CoD-crowd" and the third one to the regular BF-gamers/veterans.

Why people B***c about this is beyond me. Would it have been better if they released BF3 -> MoH -> BF:BC3 -> MoH -> BF4 ??? Because that's not far from what they've already done and people STILL complained and still does.

There is nothing new in the amount of games Dice is releasing. Shortening the release of the main BF games has nothing to do with BF becoming more "casual" (appealing to more gamers).

parkurtommo

[QUOTE="SKaREO"][QUOTE="silversix_"]BC2, the last good/fun/awesome BF game.mems_1224