EA hints that Battlefield 6 is scheduled for 2021

I am encountering more cheaters in BF1 than when it came out. Maybe because of less servers available so there is a higher probability of encountering them. I would have thought that they would have all moved to BFV.

 

If they EA cheap out again, and provide a poor server service it won't matter what game engine they provide. It will be kneecapped from the start. Also with no anti cheat like BFV it will remain an infested joke.

They have lost the talent programmers that was the core of battlefield and have zero chance of providing a good game. The bugs at launch are still present in the final version, no anti cheat, balance issues, one hit kills, no server controls. just to name a few of the issues.

I will wait until after BF6 is released before I even considering the purchase.

 

I know at least three top rendering devs of EA who worked on Frostbite up to Battlefront 2, now working for Epic Games.

 

If memory serves didn’t dice get their start by modding 1942 as desert combat? They didn’t make 1942 but it was a great game for it’s time, it’s what got me into online shooters. There was quake and pvp doom before that but 1942 and DC was amazing.

 

Battlefield 1942 was made by DICE, the Desert Combat Mod for Battlefield 1942 was made by Trauma Studios, DICE purchased Trauma Studios and were renamed DICE New York, DICE used DICE New York to work on Battlefield 2, shortly after the release of Battlefield 2, DICE New York was shut down by DICE... or.. well EA.. one and the same in my eyes.

 

Amen to that, big fail, as i bought every bf game since the start BF V was the last time i will support them, they lost their way..

 

If they want to excite the fanbase, release a simplified Battlefield game (like the early releases) with a toolkit for mods and maps... and possibly AI support again. No one ever asked for an SP campaign mode (did they?), waste of money and development resources if you ask me, even if some campaigns have been done quite well.

 

EA don't like mods because it prolongs the life of a game past their intended pushing users onto a new game on demand date.

Look at Battlefield 2 for example, a new release of Project Reality was recently released.

 

Yeah but that's the point, they artificially want you to jump on to the next game to match EA's financial plannings.
We haven't had mods since BF2... it's not like that ever was in EA's intention to make those an option anyway, with the excuse of cheaters (which are there anyway without EA doing anything against them).

No guys, just keep the good memories, the franchise is dead, or not what we used to be anymore, depending on your pov. But it certainly is not BF2/3/2142/BC/4.

 

If they employ the level designers from BF3, then we got a chance of a solid game with solid game mechanics.

If they employ the level designers from BF4, BF1, BF5, then we don't.

All about the geometry, people. It's not about DX13 or w/e, it's not about RTX capable of calculating the atomic structure of oxygen in front of the player, it's not about particle systems and hell, it's not even about multiplayer; it's all about the geometry.

The raw length, breadth and height of the surroundings with which the player interacts with on a moment-by-moment basis - that's what makes this game genre awesome, or not.

 

Really ? What have DICE been trying to sell us lately ? A political agenda and a game no one wanted. Did it do some things right yes. The fact they gave up on a game that could of been saved by just giving the poeple what they wanted. Mostly everyone wanted a eastern front and a Dday chapter which was the turning point in the war. Dice claimed this was WW2 as we never seen it someone quoted "we didnt see the war at all " just a shallow puddle. If dice is going to come with some more Political Agenda then i hope it fails miserably because it has no place in games.

 

I think Bad Company 3 might look to much like BF V. I honestly thought BV5 was bad company 3 because of the trailer

 

Pretty much. I think it's a very forced inclusion that just doesn't belong in the genre. >99% of front troops were men, therefore it makes little sense to standardise women as playable characters.

Unfortunately, today we have people like Söderlund - an EA exec - that... let me just quote an article, actually:

How about explaining history to your daughter? Nah, let's just brainwash her with sugar coated fairy tales.
Let me clarify that I'd be more than happy to see exceptions in certain maps / contexts when it makes historical sense - there are many cool examples of female fighters - from the french resistance to soviet pilots / snipers.

 

You say this as if the game is historically accurate to begin with. It's a game. Get out of your shell and get over it. The fact that you're investing this much emotion into arguing against the inclusion of female characters in a video game is mind-boggling.

 

I feel like EA did learn a lesson with the outrage leading up to the release of Battlefield 5 and all the stupid decisions following it's release.. also Patrick no longer works for EA, I wonder why.. hmmm.

@yasamoka No one in their right mind has ever been angry at female characters being portrayed in video games, how it is done however... is very important, especially in a video game based on history, the Battlefield series is after all not Fortnite.

Had it been Battlefield 2143 there would have been no outrage at all... literally.. none.

 

What do you think "historical accuracy" means, exactly? It's not all black and white.
A game can range from being silly and arcadey (like BF Heroes) to hardcore simulators like Arma.

Previous Battlefield games were something in between, and its fans had grown accostumed to a certain degree of historical plausibility.

The problem was never specifically "females" but the addition of content that keeps moving the "plausibility lancet" down.
Whether it's female / cyborg / whacky-tattoed characters, or other features like making all weapons available to all sides... they all, IMHO, push the game in the wrong direction.

All these things are not evil per se, I wouldn't care if they were to be included in other games.
But when it comes to Battlefield, as a long time veteran since BF42, I have (or rather, had) certain expectations - which have not been met in a while.

If I sound emotionally involved it's because I have spent many of my teenage years playing BF42 mods and, having experienced the amazing work that some modders put into the game, I sometimes hope that EA can replicate that, or at the very least give us the tools to achieve so.
Especially considering the availability of modern game engines and vastly improved server / network performance over 15 years ago. So far I've only been disappointed...

 

I couldn't agree more as if you really notice what the character is that is shooting at you anyway. I'm in my mid 60's and I don't get this bias at all.

 

Been playing some Battlefield 1942 over the weekend, last time i played was in 2006.

Still a lot of fun, though the game hasn't aged very well controls wise, and most of it can't be changed.

Plenty of servers still packed.

 

Legendary franchise having a hard time due EA.