BF 5 set in WW1 according to retailer

Rollins

Rollins

Well-Known Member
Sep 11, 2013
13,588
15,520
4,280
http://m.ign.com/articles/2016/02/2...edly-set-in-world-war-1-according-to-retailer

BATTLEFIELD 5 REPORTEDLY SET IN WORLD WAR 1, ACCORDING TO RETAILER
Feb, 26 2016
Trench warfare.
According to a listing by an online retailer, Battlefield 5 will be a tactical shooter set in World War 1.

The listing on German retailer World of Games, originally found on Twitter, lists EA's upcoming shooter as "Mehrspieler Taktik Shooter im 1. Weltkrieg" or "Multiplayer tactical shooter in WW1" when translated to English. What's more, it also reveals the game will be releasing on October 26.

While the listing has since been updated to just say "multiplayer tactical shooter," Twitter user Thrillho managed to nab a screenshot of the original description.

We've known developer DICE has been working on a new entry in the Battlefield series and it would once again take place in a military setting. Beyond that however, we haven't heard much. And while this is far from official confirmation, it still gives us an idea of where the series could be heading.

We've reached out to EA for comment and will update if we hear anything back.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TDbank24
Don't know how I feel bout that. If it was COD id be fine with it, however, BF is a totally different animal with vehicles and what not...
 
I would not mind this so long as there are lots of fireworks.
 
Rollins said:
http://m.ign.com/articles/2016/02/2...edly-set-in-world-war-1-according-to-retailer

BATTLEFIELD 5 REPORTEDLY SET IN WORLD WAR 1, ACCORDING TO RETAILER
Feb, 26 2016
Trench warfare.
According to a listing by an online retailer, Battlefield 5 will be a tactical shooter set in World War 1.

The listing on German retailer World of Games, originally found on Twitter, lists EA's upcoming shooter as "Mehrspieler Taktik Shooter im 1. Weltkrieg" or "Multiplayer tactical shooter in WW1" when translated to English. What's more, it also reveals the game will be releasing on October 26.

While the listing has since been updated to just say "multiplayer tactical shooter," Twitter user Thrillho managed to nab a screenshot of the original description.

We've known developer DICE has been working on a new entry in the Battlefield series and it would once again take place in a military setting. Beyond that however, we haven't heard much. And while this is far from official confirmation, it still gives us an idea of where the series could be heading.

We've reached out to EA for comment and will update if we hear anything back.
Click to expand...
do_want.jpg
 
WW1 was trench warfare. Not sure that translates in to a Battlefield game all that well. WW2 is far more suitable.

Having said that...a complete change of pace and warfare would be nice.
 
I really don't know how I feel about this as far as a battlefield game. I mean the Battle of Verdun? That was no man's land. Are we going to blow up trees that we're already blown up?
 
I'm not sure how I feel about this. On one hand, I trust Dice will do a great job and the modern/future warfare has been done to death over the past few years.
On the other I'm not sure how well WW1 will translate into a Battlefield game with the limited weapons available. Sure there's still tanks and biplanes but I do like my assault rifles and lmg's. I'll definitely pick it up because it's Dice and Battlefield but I think WW2 or Vietnam would have been a better choice.
 
Two Pennys Worth said:
I'm not sure how I feel about this. On one hand, I trust Dice will do a great job and the modern/future warfare has been done to death over the past few years.
On the other I'm not sure how well WW1 will translate into a Battlefield game with the limited weapons available. Sure there's still tanks and biplanes but I do like my assault rifles and lmg's. I'll definitely pick it up because it's Dice and Battlefield but I think WW2 or Vietnam would have been a better choice.
Click to expand...
Ooh yeah, 5 mph tank warfare! Now with a turning speed of a whopping 20 degrees per second! Biplanes would be cool though. I'm sure there were plenty of instances of non-trench contact as well. Machine guns were real then too. Hows about some horseback battles!
 
Can't wait to get trench foot and then have my skin melt off my face from mustard gas.
 
Frozpot said:
Ooh yeah, 5 mph tank warfare! Now with a turning speed of a whopping 20 degrees per second! Biplanes would be cool though. I'm sure there were plenty of instances of non-trench contact as well. Machine guns were real then too. Hows about some horseback battles!
Click to expand...

But for the low price of $5 you can increase that tank speed to 6 mph.
 
BF + CoD x history and future of wars = every iteration of pop FPS so far and the foreseeable future. :\ Not judging the fans, just sick of it. Like Madden and guitar hero.
 
I swear, I need a job with these people, because they are missing a prime opportunity!

Battlefield 4: PTSD!

You have so many options! Elderly people vs hospital caretakers! Flashbacks! Dementia based flashback involving The Golden Girls and Mattlock!

And a running commentary that we don't support our troops after we bring them back!

Vehicles range from stealth bombers, to mobility scooters and the walking frames with tennis balls on the feet!
 
Bellybama said:
I swear, I need a job with these people, because they are missing a prime opportunity!

Battlefield 4: PTSD!

You have so many options! Elderly people vs hospital caretakers! Flashbacks! Dementia based flashback involving The Golden Girls and Mattlock!

And a running commentary that we don't support our troops after we bring them back!

Vehicles range from stealth bombers, to mobility scooters and the walking frames with tennis balls on the feet!
Click to expand...

Seems you are also missing the big opportunity. Battlefield: Barbie & Ken go to war,is so the obvious direction to go in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Registered User 1
I doubt this is true. BF needs to go back to WW2. For me, 1942 is still the best BF game. The balance was so much better just because of the time period. Planes and tanks were good, but still vulnerable, etc.
 
Kerosene31 said:
I doubt this is true. BF needs to go back to WW2. For me, 1942 is still the best BF game. The balance was so much better just because of the time period. Planes and tanks were good, but still vulnerable, etc.
Click to expand...
WWI or WWII is fine with me.

I also like the settings better..... crumbled buildings, dirt and craters, night time maps (WaW had these). The modern warfare settings are too clean, bright and neat.
 
BF is usually pretty bad in terms of SP/story at least lately, so won't get my hopes up. But the setting definitely excites me more than the overdone modern or futuristic setting.
 
I dont know about this guys. The weapons in WW1 aren't exactly videogame material. There were heavy MGs, but there were not a lot of man portable machine guns and sub machine guns. Some existed, but they were not common. A lot of the foot solders were packing bolt action fire arms. Super cool and fun to shoot in real life, kind of boring in a video game.
 
No thanks, I'd rather keep it modern. There is still so much that can be done with modern settings. More factions, more destruction, more players, more abilities. They should take notes from ArmA, some quality expansion packs and cool features would stand it out from the competition.
 
Almighty_bob said:
I dont know about this guys. The weapons in WW1 aren't exactly videogame material. There were heavy MGs, but there were not a lot of man portable machine guns and sub machine guns. Some existed, but they were not common. A lot of the foot solders were packing bolt action fire arms. Super cool and fun to shoot in real life, kind of boring in a video game.
Click to expand...
I think that if they get really creative they could pull it off, but I feel that with firearms, you'd need at least semi-automatic functionality outside of snipers to keep it exciting. Unless they up the stakes a bit. You can certainly do it, but you'd have to slow the Pace waaay down. It would make MGs really scary though, and that might be worth it.
 
Ver
Frozpot said:
I think that if they get really creative they could pull it off, but I feel that with firearms, you'd need at least semi-automatic functionality outside of snipers to keep it exciting. Unless they up the stakes a bit. You can certainly do it, but you'd have to slow the Pace waaay down. It would make MGs really scary though, and that might be worth it.
Click to expand...
Very true, and from what I understand, MGs were super scary in real life for those guys. One of the reasons why there was trench warfare.
 
Almighty_bob said:
Ver
Very true, and from what I understand, MGs were super scary in real life for those guys. One of the reasons why there was trench warfare.
Click to expand...

Lol, MGs are still super scary in real life! And if they can capture THAT, I'd be very interested indeed! Of course, we have better ways to deal with them now-a-days, so they aren't quite the super weapon that they were.

I think there is a lot of potential, but they'd really have to nail it. Imagine a mustard gas attack that drives you out of the trench, and into the open!
I imagine there would only be one or two trench levels, with the rest being small scale special ops.
 
Dmega007 said:
No thanks, I'd rather keep it modern. There is still so much that can be done with modern settings. More factions, more destruction, more players, more abilities. They should take notes from ArmA, some quality expansion packs and cool features would stand it out from the competition.
Click to expand...

l2lw4Zz.jpg


I don't know, that's some pretty good destruction right there...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Two Pennys Worth and Frozpot
BDaddyK said:
l2lw4Zz.jpg


I don't know, that's some pretty good destruction right there...
Click to expand...

Realistically speaking DICE wouldn't give us that much power. I would rather see more destruction on maps like Siege of Shanghai. I would love to see a higher player count and more factions. Instead of having maps where it's just two sides, make it 3 and have each battle it out. Artillery, bombers, the works.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back