5 Things we want to see in the next Battlefield Game

Here's a list of things we want EA to add in the next Battlefield Game.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
FlexLuger1138d ago (Edited 1138d ago )

Ill be buying this on XB1, so first and foremost the two things I would like to see:

1)DX12 optimisation of the frostbite engine on XB1. We know the forstbite engine is getting a DX12 overhaul in the near future, so its only natural that this version of frostbite be applied to XB1.

2)Cloud based destruction on XB1. Crack down does it just fine. And this game would be a perfect candidate for the tech. sure that only applies to xb1, but so what? Its not like they designed the game around this tech. They can build the PC and PS4 versions as per the normal method. Im sure they will still be fine. Its just more building blowing up is all. Furthermore, why not use this tech if its available. If a 3rd party game can make good use of this tech then so be it. Parity is a last gen practice, that should die.

It does not effect the other versions if the XB1 version uses the cloud for more advanced levels of destruction. Same way those versions having higher resolutions does not effect the xbox users experience of the game on their platform. And nobody moans that you can play BF in 4K on PC but not on console. So I dont want to hear any of this "its not fair" talk.

TheBurger291137d ago

"2)Cloud based destruction on XB1. Crack down does it just fine." Oh really? I didnt know the game was out and that you played it!

"sure that only applies to xb1, but so what?" Yup just forget about the other two versions that will probably sell more than the x1 version. Plus its a great idea to make two versions of the game for no reason at all when they could easily add more destruction without having to use the cloud. Look at BC2, no cloud more destruction.

XBLSkull1137d ago

Totally needs crackdown level of destruction, let the game be all that it can be.

TheBurger291137d ago

Right! I miss BC2 destruction, being able to blow everything into little tiny bits was the best!

Immorals1137d ago

From the moment I first heard about cloud destruction, I thought of battlefield levolution.

The tech is perfect for it, imagine how much the map could dynamically change!

Parity is an unfortunate probability :(

FlexLuger1137d ago (Edited 1137d ago )

"Oh really? I didnt know the game was out and that you played it!"

What are you going to say next summer when it works as intended? Ill just leave it at that. I think its going to work. You are hoping it wont. Big difference and thats why its pointless opening the door for THAT conversation.

"Yup just forget about the other two versions that will probably sell more than the x1 version."

So what if they do? What does that have to do with a potentially cool idea for one version.Its not like MS would say no to the idea. They might even help out.

"Plus its a great idea to make two versions of the game for no reason at all

The reason is to push the envelope for how much destruction they can do on a BF game.So its not a waste at all.
It would work the same way crackdown does when in local mode. It can rely on the GPUs of those platforms entirely in the traditional way. Its not two versions..same game. one simply multiplies its physics when it goes online is all. Its not some uber complicated thing to do. You make the game like you intended...then you ADD cloud compute to the other one. PC will be the lead platform anyway and that version will use DX12. The bonus to this is swift porting and otimisation to xbox one. that frees up time to impliment azure and experienced gained from crackdown will aid that process.The PS4 version will run like all battlefields before it on PS4,with its own optisations for graphics and framerate. So I dont see the problem. The only reason a third party game cant use cloud compute is down to that devs resources. between MS, EA and DICE, I dont see that as a problem.

"when they could easily add more destruction without having to use the cloud."

As I stated..they could do that anyway...and THEN add the cloud compute on top to the xbox version.PS4 fans get the best version that the PS4 can offer. And xbox gamers get theirs.

Lets theory..if this happened ..why would PS fans be upset about it? xbox gamers should not have to miss out on this because PS fans may not think its fair. I dont buy that. The xbox version of the game has nothing to do with theirs. How does it effect PS4 gamers, if the XB1 version has more destruction and physics? Especially when it was only going to have a finte amount of destruction anyway. It does not use cloud compute but that does not mean the xbox version should not.Its like me saying its not fair that the XB1 version of BF4 runs at a lower resolution. It just sound like jealousy is the only reason for it to not happen. PC gamers play certain games in 4K. Is that unfair to console gamers too? You buy the hardware that gives you the experience you want.

And quite frankly BF5 is a game that should be using this tech on XB1.

D3TH_D33LR1137d ago

Unless Microsoft forks over the money to implement it, you're living a pipe dream. No developer is going to shell out the costs of developing a seperate more "advanced" version of destruction using the cloud for a massively smaller consumer base when everyone else will be content with the ps4 and PC version of the game. It just won't happen. I shouldn't have to explain why but money talks. And you'd better get your expectations in check for "cloud gaming" cuz again, unless Microsoft shells out the money for the extra costs, why bother? Cloud gaming will be a first party developer tool for Microsoft. There isn't enough money in it. Sorry, not sorry.

FlexLuger1137d ago (Edited 1137d ago )

"Unless Microsoft forks over the money to implement it"

Thats generally how it works, captain obvious.They already own the servers soooo.......

"I shouldn't have to explain why but money talks."

You DO realise we are talking about MS, here right? Do have anything to add other than the obvious? the own their own servers..lots of them. And seeing as we have already established that cost is the issue, tho only cost will be MS paying DICE/EA for the extra time while lending them the needed tech support. All of which MS ALREADY has in place.

Never said it would happen. Just saying it SHOULD happen.And it could. There is no technical reason why It cant. Just the issue of wether DICE want to take it to that level and will MS help them do it. Loving the dissagrees though...seems people hope it doesnt happen as badly as I want it too. lol . It does not change the fact that it is technically possible though. we will see.

GreenUp1137d ago

I would NOT like to see a 3d spotting system. Keep it in the 2d map like Battlefield 2.

I don't want to see squads spawning on eachother. ONLY the squad leader like Battlefield 2.

I don't want to see spawn beacons, and pulsating balls. Keep those out like Battlefield 2.

I don't want to see portable locking systems with AA/AT. Keep those out like Battlefield 2.

I don't want to see armored vehicles or boats with AT/AA shield walls. Keep those out like Battlefield 2.

I don't want to see these shrunken maps with 64 players that are made for 32 players max. The maps ever since BF3 with 64 players have been extremely small compared to Battlefield 2.

eyeDEVOUR1137d ago

Fuck it.. Just give me socom2 hd!!!!!

On topic.. I never got a chance to play bf2 and im sure it was the best. I will say that after MAG died out i did enjoy some bf3, but bf4 has the worst map designs ive ever seen in a game... They went overboard on the vertical layout in my opinion...

GreenUp1137d ago

BC1 went way south compared to BF2. The BC1 maps were designed for one mode in mind. Rush, which was great but Horrible for Conquest modes. The maps in BC1 were extremely linear/narrow.

MAG was cool. Didn't get into it though. MW2 or something had my attention at that point.

BF3 was an ugly tint/overlay/hue of blue on everything in the map. Suppression was awful, and Strike at Karkand was a huge letdown for me. They didn't include a few flags in that map for the revision and the map felt way too small for 64 players. Plus, getting to flags seemed faster compared to BF2.

BF2 was great. On PC and the Console version called Modern Combat. Still one of my favorite times in gaming with both including SOCOM 2 taking the cake for all games.

I'm just sad to see Battlefield go from Battlefield to Call Of Nooby.

eyeDEVOUR1137d ago

@ G^
Yeah i did notice that hue on some maps.. But alot of maps worked for me because ps3 only had 32players...

Socom2 forever tho... Miss me some nightstalker,desertglory and many others...

WellyUK1137d ago (Edited 1137d ago )

whats with the BF3 hate? BF3 has grown on me and a lot of people I know who weren't big fans of it when it launched, however with the great map design and Premium (which was 100% worth the price. Unlike BF4's). BF4 however is by far the worst BF DICE have made, bad maps, bad launch and feels like a copy and paste.

Remove 3d spotting
Don't bother making a SP ( as we have seen with Tomb Raider they aren't bothering with a MP so BF5 should pass on a SP as majority of people who care about bf5 will not want a SP.)
Bring back the stationary AA guns
Remove most Lock ons
Remove the OP boats if they even have them.
And finally, sort the map design out for the next one as BF4 has probably the worst maps for a FPS game ever.

JamesBroski1137d ago

I want a freaking party system like Battlefield 3. No idea why the heck they removed that.

spaceg0st1137d ago (Edited 1137d ago )

are you referring to the 'create a squad' feature they added to bf4 6+ months ago? where you invite your friends to a private squad pre-game and load into a map together?

swishersweets200311137d ago

it doesn't function properly like it did in bf3, you can't even invite people to the party on the ps4 version.

JamesBroski1137d ago

I don't think you can do that on PC. If so, it's really badly implemented.

spaceg0st1137d ago

An awful list.
1. Most bf players could care less for the campaign. Fact. Spend more valuable time on multiplayer.
2. The net codes already been improved drastically. No longer an issue
3. Longer revive times? Are you serious? It's already long enough, it's like 10 seconds already. Gtfo with that

Doesn't really seem like battlefield is your kind of game.

PizzaSteve1137d ago

I haven't even played BF4 campaign yet. BF3 campaign was so boring I don't remember if I even finished it. I'd be just fine if they don't put a campaign in the next one.

daBUSHwhaka1137d ago

The net code no longer an issue.WTF you playing

spaceg0st1135d ago (Edited 1135d ago )

umm, 823 Hours into Bf4 and still playing... you? Even the latest patch improved it even more. Added "Significantly Improved client to client damage delay by forcing all clients to send damage based on framerate instead of simulation rate".


despite trolls hating on bf4 even though they haven't played it since launch over 2 years ago, the game is, and has been for some time, in great form.

Paytaa1137d ago

Bad Company 3 or nothing at all. Battlefield 3, albeit fun at times, left a bad taste in my mouth going forward. BC2 was the game that dragged me off the MW2 hype and I spent so much time in it. It had a decent campaign too which was refreshing but BF3 and BF4 campaigns were trash and were just bad scripted tech demos.

Show all comments (25)