It's gonna fucking suck, won't it?

>crazy ambitious ideas
I bet they think having a modern setting with an option for your character to have tits is "crazy ambitious".

Attached: 1285368023609.jpg (219x265, 14.17K)

Probably, unfortunately. I wish they'd make maps based on good gameplay then have the art department come in

I'm disappointed they didn't use the name Battlefield: V(ietnam).

They could still do Battlefield: VI(etnam), but it's probably going to be fucked, they should have really saved WWII for a later entry.

I hope it has more disabled characters.

I think it’s hilarious that my friends list get tricked EVERY fucking battlefield release. They get hyped, buy it, start playing, and within a week they are on to something else. It’s like just give me the $60 and I’ll give you a cup and ball to keep you occupied longer. And have more fun.

As long as DICE is involved, yes, it will suck.

>yfw it's just 3 or 4 but now has options for blue hair and gender selection and has dumbed down combat like 5
>CRAZY AMBITIOUS GUIZE

>1 joke

Future setting is the expectation, that way EA can make more fucktarded design decisions and then hide behind muh suspension of disbelief when they get called out on it.

Thats just 3 with more guns

just fire the numales and trannies that took over DICE and get someone to make 2143, fucks sake EA
arent Visceral still around, Hardline was fucking dope
give it tothem

V is for vagina.
Future could work I guess, wait, then V was future?

nuh I feel like it'll be good, they had 3 years for fucks sake

Fucking hell, I thought I was the only man that gained some enjoyment out of hardline. Heist mode was fun

Battlefield in a nutshell is pretty much all snipers and vehicle nazis. And when they try to break the mold with Hardline it flopped despite being a blast to play because their audience are people who live in scopes.

Attached: sipne.jpg (1280x800, 87.11K)

Why are they trying to compete with MW? People don't play BF for a better CoD experience, they play cuz they want to destroy shit and get in fat ass battles

BFV's core gameplay ain't all that bad and both V and 1 had top notch graphical fidelity. What ruined them for me were anachronistic customisation options, stupid weapon decisions and EA's cynical decision to court woke culture by injecting 2020s politics into games set in time periods with their own deep political backdrops.

battlefield has been shit ever since they went after the console tards with bad company

Hardline didn't do anything interesting.

I liked Hardline too. Best modern setting imo. Shouldn't have called it battlefield and it would have succeeded. Might as well turn it f2p now it's dead

>crazy ambitious ideas
>when every nu battlefield is just an incredibly dumbed down version of 1942

I don't think WW2 had to wait, I think what made it a terrible WW2 game is their absolute refusal to cover ground that they already did in BF1942, which is an absolutely fucking retarded hill to die on. On top of that, what little stuff that was left out of 1942 was never capitalized on. No Dunkirk? Winter War? Fucking Leningrad? The sheer laziness on the part of the dev team's creative sector is simultaneously staggering and totally unsurprising.

That's on top of the typical SJW shoehorning, terrible balancing/class design, and forced teamplay that can't work in a 32 man team of casual players, obviously.

Hardline was actually a lot of fun. I think it bothered people that it was so similar to bf4 for $60 but man I enjoyed the fast paced gameplay. The maps all had a lot of character to them

BF1 was based

its not just that, you have to be a literal fake battlefield fan to not see what they did there
brought back ziplines/grappling hooks from specops
upped the tickrate
transport vehicles that are actually mobile but vulnerable to small arms
interrogation into enemy reveal
like you said great gamemodes such as heist and that car one

everyone who cried about hardline not being "real battlefield" I wonder where these faggits are at now, and what they think about the shit battlefield has actually turned into
fucking assholes, and they didnt just "not play" the game either, after release I remember lots of fucking whining about gun balance, specifically the tight hipfire spread of smgs and the range of shotguns, which resulted in actually usable shotguns and guns that didnt need to be ads on targets within 10 meters, it was gun heaven

There hasn't been a good Battlefield game for 7 fucking years. Even COD had a good game to come out within that time frame.

Attached: cover1.jpg (800x450, 91.69K)

Counterpoint, Battlefield was getting stale before they mixed it up with Bad Company. 2142 was much like 2 which was much like 1942. They were fun, but also kinda slow and straight faced. Apart from loopzook and run people over with jihad jeeps there wasn't a whole lot of the chaos that is the series' calling card. Bad Company 1 wasn't so great but Bad Company 2 with its destructible environments and general high speed low drag approach to things really freshened the series up. The campaign wasn't bad either.

it's just gonna be yet another modern warfare setting, and honestly i see why considering what they've done wit historical settings in recent games.

Attached: bf.jpg (349x713, 124.85K)

bc1 had environments that were much more destructible so saying bc2 with "its destructible environments" is disingenous

long games finished with the entire map levelled and covered in craters, youre only shilling bc2 because youre probably a mustard and cant admit that battlefield was actually innovated on consoles, with modern combat and its really fun sp campaign with hot swaps, and consequently bc1

it's going to be awesome, i am sure that EA has learned from their mistakes. i hope it will have even more cute waifus, just tone down a bit with the death screams tho.

Attached: Battlefield V Screenshot 2020.06.04 - 19.42.47.34.jpg (3840x2160, 382.39K)

hardline was better than most games in the BF series, military warfare kiddies just can't handle it.

Nah, they’re pretty distinct from one another. 2142 in particular is the most unique game in the whole series. I can only see your opinion coming from someone who didn’t actually play the games

BC1 didn't have buildings that could be collapsed, same with BF1943 (because they're both on Frostbite 1.0) so I have no idea WTF you're on about.
>The Frostbite game engine allows 90% of the environment to be destroyed, including buildings, vegetation (including trees, grass, and bushes), vehicles, other players and the ground itself. For gameplay purposes, the frames of some buildings and objects remain indestructible to prevent total destruction of key points and to prevent the map from being completely flat.

I didn't like it at all. But that maybe just me, i hate WW1/2 settings a lot.

Attached: 15748710197390.jpg (871x1080, 314.49K)

Of course, you don't need good peoples to copy and paste the same game modes every time you start making a new one.

They are releasing ANOTHER Battlefield game??????????????????

Attached: 1593944725855.jpg (900x600, 128.78K)

I heard they were thinking of implementing the jump feature!

>Battlefield 6
>Actually Battlefield 16
Why do people like to buy the same shit every year?

what are YOU on about
bc1 had destruction pretty much everywhere, whereas bc2 traded le destruct building for impenetrable buildings scattered around the map

I can see them running around like mega man because they have only one arm

>t. retard who hasn't played BC1, BC2, or BF3 in over a decade

Attached: 1587078990150.webm (720x540, 391.48K)

go back to bf3 design, everything about bfv felt so sterile

I miss bad company 2

when bc2 came out, all everyone talked about was the "nerfed" destruction, zoomer mczoom zoom