Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Annual Battlefield?

Options
  • 07-10-2011 5:16pm
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 2,789 ✭✭✭


    How would you like EA to bring out a Battlefield every year? With another studio working on the Bad Company series?

    (2013) Bad Company 3 » (2014) Battlefield 4 » (2015) Bad Company 4 etc.

    I could imagine EA would want to do something like this taking from the COD template, similar to yearly Maddens.


Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,169 ✭✭✭Zomg Okay


    grizzly wrote: »
    (2013) Bad Company 2 (with fresh lick of paint) » (2014) Battlefield 3 (with fresh lick of paint) » (2015) Bad Company 2 (with another fresh lick of paint) etc.

    FYP. There's a reason Battlefield doesn't get a yearly release - DICE aren't content with calling an old game with a handful of new maps, weapons and gimmicks a 'new game'.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,692 ✭✭✭Dublin_Gunner


    The every 2 years idea isn't bad.

    SO each year there'd either be a bad company ir BF.

    That's what happened with BF2 / 2142 and their add ons.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,169 ✭✭✭Zomg Okay


    The every 2 years idea isn't bad.

    SO each year there'd either be a bad company ir BF.

    That's what happened with BF2 / 2142 and their add ons.

    Every two years wouldn't be too bad, but yearly is a disaster waiting to happen. In my opinion though, a game shouldn't be released until its good and ready. Like Bethesda, for example, they want to make sure their games are great and as a result there's been a five year gap between The Elder Scrolls IV and V.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,041 ✭✭✭Havermeyer


    Zomg Okay wrote: »
    Every two years wouldn't be too bad, but yearly is a disaster waiting to happen. In my opinion though, a game shouldn't be released until its good and ready. Like Bethesda, for example, they want to make sure their games are great and as a result there's been a five year gap between The Elder Scrolls IV and V.

    And ten years between Fallout 2 and 3 - albeit it with other issues, apart from the game itself.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,169 ✭✭✭Zomg Okay


    nummnutts wrote: »
    And ten years between Fallout 2 and 3 - albeit it with other issues, apart from the game itself.

    Bethesda didn't make Fallout 2, so Fallout 3 was only in development for four years.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,422 ✭✭✭Fenix


    Just stumbled upon this;
    Just because the latest Battlefield has a serious tone, that doesn't mean DICE won't ever go silly again. It's possibly they may make another installment in the off-beat Battlefield: Bad Company subseries.

    "Well, we haven't killed Bad Company!" said producer Patrick Liu in an interview with Guardian. "But we can only make so many games. Be patient – there might be something else coming up…"

    So, pencil Bad Company 3 in for 2012? Not quite.

    "We always have a couple of projects going on – some of them die, but some are more fruitful. We don't have any plans to make Battlefield an annual title – we want to make it ourselves we don't want anyone else doing it!" said Liu. "And no studio can make an annual franchise by themselves – well, the sports titles can but they're a very different breed."

    The Bad Company games are focused on a four-man squad of misfit soldiers in the US Army. Their unit, the titular "Bad Company," is where the Army sticks all their troublemakers. Though they're ill-disciplined jokers and use unorthdox methods, the squad is extremely skilled and often finds themselves on top secret, high priority missions. Bad Company tries to be a little more "Hollywood" than the standard Battlefield games, which are generally trying to go for that "true war" vibe.

    Bad Company 2's ending left the door wide open for a sequel so DICE clearly had some desire to make BC3. The question's more likely "When are they going to make it it?" rather than "Are they going to make it?"

    Thought it apt.


  • Site Banned Posts: 317 ✭✭Turbine


    I don't if it was in the same interview as above, but Patrick Liu has ruled out turning Battlefield into an annual franchise:

    http://bf3blog.com/2011/10/bad-company-3/
    In a recent interview, DICE’s Patrick Liu gave a bit information on the other Battlefield series: Bad Company, where he spoke of the possibility of a Bad Company 3 in the future. Lui said that “we haven’t killed Bad Company”, but noted that they didn’t want to hand over Bad Company 3 or a future Bad Company title to another developer. Lui said that “No studio can make an annual franchise by themselves”, which reiterates DICE’s previous comments on not making Battlefield an annual franchise.
    It also looks like we won't see Bad Company 3 out before 2013.
    As of now, all of DICE resources are geared towards finishing and shipping Battlefield 3, then supporting it with post-launch content such as DLC, updates, patches etc. On top of that, there’s also the Wii U version of the game, slated for launch in 2013.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,685 ✭✭✭✭BlitzKrieg


    uhmm...


    battlefield is already yearly

    2002 -bf1942
    2003 - 2 add on packs of 1942
    2004 -vietnam
    2005 -bf2
    2006 - add on pack + 2 booster packs
    2007 -2142 + booster pack + modern combat
    2008 -bad company
    2009 - battlefield heros bf1943
    2010 -bad company 2
    2011 -bf3


Advertisement