@Zoikon wrote:
@AntEater1997If dice just called this game something else , i would'nt care less. But by using battlefield as the name,certain expectations rise.
I vote for namechange to Battlezone. Then another studio can make a real Battlefield.
Not sure why they would need to change the name. I mean if you compare older Batttlefield games compared to the latest ones, they are quite different. It still is a battlefield game, may not be to someone's liking, but it's still battlefield.
@Zoikon wrote:
@AntEater1997 If dice just called this game something else , i would'nt care less. But by using battlefield as the name,certain expectations rise.
I vote for namechange to Battlezone. Then another studio can make a real Battlefield.
@Zoikon hey don't encroach on Battlezone, that is an awesome IP!
"Battlefield" might not die because of all of that.
But it might lose most of it's old Community that would enjoy a more classic BF game.
In exchange it will gain new people who like whatever this is and whatever it will become in the future. It will be called Battlefield but will be some kind of... idk how you could call this.
We classic BF lovers will have to wait for some other devs/publishers to fill the gap. I'm pretty sure the classic BF would still have a big audience and maybe a few years into the future someone will make a BF-like game because they know there is a disappointed BF community that is just waiting to pay almost any price for it.
I don't have any trust in DICE/EA to give us a real BF game ever again sadly.
@NiCeDiCe90Planetside 2 has been my go to game, plus keeping BF4 in rotation. In fact, I highly recommend Planetside 2 for those on PS4, PS5, and PC who want a Battlefield fix but are tired of going back to older games you've played for years.
This game could learn a lot from Planetside 2 on future map design, platoon/squad systems, and overall how to create a next level experience rather than just dropping an extra 64 players onto maps that aren't really much bigger than the 64 player versions.
