Tornadoes, Tsunamis, Dust Storms, And whatever else it brings. Why? Like really, if the rumors are true, why push for this? Like who in the world thinks BATTLEFIELD at DICE and says "MORE WEATHER"...How can this be pushed and anyone taking it seriously as marketing for an online first person shooter, like honestly? The only two ways I see anyone coming up with this idea is either because they were working at home and one of their kids gave a suggestion, or two used as a tool during development to destroy maps to check the engines destruction capabilities.Little rain or something is cool, but a natural disaster, come on, you lost me. I understand it could be a false rumor, but really there is a tornado in one of the leaked pictures.Nothing about over the top weather effects seems fun in my mind, sorry not sorry. To me what I picture is little visual annoyances like water droplets visuals everywhere on my screen and extra stuff floating about.so they can market Frostbite effects and so on.Why do I get the feeling DICE will use this the same way as behemoths from BF1? Oh, you just beat the other team, bam they get a tornado... You beat them again, they get 5 tornadoes, 2 tsunamis and a massive dust storms made of dried acid LOLAll jokes aside, I honestly hope natural disasters are fake news like round earth, Dinosaurs and the big bang.I just came up with some artwork for the upcoming Battlefield.

The cynic in me is leaning towards leakers just bigging up dynamic weather.

I just want maps that flow well. Good design is paramount. Scripted stuff be it destruction or weather ruins the flow of a map. Let us shoot each other in well designed maps, leave the cute stuff to single player games.

Agreed @x--Fusi--x ,I think the 'natural disasters' should more work as game/map changing events. As it was in aka Paracel Storm, as when that kicked in, then helis and the attack boats suddenly lost much of their influence on the gameplay. And the strategy turned more into infantry-based guerilla warfare, fighting from one island to the next on foot !So epic change to the game dynamics, weapon loadouts and team tactics to win the battle!

Didn't BF3's Aftermath DLC have earthquakes?Weather events etc add another layer to the game as long as they are server side though. Nowt worse being the only player on Sinai with the sandstorm......

I think the natural disasters, if done right, could add an epic scale to the game. I'm willing to give them a chance.

Honestly Though, Who Really Thought Battlefield Needs Natural Disasters?

28 Replies

Forkbeard84
4 years ago
I think the natural disasters, if done right, could add an epic scale to the game. I'm willing to give them a chance.
x--Fusi--x
Seasoned Ace
4 years ago
If it's true then it sure comes because they say.
We do it because we can and not because we need it!
The weather is nice, but I don't have to be killed by lightning or a tornado. The enemies with their weapons and tanks are enough for me.
CyberDyme
4 years ago
Agreed @x--Fusi--x ,
I think the 'natural disasters' should more work as game/map changing events. As it was in aka Paracel Storm, as when that kicked in, then helis and the attack boats suddenly lost much of their influence on the gameplay. And the strategy turned more into infantry-based guerilla warfare, fighting from one island to the next on foot !
So epic change to the game dynamics, weapon loadouts and team tactics to win the battle!
x--Fusi--x
Seasoned Ace
4 years ago
@CyberDyme I can already imagine that at the beginning of the round we would fight for a flag on land, then there could be a tidal wave and you need boats to get to the flag. But please no fatal natural events as a behemoth (train) BF1 replacement.
Trokey66
Seasoned Ace
4 years ago
Didn't BF3's Aftermath DLC have earthquakes?
Weather events etc add another layer to the game as long as they are server side though. Nowt worse being the only player on Sinai with the sandstorm......
BGHFlakjacket
4 years ago
@Popa2caps I think the behemoths in BF1 just added to the winning teams score. They were not game changers. Rarely did I see a losing team make a comeback because of a Behemoth.
Natural events could be done well but I dont want to see one every game. It should be a random event in maybe one out of ten games.
VOLBANKER_PC
Seasoned Ace
4 years ago
@Popa2capsDICE should focus on what matters instead of having each new Battlefield title feature various gimmick-type ideas like this weather stuff.
Rev0verDrive
4 years ago
It adds another level of realism to the game world. It can also help with client performance on large maps depending on the approach. BF2 had heavy fog to reduce line of sight through occlusion. If it's not rendered it's not eating ram, cpu and gpu resources. BF6 maps are more than likely going to be HUGE. Supposedly with 128p support they'll need to be.
Noodlesocks
4 years ago
It sounds like yet another instance of Dice Sweden flexing it's designers' creative juices without taking into consideration whether it is really relevant to the game, whether or not it's going to add anything to gameplay or whether or not it will be fun for the players. It sounds like something they are just tossing into the game because they thought it sounded cool and wanted to play around with something thought up during a design meeting.
m1k3ol
Hero
4 years ago
@Popa2caps so, uh, BF4 Paracel levolution?