So i've finally gotten into BF4, with all the DLC, and it's chock full of BF2142 stuff.

• Theres hovertanks
• Railguns
• A map based around a giant mech factory, complete with concept art on the walls of 2142's walkers.
• turrets that shoot people out of pods like in 2142s titan mode, not to mention that carrier assault is just titan mode

So why the hell aren't we all expecting a battlefield 2143 out of dice? it seems to me like this is more than just fan service. The entire final stand DLC was devoted to battlefield 2142 stuff, this was also the last DLC put out for 4. As if they were hinting very strongly at something... how the ww1 rumors can gain traction and we can just ignore this is beyond me!

I certainly hope this is what they're doing, 2142 was great!

Apparently, all things are pointing towards that the new Battlefield will be set in WWI.

Whoops

@conker: He mentioned that at the end of the first paragraph. Whoops?

I don't think people are really expecting ww1. The opinion on the BF reddit is strongly that it will be 2142. There is a big group that wants ww2 but I doubt they expect it.

While a WW1 setting would be novel, it's very risky for one of EA's biggest franchises to take on a weird setting, they did that with hardline and that went poorly. 2142 did pretty well in it's day I believe.

@mikemcn: It's kinda funny that WW1 would be considered a weird setting when talked about next to a Battlefield 2142/3 but I get what you're saying. I'm not the target audience so I have no real dog in the fight, but I think both scenarios are equally as interesting.

Good to hear, i'm curious what the campaign would be like if it turns out to be the case. Granted that isnt the main draw of these games by a long shot but I thought 4 was a pretty huge improvement over 3 which was trash.

@mikemcn: I remember it dying out a lot faster than BF2, like BF2 still pushing several hundreds of servers while 2142 struggled to stay around even one hundred.

Well we're about 7 hours away from the official reveal.

The costume in the teaser implies a more historical setting and I'm predicting WW1. Or is it a red herring?

It's alt-history WW1

The MS dashboard pic confirms that the early leaks/rumours were true.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=202791371#post202791371

https://www.reddit.com/r/Battlefield/comments/4i5av0/new_battlefield_image_on_xbox_dashboard/

My longshot theory: The alt-history WW1 picture means it's actually Games Workshop doing what Games Workshop does in 2016...

Battlefield: Imperial Guard

@bbalpert: Oh godammnit not ANOTHER Warhammer licensed game!

@hassun: It's probably not, but what if...? WHAT IF?!?!?

:D

Huh.

Pre-order pack? xx.x8.16 ?

I'd be down for a sky captain and the world of tomorrow style WW1 game. Maybe we'll even get titan mode back but this time it's zeppelins? That could be dope.

I'm confused. Everyone is talking about this as an alt-history game and I don't see where they're getting that from.

@hassun said:

Huh.

That's really fucking dumb and I love it?

@friendlyphoenix: There are at least 1940 Battlefield games between Bf1 and Bf 1942.

That concept art posted above that is going around, I actually think it looks really awesome.

So I'm intrigued. Haven't played any since putting like 200 hours into Battlefield 2 but I would love to be drawn in again.

@friendlyphoenix: The "alt" part is just speculation as far as I can tell. A straight up WW1 game just seems weirder than an alt-history one I suppose? There wouldn't be all that much weapon/vehicle variety but whatever it ends up being they must be pretty sure they can make it work to make it the next "proper" numbered BF sequel.

@noval: There are rumours of the game taking place in 1920. The dude on the poster being black is also an interesting thing to note.

Harlem Hellfighters confirmed:

Why? Why WW1?

What technology (vehicle, weaponry, or otherwise) would make the early 1900s any exciting?

@white: Tanks, planes, subs, flamethrowers, gas?

A lot of the modern technology in war kind of started in WWI.

@hassun: I'm not sure about you, but just the design of WW1-era equipment is just off putting to me. I'm not looking forward to shooting bolt-action, slow reloading weaponry and running through trenches like a hedge maze. Unless this is like WW1 but with magic or something (cause the poster boy sure looks like he's from Hogwarts), I'm just disappointed that this is what happens to Battlefield.

Getting pretty spoilery now. (Sadly hiding images behind spoiler walls on GB doesn't seem to work.)

@white: There were weapons like the BAR and MP18 during WW1, not to mention a large variety of light machine guns.

I love this fantastically stupid name. It's like they looked at the reaction to the Xbox One name and said "THAT! WE WANT THAT!"

At least Xbox One had a reason behind it's dumb name. And I get that this does too (Because it's set in World War I) but hot dang it they should have gone with "The Battlefield."

MOAR! MOAR CONFUSING NAMES IN VIDEO GAMES! The Nintendo NX should be named the Nintendo Entertainment System and it should launch with a game called The Super Mario Brothers.

Why?! Why not? There's already so many modern shooters we reached a fatigue, just like there was a fatigue of WW2 shooters in the early 2000s. Lots of interesting stuff happened during WW1, it's the start of the technology showed on modern shooters and can be really exciting if they manage to write a good narrative for the single player, specially if they make it a bit alt-history, going more stylized and give players something like prototype weapons and vehicles based on real history.

If they do it right, this could be an exciting game. I've lost my interest for these types of shooters a long time ago, but I'm curious about this one now.

@hassun: It'd be kinda rad to ride in one of those tanks that's just armor, treads and like 5 machineguns.

@white: I think there is a general misconception about WWI at play here. Sure the Western front between Germany and Belgium/France was a pretty static affair, giving WWI it's most recognisable look, but you have to remember it was a world war. The war actually had pretty varied battlefields and battles.

Towards the end of the war you also started seeing more portable machine guns, shotguns and even submachine guns.

Add to this the rumours that it's actually an alternate history take on WWI and I think you might get the varied arsenal and theatres of war you prefer.

.

@capum15: Well they were hellish to actually be inside and insanely slow of but I know what you mean. Imagine chilling with your squad in one of these.

I'm super excited to see how DICE do WW1, credit to them for doing something different this time tound .

World War 1 as to be one of the most challenging settings for a multiplayer game. But can't wait to see more.

Makes me laugh that some folks are saying they're going back to World War 1, think folks are getting their wars mixed up.

@hassun: I have no doubt they were terrible to actually be in, but yeah. That thing is just ridiculous.

"Alright, let's put a big ol' cannon on the front." "What about infantry charges, sir?" "Hmm. Add machineguns." "One or two?" "Six." "What about the 'female' version, sir?" "Add two more."

Fun fact: The first game in the series Codename Eagle from 1999 was set in an alternate history WW1. I wouldn't mind them revisiting that.

The "alternate history" part also allowed them to have helicopters crashing into control points in 1917, as well as dropping motorbikes from zeppelins, so if they stick with that theme, I don't see why they couldn't let you do that again.

If it's really called Battlefield 1, along with Call of Duty's Infinite Warfare, someone really needs to teach these guys to come up with better names.

@fisk0: Ah I forgot that was a WWI game, not a WWII one.

I just posted this in another thread, but yeah I expect the alternate part to allow them to do some crazy stuff with the tech. But I do think that's for the better. I'm excited.

This will probably get it's own thread but that looked amazing.

Battlefield 1 is a shitty fucking name.