The Beastcast this week discussed a Venture Beat article from Jeff Grubb that reports Battlefield is jumping on the WWII train this year. I can't say I'm surprised, and I know a lot of the staff here aren't very excited about AAA games' renewed interest in storming beaches, but Battlefield has been my timewaster game since the original Battlefield 1942 roughly 15 years ago. I'm very excited to see what DICE does with its new (old) setting.

Pros

Battlefield I was a really surprising entry in the series, in no small part because the game felt meaningfully different because of its unusual setting. A higher number of slow-firing weapons made close combat feel incredibly tense, poison gas is a powerful range-closer, and vehicles like the landship were a fun change from the usual 'truck with turreted cannon' design. I also think BF I was the best game since Bad Company 2 in terms of environmental destruction, striking a good balance of destructible buildings and fragile set-dressing like fences and even foxholes. Lastly, Operations is a fantastic new game mode, the child of Battlefield's greats--Conquest and Rush. Hopefully BF V doubles down on how to make its WWII setting feel unique, keep environments destructible, and further improve the Operations mode with better balancing and eclectic maps to choose from.

Cons

Speaking of balancing...BF I's map balance was potentially some of the worst in the series, suffering from an excess of chokepoints and some very lopsided Operations maps. That isn't to say all of the game's maps were terrible, but when they were, it was extremely noticeable. There's also the strange matter of character customisation and progression--two things that were worse than Battlefields past in large part because of DICE's interpretation of weapons at the time. Gone are the days of tricking out DMRs with personal scopes, grips, and accessories; most weapons in BF 1 simply had three variants, usually the same style variants between weapon types (most all LMGs had a light-weight version, a scoped version, and a foregrip version). This approach, as well as the War Bonds system for purchasing upgrades, often felt well-meaning but stale. I hope BF V's maps are a lot more consistent in quality, and that the progression and upgrade mechanics are a little more free-form and exciting.

So what do you guys think? I hunger for hot takes.

**EDIT** I guess I should clarify: I'm using "Boots on the Ground" as a synonym for "takes place in World War II" because of the ridiculous overuse of the phrase during marketing for COD: WWII last year. Don't worry, Battlefield isn't getting wallrunning (yet).

Haven't all Battlefield games been BotG?

Loved Battlefield 1 so I'm excited for what they bring to WW2 again. The campaign in BF1 was neat so I'd like to see them do something similar for BFV

I really hope they’d expand upon the Operations mode greatly in this game. Not only did Operations add a new and more strategic type of mode, the vast scope of it gave it this intense/cinematic feel that you don’t ever get from multiplayer games. Combine this with certain theaters in WW2 and I feel like the open nature of this multiplayer mode can create truly special experiences.

It's fucking wild that a phrase used to describe the potential American invasion of Syria is being used to sell video games. We live in hell.

If it's WW2 and doesn't have any gameplay affecting lootboxes I'm keen as hell. I've really enjoyed Battlefield 1 and hope they ignore people whinging about lack of tacticool shit. I think the overabundance of weapon customisation was the bane of BF4. It was all potato grips and laser sights and boring shit. BF1 system of boiling those into "this one has a long range scope" or "this one has better hipfire" is all you need. I shouldn't need to go to symthic to determine which weapon loadout is actually best for cqc.

So I read the article, but I don't see anywhere about this being a "boots on the ground" game. Maybe I misunderstood, but when I hear that phrase, I think very infantry based and land combat. There's none of this mentioned except that it's going to be WWII.

I'm totally fine with the WWII setting though. The only thing I hope for is that we get multiple factions to play as. I think BF1 was so refreshing because it was a setting that we rarely see in gaming with different sides. Sure an operation for D-Day would be cool, but we've played through it so many times in other games that I almost wouldn't even be bothered if it wasn't included. It would really get my attention if we got every major front and faction represented in this game.

I mean, it would be so easy for DICE just to do a WWII skin job over the mechanics of BF1 and just call it a different game. They have potential to improve on BF1, so let's hope they don't get lazy with their success on it and make something really great.

On a side note, that rumor about a Bad Company 3 game in Vietnam has me wishing that to be real so bad...

Boots hovering 1 inch off the ground. That way they don't have to animate walking.

If they do this it would be the first time I buy a season pass for a game... Ever.

I would never stop playing this theoretical game ever, basically.

@whitestripes09: This was surely a reference not to LITERAL tactics, but the concept that Call of Duty WW2 was called "Boots on the ground" over and over a billion times by the devs. Basically just short speak for "back to basics/WW2 setting"

Even though Infinite Warfare was my favorite CoD in a long time and it failing to sell kind of fucked me...

Can't wait to find out how many lootboxes are required to get new weapons.

@impartialgecko: It's not really that wild considering the number of recent Battlefield and Call of Duty games that have involved pretty unsubtle facsimiles of very recent wars in the Middle East.

@hnke: I guess I have a slightly different reaction to between trading on America's wars for sheer recognition and using the actual PR slogans used by the US government to demarcate drone warfare from invasion to sell your videogame about WW2 as if they're the same thing. There is no subtext anymore huh, we're just saying the quiet part loud now.

I'm pretty intrigued by it. I just hope they can figure out their progression angle better at launch compared to BF1. I think the ability to customize weapons would be a nice returning feature and help give players more of an identity. I'd like to see Operations return too, that's a really great mode that I think would work super well for WW2.

A D-Day Operations Mode would be prettttyyyyy great.

Definitely my favorite part of BF1.

I wouldn't say they are jumping on the trend as WW2 is the next logical step from Battlefield 1, i think as long as those games have cool vehicles and maps they can be set in any period and be fun to play.

I've always loved Battlefield as a series, but the historical angle of BF1 was by far my favorite part of it. Really started me on a WWI history kick.

I'll say though. As someone who always considered Conquest THE mode of the franchise, in BF1 I exclusively play Operations and it would be heartbreaking if they didn't move forward with that.

Don't all FPS games make you put your boots on the ground? Unless you're doing that commander mode i guess.

Battlefield has historically never hidden weapon unlocks behind loot boxes. Only cosmetics. After the Battlefront mess it would be surprising for them to do this with the next Battlefield. But anything is possible.

@impartialgecko: My understanding was that the COD community used BotG as a way to differentiate from the jetpack games. I'm not sure where the naming originally came from, but it's been bouncing around way longer than the marketing cycle for WW2.

@e30bmw: most recently, it's the phrase used by the Obama administration to differentiate the drone war in the Middle East from actually invading to depose Assad. i.e."there will be no boots on the ground" meant "we're still going to turn the region into swiss cheese but dead troops are unpopular." There may be a older context in which it was used but that's my primary recollection of it.

@dgtlty: There are a lot of rumours at the moment but this one (https://www.usgamer.net/articles/battlefield-2-world-war-2-dice-ea-loot-box) seems very believable. You don't follow up Battlefront with anything but the safest move.

https://kotaku.com/after-the-loot-box-fury-the-people-behind-the-next-bat-1823475844/amp

Jason Schreier seems to be reporting on it too and he's got a lot of inside scoops.

The term "boots on the ground" has been around for ages now as shorthand for infantry operations. It's not a new thing and I don't understand why people are making such a big deal about it in this thread.

I'm sad that those Bad Company 3 rumors didnt pan out but i'm not surprised they're going in this direction. It's the safest most boring thing they could have done so of course they did it. I'm sure it will look really good and sell really well though.

@impartialgecko: boots on the ground does not originate with Syria...

It just refers to infantry in country. No need for all the emotion swirling around the term in this thread.

I am interested to see what they do with WW2 but honestly wish they were doing something more interesting. There are conflicts with a lot less coverage in the industry, and a lot of interesting space to explore. I'd live a vietnam Battlefield that isn't just an expansion.

skip.

@impartialgecko said:

The US already has "boots on the ground" in Syria, i.e. US troops. And while this might be the first time you've heard the term, it's pretty well-worn at this point. You can find early-internet articles online pondering if (Bill) Clinton should put "boots on the ground" in Bosnia.

Though it would still be an anachronism re: WW2. First usage of the term was in 1980.

I don't trust EA to deliver a satisfying product anymore. They can make it set in a carnival where players throw pies at each other and I still wouldn't care.

@boatorious: Good to know the phrase has even more baggage that I first thought.

Battlefield 1 was terrible so I have no real excitement for a WWII BF game. Bf3 and 4 were amazing and it bums me out they've taken it back in time when the guns aren't fun to use and the vehicles suck.

After the Bf4 dlc teased mechs and had ODST style drop pods and hover tanks I was hoping for a near future BF game that blended modern military stuff with some very light sci-fi future stuff thrown in. That would have been rad but Dice doesn't seem to be in the business of making fun games anymore.

@odinsmana: 2142 has Hovertanks, mechs and cool dropship shit. None of which are "very light scifi" so I imagine he'd be more after the Advanced Warfare tech level which is in my opinion the most boring option available. But I think WW2 guns and vehicles are the most fun so what do I know.

@mems1224: I remember being excited during this past wave of scifi shooters (recent Call of Dutys, Titanfall, etc.) because it felt like the stars had aligned for 2143 to get made...then the world/consumer-base collectively decided they hated the future and here we are. The worst part is, if public interest takes a decade to change eras again, we won't be seeing a future BF game for a very long time.

@hayt: You have a point, but he also said that BF 4 teasing mechs and hovertanks was what made him want a sci-fi bf,so it might qualify for his definition of light sci-fi.

I accidentally deleted my first post, so for those trying to follow the conversation I wondered if a sort of follow up to BF 2142 was what @mems1224 was looking for in a new BF game.

@odinsmana: never played 2142 so I can't speak on that. What I would like though is like some early "futuristic" vehicles and weapons. Like, I don't want fast, agile Titans or robots or jetpacks or spaceships and laser rifles. I'd want like big, slow early versions of mehcs or more high tech gadgets and abilities that aren't full on sci-fi magic. So kinda like Advance Warfare in concept but without the super soldier suit and wall running.

I know; fuck EA and all, but Battlefield 1 is pretty great (and still looks fucking incredible), so I'm excited for this. I bought CoD: WWII and it's okay for what it is, but I just don't enjoy that "fast-paced" style of shooter anymore, especially when it's not appropriate for the setting. I also appreciate that the Battlefield series has far less dumb shit in it than your average shooter and can be taken semi-seriously. I'm in, especially if they make a 4K HDR version for the One X using the BF1 engine.

I definitely think Operations will translate very well to WWII, but I was pretty disappointed to hear this was going to be the next BF game. BF1 was kind of a nice divergence from the "typical" shooter settings, and going back to WWII just seems trite at this point. I dunno, with how they handled weapons in BF1 (as in, giving most classes access to period weapons that are roughly analogous to modern weapons as opposed to trying to orient the combat around common WWI armaments and tactics) I just don't see it being all that different from BF1.

Can someone give me a definition of "boots on the ground" ? are we talking Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Raven Shield boots on the ground or Call of Duty 2 Boots on the ground ?

@mems1224: It's funny you say that cause every time i fire a M4 or any other Default assault rifle i say " man this is boring as fuck ".

Considering most shooters are "boots on the ground" including every single prior Battlefield game, i'd be more interested to see what they could do if they experimented a bit, especially as i've found the BF forumlae to be a bit tedious and boring since BF4.
Assuming "boots on the ground" refers to using soldiers instead of advanced weapons, try the opposite, 64 player drone dogfights? Conquest becomes less about holding flags and more about blowing up the other team's infrastructure, different classes would be represented by different types of drone, maybe go a little bit future and introduce ground based combat drones like the stuff you see at Boston Dynamics.
A Battlefield branded fighting game, 20v20 i don't know... Anything would be more interesting than more of the same in a different colour.

Vinny and the guys kinda nail it in the latest Beastcast where they discuss how different generations view WWII themed games differently. As someone that skews closer in age to Vinny and Jeff, I went though that exact same phase where for a couple of years every shooter was WWII. Stormed Normandy so many times, shot the garand and thompson to death. Springfield snipers and MP4 submachine guns - the whole nine yards where games like Titanfall or heck something really original and fun like Syndicate grab my attention way more than "boots on the ground" ever could. Infinite Warfare had such an amazing campaign that it makes me sad it's seen as some CoD lowpoint.

That said if you're younger and never went through that historic period I can see how these WWII themed shooters can seem exciting and new compared to the Sci-fi stuff we've only been recently getting back into.

My favorite part about the Battlefield games was that they always felt more tactical than other games where you had so much mobility that everything was fast paced. It felt less chaotic and positioning was more deliberate in that it was a commitment. There wasn't too much tech involved which put positioning at the forefront of strategy. BF3 felt like this, even with modern tech but I'm hoping this "boots on the ground," comment refers to the feeling I'm hoping it does.

As people have said, "boots on the ground" has been around for a while. That said, fuck any company that uses it in their marketing.

@humanity: Not saying you're wrong generally speaking but there are definitely people like my friend group who rode the WW2 game wave but still eagerly welcome the return perhaps due to our historical interests. The breadth of the conflict is something that I'd hope DICE stretch a little bit. Normandy is required by law but lets get beyond the 101st in Europe. Bring on the Winter War or the spy missions to Nazi occupied Norway.

Perhaps that's my gripe when people say WW2 is overdone. 1944 France is overdone but give us more of the other stuff.

@hayt: Certainly there are historical buffs like your group, and I'm not discounting everyone who is younger, but I do think the example he gives rings very true for a lot of people. Then again like your historically inclined group, I personally veer towards sci-fi so I'm always going to support something like Infinite Warfare over CoD WWII.

I absolutely loved BF1942 and played that wake island demo to death. When the final game arrived I had a dedicated server with friends that I'd play on. When Desert Combat mod rolled around we were all super excited to see these home modders add in jets, helicopters and modern weapons to the base game. Then when BF2 came out that was a huge leap forward. Sure the vehicles were kind of too fast for their own good, the AA was too useless at first and some dedicated pilots could quite literally spend the entire match raining down death from above unopposed. Anyway, I simply never felt the need to revisit 1942, whether it be guerilla ski warfare in Norway or the African theater which is also not represented strongly enough. I mean despite all the cool settings they can use, you'll still be firing a garand or a springfield, and I dunno, personally I just need more variety than a simple left trigger right trigger experience - and the wall running and power ups tend to fill that slot for me.

@humanity: I grew up with battlefield 1942 so i shot my fair share of m1 garands and mp40's but it still prefer it over a m4 it's just such a blant gun it's like the Switzerland of guns it's just there being neutral and not offending anyone. But yeah Titanfall and the auto pistol was a nice step in future guns i liked it more then your standard future assault rifle. Maybe i just got a gripe against normal guns, remember when the assault rifle was the weakest gun in unreal tournament.

@soulcake: Compared to all the other insane guns in Unreal Tournament, the machine gun was just lame and boring. In fact around the time the machine gun was that very bland vanilla weapon you used until you picked up literally anything better.

Except that phrase existed long before then and not everything revolves around America.