{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
5/9/2016 10:47:17 AM
19
If battlefield 1 was futuristic, it would still get that many likes because it has been branded as better than COD. Whereas as COD has been labeled as repetitive garbage so everyone dislikes it regardless.
English
-
True. I like CoD and Battlefield, and Battlefield is more realistic
-
Agreed, I've heard nothing but praise for Battlefield 2142. I never played it myself but I've heard it was great. Id prefer a Bad Company 3 or Vietnam era, maybe even do their own take on the cold war. I'll get Battlefield 1 for sure but id still prefer it to not take place in any world war.
-
2142 was a absolutely amazing game. It had so much variety with vehicles weapons, etc. And your home base that you had to defend was a giant -blam!-in hovercraft that you had to infiltrate and destroy. Good lord the last 10 to 15 minutes in a match when a team was boarding the titan was some of the most fun I've had in gaming. I was kinda hoping for a new on but I'm okay with what we got.
-
Not to sound like a dick(and I'm sure you know this) but the Cold War want actually a "war" it was a mix of the space/arms race issues with Cuba and Germany mixed in there.
-
While there wasn't any actual battles fought, it was a war. Reading from a pedestrian point of view back in that time is interesting af. People just were expecting bombs to drop, in the heat of the cold war, it was a normal every day feeling to get up out of bed feeling like this was the day that all hell would break loose. Compare that to todays wars where its fought halfway across the world (American viewpoint anyway), and no one really feels the war unless they're directly connected to someone that was KIA, or just overseas in general.
-
I know I said it wasn't a war but I meant "Hot" war.
-
there were several proxy wars, brotato. vietnam was the biggest one.
-
I know, I mentioned them in another conversation below.
-
Oh I know, but they could create their own story around it. That'd be more interesting than going into WW1 imo.
-
You really think the Cold War had no fighting whatsoever? I mean no full out wars or battles but definitely had some engagements that would make for good campaign levels
-
The Americans and Soviets never fought a single battle. Or else it would've been a "Hot" war.
-
"Battle". Still too big. Think smaller
-
The only casualties that are notable are pilots of American U-2 spy planes. I don't know what your trying to get at here. But no game could ever be based on solely the "Cold" war. However the Korean and Vietnam War took place during the Cold War to fight against communism, so if they did a game based on the Cold War that's when it would have to take place(Korea or Vietnam).
-
I'm thinking like espionage man. Think about it.
-
Then it wouldn't be a "Battlefield" game.
-
And Afghanistan. Americans taught with the mujahideen against the soviet a there. Not very many, but some.
-
Yah, the "Cold" war, was a big proxy war.
-
I don't think it would people have been asking and taking about a world war centric new shooter for a good few years now and mostly aimed to the cod series as they worked out pretty well. Instead a different series of games by different devs listened while cod has now produced a space shooter.....like that's just out of touch with the community in all honesty sure it will probably sell well cod always does but people are getting tired of being ignored. Enter battlefield
-
[quote]If battlefield 1 was futuristic, it would still get that many likes because it has been branded as better than COD. Whereas as COD has been labeled as repetitive garbage so everyone dislikes it regardless.[/quote]
