Battlefield 5 is Reportedly Set in World War I

CRAVE: "A retail listing claims the next Battlefield game is a tactical shooter set in WWI."

[Iltapalanyymi]

YES. WW2 is so overused. there aren't enough WW1 games

[bixxel]

Completely agree. That would be absolutely fantastic!

[NovaCorps]

but why name it BF5

[Utalkin2me]

@NovaCorps

Cause it would be a Battlefield game, i mean i dont understand what you're getting at. Ever play BF 1942? Or BF Vietnam? Or heck even BF 2042. Bf is not a place holder for current times, its the term of war.

[Errorist76]

@Utalkintome

That's exactly his point..why name it Battlefield 5 and not Battlefield 1918

[Bebedora]

BF 5 WWI Two dimensional madness carnage in your number of FPS.

That would be my word for the title

[Utalkin2me]

@Errorist76

Cause probably thats what it will be called, or something along those lines. They are just saying next BF, the title says BF 5.

[Pogmathoin]

Considering most of that war was spent in trenches, barely advancing, will be interesting to see how they make this game.... Chemical warfare too.

[thorstein]

AWWW, I was hoping for the War of 1812.

[_-EDMIX-_]

The slowness is real with some.

Who has confirmed it will even be called BF5? For all we know its merely a placeholder name.
Even if its is called BF5......who cares?

[Kingthrash360]

This^
Took the words out of my ....um...fingers.
Battlefield 5 hasn't been the confirmed name for the game.
Why rack your brains with scenarios that are not confirmed.

[TacticAce]

We dont know the name of it yet...

[zeuanimals]

Don't know how they'd pull it off. There's a reason Valiant Hearts is one of (if not the only) game set in the battlefields of WWI. The war doesn't give much potential for an FPS as it was mostly trench warfare, mustard gas, and failed attempts at overcoming the fact they're fighting a trench war with weapons too powerful for trench warfare.

[morganfell]

The idea that WWI was nothing but trench warfare is a misconception and a case of people becoming automatons that simply repeat what they have been told by other people repeating what they have heard...incorrectly.

No one started the war by yelling, "Hey we dug a trench here! What are you going to do?"

A lot of time in the trenches? Yes. All of it? No.

[Pogmathoin]

Clearly the war ended Morgan, so yes, it did expand beyond the trenches. The majority of the war was trenches. Then a rapid increase in technology, first tanks and so on advanced the war to end it. Your comments always wreak of conspiracy, and that we have all been fooled into believing something. Sorry the burst your bubble, there are many intelligent people out there who do not feel the need to elaborate.

Edit: also behind the great song behind Franz Ferdinand.

[awi5951]

Why cant people just make the games we all love instead of messing with them. Rainbow 6 ruined, tried to turn it into call of duty. Ghost recon ruined, they tried to turn that into call of duty. Battefield 3 ruined, because they tried to turn it into call of duty. Just make the shooter that we loved and stop following the stupid crowd.

I want stupid large maps to hunt people down in thats ghost recon. I want a tactical shooter with great gun play were spray and pray was a detriment with great maps. Where if you died you stayed dead that is rainbow 6.

And i want a game where all capture points are never safe and the enemy can attack you from any angle at anytime. A game where you cant just camp hallways and choke points that game was battlefield and EA ruined it. This is why i never liked rush mode when it was added to battlefield game. You dont force people down choke points to be mowed down thats not battlefield at all and i hate rush and all maps made in that style with a passion looking at you operation locker.

[SolidStoner]

Battlefield.. Im comming from PC.. so that name for me means alot of WW2 and Vietnam! Now Im playing on PS4 and I miss so much good old days without auto aim auto lock auto shoot everything modern and auto doing...

If this is true and BF5 is WW1, day 1 buy for me! and my mature friends!!!! fingers crossed!

[NewMonday]

the only Battlefield I want is a new Bad Company

[PoSTedUP]

the singleplayer's gonna be sick with chaos in No Mans Land. multiplayer should be good too. heavy gasoline spewing flamethrowers and the like.

[Ashlen]

This seems unlikely...

I'm not going to buy it either way but at least it's not like BF4 which was in some ways trying to suggest an inevitable war between US and China. Which just sets the wrong idea in people's minds.

We need to set images of future peace and cooperation with China not make it seem like there is an inevitable war on the horizon.

[NatureOfLogic_]

Meh, would be boring imo. I'd rather for developers to keep trying to predict future warfare and weapon systems rather than return to the tired boring past.

[Errorist76]

So sick of that future crap already!

[Bebedora]

Like blood borne and stuff. I mean COME ON! What's up with that retarded shoot? Where is the laser weapons?

[FreeSpeech69]

Just Play Halo or COD. Maybe they want to try something different for a change. I don't even remember the last WWI FPS.

[bumnut]

They already made a futuristic bf game

[Silly Mammo]

So you sit in the trenches for 3 days and then run out and get mowed down by machine guns. Sounds like a blast. At least the artillery will be fun. :-)

Although air duels in bi-planes would be cool.

[wakeNbake]

The planes and tanks would be awesome too.

[Kleptic]

Silly Mammo: yeah, have to agree...

the respawn system better involve a lock out where you can't rejoin the match for 72 hours...because your toon is slowly dying from mustard gas... EDIT: just noticed how many people said this before me haha

[awi5951]

Dont forget poison gas most died from gas in that war.This is the war that made poison gas illegal to use on the battlefield.

[The 10th Rider]

Well, I don't think WW2 is so overused nowadays, it was a few years back, then everything was modern...Which is getting really old.

[Jmanzare]

Aren't those guns extremely inaccurate

[skulz7]

Dude it's not like they are using muskets. It's the first war where "modern" weaponry was used.

[lipton101]

An M1903 Springfield inaccurate? That was the field issue weapon during the Great War and was used as a sniper rifle right into Vietnam. I personally have one passed down from my great grandfather. 30.06. It's one of the most accurate weapons I've ever fired in my life. You could have easily done a Google search before commenting that dribble

[Jmanzare]

It was a question doushe

[3-4-5]

I really hope this is true.

Would be a must buy for me for sure. Been wanting a WW1/WW2 FPS for a while now.

[Farmassy]

I'm really happy that they are setting it in WW1. I think its been a while since anyone really explored this time period. My only worry is that planes were not used in WW1. I love battlefield because there will be planes flying and infantry running with tanks. Shouldn't have any air vehicles if its time appropriate

[Kiwi66]

"My only worry is that planes were not used in WW1" there were planes in WW1 as you had the sopwith camel, the french spad and the tri plane used by the red baron amongst others and they had tanks plus guns that were also used in WW2

[frostypants]

WW1 had planes. It was the war that invented the fighter ace. Ever heard of the "Red Baron"?

It would be pretty sweet if in BF5, the co-pilot is in the back seat literally throwing bombs out at enemies.

[Immorals]

My great grandfather served in the flying corps, they definitely changed the battles of ww1

[Farmassy]

my bad. I was wrong. WW1 was the start of planes used in warfare. got confused

[frostypants]

Hmmm. Should be interesting how close they try to keep it to realistic. WW1 was trench warfare. Basically two sides in trenches, with massive charges where they'd just slaughter each other in the no man's land in between them. Probably the most horrific form of infantry combat the world has ever seen. Think old school Civil War line-vs.-line style, but with machine gun emplacements and chemical weapons. Yeah. Brutal.

https://youtu.be/d-kVrdc9g_...

It's also why just about every historical FPS takes place in WW2 or after. WW2 is when modern combat concepts (where soldiers lives are actually valued) first came into play.

If they actually are doing this and can make WW1 cannon-fodder combat work as a game, it could be amazing. I'm skeptical that EA would have the guts to take this risk though.

[dcbronco]

@Frosty

The lack of tactics would be a part of the gameplay. Some of the tactics used in WWII were developed in WWI by the more forward thinking generals. Because of that a more educated player would learn faster and be successful sooner. The game would have to be a FPS Strategy game. Terrain and weather conditions could be used to make it more difficult. But you could dumb it down and cut off mud pits and body and gas filled mini ponds. That would be insane difficultly.

One way could be having a set number of troops. Instead of playing a consistent character you switch to a new character with each death. A new line if you really sucked. It would be a matter of how effective you are with each life and your ability to learn from each death. Pure attrition. They could add strategy by planning ahead of each battle. Where to concentrate artillery, dig tunnels, when to use gas, points and timing of walking artillery barrages or the makeup of your attacking force. Perks would get you a wave of stormtroopers or a recon plane. Or the gas or additional men.

[frostypants]

@dcbronco, would be awesome, but my reservation here is that doesn't sound like a BF game at all. I'm having a hard time figuring out how they'd do WW1 and still keep the BF style play. Otherwise they might as well start a new IP, rather than risk angering the less open minded BF fans.

[Overload]

This is 100% true for anyone wondering.

[T2X]

What's true, the previous comment or the thought that it will be in WW1?

[Overload]

WW1

[SonyWarrior]

WW2 isnt overused this gen or last gen whats overused is modern shooters

[JsonHenry]

Trench Warfare!

[TheSaint]

While I agree with your sentiment there is a reason for that. There really wasn't that many weapons in the first world war.

It'll be interesting to see how Dice do this, if true.

[MCTJim]

anything but futuristic combat works for me

[WellyUK]

why? DICE has already proved it can do futuristic BF very well. Not that many of you will know as most of you only stated playing with Bad company 2 or BF3...

[TXIDarkAvenger]

Sure, but futuristic/modern combat has been done for awhile now. As far as I know, we haven't seen many games set in WW1/WW2 recently.

[Free_Fro]

I haven't bought BF in ages. .
go ahead 'nd give me a reason to buy this one..

[Clown_Syndr0me]

I'm sure the millions of other people that buy it are enough.

[Kallisti]

By that logic I should run out and buy the latest Justin Bieber album, just cause millions of others have. Just because somethings popular doesn't mean it will appeal to everyone, just saying.

[RioKing]

Pretty much nothing out there appeals to "everyone."

[Goldby]

bullet drop, actually large maps, vehicles, alternate fire modes. better progression. more players. better feel of weapons. i can go on if you like

[Black0ut]

Sorry fro but many people love the BF franchise (except hardline) including myself.

Good to see the next entry possibly set in WW1 era. I'm over all the futuristic crap that's released these days.

[KiwiViper85]

i liked hardline.

[Black0ut]

@Kiwi, didn't say everyone didn't like it, but many people didn't agree with the cops and robbers setting in a Battlefield game.

[The 10th Rider]

WW1 would be reason enough for me to buy the first Battlefield game I've bought since Bad Company 2.

[Black0ut]

Have you thought of picking up BF4 though? It's a brilliant and complete game these days and many people are still playing it. I've bought it for a couple of different platforms and would recommend it any day.

[The 10th Rider]

Ah, I'd have to upgrade my PC for it.

I actually got BF 3 for free. I'll probably be upgrading my PC for Civilization 6, which should be hitting soon, so then I'll be able to consider some of these more recent games. It's been seven years since I last upgraded it. Ooph.

[bumnut]

You missed out on 4? Why?!???!??

[Clown_Syndr0me]

@kallisti I think I may have miscommunicated or you just mis interpreted me.
I mean I don't think Dice or whoever are bothered about one individual person as so many people buy the games regardless. I didn't mean that was a reason to buy It.
Besides, the Biebz has been dropping some bangers as of late, there's no denying that. ;)

[2pacalypsenow]

YES!

[TheCatsMeow]

That would be amazing. I'd definitely buy. Would look gorgeous in Frostbite

[Black0ut]

Just revisiting the many aspects about WW1 that we missed would be so bloody cool! Can't wait to see what we get.

[OB1Biker]

Oh WOW!
TPS option please!!!
Please...

[BEASELY]

Too imbalanced.

[OB1Biker]

Well its just my preference since I dont play FPS. Im just selfishly hoping for 3P view and if its the main view people have to play all the better for me.

[BEASELY]

I think a solution for you could be a seperate third person server. Though it may split the community a bit, I think the first person portion would remain just fine. They do have the tech built from Battlefront to support that perspective.

MW2 had a third person mode, so why not? I just don't want exploitabe camera cornering happening on an unsuspecting first person player.

[FPS_D3TH]

Only works in the ultra casual noob fest Battlefront where game balance is as easy to find as Luke Skywalker.

[sullynathan]

yup, all the battlefront games have been casual and inferior battlefield clones.

[BEASELY]

I say that for BF, but I think it's fine for Battlefront. It's supposed to be a fun, casual romp open to all players, and at that succeeds.

[BEASELY]

^

[user9950279]

I'd prefer WWII or modern combat. Cant imagine how WWI would work. Spend the entire game choking on mustard gas and being immobilized by trench foot?

If true, cant wait to see it. DICE never fails me with BF.

[joab777]

There will be rpg and rng mechanics at play. Each time you use a cannon or gun, you have a chance that it jams or blows up in your face. And 90% of the campaign is spent in the trenches getting bombarded.

I do like the possibility of playing a realistic war game that is able to capture the sheer brutality of WW1, mixing horses in with mechanical monsters, being completely outmatched and outgunned in many situations. The battlefields littered with razor wire and dead bodies, using your gun as a melee weapon as often or more than actually pulling the trigger.

The SP could be absurdly good. MP...not so sure.

[Oschino1907]

Remember though many war games don't center around average soldiers in common situations. You could be part of commando or other elite groups, imagine a mission with Erwin Rommel sneaking through the mountains and capturing hordes of soldiers with your much smaller elite force.

There was lots of fighting outside and far away from the trenches. Sure they could have levels involving trench warfare but there is plenty other types of fighting from many areas of the world.

Either way if it is true it would be great if the single player went with multiple characters from all sides. WW1 was really world wide, it caused revolutions, ended monarchies and empires while strengthening imperialism all over the world.

[BALLARD32]

Not gonna happen.

[Black0ut]

Care to elaborate? o_O

[BALLARD32]

It may be an intriguing setting for some, but it won't appeal to the masses. Just can't picture it selling very well compared to the past several Battlefield games.

[Black0ut]

I can agree with that Ballard. I think that when most people think of Battlefield, they think of jets, choppers, modern tanks etc. So it'll be interesting to see how they fill in that space in the next game.

Hopefully they do good like with most of the previous entries.

[dcbronco]

Ballard there is no reason you couldn't have both elements. The SP is based on WWI and the multi player can be a mix of WWI, WWII and modern warfare.

[torchic]

exactly. modern shooters only became massively popular when they used modern combat.

why would EA risk not getting big sales?

[Overload]

You're going to be disappointed then.

This is 100% legit, I can promise you that.

[BALLARD32]

Haha do you know a guy that knows a guy that knows a guy that works for EA/DICE?. I'm sure we'll find out soon enough if they're marketing timetable for BF4 is anything to go by.

[Overload]

Yeah, something like that.

[Khaotic]

Sorry but I'm calling bs

[WellyUK]

Well we will find out soon as all the big BF youtubers seemed to have got on planes to Sweden the other day.

[RiseofScorpio]

True, ground warfare was mostly unexciting just people climbing out of trenches and mounted machine guns.

[spicelicka]

Yea I don't see a franchise like that taking such a big gameplay risk. I'd still love to see how they can do it though.

[WeAreLegion]

I sincerely hope so, but if that's the case, I want a good campaign. I'll play the crap out of the multi-player, but a good WWI or II campaign would be so choice.

[Simco876]

Reminds me of the campaigns way back when COD had them...they were nice!

[sullynathan]

Who the hell is looking for a good campaign in Battlefield? A series that started as multiplayer only and only started tacking on campaigns because it was the norm?

The overwhelming majority of this community wants only multiplayer because that's what the series started as and that's what people play here.

Typical N4G asking for a crap and tacked on campaign for the sake of having a crap and tacked on campaign.

[WeAreLegion]

So, you never played Battlefield: Bad Company? Really?

I have loved Battlefield since 1942, but I'd love to see a campaign. Is that too much to ask for?

[sullynathan]

@legion I have played both bad company games. The first one had a lackluster campaign, i don't care about the 2nd one. Bad company is a damn spin-off, most of the fans of this series do not want another wasted campaign just because Bad company's campaign was better than the crap one in BF3 & 4.

Most of the fans want the series to stick to its roots and create a good multiplayer and not to waste money and resources on a banal campaign that less than 30% of players will even complete or beat half way.

The battlefield community is not the N4G crowd. They aren't on their knees begging for a tacked on campaign to have a tacked on campaign.

[WellyUK]

BC2 was the best they've done and it wasn't even good... No idea why people think it was good it was just as bad as every other campaign DICE has done. It's a waste of time and resources for game that is and always has been a MP focused game.

No real BF fan wants a Campaign.

[WeAreLegion]

I disrespectfully disagree. I'm sitting next to two more "real" Battlefield fans and they want the same thing. We've been LANing 1942 since it came out. We love the series. So, get off your high horse.

[sullynathan]

very rich coming from someone who is asking for a tacked on campaign for the sake of it. Why don't you get off your high horse and stop asking for stupid shit for a game?

[bumnut]

Hope they increase the player count, more players would be needed for a true ww1 feel.

[WellyUK]

No you dont want a good campaign. Since when has BF had a good campaign or been a game that should have a SP... Go back to MP maps with bots for SP and ignore the idiots asking for a campaign, waste of time.

It's like asking for MP on a Fallout game... Stupid.

[WeAreLegion]

Bad Company had an excellent campaign. It's not stupid to ask for a campaign. Many teams are able to accomplish a great campaign and multi-player with less members than DICE. Why shouldn't they be able to do it?

[FPS_D3TH]

This would be the most boring Battlefield ever. Fresh? Maybe. Fun battlefield experience? Lol nope. Does 90% of the match involve you lying in a trench suffocating on mustard gas with the other 10% spent reloading after my first shot and fighting off diseases and starvation? Maybe a winter map with a game of soccor? Please. Battlefield would not work in a WW1 setting. Maybe give it a shot with DLC but theres no way they could do a WW1 setting, keep it authentic as well as make it a fun BATTLEFIELD experience.

[Simco876]

It's not the Civil War, they still had decent weapons in WWI jesus.

[RiseofScorpio]

Not really, just rifles with bayonets and the occasional revolver. Machine guns were mounted only.

[FalconR289]

@Waluigi- Aside from the bolt action rifles there where semi auto pistols like the M1911, C96, Luger P08. They had the trench gun(1897 winchester shotgun), the B.A.R and other weapons too. So its not just rifles with bayonets and the occasional revolver.

[Dubaman]

@Waluigi_isunderrated
Erm... you do have access to the internet, right? - http://www.historynet.com/w...

P.S. Here's something that is stupidly delightful and quirky - " The American Springfield used a bolt-action design that so closely copied Mauser’s M1989 that the US Government had to pay a licensing fee to Mauser, a practice that continued until America entered the war. "

[madmonkey01]

they had planes and tanks in ww1

[Kiwi66]

I said that in my other comment and actually had someone disagree , guess history wasn't taught at their school

[Oschino1907]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/...

[FPS_D3TH]

Your link leads nowhere. Thankfully they've already said the next battlefield is in a modern near future setting so dream on everybody. I personally don't see how they could truly pull off a ww1 setting as well as maintaining a fun battlefield experience. And just like with hardline you're going to get everyone up in arms crying like they did about the authenticity for cops to have RPGs and various other whining and crying.

[Oschino1907]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/...

Sorry I messed up link last time. It's an article about the technology of WW1. They had technology far above what you implied.

[FPS_D3TH]

I know my WW1 history pretty well. I know it's not all single firing muskets. Bolt action rifles, shotguns, revolvers and even semi automatics were starting to make their way into the battlefield. I know tanks were invented in this war along with the first planes to enter the war. The Red Baron made his name in this war. However, my point is that you can not pull off a battlefield game while maintaining an authentic WW1 experience without bastardizing that war into something it wasn't. It's just going to be the same game we have now but with WW1 skins. How uninspiring. And if anything, the games pace will be dramatically slower if they do go for full authenticity and then you'll get people bitching about how slow the game plays. Besides the fact they've already mentioned that the next Battlefield will be taking place in another modern setting so this is all pretty much just hopes and dreams anyways.

I'd rather take the experiences we have now and build upon those and offer improved and new gameplay options. Sure you can achieve a fresh take on all of those, especially with slow ww1 tech. But I don't believe you could pull off WW1 properly without bastardizing the War into over the top action just to achieve that battlefield traditional chaotic unique gameplay. I'd love to be proven wrong but I'm not going to hold my breathe on Battlefield: Pashendale. Let another developer attempt it. I'd be down 100% to play it. But as a battlefield experience? Won't happen without making so many exceptions on authenticity for the sake of gameplay and what exactly is the point of the setting then?

[Summons75]

You should probably take history class again if that's what you think WW1 was. Also it's a much better idea than Modern/slightly futuristic warfare where you are fighting the same old terrible take on terrorists who are middle eastern but really Russian that always has a nuke going off by the end of the first level.

WW1 and Vietnam have sorely been underused and it's great someone is doing something other than the staleness of the past 9 years.

[The 10th Rider]

Not to mention people are idiots if they think Battlefield 2,3, and 4 are what modern warfare is actually like.

You could take a war during any era and make it sound boring as heck. In reality, modern warfare may just be the least 'action-packed' of any era thus far.

[Plagasx]

Wake me up when they announce BC3...

[InTheZoneAC]

yup, or a modern/future battlefield that 5 was supposed to be. I can't be any more sick of these bs WW shooters that plagued ps2/ps3.

[2pacalypsenow]

Yeah because modern combat was not over saturated in the Ps3/Xbox360 games

[sullynathan]

oh boy I'm definitely excited for this/s

[dcbronco]

Can't wait. Long overdue. Hopefully the campaign goes through some of the major battles of WWI. Who's ready to suffocate in mud?

[Goldby]

oooh pick me!, pick me!!!! pick... too late

[IceKoldKilla]

Wow so many are commenting that they are excited just like me but some haters are just disagreeing with every single comment.

[TheBurger29]

WW1 would be so awesome! Hope its true! So sick of modern/future bs, its been done to death.

[dcbronco]

Ice there is a ever increasing number of douches that seems to be born everyday. They hide out on the internet all day hoping to feel better about themselves by trying to make everyone else feel bad. It's that needy guy from your neighborhood on a global scale. It is unfortunate but knowing how desperate they are makes them easy to ignore.

[sullynathan]

Calling people haters just shows you can't handle differing opinions. This rumor should stay a rumor, going back to WW1 setting at this point is a waste of time.

[sullynathan]

hopefully there is no campaign like the original battlefields and all their time is focused on perfecting the multiplayer.

[TheBurger29]

Would be a welcome change, as long as they actually fill the mp up with content unlike Battlefront.

[Lonnie18]

What your basically fighting the Germans just like in WW1? First they make battle field more modern then they go back in the past! I don't want that so I won't be buying, I mean did they do a consumer survey or something...if they did they would see people don't want this.

[Oschino1907]

Is your name "people" and do you often speak in third person?

Because I know you aren't speaking for everyone let alone the majority.

[endi123]

I don't want this too

[IceKoldKilla]

What the hell are you talking about? Just because you have a certain opinion, it doesn't make it fact. The prove is here in the comments and in any video related to this. Most people are either ok with it or excited we are finally gonna see WWI/WWII come back with the "new" hardware and engines after a decade (with a couple exceptions like World At War and maybe 1-2 other games). We need BF, the giant franchise to make an epic story set in that era with that Frostbite Engine and some really fun multiplayer! Can't wait! All these aircrafts, future weapons, drones, it getting tiring.

[The 10th Rider]

Judging by the amount of money Battalion 1944 raised on Kickstarter, there's quite a few people looking for a more old-school FPS.

[Errorist76]

I know loads of people would be dying to finally fight some Americans once in a while!

[Imalwaysright]

WW1 is the perfect setting for campers.

[Sadist3]

The worst idea ever. Yay, I want to give up my C-4 and M4A1 so I can play with a single shot rifle. So much fun. I bet imbeciles will love this idea if it's true.

[RiseofScorpio]

So true, what's so entertaining about camping in trenches and walking slowly towards machine guns.

[Dubaman]

So, your view and knowledge of WW1 is focused solely on a basterdised understanding of The Battle of the Somme? You don't get a "total number of military and civilian casualties in World War I was over 38 million: there were over 17 million deaths and 20 million wounded, ranking it among the deadliest conflicts in human history." by sitting in trenches and just having merry jaunts into No Man's Land.
Oooo careful when lighting a cigarette at night! If an enemy sniper see's it they could easily open fire a kill 10,000 people with a single shot. /s

[Dubaman]

Do you even internet? - http://www.historynet.com/w...

[InTheZoneAC]

ww1 or ww2 same thing, I'll pass

I am so sick and tired of the WW games from the ps2/ps3 generation for the rest of my life

looks like I'll be playing battlefield 4 for another 3 or 4 years...

[IceKoldKilla]

And I'm tired of this modern/future bullshit. We wouldn't be tired of anything if we had a good balance but that isn't how the world works. Everyone wants to jump on the new thing, get hyped and change every decade or so.

[2pacalypsenow]

Modern/future combat has been almost every game since 2007, the last good WW2 game was World at War in 2008

[InTheZoneAC]

good and cod don't go hand in hand when it comes to multiplayer. It still has the same inconsistent P2P laggy connections with ultimate lag compensation, auto aim just with the enemy being on screen and ridiculous low recoil guns.

[2pacalypsenow]

If it wasn't good millions of people wouldn't keep buying it every year.

[WellyUK]

Have fun playing the worst main series Battlefield ever made then...

[Sadist3]

Have call of duty tackle world war 1, and keep the real players who play battlefield in the present time.

[DafunkyRebel]

mortars all day

[FPS_D3TH]

Posted twice... Ignore!

[Der_Kommandant]

Please be true, please be true!

[IceKoldKilla]

HOPEFULLY! I love WWI and WWII for game settings/era! That's why I'm excited for Battalion 1944!

[FITgamer]

Would be awesome, but not going to hold my breath. I don't see EA going against this futuristic shooter trend.

[KwietStorm_BLM]

oh god .. I don't really know what made them hate Bad Company so much, but I am done with the World War era shooters. There were more of those than pennies in the street at one time, and I have no interest in going back to such limited artillery.

[oldassgamer]

@KwietStorm I agree. Have to wonder why Bad Company is in EA/DICE's dog house. Keep the Battlefield series modern.

Bad Company 3, Please!

[Nodoze]

that would be god awful. Trench warfare and mustard gas...no thanks.

[Psychotica]

Trench warfare and mustard gas? Sounds great..

[Nodoze]

How about Battlefield Iran Contra Edition? or Battlefield Falkland Islands....or

Battlefield DEA Urban (then later a DEA jungle warfare set in Columbia)..

I say they revisit Vietnam.

Battlefield Vietnam..with a persistent war zone. :)

[TheBurger29]

Knowing DICE and how shit they are with story it will probably be russia as the big bad guy and USA as the Great hero, same bs as always. Lets hope its ww1.

[2pacalypsenow]

I think the reason why Vietnam games are so sparse is because united States lost that war and it was a very controversial war

[Nodoze]

It could be argued that nobody won the Vietnam war.

[Koopdogg]

Totally agree with you...

A proper Vietnam title would kick ass

[DEAGLETURK]

Dont dream, there is no way for this its will be modern warfare !!! DICE and EA doenst want loss fans, ww1 no tanks no helis no jets bla bla lol

[2pacalypsenow]

WW1 had Machine guns Tanks,Planes and boats they had that stuff in 1914

[DEAGLETURK]

Look , you will be see in E3 2016 dont forget my message :)))))

[2pacalypsenow]

Well nobody is saying it will happen since its just a rumor but it wouldn't be a bad thing if it did would teach a lot of people about the war, since reading some of these comments shows me a lot of people have no idea about history.

[VerdicLinwe]

I'll skip this snooze fest. Will be the first BF since 1 that I've not purchased. I loved 2, 3, bc and bc2, and 4. But I've never liked WW games. Get jets and choppers or gtfo.

[Psychotica]

Just write a 5 on your BF4 disk..

[RiseofScorpio]

Better than walking slowly towards mounted machine guns with a single shot rifle and tin hats. And drinking tea made with spit and dandruff when the going gets tough.

[psplova]

Pretty cool I guess but what I want is a bad ass CIVIL War BF game! Something that's never been done.

[cash_longfellow]

First of all what is WOG? Haha! Second of all...this would be awesome though. Probably WWII, and just missed a I...which third of all, that would be awesomer. I will take a WWII Battlefield again, all day ;)

[JasonKCK]

That would be fantastic if true.

[WelkinCole]

This will work better with many more players. Simple rifles in 64 players would add a strategic element plus stationary machine guns.

I believe WW1 will work very well in BF in this regard. It will be really hard to go at it alone by yourself and run and gun in trench warfare in WW1. You will have to work together with your squad.

Add early tanks and planes plus chemical warfare. It could be really really good if done right.

[MicrosoftMackin]

No thanks. Lemme get Bad Company 3 instead

[Paytaa]

I could see since Titanfall fills the futuristic shooter gap, they would have Battlefield go back in time.

Sure, two completely different types of gameplay, but why have two shooters set with a similar aesthetic under your belt?

I would just prefer Bad Company 3 over anything, but EA/DICE are too stubborn to do it.

[Rooted_Dust]

I don't really associate WWI with action set pieces. Most of the imagery that comes to mind is barbed wire, mud trenches, poison gas, and stupid charges against machine gun nests.

[Austin48]

I bet it's online only lmao no campaign after all EA is the owner.

[UncertainCategory]

I'm all for a new setting.

Hopefully it isn't TOO historically accurate though.. Trench warfare sounds rather boring in a game

[The 10th Rider]

If the games set during modern warfare were accurate the games would be a total snooze fest already.

[WelkinCole]

If done well it could be quite intense.

Imagine a very tense environment. Explosions, smoke, bullets flying everywhere (Forstbite).

Masses of people fighting pitch battles in the mud, rain, snow, day and night.

You can't really run and gun like in other FPS so you might need to resort to your sword or bayonet more than just your rifle or handgun. It would be quite intense because it would be up close and personal as you will resort to hand to hand combat as much as guns.

[cfc83]

I think the Battlefield i.p is getting a bit tired, and they should revolutionize it or give it a swerve for a couple of years. It will sell regardless, so i suspect we will see plenty more. More like to be an anual fixture.

[Flenter]

No more boring ww shooters please. Just keep it modern/futuristic

[lennyvon]

Great choice dice can't wait!

[Black0ut]

While I'd prefer WWI setting over futuristic any day, I kind of do wish for WWII in order to have some of the nice vehicles...

Anyone else feel the same? Still will be cool in WWI though.

[Relientk77]

I'd be interested, lets see it

[bondsmx]

Little worried myself about gun selection, equipment selection, no red dots, no acogs. But, it's dice. They never let me down before. (Except sw, and I have a feeling that was EA's fault more then theirs)
So, it's in their hands.. No reason to trip out until we see it in action.

[Oschino1907]

BF1943 was a ($15 new) stripped down WW2 game that was hugely popular and still active after almost 8 years (wish they had added a few maps).

With WW1 and as big and varied as they make their $60 games they have plenty of nice weapons and gear from all sides to fill the main roles. Maybe not as deep as BF4 but much deeper than Battlefront.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/...

Honestly I doubt it would be WW1 but it sure would be something unique and set itself apart from other FPSs.

[Mrveryodd]

Yes please , I'm in

[TheHunter81]

This should be interesting if true. Not many WW1 games out there.

[spence52490]

I'm guessing the majority of people who like this idea aren't history buffs. WWI just didn't have the "pizaz" WW2 or Vietnam had as far as non modern wars go that would make for an enjoyable gaming experience. Its the same reason there aren't any major Civil or Revolutionary war games that have had huge fan bases. I don't think this would be a good move. WWII or bust.

[Izalith]

Yes please! I want that change so badly!

[il-JumperMT]

Lol WW1? What we gonna do dig trenches?

[SlightlyRetarted]

Give me a M1 Garant or a mp40 with iron sights with great WW2 atmosphere, over these modern pimped out/silenced/red dot sighted/ergo gripped/tiger painted teenage boys wet dream guns and i will be a happy guy.

[MasterD919]

I was hoping for WW2 again...this may have been too far back IMO.

[Nafon]

So did anyone bother to look at the source because it doesn't mention world war 1 anywhere lol. Besides that, unless EA really wants DICE to make a game with even less variety than Battlefront, this won't ever happen.

[fitfox]

don't know much about world war 1, if this article is true this may be a good thing.

[dmonee]

Why not. It could be a nice change. They better program that grimy WW1 violence in there. I want to see limbs shredded, heads turn into fruit punch and be able to use the old school artillery... Awwww...flamethrowers! Poison gas! I want to see this game!

[ZILLA]

Sweeeeeeet!!!!

[Kreisen]

Theres a very good reason why most shooters arent set in WWI, its becouse of the weaponry used in those times. Rifles with a single shot etc. Im sure theres an audience out there who would love the idea but i doubt the general public will think the same. For a major franchise like Battlefield to set their game in that time would be financial suicide.

[Mikeyy]

You are going back to far. WWI had bolt action rifles (all the same ones you see in WWII games.) Has tons if pistols you'd be familiar with, like the m1911. Even has light machine guns like the m1918 (the B.A.R.)

A WWI wouldn't be that bad at all gun wise.

[Tallpine]

As long as there is a wide variety of weapons, vehicles, and explosions I'm all for it.

[OngoBay]

Just make everyone cavemen and call it Battlefield Primal.

[windblowsagain]

I would like another bad company.

I love battlefield game anyway, but there's a different feel to the company games.

If anyone wants lasers, go play star wars battlefront.

[ThePresentIsAgift]

I remember being quite miffed by all of Call of Duty 2's absolutely pitiful servers when the game released in the first few months on Xbox 360.

Amazing when it worked, the feedback from weapons and high damage output requiring only a few bullets to drop players was refreshing and that was late 2005. The current state of play where players are practically bulletproof but the melee magically fells everyone is garbage.

I would love to see a HD redux or similar type of game available today.

[esemce]

I dont think DICE /EA would take the risk of a WW1 game, would be cool if the single player travelled through history and the multiplayer had locations, tech and weapons from WW1/WW2 Korea and Vietnam etc.

[Trekster_Gamer]

This would be Awesome!
I wish it would encompass both WWI and WWII.

Man to see the look and feel of this era with this Engine will be fantastic.

[big_dom_part_2]

World War 1? No thanks. The weapons will be terrible. At least with WW2 you get the more iconic weapons like the MG42 and the Thompson. A WW2 game using Frostbite would do just fine.

[RomanPSX]

Ww1 or ww2 but lets take a break of mothern warfare or futuristic please. Ww1 fighting in trenches with bolt action rifles and mustard gas hell yea.

[xPaYDaYx]

This would be incredible, one of the main reasons I haven't played COD in years is because it's trying to be Halo. I can't stand futuristic shooters, I hate Crysis and Titanfall as well. I sincerely hope this is true.

[ziggurcat]

if this is true, i think this will be the first BF i actually purchase (and wasn't a PS+ freebie). i love WWI/WWII games, so this has definitely peaked my interest.

[Tzuno]

back to ww, yay.

[noksucow73]

Nice! I like it. Count me in!

[Father__Merrin]

WW1 would be amazing but please optimise the PC game,

[TheColbertinator]

DICE is a good design team. They can get it done

[Tankbusta40]

This is going to be interesting how they make this...it will have to be pretty unrealistic considering the only weapons were bolt action rifles and machine gun turrets...and planes dropped bombs over the side and tanks...well they were just used to traverse no mans land and were slow and unreliable at best...They also had tunnel digging sappers...I guess that could be a class

I can hardly see combat going as it did, with half the team artillery shelling the one side, then the troops pouring over the trench and dodging barbwire and machine gun turrets, with only a few people making it over trying to bayonet the opposite teams trench to death..But hey maybe Gallipoli might be an interesting battle

[OutcastMosquito]

Oh how fun trench warfare will be... I honestly don't see this happening because the combat will be dull.

[xxsmgxx]

Guys its for real. Far Cry went back to stone age with Far Cry Primal. Also next Call of Duty is going to be not in the future setting. Its the trend.....because Far Cry primal. Mark my words

[immabadguy]

Lol I'm not sure it's because of Far Cry Primal, I just think that developers are realizing that the market is oversaturated with futuristic / modern shooters, and that people want a return to the past due to very little options in that space.

[kassler]

I would love a WW1 game, but not Battlefield! Please be fake.

[Plasmids]

Please let this be true I think this may get me back to online shooters.

[ultimatetruth]

OK now that's intriguing, as long as the servers aren't garbage and it's not barebones like Battlefront was, I would actually consider getting this.

[_LarZen_]

Going to be interesting to see the turn when gamers stop complaining about modern and future combat. And starts to complain that reloading takes forever and they cant shoot fast enough etc etc...

You all know it's going to happen..

[Eizhale]

I hope this is true because its stale as hell.

[jokerisalive]

Cool as shit if this is true. Its about time they get out of 'modern day' war settings.

[GODOKUNODAN]

Hey guys, I'm making a new YouTube Show about video games, in the tradition of Angry Joe. I could really use your support. https://www.gofundme.com/u3...

[jmtstan]

WW2 era need to be back again...

i would love to see Call of Duty goes back to WW2 era again with current gen graphics.

recently played FarCry Primal... loved it.

[brando008]

Oh my God please be true

[finbars75]

I highly doubt it will be WW1. This has not been confirmed by EA or Dice. If there going to do anything which I think your all misunderstanding is that it will be modern combat on all the old WW1 maps. I'm sure they will add some of the elements to it from the WW1 era. I think going back to all those years of world war stuff will get stale much faster especially when there are not that many guns and vehicles to choose from. I just don't see this happening like you guys all think it will. Dice already said they were going to announce and show footage from the new Battlefield game in March so we will see what happens until then.

[babis1974]

i would like to see a WW2 game...my opinion...

[Jamaicangmr]

Hate WW based shooters. What about current wars or hell fictional current war. Hate the lame guns of that era.

[Matology]

I love to see BF go all WW1 like. Cavalry charge, swords at the ready.

Bi-planes, early tanks and mustard gas.

[Tankbusta40]

They abandoned the cavalry charge and swords pretty early on...when they ran into a machine gun nest

[Matology]

Gun vs sword never a good idea.

[NerveGearneeded]

This is the 2nd Rumor for BF, before wwI it was BF armageddon, google search it.