Weekly Poll Results - What year would you like Battlefield 3 set in?

Please wait...

This article originated on the original FileFront

Formatting may be lacking as a result. We apologize for this inconvenience. If this article is un-readable please report it so that we may fix it.

 

What year would you like Battlefield 3 set in?

2008 31.8% (375)
pr1.gifpr2.gifpr3.gif
s.gif
1942 17.6% (208)
pb1.gifpb2.gifpb3.gif
s.gif
5941 16.2% (191)
pb1.gifpb2.gifpb3.gif
s.gif
200 million BC 14.6% (173)
pb1.gifpb2.gifpb3.gif
s.gif
1918 10% (118)
pb1.gifpb2.gifpb3.gif
s.gif
1775 6% (71)
pb1.gifpb2.gifpb3.gif
s.gif
2142 3.6% (43)
pb1.gifpb2.gifpb3.gif
s.gif
Total: 1179
Start: 07-31-2008 13:50
Last: 08-07-2008 13:44



 #1 - Posted by: Agent07 (Member) on 07-31-2008 at 13:53

I'd like it to be in 2009,but I'll vote 2008 I guess... Isn't the Call Of Duty series,Medal Of Honor Series,and BF1942+expansions enough WWII stuff for you people?VOTE 2008! lol Modern Day Warfare is the shiate! :)

 #2 - Posted by: Nitronumber9 (Staff) on 07-31-2008 at 14:00

Enough of the modern day stuff. Go futuristic. Battlefield 5941!

 #3 - Posted by: imtheheadhunter (Member) on 07-31-2008 at 16:27

it would be nice to have an updated BF1942....keep the same gameplay, but with better graphics, physics, etc.

 #4 - Posted by: brok (Member) on 07-31-2008 at 17:26

I voted 1942, but would be happy to see it got 1918 if it could pull it off, or even 1936. The fact is that before 1914 you didn't really have warplanes, subs on a grand scale, tanks and massive battleships, and after 1945 everything started getting automated and jets became too fast to do effective ground strafing. You also lost battleships for ever after ww2, along with real dogfighting, and having to run into places and do everything yourself instead of just sending a missile in there. The battlefield formula was born to play WW2, and to do any era outside 1914-1945 would just be a waste of it's potential, and just add yet another battlefield game to a list of bf games that bf1942 is more fun than.

 #5 - Posted by: GENERALHOLT (Member) on 07-31-2008 at 20:40

REDUX BF1942 FTW!!!!!!!!!!!!

 #6 - Posted by: Archangel_Null (Member) on 07-31-2008 at 21:06

Where's 1968?

 #7 - Posted by: goshooting (Member) on 07-31-2008 at 21:22

Yeah, what about Vietnam or Korea? Although, WWI would be a nice addition.

 #8 - Posted by: AK74_Rifleman (Member) on 08-01-2008 at 02:28

Too bad this doesnt have any 41,942 (WH 40K) or 1942 BC because '42 ' is sacred no. for BF :confused:

 #9 - Posted by: Grenademan (Member) on 08-01-2008 at 08:03

Battlefield: 200 million BC. Sticks and stones break bones... To hell with your nooby modern setting. BAW-RING! Either that or a medieval one for a change, that'd be epic.

 #10 - Posted by: Fragboy_o_jedi (Member) on 08-01-2008 at 09:33

i voted for 1918, coz WWI is a era that no games has ever approached (save for a few obscure ones) but like, 41,942 sounds fun xD or 20 M BC too xD

 #11 - Posted by: Squallboogie (Member) on 08-01-2008 at 09:59

i say revolutionary war, that would be awesome. just like Battlefield Pirates.

 #12 - Posted by: max_payne278 (Member) on 08-01-2008 at 13:27

I agree with #9 too many modern/futureistic games, ITS Time FOr BATTLEFIELD 1885!!!!! YEEEHAAWWW!!!

 #13 - Posted by: kamikaziwatermelon1234 (Member) on 08-01-2008 at 14:19

200 MILLION BC FTW!!!!!!1

 #14 - Posted by: Nerdsturm (Member) on 08-01-2008 at 19:26

If done well Bf: WH 40K would be awesome. The problem is that most races rely heavily on close combat units, which up till now have never been very well implemented into any FPSs.

 #15 - Posted by: drunkin_monke40 (Member) on 08-01-2008 at 20:28

this poll lacks vietnam time... but I voted 1918, nobody has done it before.

 #16 - Posted by: iceman982 (Member) on 08-02-2008 at 02:32

I want too see a new expansion pack to 2142 first that adds in an american faction. But adds new units weapons ect... for PAC and EU. Then i agree 1885 war!

 #17 - Posted by: Guav (Member) on 08-02-2008 at 12:22

1942, but without the drastic historical innaccuracies the original had, especially in terms of weapons, and without any cuts to what was good about the original, only improvements.

 #18 - Posted by: R384010 (Member) on 08-02-2008 at 22:58

Modern games can go to hell, you keep whining that WW2 is overdone, but really only Omaha Beach is overdone, not even Normandy, no game realisticly portrayed the Bocage that we were stuck in until Operation Cobra, nobody did the Eastern Front on a GRAND SCALE (I mean lots, lots, LOTS of tanks...), nor did BF42 have the PPSH XD Well, remake 1942 but have a bit more historical accuracy (Tiger can't be killed with grenades, M10 armor is like paper etc...)

 #19 - Posted by: brok (Member) on 08-03-2008 at 00:58

Nah, you need to keep the rock-paper-scissors dynamic, even at the cost of accuracy. The Tiger's already pretty lethal vs infantry as it is. I agree with you about the rest though. To reply to Agent07, no, MOH, COD and bf1942 isn't enough ww2 fps, I don't even play MOH or COD, and there's nothing else like bf1942 'cept maybe battlestations. On the flip side, I think the ww2 bashing is hypocritical, given that you Modern warfare nuts always want more, when you have (and tell me If I'm missing any here): Rainbow Six series, Ghost Recon series, COD4, Soldier of Fortune Series, Far Cry series, Crysis franchise, F.E.A.R, S.T.A.L.K.E.R, America's Army, Battlefield 2, Battlefield Bad Company, BF:Modern Combat, Operation Flashpoint series, COUNTER STRIKE, Joint Operations, blah blah blah blah blah ENOUGH MODERN COMBAT ALREADY. ww2 commando missions are far more ballsy and interesting than the same old anti-terrorist SWAT team situations simply BECAUSE it's just their guns and their wits to get the job done. Jet fighters can't hold a candle to ww2's insane dogfights, the biggest history will ever see. You might be sick of ww2, but for some of us it will NEVER get old, so be happy with your 8 billion modern combat games and let us have our 1 or 2 a year in peace, including battlefield.

 #20 - Posted by: PvtFoley (Member) on 08-03-2008 at 03:01

Where's the Middle ages option? As far as I know, there's no proper middle ages first person game. As a side note, just because a game has swords in it, doesn't make it a middle ages game. So before you counter me with 'what about oblivion etc etc?' forget it. Heck, I think the battlefield series is almost done. There's really nothing else much that can be done, except going back over what has already been done. Korean war? Hmm....As much as I'd like to see a game based on it, I wouldn't play it. The real war hasn't finished, but the fighting only really lasted a few years. Not may people would be as interested in it, as say..another version of 1942. So it won't be seen as worth while/profitable etc by game designers. I think that's what has kept a lot away from doing WW1 also. I think if the USA was more involved in WW1, there would be a few more WW1 games out.

 #21 - Posted by: panzerputney (Member) on 08-04-2008 at 02:18

id personally like to play a 1918 one. just imagine the trenches and hunderds of men running. tanks and planes still play a role.

 #22 - Posted by: AK74_Rifleman (Member) on 08-04-2008 at 06:12

I think maybe a hypothetical conflict (say USA vs USSR in 1960-1980s, Cold war gone hot) would do, but the idea of WW2 IS NEVER old. #18&19 is right, EA must stop this 'modern war' and get those old BF1942 team back. Re make BF 1942 in BF 4 (with those destructible environments, etc.) on A GRAND SCALE (back with those 64 players all-out war) (Note: BF 3 is already set in modern time, sadly there's no mention of XP being supported, even though it's built on BF BC engine) Another thing is that I hope EA/Dice won't delay any game release like those of BFH (I'm waiting for it)

 #23 - Whatever - Posted by: Dellpowered (Member) on 08-04-2008 at 08:01

EA can make the game in any period they want, only thing im asking for is a BF engine that can be customized alot so modders dont get so limited. After I downloaded my first mods for bf42 I never looked back, and I have always played mods since then. Heck, I bought BF2 to play FH2, which is good, but also lacking some due to engine limitations. Although 1918 would be a nice place to start :)

 #24 - Posted by: BulletmagnetBME (Member) on 08-04-2008 at 12:59

They could also have BF1342, and have it the Hundred Years' War, or BF 2 A.D., and have it the Romans

 #25 - Posted by: Dellpowered (Member) on 08-04-2008 at 19:09

Althought the middle ages would be cool, I dont think it would fit into the BF category. But I do like the idea of a multiplayer game set in that time period.

 #26 - Posted by: Soveriegn (Member) on 08-04-2008 at 20:17

Man there needs to be a Korean War option Battlefield 1951. I mean it has alot of WWII equipment and technology a bit more advanced than WWII. Also, I don't think there is a game that was ever made off of the Korean War.

 #27 - Posted by: brok (Member) on 08-04-2008 at 22:23

But have you ever stopped and wondered why? Even Americans don't give a damn about Korea anymore. At least Americans still like Vietnam (which has a kick ass soundtrack to boot) even if nobody else in the world does- including the Vietnamese, but as for Korea- when the most successful entertainment based in Korea is about a friggin hospital, you have to wonder who would give a damn about the conflict itself

 #28 - Posted by: ke200 (Member) on 08-05-2008 at 04:17

Anything but 2142 again....

 #29 - Not again... - Posted by: JiiM (Member) on 08-05-2008 at 09:07

Don't you guys have had enough yet? There are plenty of games on WWII it is getting sickening....Just move on peeps, WWII is over and we're done kicking Nazi's asses period. Now it wouldn't be that original if they re-re-re-re-re-redid yet another frickin' WWII game, aren't you guys over it yet? I want laser guided missiles, supersonic jets, modern choppers, modern weapons, night vision, etc.... Please leave us out of the WWII for retail. Nothing is stopping you from MODDING to WWII in which case, 18% of the people would have their rerererereremake yet again and everybody else gets the real deal. WWI, I mean come on that really is not necessary.... No harm meant Cheers

 #30 - Posted by: BlazingAce (Member) on 08-05-2008 at 11:01

1918 hasn't been done yet and there is hardly any WW1 games

 #31 - Posted by: Soveriegn (Member) on 08-05-2008 at 12:55

WWI might have never been done but I mean its only going to be basically infantry fighting and the game wouldn't be fast past cause back then the only weapons mostly available to the infantry men were bolt action rifles (standard), sub-machine guns(very rare) and heavy machine guns. Also if you want a tank its only going to move at 5 mph. As for planes thats the only thing that might be cool, but of course they will also be slow. So do you guys still want a slow paced game, with you always having to pick off your target with a bolt action rifle? Or do you want to have a variety of choices of weaponry and vehicles with a fast paced game with semi-auto and full auto weapons.

 #32 - Posted by: Soveriegn (Member) on 08-05-2008 at 12:55

Sorry for the double post its game wouldn't be fast pace

 #33 - Posted by: brok (Member) on 08-05-2008 at 18:04

yeah... wait what? WW1 games can't be fast paced?....cough codename eagle cough...watch and learn, kids! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJKzI5YIZ2Q To JiiM- if by 're-re-re-re-re-redid yet another frickin' WWII game' you mean another braindead depiction of D-Day and normandy, then I agree. There are still, however, thousands of game-worthy WW2 moments that have not been done in games yet, and they are all more varied and no-nonsense suspenseful than the same old modern day games that are about preserving thinly veiled US interests. And sure we can mod, but it's been SIX YEARS and the original forgotten hope STILL isn't finished! So like I said, be happy with your legions of existing modern war games, and stop discouraging companies from making the WW2 games that WE like to play. And oh yeah, no harm meant

 #34 - Posted by: Soveriegn (Member) on 08-05-2008 at 18:17

Brok no offense but that wasn't really fast past.

 #35 - I agree - Posted by: JiiM (Member) on 08-05-2008 at 23:18

I am sorry if I felt like bold against WWII fans but please bear with me, english is not my main language. I respect everybody's opinion on that subject and it's the reason for trying out many mods in the first place. The D-Day depictions are exactly what I was referring to but to a certain degree and games relating to the pacific portion of the war have also been done but to a lesser extent. I mean, there are tons of games already using this theme. But after reading your thoughts, It had me thinking as well. I mean, we are pretty sure BF3's engine will be based/ported from consoles to PC (from Battlefield BC). This engine allows for about 90% of destruction to it's environment. Now THAT would be a refreshing twist to the genre. Imagine cruising into the an abandonned village and destroying entire houses just to get the camper/sniper lurking, lol, a blast. But all in all, I really understand your point, 6 years gap is way too long, I can hardly get past my 3rd ;) Cheers, JiiM

 #36 - Something New Maybe? - Posted by: Kirabaka (Member) on 08-06-2008 at 02:33

I think it should be set in an alternate timeline where the Cuba Crisis evolved into a WW3 and there should be factions like USA, NATO, USSR and the DDR and stuff like that. It hasn't been done in a FPS game to my knowledge and it would really be something fresh, not the ww2 repetition or terrorist muslin blah blah we have seen a million times. They propably won't do this but they should. BF3 will be way to similar to BF2 with the NATO / Middle East theatre. It would be a cool idea for a total conversion mod if they don't make it thoug.

 #37 - Posted by: brok (Member) on 08-06-2008 at 03:45

I'm not dissing the idea or anything, but just curious- how could the Cuban Missile Crisis have got anyone involved in war other than Cuba, the USA, and the USSR? You'd be more likely to see the Bahamas raise an army than anyone in Europe or Asia deciding to get involved!

 #38 - Posted by: Kirabaka (Member) on 08-06-2008 at 05:17

The NATO and Warsawa pact meant that a war between two countries easily could mean WW3. Cuba wasn't part of it but the nukes on Cuba was owned by the russians so if they nuked each other there would be a ww3. If anything was left of the world at least. The conflict could be moved to another period in the Cold War as well if this one isn't reallistic enough. Like in World in Conflict.

 #39 - Posted by: Prohan (Member) on 08-07-2008 at 07:47

A Vietnam era game would be nice indeed

 #40 - Posted by: 5A1312EWULFX (Member) on 08-07-2008 at 08:43

how about 1861-1865

 #41 - Posted by: greenfire07 (Member) on 08-07-2008 at 09:49

1914 is as far back as makes sense, before then all the guns would be crap and everybody would be running sround stabbing each other, which isnt any fun when there is only one sword attack and no blocking in first person (knife &pistol bf2 servers suck) But if they redo a modern game it could be good, that is, they could make a realistic bf2 that has its own engine and can do whatever the devs want (PR couldnt do this : /) and THEN we would have a great game. Also they should use frostbite engine :)

Comments on this Article

There are no comments yet. Be the first!