Ben-DutkaIt certainly works for Activision's Call of Duty franchise. But then again, they've got two teams trading off on development (Infinity Ward and Treyarch).
As for Battlefield , it's only done by DICE, and currently, publisher Electronic Arts has no plans to annualize the esteemed series. During a VideoGamer interview , Battlefield 4 executive producer Patrick Bach was asked if they'd launch a new title in 2014.
Bach responded that DICE "can't build a game every year," and he added that for fans who want BF action all year round, there's plenty of Premium content. But because Medal of Honor is on hiatus after the disappointing Warfighter , this means EA won't have a competitive shooter next year (or so it appears). Titanfall from Respawn Entertainment is coming, but that's exclusive to the Xbox One; only multiplatform titles could possibly hope to challenge CoD in the long run.
That all being said, Bach did address the idea of Battlefield becoming a persistent world with new maps and campaigns:
"Maybe it [could]. You're touching upon something that we've actually started noticing as well. Maybe it's a really smart thing to do; maybe it's the completely wrong thing to do. We can see that some games are actually doing it already, like MMOs. You have some free-to-play games [that] continue on the same platform. So I think it's more about the audience and getting all the ducks in a row, so to speak."
The fans would probably be okay with that, and I sometimes wonder why Activision hasn't done it yet for CoD. World of Warcraft seems to be fading, but you've got another potential MMO right under your nose…as far as I'm concerned, CoD has been at least part MMO for years, anyway.
"CoD has been at least part MMO for years, anyway" – only someone that's never really played a mmo would say that. There are fundamental differences between a session-based multiplayer game and a mmo.
No, only in the way they've been made and our understanding of what an "MMO" is.
Technically, it simply stands for "Massively Multiplayer Online." Minus the persistent world, which is precisely what EA would be considering for Battlefield according to that quote, that's exactly what we're taking about.
I know what MMOs are, thank you. Just because one has a menu screen where you select your missions, and one has a town where you gather up your friends and go on a mission…I'm not seeing any huge difference. They're just all online multiplayer, as the initials MMO tends to imply.
Ok but then you just dismiss the entire MMO-genre, and that's quite ironic when we are *so* focused on the distinction between western RPGs and Japanese RPGs around here.
To play a session based multiplayer with just a handful of people on tiny maps are just miles and miles away from playing a MMO with gigantic dungeons, massive tasks, huge item databases and a feature list that can fill an entire notebook.
All I am saying is, only someone who's not into mmo would call COD a mmo. I'm sorry but there's nothing massive about 32 random players that fight for a few minutes.
Last edited by Beamboom on 8/27/2013 11:17:08 AM
Battlefield could be turned into an MMOFPS like Planetside 2 and that would be awesome. But an MMO is more than just persistent skill progression. Its about being in a massive world, that changes over time with updates and expansions and world events. A world where you can run across if you want, a world that feels like a world. CoD has none of these things.
The only Massive part about CoD is the amount of people playing it, but its not being done in a persistent world, which I think is the key defining factor of an MMO.
I think when Ben plays Planetside 2 on the PS4 he will see what a real MMOFPS looks like.
Could you imagine thousands of players in the same world at the same time in COD…… that would be mindblowingly tragic and awesome at the same time. You would have griefing reports by the millions a day. Hell I'd imagine there'd be hundreds of "Angwe's" over the map.
I'd play that. BEST.GAME.EVAH!!!! Someone make this happen.
There's a reason why both CoD and MMOs are the most addictive experiences in gaming…and it's because both are online multiplayer.
How big the world is and what you're doing is completely irrelevant. That is not defined in the genre label. It is if you go as far as MMORPG or MMOFPS but that's not what I was referring to.
Run around and level up. Interact with people and often act like idiots. Play for thousands of hours. …yep, similarities everywhere.
Last edited by Ben Dutka PSXE on 8/27/2013 6:25:49 PM
Beamboom and Ben Dutka.
PSXE's resident married couple.
@Ben;
The problem, how I see it, is that your hate on anything multiplayer makes your personal view clog your professional judgement and just throw everything that includes multiple players into one bag because it's basically all the same sh*t to you.
But for those who are into these game styles there are huge and fundamental differences between competitive session based multiplayer ala COD/Unreal Tournament/Battlefield, moba style games like DOTA2/League Of Legends, cooperative gameplay ala Borderlands/Saints Row, and mmog like WoW/Guild Wars/the upcoming The Division etc.
And although you seem to hate all of it I think you should understand and respect these differences. I don't think that's too much to expect from someone that writes for a gaming site.
It's like if someone would say Warcraft is essentially a JRPG just cause there's plenty similarities: World map, classes, micromanagement, team battle strategies and management… Wouldn't you get your knickers in a twist then?
*Every* game in existance share similarities. It's their differences that defines the genres.
Last edited by Beamboom on 8/28/2013 10:01:39 AM
This is good news. More focus on other games and genre that actually matter >_>. Once there's a COD and Battlefield coming every fall a lot of gamers forget about the non FPS games that are released.
good! I only buy COD every two years or longer and I doubt I could ever buy battlefield any more often.
Really wish EA didn't force Warfighter out the door so soon. If they were given like, 6 or more months to FINISH IT, it would have been better. Im talking about the single player. MP was complete garbage.
DICE are working on a new SW Battlefront methinks
That was already announced a month or two ago.
Thank you.
Fans want DICE to make another Bad Company game and I'm one of them.
What about Bad Company?
Its what I keep …
Damn it!! I want MOH to focus solely on World Wars rather than Modern Warfare. Obviously, history is already written in stone but there were millions recruited for the war. EA could just create a whole new fictional story based on the historical event.
yeah um i do not want my wondeful battlefield to be a "come out every year" that wud ruin it and i wud finally loose all respect for EA of wat little respect i still have for them. battlefield every year wud be the last straw. it is the last gud shooter besides destiny out there i have nothin left for COD had enough.
happy gaming =)
Activision could learn a thing or two from this decision made by EA.
Game franchises should have a break between iterations, and I wish all games had a least a one year off before releasing another title in the franchise, and sometime two or three years would be even better.