I wouldn't want to get on much either with how discouraging a good portion of this community is.[SPQR]Eduard said:Btw guys, I've seen more developers online on forums recently... Unusual :p
I wouldn't want to get on much either with how discouraging a good portion of this community is.[SPQR]Eduard said:Btw guys, I've seen more developers online on forums recently... Unusual :p
Lumos said:The Battlefield 1 trailer is live. Go watch that.
The Bowman said:Lumos said:The Battlefield 1 trailer is live. Go watch that.
Did watch. Now I'm struggling with a serious form of diarrhea.
Welp.Louis said:That's a utter way to use "Seven Nation Army". For a trailer and dubstep remix
I had this idea Battlefield will use the same cav damage stipulation Mount and Blade has (+speed +damage) and call it "their own unique system". Because you cant spell "steal" without "EA"Đяαкøℵ said:Welp.
At least the song is good.
If I can't scream Allahu Akbar while in a cav charge in Arabia with a Tulwar raised up I'll kms
Go back to FSE mate.~Lawrence~ said:That trailer for battlefield was aids..
Because there never was a "Battlefield 1" and it's about the First World War. I think it's clever. Not necessarily a good decision, but clever anyway.SenorZorros said:can someone explain to me why that game is called battlefield 1. I mean battlefield ONE. it should be at least battlefield seven. I know ****ing around with sequel names is the rage nowdays but this is preposterous. 1942, 2, 2142, 1943, 3, 4, 5, 1.
and yeah, the trailer was rather wierd. I do wonder how they are going to make the boring trench warfare interesting without making the game unhistorical (they robably won't).
it's not clever, it's stupid. there has been a very simple naming convention fro the ages. if you make a sequel you put a 2 behind it. if you make addition sequels you increase the number by one for each additional sequel. this system works great. there is no reason to confuse the buyer by juggling numbers. it does not look "cool". it does not sound clever. it is low hanging fruit especially since this game is clearly set in the later years of the war. if hey wanted to refer to the war why not call it battlefield 1917? that is an actual naming convention used by the series.Lumos said:Because there never was a "Battlefield 1" and it's about the First World War. I think it's clever. Not necessarily a good decision, but clever anyway.SenorZorros said:can someone explain to me why that game is called battlefield 1. I mean battlefield ONE. it should be at least battlefield seven. I know ****ing around with sequel names is the rage nowdays but this is preposterous. 1942, 2, 2142, 1943, 3, 4, 5, 1.
and yeah, the trailer was rather wierd. I do wonder how they are going to make the boring trench warfare interesting without making the game unhistorical (they robably won't).
Besides, it didn't give me a very realistic vibe. It looked pretty cool, however, and the rule of cool is important.
CALL~Lawrence~ said:That trailer for battlefield was aids..