BF2142 not futuristic enough?

[$kelet0r]

Sadly I don't think BF2142 cuts the mustard on the futuristic front.
So far the weapons we've seen are merely today's weapons with different skins and the vehicles so far are the same - choppers without rotors.
Mechs aren't realistic or futuristic - they are a big hit me sign on a battlefield :(

So what are we left with? I want 2142 to be hyperwar at 5000 miles per hour not conflict in 2022. I want plausible realism - the same jump from 1905 to 1942 to 2005 to 2142.

Where are the railguns? The orbital weapon platforms? The space landing craft? The omni tank/chopper/jet combined? The heavy infantry capable to engaging multiple armoured hostiles at once?

Change the flow of war strategy around - if 1905 was the era of the cavalry charge, 1916 the era of fixed artillery and machine gun, 1940 the era of the tank, 1980 the era of the nuclear submarine and the long range jet bomber and 2000 the era of digital warfare and aircraft ..... then make 2142 the era of the resurgence of the infantry man - equipped with weapons capable to shredding current whole brigades, with armour and jets for support behind the infantry and not as first strike options as they are today.

Speed up the warfare, make armour and jets fear the humble infantry man, increase the firepower, mobility and range of infantry. GIve them the ability to get to places faster ... if tat means jet packs so be it but you could also consider teleportation, sling shotting yourself by locking on to a passing aircraft, hoverboards (anti grav, air powered whatever)

All of this can be accomplished without taking away from realism based warfare - I don't want to see Quake 4 multiplayer with its jumping, bunny hopping madness.... I merely want to see and experience a future war in all its carnage

[ReaperOfsouls]

Dude you make the most random negative posts ever lol. Some of the stuff you are suggestion like "a gun for infatry that would blow up a whole bridge" is just stupid to be honest. If the game was how you wanted it no one would play it. You must not think about what you think is cool but about gameplay. Just chill out for a bit man untill E3 then we will see whats up with the game.

[Smeg]

I agree with KeletOr on a few of his points. It would be cool if the game had thoes, but it is up to EA and DICE as to how the game ends up. Dont complain to us. Talk to them.

Plus im sure EA will produce an entertaining game regardles if I agree with everyting they do.

Furthermore you can always make a mod to add thoes features.

(im not sisngling out ither arguement I agree with parts of both)

[ReaperOfsouls]

No it would be pretty stupid actually. TAkes one shot to blow up the bridge and 1 minute to repair. Plus there always a alternate route around the bridge I dont even know why they made it so you can blow them up.

And how was I complaing. Last time I checked lol means laugh out loud which would imply that I was joking.

[PsYcHo.KiLLa]

I do agree with a few of the things you said $Kelet0r, however I am still optimistic for this upcoming game.

You made some good points in your post.

[Smeg]

No it would be pretty stupid actually. TAkes one shot to blow up the bridge and 1 minute to repair. Plus there always a alternate route around the bridge I dont even know why they made it so you can blow them up.

And how was I complaing. Last time I checked lol means laugh out loud which would imply that I was joking.

Not that you were complaining i was replying to the initial post.

Also I dont think he ever mentioned being able to blow up a bridge in one hit.

[Punisher18]

it wiould be nice if the levels were so big that space was involved. giant spaceships and all that good stuff. Of course that would only be on the 1000 player sized maps.LOL
wouldnt that be cool though. like WoW except an awesome first person shooter. actually have squadrens of planes and cargo planes, tank divisions. ETc ETc.
Would be ritchous IMO

[PsYcHo.KiLLa]

it wiould be nice if the levels were so big that space was involved. giant spaceships and all that good stuff. Of course that would only be on the 1000 player sized maps.LOL
wouldnt that be cool though. like WoW except an awesome first person shooter. actually have squadrens of planes and cargo planes, tank divisions. ETc ETc.
Would be ritchous IMO

Dude, that's what I was just thinking the other day.

Like when you meet with your squad, you actually meet with them online, and it's not always fighting.
You would join a "world" server, meet up with people, or enter a battle arena server from there via a hand-held device. Something like that.

[Smeg]

Dude, that's what I was just thinking the other day.

Like when you meet with your squad, you actually meet with them online, and it's not always fighting.
You would join a "world" server, meet up with people, or enter a battle arena server from there via a hand-held device. Something like that.

If only...:o

[PsYcHo.KiLLa]

I'll write a book about it and call it "Utopia: BF2142".

[ReaperOfsouls]

I'll write a book about it and call it "Utopia: BF2142".

Lol.

If you want something where you enter a world get planet side.

[PsYcHo.KiLLa]

Lol.

If you want something where you enter a world get planet side.
Its it a FP type game, or what?

[Punisher18]

Dude, that's what I was just thinking the other day.

Like when you meet with your squad, you actually meet with them online, and it's not always fighting.
You would join a "world" server, meet up with people, or enter a battle arena server from there via a hand-held device. Something like that.
exactly!! finally someone else who sees eye to eye with me. I know that wont happen immediately but i am sure that in due time there will be a game like that. They tried it once back in the day. i have the game because it was a bundle for 5 bucks. you had to subscribe and here were worlds you battled on. http://www.firingsquad.com/games/world_war_2_online_reloaded/
that is a link to the newer version of it. The name on the cd is "WW2 Online CD"
was crappy graphics but good for than and it was a mmofps kind of thing.
pretty sweet to see that except for bf2142 or something even better.
Thoughts?

[PsYcHo.KiLLa]

exactly!! finally someone else who sees eye to eye with me. I know that wont happen immediately but i am sure that in due time there will be a game like that. They tried it once back in the day. i have the game because it was a bundle for 5 bucks. you had to subscribe and here were worlds you battled on. http://www.firingsquad.com/games/world_war_2_online_reloaded/
that is a link to the newer version of it. The name on the cd is "WW2 Online CD"
was crappy graphics but good for than and it was a mmofps kind of thing.
pretty sweet to see that except for bf2142 or something even better.
Thoughts?

With a little work (well, a lot of work actually), one could turn an FPS game like BF2142 into something like that; an MMOFPS. Imagine that. Something as big as World of Warcraft, but actually fun, and in FPS style.

[The JizzBomber]

With a little work (well, a lot of work actually), one could turn an FPS game like BF2142 into something like that; an MMOFPS. Imagine that. Something as big as World of Warcraft, but actually fun, and in FPS style.

There is a game thats an MMOFPS called Huxley coming out soon. Looks pretty good from the gameplay videos I've seen....

[PsYcHo.KiLLa]

Really? I'll look for it...

Okay, I found a link:
www.huxleygame.com

[The JizzBomber]

That would be it.......At first I wasn't too excited about it, but after watching the gameplay video from E3 2005 I've decided to add it to my "games to look out for" list.

[PsYcHo.KiLLa]

That would be it.......At first I wasn't too excited about it, but after watching the gameplay video from E3 2005 I've decided to add it to my "games to look out for" list.
Yea, the website doesn't look too inviting, but the screenies are good.

[The JizzBomber]

check out www.webzen.com for the actual site.

[$kelet0r]

Dude you make the most random negative posts ever lol. Some of the stuff you are suggestion like "a gun for infatry that would blow up a whole bridge" is just stupid to be honest. If the game was how you wanted it no one would play it. You must not think about what you think is cool but about gameplay. Just chill out for a bit man untill E3 then we will see whats up with the game.Thats a little harsh particularly when all I was advocating was a rethink of the gameplay
My idea to reverse the infantry armour role isnt all that 'out there' - it makes sense and not only that it would differentiate the game from others especially BF2
Make the infantry man the centre of the battle not the jet of bf2, the chopper of bfv or the tank of bf1942. Change it around, mix it up - add a new dynamic to the game
Here I am being the optimist and you 're calling me negative - it doesnt make sense
No game can be everything - I don't play BF2 for realism - I play Operation Flashpoint, I don't play Planetside for round based focused warfare, I play CSS or BF2
Different shades for different tastes
My ideas can be summed up as
1. make the infantry man the centre of the battle
2. give the infantry man the weapons and firepower that make using armour, jets and choppers as the frontline weapons without infantry obsolete and suicidal
3. Speed up the gameplay by giving infantry more mobility
and that's it - a new game, a new dynamic, a new formula
A plea for innovation not a rehash of old ideas

[Smeg]

Thats a little harsh particularly when all I was advocating was a rethink of the gameplay
My idea to reverse the infantry armour role isnt all that 'out there' - it makes sense and not only that it would differentiate the game from others especially BF2
Make the infantry man the centre of the battle not the jet of bf2, the chopper of bfv or the tank of bf1942. Change it around, mix it up - add a new dynamic to the game
Here I am being the optimist and you 're calling me negative - it doesnt make sense
No game can be everything - I don't play BF2 for realism - I play Operation Flashpoint, I don't play Planetside for round based focused warfare, I play CSS or BF2
Different shades for different tastes
My ideas can be summed up as
1. make the infantry man the centre of the battle
2. give the infantry man the weapons and firepower that make using armour, jets and choppers as the frontline weapons without infantry obsolete and suicidal
3. Speed up the gameplay by giving infantry more mobility
and that's it - a new game, a new dynamic, a new formula
A plea for innovation not a rehash of old ideas

HAZAH! :D

[WarGimp]

So far I like the design in terms of plausible technology.

Mech's aren't really that farfetched. Check out a couple quick links here:
http://www.freepressinternational.com/asimo-honda-robot.html
http://www.freepressinternational.com/spider_bot_9238_plustech_8470f721.html

Man portible railguns are not likely to ever become practical. Power storage plus fragial magnets isn't likely to surpass chemical based projectial systems in small arms. Ever. It's a matter of physics. Large scale (vehicle mounted) rail guns are a different story, tho.

Orbital weapons platforms could be introduced much like existing BF2 artillery, but there's a very valid real world reason that they too might never become practical. It's MUCH cheaper to build a missile that can shoot down satilites than it is to maintain any kind of space platform. Micro sats that can spot objects in orbit and move to colide with them are already being developed. These would be cheap and easy to launch. Defending against them would be very hard. Orbital deployment of troops could face the same problems. Here's an artical on the subject: http://www.popsci.com/popsci/aviationspace/cc71b07fd0837010vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html

About the biggest hole in the plausibility of the design is that it doesn't seem to contain much in the way of robotic weapons. This is a BIG focus right now. Even Canada have been talking about replacing our Airforce with unmanned fighter drones that could be smaller, faster, and able to preform manuevers that no manned craft could do (without killing said pilot, that is). However, one of the great things about doing game design in a futuristic setting is that you can taylor your backstory to support your mechanics. It's not a big leap to assume that these robotic forces could be setback drasticly by signel hacking, expence (grunts are cheap, robots are not), or vunerability to EMP based weapons.

Above all else, it's important to make the game FUN and keep it something that players can relate with. Most people who don't like Sci-fi are people who can't bridge the imagination gap and thus can't relate with the subject mater. People like things they can relate with.

[Smeg]

So far I like the design in terms of plausible technology.

Mech's aren't really that farfetched. Check out a couple quick links here:
http://www.freepressinternational.com/asimo-honda-robot.html
http://www.freepressinternational.com/spider_bot_9238_plustech_8470f721.html

Man portible railguns are not likely to ever become practical. Power storage plus fragial magnets isn't likely to surpass chemical based projectial systems in small arms. Ever. It's a matter of physics. Large scale (vehicle mounted) rail guns are a different story, tho.

Orbital weapons platforms could be introduced much like existing BF2 artillery, but there's a very valid real world reason that they too might never become practical. It's MUCH cheaper to build a missile that can shoot down satilites than it is to maintain any kind of space platform. Micro sats that can spot objects in orbit and move to colide with them are already being developed. These would be cheap and easy to launch. Defending against them would be very hard. Orbital deployment of troops could face the same problems. Here's an artical on the subject: http://www.popsci.com/popsci/aviationspace/cc71b07fd0837010vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html

About the biggest hole in the plausibility of the design is that it doesn't seem to contain much in the way of robotic weapons. This is a BIG focus right now. Even Canada have been talking about replacing our Airforce with unmanned fighter drones that could be smaller, faster, and able to preform manuevers that no manned craft could do (without killing said pilot, that is). However, one of the great things about doing game design in a futuristic setting is that you can taylor your backstory to support your mechanics. It's not a big leap to assume that these robotic forces could be setback drasticly by signel hacking, expence (grunts are cheap, robots are not), or vunerability to EMP based weapons.

Above all else, it's important to make the game FUN and keep it something that players can relate with. Most people who don't like Sci-fi are people who can't bridge the imagination gap and thus can't relate with the subject mater. People like things they can relate with.

Reality is boring. Give me a rail Rifle!

[NiSsE]

That Ant looking robot was cool :D next step is Meches ^^

[NiSsE]

So far I like the design in terms of plausible technology.

Mech's aren't really that farfetched. Check out a couple quick links here:
http://www.freepressinternational.com/asimo-honda-robot.html
http://www.freepressinternational.com/spider_bot_9238_plustech_8470f721.html

Man portible railguns are not likely to ever become practical. Power storage plus fragial magnets isn't likely to surpass chemical based projectial systems in small arms. Ever. It's a matter of physics. Large scale (vehicle mounted) rail guns are a different story, tho.

Orbital weapons platforms could be introduced much like existing BF2 artillery, but there's a very valid real world reason that they too might never become practical. It's MUCH cheaper to build a missile that can shoot down satilites than it is to maintain any kind of space platform. Micro sats that can spot objects in orbit and move to colide with them are already being developed. These would be cheap and easy to launch. Defending against them would be very hard. Orbital deployment of troops could face the same problems. Here's an artical on the subject: http://www.popsci.com/popsci/aviationspace/cc71b07fd0837010vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html

About the biggest hole in the plausibility of the design is that it doesn't seem to contain much in the way of robotic weapons. This is a BIG focus right now. Even Canada have been talking about replacing our Airforce with unmanned fighter drones that could be smaller, faster, and able to preform manuevers that no manned craft could do (without killing said pilot, that is). However, one of the great things about doing game design in a futuristic setting is that you can taylor your backstory to support your mechanics. It's not a big leap to assume that these robotic forces could be setback drasticly by signel hacking, expence (grunts are cheap, robots are not), or vunerability to EMP based weapons.

Above all else, it's important to make the game FUN and keep it something that players can relate with. Most people who don't like Sci-fi are people who can't bridge the imagination gap and thus can't relate with the subject mater. People like things they can relate with.

I don't think it will go soo many years before we have planes like the one in that movie "Stealth" 10-20 years maybe :p

[PsYcHo.KiLLa]

I don't think it will go soo many years before we have planes like the one in that movie "Stealth" 10-20 years maybe :p
I wouldn't be surprised...

[WarGimp]

Well... consitering the STOL varient of the F35 JSF is planned to reach operational service in 2012 and have aprox a 30 year life cycle in active duty, I doubt we'll be seeing Stealth type aircraft for quite awhile yet. :p
http://forums.military.com/groupee/forums/a/tpc/f/986194012/m/6011990796/p/3

Then again, I caught a snippet from an artical in the local paper saying that Canada is looking at replacing/supplementing our airforce with unmanned short range fighter drones. Hard to find a source on the artical ATM (burried under tons of reports of Canada purchasing standard UAVs), but I have an engineering friend that's looking to place a bid on part of the contract. I'll see if he can pass me some details.

Millitary technology is a strange beast. There hasn't been much in the way of real firearms development for 100 years (the introduction of the automatic pitol). Metalstorm ( http://www.metalstorm.com/ ) represents the first major change in firearms development in that time... and it's basicly just a way to toss out led faster.

The AK-47 (the most successful rifle ever manufactured) was designed in 1949! 57 years ago! There's no sign of it losing favor any time soon.

Interesting to note: The Romans believed they had prefected military technology with their Leagons and the use of short swords, shields, and spears. They did no significant change for over 1000 years! Then some ****hole barbarians started running 'em over with horses and things rapidly changed. Within a span of 80 years, the foot solider was replaced by calvery, the short sword gave way to the longsword, and leather armour was replaced by metal based designs.

Druing our own time, we've seen aircraft going from being consitered worthless in a combat capasity during WW1 (where the first armed planes were pilots taking their pistols with them) to being the dominant force in Desert storm, yet it's virtually worthless in the current Iraq confict where it's all come back down to infantry again.

Point is:
A) it's very hard to predict where military technology will go since it's growth happens in very strange fits and spurts.
B) I spend way to much friggen time thinking about this kinda stuff.
:p

[PsYcHo.KiLLa]

Nice info, WarGimp!

I does make me wonder what will come after firearms.

I mean, the Romans thought there was nothing more advanced than their swords, now we have guns. So we now can't imagine anything more advanced than our guns, so I wonder what will be next?

Not in my generation, that's for sure...

By the way, WarGimp, how did you get moderator status?

[WarGimp]

Nice info, WarGimp!

I does make me wonder what will come after firearms.

I mean, the Romans thought there was nothing more advanced than their swords, now we have guns. So we now can't imagine anything more advanced than our guns, so I wonder what will be next?

Not in my generation, that's for sure...

It's hard to say really. As you noted, since we have no conception of that might replace guns, we can't really judge. There's been quite a bit of research lately in the way of debilitating fields (super strong magnetics, hyper/sub sonic noise projectors, and low power microwaves) that wouldn't kill, but make fighting impossible.

Who knows? War might boil down to who's got more/stronger emiters.


By the way, WarGimp, how did you get moderator status?
Bribery and spam gets you places.
:p
Hehe, naw, the admins just figured I have a perty good handle on the community and interact with it enough to make me a good choice. I've always been interested in helping the community along... so what the heck, eh?

[NiSsE]

thanks for all this info WarGimp how much time do you spend on all you Threads about stuff like this? :rolleyes:

[ConscriptVirus]

its like that magainze i read in like 1999 wat ppl think will happen in teh year 2000 and ppl wanted...flying cars ...moon cities..well..that never happened

[WarGimp]

thanks for all this info WarGimp how much time do you spend on all you Threads about stuff like this? :rolleyes:
Suprisingly little, really. As I mentioned, I'm kinda a science geek. I read a lot and have a perty good head for trivia.
BTW, while surfing things like these forums I'm usually also watching a Documentery on something and/or reading. ATM, I've got a streaming vid on structual failures of Iron Core buildings as related to 9/11 and have a the book "Blackhawk down" sitting next to me. Oh, and a couple issues of "Technology Review" (MIT's tech mag) sitting on my desk (and on my shelf, and in the bathroom... and a couple on the coffee table).

[NiSsE]

Suprisingly little, really. As I mentioned, I'm kinda a science geek. I read a lot and have a perty good head for trivia.
BTW, while surfing things like these forums I'm usually also watching a Documentery on something and/or reading. ATM, I've got a streaming vid on structual failures of Iron Core buildings as related to 9/11 and have a the book "Blackhawk down" sitting next to me. Oh, and a couple issues of "Technology Review" (MIT's tech mag) sitting on my desk (and on my shelf, and in the bathroom... and a couple on the coffee table).

Soo is it ok too call you a geek then? instead of WarGimp :rolleyes:

[$kelet0r]

its certainly a less disturbing imagine than mentally picturing a war-gimp :eek: :(

[WarGimp]

Soo is it ok too call you a geek then? instead of WarGimp :rolleyes:
"Geek" has long since stopped being consitered an insult in the circles I run in.
;)
Geeks are people who know stuff about stuff... and stuff.

Quick breakdown on the New intelectual hirarcy:

Guru: Top of the food chain. You can ask him anything and he'll know the answer. You'd better have a perty good understanding of the subject, or you won't understand the answer.
Geek: Someone who knows alot about the subject, but also has a strong/quirky personality.
Nerd: A geek without the personality.
Dweeb: A nerd without the knowlage.
Script kiddy/smack-tard/Haxor: Just a write off.

Umm... what was this thread about again?

[IHateYou]

Our Guru's are called SME's. Subject Matter Experts. Good 'ol Smees.

[Splinter]

I'am quite happy that they have limited the tech in Bf2142. I dont want some all purpose solider/rambo/terminator in this game, if there was you wouldnt need different classesfor different situations.

[WarGimp]

Since railguns keep coming up and some folks seem to have some funny ideas about what they actually are, I thought it might be kinda cool to toss up this link:
http://science.howstuffworks.com/rail-gun1.htm
Really good breakdown on the tech behind railguns. Easy to grasp, yet accurate. Check out the funky flash toy.

[Sharp]

There is a game thats an MMOFPS called Huxley coming out soon. Looks pretty good from the gameplay videos I've seen....

I like that the PC version and Xbox 360 worlds overlap online.

As for the original post. Why are we still sending infantry into battle in 2142? Wouldn't we just unleash waves of nanobots or drones, and the 'troops' just sit behind a monitor directing it all?

[Cazzy]

The developers have stated that while advancing the game to the future, they dont want it so far out that it becomes like an Unreal deathmatch. We dont need jets packs and everyone running around with 1 shot killing rail guns. I think they are making a nice balance with things like the camo & titan while still keeping the BF style of play.

[MrBenis]

Zombie thread, this one was before my time, I think.

[Cazzy]

I hope that zombies are an unlockable class to play in BF2142. That would be cool.... oh wait did you say this was a zombie thread? :)

[MrBenis]

Promise me this: you will dig this thread up again in 6 months time. We must keep this thread alive, however diseased and misguided it was.

[Cazzy]

I didnt realize threads had an expiration date! Do they go sour like milk does?

[MrBenis]

Sarcasm aside, yes, yes they do. From the angle that posts made pre-june were subject to scant or now-incorrect evidence, bringing up old threads in the general discussion is akin to digging up the dead. Probably best to lock threads like these and let them die.

[Cazzy]

Yes but having just joined the forums recently, I thought I would add my own thoughts to the posts I missed.... oh well

[StalkerZERO]

Sadly I don't think BF2142 cuts the mustard on the futuristic front.
So far the weapons we've seen are merely today's weapons with different skins and the vehicles so far are the same - choppers without rotors.
Mechs aren't realistic or futuristic - they are a big hit me sign on a battlefield :(

So what are we left with? I want 2142 to be hyperwar at 5000 miles per hour not conflict in 2022. I want plausible realism - the same jump from 1905 to 1942 to 2005 to 2142.

Where are the railguns? The orbital weapon platforms? The space landing craft? The omni tank/chopper/jet combined? The heavy infantry capable to engaging multiple armoured hostiles at once?

Change the flow of war strategy around - if 1905 was the era of the cavalry charge, 1916 the era of fixed artillery and machine gun, 1940 the era of the tank, 1980 the era of the nuclear submarine and the long range jet bomber and 2000 the era of digital warfare and aircraft ..... then make 2142 the era of the resurgence of the infantry man - equipped with weapons capable to shredding current whole brigades, with armour and jets for support behind the infantry and not as first strike options as they are today.

Speed up the warfare, make armour and jets fear the humble infantry man, increase the firepower, mobility and range of infantry. GIve them the ability to get to places faster ... if tat means jet packs so be it but you could also consider teleportation, sling shotting yourself by locking on to a passing aircraft, hoverboards (anti grav, air powered whatever)

All of this can be accomplished without taking away from realism based warfare - I don't want to see Quake 4 multiplayer with its jumping, bunny hopping madness.... I merely want to see and experience a future war in all its carnage

I support you totally dude. I too am waiting for such a game. I don't think 2142 will be it and neither quake wars frankly.
Perhaps.......perhaps some day. :cry:

[3lliot3vans]

Sarcasm aside, yes, yes they do. From the angle that posts made pre-june were subject to scant or now-incorrect evidence, bringing up old threads in the general discussion is akin to digging up the dead. Probably best to lock threads like these and let them die.
:locked: :locked: :locked: :locked: :locked: :locked: :locked: :locked: :locked: :locked: :locked: :locked: :locked: :locked: :locked: :locked: :locked:

[Dogge_Parkour]

I understand how you think (I think :P )
But the people at Dice are not stupid, they're smart enough to understand that the game is a lot more funny with bullets instead of som lazers.
(there is a lot of other games with thoose weapons)

[ReaperOfsouls]

:locked: :locked: :locked: :locked: :locked: :locked: :locked: :locked: :locked: :locked: :locked: :locked: :locked: :locked: :locked: :locked: :locked:

He's not spaming just expressing his point on a very old post lol.

Nothing wrong with that.

I do see where Mr. Benis is coming from, information at the time of the posts creation has changed but there is still nothing wrong with some one posting there thoughts.

[Alaz]

Actually on topic for the thread, because i never saw this thread (wasn't here when it was made :cry: )

I actually really like the fact its not super futuristic. It gives it that sense of possibility, in most future games when they feature Earth you always go "thats nice" but its nothing like Earth. This Earth in this game is under just as much threat from ourselves and it makes it seem so much easier to relate to.

Its a refreshing change from starships and galactic empires for me.

[Cazzy]

Thank you Reaper for backing me up because some people on these boards think it is the eigth deadly sin to post in a topic more than 1 week old! Some of us are new to the site..... hello?

[Richard012345]

I didn't know being new to the site meant you were able to revive topics as zombies...

[the_bruce_lee]

yeah i like how dice approached the game

[ReaperOfsouls]

Thank you Reaper for backing me up because some people on these boards think it is the eigth deadly sin to post in a topic more than 1 week old! Some of us are new to the site..... hello?

At the same time dont go spaming old topics either.

And I agree with Alaz and the_bruce_lee.

If they made it to futuristic they would lose a lot of players and they know that and I to think dice approched this game in a better want than they did BF2.

[Elinombrable]

I think this game is futuristic enough...its a realistic future but isnt star wars.Its fine this way

[kiss my RICE]

Yes, unless you are crazy about stereotype futuristic games, then you really shouldn't think that 2142 isn't futuristic enough. Probably, in the REAL future, we wouldn't have a war at all! Forget the lasers too, what we'd have, is a good ol' nuclear showdown...the winner? No one! We'd all be dead..Hooray!

[Silent_Ops]

woo there u have ur own idea about the future and ea/dice have theres

[Elit3_Hawkins]

And there idea has a lot of ''bugs'' if you know what I mean lol