If Battlefield 5 turns out to be World War 1 (1914-1918) , it occurred with good timing, because computer hardware is capable of handling the iron sights for detailed graphics. To shot a player at 440 yards with a bolt action rifle using iron sights in previous resolutions and monitors would not be practical. But with the increase in resolution and monitor size, now a days, more attention to detail is possible. Weapon’s optics of glass and electronics is a heaven send for low grade computer equipment, because you can zoom in and create a new screen that is separate from the current large field of view, even low graphic thermal imagery- not so with with iron sights, if you want to be realistic. What you see with regular eyes, is what you get when looking down the iron sights.
I, personally, would call it Battlefield 1914. With the following release dates of new battle maps:
BF1914 released 2016
BF1915 new battle maps (released: TBA)
BF1916 new battle maps (released: TBA)
BF1917 new battle maps (released: TBA)
BF1918 new battle maps (released: TBA)
Any and all previous maps would be a prerequisite of a new battle map.
Hint sheets would be in the form of watching https://www.youtube.com/user/TheGreatWar with each weeks release. A bit much for players, but so was the amount of soldiers fighting in one battle- by the hundreds of thousands! (see: Battle of Cer, 200,000 troops invade Serbia and are repelled, which became the Allied powers’ first battlefield victory!; Battle of Kolubara, 465,000 troops invade Serbia and are repelled again!)
I personally dont think it is going to be WWI. The “theme” is not action packaed enough to draw in the masses. I think a return to WWII is vertainly possible.
With todays hardware, imagine how that would look/sound
There is no war that is more action packed than the first world war. Tens of thousands killed in one battle after hundreds of thousands of troops battle it out against each other. Close to 20 million people dead after four years of war.
Whether EA’s programmers can make it realistic or not, is another matter.
Manufacturers of UHD (4K and 8K) seventy inch monitors would love it, though, since that is the only way to see detail with iron sight rifles and a decent field of view, is by having a large high resolution monitor. If programmed right, it could be the closest depiction of war, without nerfing it.
It could serve as the “race track” for further IT server development, since hundreds of thousands of troops fought in the same battle. It could also be a source of income for anyone being able to host thousands of players on one server. This is also how to boost computer sales upgrades, by making it necessary to play with an ultra-performing PC.
War is not fun, nor glorious unless the enemy is demonized. Maybe playing nerfed video games can be made fun, or are considered fun. I believe players would want to experience the adrenalin intensity of thousands of players engaged in the same battle, without it being nerfed.
If we were to examine the first allied victory in WWI, Battle of Cern, we learned that the invading army retreated for more than one reason. Aside from massive deaths, one of the other reasons was the stench of the thousands of dead bodies rotting. It was unbearable. Just one rotting body is unbearable, let alone thousands. The hardware community could make a USB peripheral that emits smells in the open air, or better yet, in a player’s gas mask, instead of nerfing these near realistic image video games and their weapons. People laughed at ideas of steering wheel peripherals for video car races, but it came about with a gear shifter and foot pedals, as well. Nerfing and easy-peazie gaming belong with games like Titan and Star Wars. Hardware advancement, and high-purse tournaments that involve hundreds, even thousands of players taking part in the same battle, will definitely advance the hardware community.
Lots could be learned by players. Players wouldn’t like the fact that in some WWI theaters of war they would have to charge the enemy without firing a single shot at the machine gunner, unless they reached the trench; such as, was the case for soldiers from the Dominion of Newfoundland- they were all killed with fully loaded rifles. What would happen to players that didn’t obey their command? That’s for EA to research and program, and for players to experience.
I still have BF1942 and played it on a laptop, because the rifle had a scope and made it possible to have a decent engagement with a 15.6" screen. Battle of Iwo Jima with today’s advancement in hardware would be totally different.
i think what your failing to see is that the cost of 4k televisions or monitors is prohibitive to the masses, letalone 8k, and the “This is also how to boost computer sales upgrades, by making it necessary to play with an ultra-performing PC” possibly the best way to kill off both a game franchise and computer sales
Not so, Mack7963, it’s the opposite. I speak from experience. My first custom build cost me CAD$3500 in 1991. I’ve included a chart for better understanding in today’s world.
Gaming is to computers what racing is to cars. They advance their industries. I’ve noticed it with gaming consoles from Atari to Colecovision etc. Over the years, each advancement in hardware knocked competitors out of the industry. Colecovision had a power adapter problem, though. Prices of old stock drop and new products have an initial high price, that’s the way it has been for decades. Decades ago, no one could purchase a computer with financing, even credit cards were difficult to get when compared to today. Today, we see high purse tournaments in gaming. Keep raising the purse and the people will keep being interested like race car drivers.
Desktop PC sales went down over the years, because consumers were flocking to tablets and smart phones. Tablets used SSDs and PC still used the old HDD clunkers. People loved the speed of the SSDs.
Large screen 4K TVs have dropped in price drastically. Prices will drop as time goes by. PC market won’t be killed. Perhaps gaming consoles will be killed.
for me personally i wouldnt spend three and a half grand on a pc to play games, and on top of that add the cost of a 4K monitor but maybe im not into games as much as someone who would, plus i have never mixed gaming and computing, always used a console for games and a computer for computing, which is why i wont be getting the rift, i will be sticking with the PS VR, but this is a very subjective topic, for those that are willing to spend thousands to play games, best of luck to them.
I have the same philosophy as you, mack7963. I wouldn’t spend that much for a gaming computer, and never did. Colecovision was my first only only gaming console, since I enjoyed shooting real guns killing real birds, and playing real sports winning real trophies. It cost a whopping $300 when it first came out, with tax, for an adolescent. I did do a gaming build in late 2014, because of the unbelievable good deals on Black Friday, shipping included. To this day in 2016, I cannot rebuild my 8-core water cooled rig, with 2013 specs, for the same low cost.
Monitors do not necessarily need to be big pieces of hardware that matches the size of screen. It could be projectors projecting a 70" or greater screen
As for gaming graphic cards, they are more useful to me for rendering recorded videos than playing video games. The more CUDAS the quicker the render, and it’s a CPU saver. Now, the gaming PC hardware industry has additional customers because of home audio/video rendering, especially if it was recorded on a smartphone:)
