Nederlands
Volg ons
Gamereactor
Videos
Battlefield 2025
HQ

GRTV News - EA onthult een hoop informatie over de volgende Battlefield

De game wordt volgend jaar verwacht en zal gebruik maken van een moderne setting.

Audio transcriptions

"Hello everyone and welcome back to another GRTV News. Today we're going to be talking a little bit about Battlefield. I know, strange, I didn't think we'd be talking about this for a little while but we are. And the reason is because Battlefield's sort of veteran, we'll call him, Vince Zampella, has recently had a chat with IGN talking about the next installment of the series and revealed a whole bunch of interesting little tidbits of information about what it will include."

"There's nothing necessarily hugely intricate but overarching sort of facts that really paint a picture of a promising game. Obviously the big question is whether or not it will, how it will play in practice but the actual information that Zampella has shared in regards to this upcoming installment, which we're expecting next year, it seems like they've taken what happened with Battlefield 2042 and some of the various things that didn't necessarily sit well with fans, scaled them back and focused more on what made Battlefield great during that sort of time period when it was frequently competing with Call of Duty. So with that being the case, let's dive on in. EA confirms that the next Battlefield will be set in modern times and will scale back on many of the features that were added in Battlefield 2042."

"No more historical battles or science fiction, no, the next Battlefield will once again take place in modern times and this was confirmed by EA and Vince Zampella in an interview with IGN where they took the opportunity to show a first concept image of the game. We'll get to that in a moment.
In addition, several of the elements that made Battlefield 2042 so unpopular among fans will be dropped, so no more giant maps with support for 128 players, instead the focus will be on a more traditional approach. Zampella himself commented on this saying, yeah that 128 player, did it make it more fun? Like doing the number for the sake of the number doesn't make any sense, we're testing everything around what's most fun, we're designing something that is more akin to previous Battlefields, I'd rather have nice dense really nice well-designed play spaces, some of them are really good, I can't wait for you to see some of them. Similarly the specialists that were initially featured in Battlefield 2042 will also not reappear, something that's described as a failed experiment from the team and nothing they intend to reuse. I don't know what the rationale was but for me it's like the team tried something new, you don't have to applaud that effort, not everyone liked it but you got to try things, it didn't work, it didn't fit, specialists will not be coming back. So classes are kind of at the core of Battlefield and we're going back to that."

"Zampella also mentioned Call of Duty explaining how the two brands offer different experiences and that they are in no way trying to compete with Activision's bestseller. We're not looking to take down Call of Duty, we're making something that's different and we're making something that's us. Are you looking forward to the next Battlefield? And here's their concept art, I'll be honest it doesn't really give you a whole lot to go by, it's a pretty generic sort of war image really. But the one thing you can take from it is that there's obviously land, air and sea, which is sort of the key sort of core trio of Battlefield. You get a bit of everything in a Battlefield game and that's definitely what you can see here, land, air, sea."

"So, a few key words there that really stand out to me. A, modern setting, I don't think that's a huge surprise. In the last few Battlefield games we've had a futuristic one and we've had a historical one. So to go for a modern setting, it's not exactly a huge surprise. I personally don't mind Battlefield games regardless of the setting. I think unlike certain Call of Duty games which benefit from being modern ones, I think Battlefield kind of thrives in the various different sort of setups. And I think that's proved as well in the fact that Star Wars Battlefront games are generally quite well done as well. I think that the sort of big scale, all out battle sort of concept, it works regardless of the time period. So, a modern Battlefield, it's exciting, but I don't think it's necessarily, it would have been the end of all things if they said that no, we're going to do a Battlefield set back in World War 2 or something."

"The things that do excite me though is, cutting back on the 128 player thing, I can understand the idea of it, you know, more bigger maps, more people, more chaos essentially. But I often look at the player size thing a bit like farming, believe it or not. So like raise cattle or something, right, you need to have a specific amount of space for them to be able to grow and thrive, else the quality of the game is going to be so much worse. So, I think that's a big else the quality of the end product isn't going to be as good. And I think that's the same with multiplayer games, right. If you build a really big map, sorry, you build a game that's designed to have 128 players in it, you need to give them a lot of room to play in. Otherwise, it gets too crazy. And then when it gets too crazy, it starts to lose its identity a little bit. That can happen infrequently, like for example, when you jump on like a map of a match of shipment in Call of Duty. It's exciting, it's fun, but when you play all the time, it starts to lose or it starts to affect the charm of the other sort of more better designed maps because they're not as high paced and they don't sort of clock with your dopamine as much. And I think that's the case with the Battlefield 128 player thing. I think that the maps were well designed and I think there's a lot that you can do in them. But when there's so much room and so much empty space, it makes you want to go back to the small stuff. And then when you go back to the small stuff, you realize that they're perhaps too small. And I think that Battlefield just needs to be 64 players, sort of what we know as of today, sort of like a medium sized map and just leave it at that. So I like that, I do. I think that's going to benefit the game, gives people more opportunity for chaos and action, but at the same time, it still leaves plenty of room for this sort of vehicular land, air, sea warfare that we love about Battlefield game. The other thing as well as obviously the specialists, I hate the specialists. I thought it was one of the worst things that the Battlefield 24 to 42 did."

"I don't like it when they do these specialist things in shooters as a whole. I think there's obviously certain games and certain series that it works, specifically sort of single player things that allow you to build a character and sort of develop into those classes. But for an online shooter like this, I loathe it. I absolutely loathe it. Just give me a weapon and let me go out there and cause some chaos. That's exactly what you want to do in a shooter. And to have all these say like, you know, this specialist does this a little bit better than this one, but they'll kind of do the same thing. No, get rid of it all. We don't need it. Just let us just let us just do the thing."

"Let us just choose a class or choose a loadout of weapons that suit us, fitting into the sort of overall parameters that allow you to sort of sculpt a team when there's, you know, 32 players all working in cohesion, hence the assault medic support and engineer side of setup. And then, yeah, let them do their own thing. So I love that that's going away and we're going back to the core sort of battlefield roles. Makes things so much more fluid or sort of streamlined and easy as well."

"And then the last thing that Zampella mentioned there obviously was about Call of Duty.
They're not trying to make something that competes with it. I don't think that's a huge statement because I don't think that Battlefield has ever really looked to compete with Call of Duty in that regard. Obviously they are two sort of high profile shooters, but I don't think you ever really ever looked at a Battlefield game and thought it's either Battlefield or Call of Duty."

"I think they kind of work hand in hand because they do different things. But yeah, the point is that a lot of interesting, exciting things about this from what Zampella told us about Battlefield.
Again, nothing locked in, nothing firm. It's just overarching sort of concept ideas and in general sort of big points. No doubt we'll hear more about it probably in 2024, maybe by the end of the year. Maybe there'll be an announcement in regards to Battlefield 2025."

"It's called this and it's coming in sometime in 2025 and then we'll hear more about it next year.
But I believe from the various rumors we've heard that 2025 is the release sort of plan.
And if it's a Battlefield game, that means you can pretty much circle the autumn window down.
Battlefield games don't tend to release outside of the autumn window, so in line with when Call of Duty tend to launch. But again, as we know more about this and even official information, be sure to keep your posted. So stay tuned for that. And otherwise I'll be back now tomorrow for the next GRTV News of the Week. So enjoy your Tuesday and I'll see you tomorrow. Take care everyone."

GRTV Nieuws

Meer

Video's

Meer

Film Trailers

Meer

Trailers

Meer

Evenementen

Meer