Battlefield 4

And yet the Type 56 is the second most effective (and produced) version of the AKM ever made and the AKM is no slouch in the effectiveness department. (In Vietnam it proved itself superior to the M-16 in many regards. And the NVA/VC did use Type 56s as well.)

That carries a huge risk of public backlash. We all know there's no such thing as a legally sold game in China so we don't have to care about their "public" backlash potential.

Also with that kind of premise I get a very Strawman Political vibe out of it. Or maybe an attempt at Metal Wolf Chaos only no Hot-Blooded-ness, no mecha and no Crazy Awesomeness. Could just be me.

Yeah, why is the US never a bad guy?

Because having the USA as anything other than the unambiguous hero means the game won't sell in America.

Yeah, it would be risky, that's why it probably won't happen. If you have American good guys that play a major role it might solve the problem - or it might not. But the general story concept of China/Russia/terrorists are evil has been done to death and is boring.

Let's make a NATO country go crazy this time guys.

If you make it England, you can throw in some 1984 references.

@Deadbeatloser 22: What about Assassin's Creed 3?

The Chinese haven't. They were a minor antagonist in Black Ops II and sort of a Deuteragonist/minor antagonist in Battlefield 2. (Also horrendously inaccurate in that.)

There hasn't been an FPS where the Chinese are the primary enemy. (That I'm aware of.)

I agree on the whole terrorists-with-more-military-prowess-that-is-believable thing. And the Russians are getting a tad tired.

^ Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising, And Operation Flashpoint: Red River...

Oh, and China actually didn't ban Dragon Rising...guess enough authencity and not going into politics can help...I'm not sure on status of RR in China, but consider how jingoistic it is...

edited 17th Mar '13 8:46:08 AM by onyhow

Then we have only one option left for a modern warfare themed shooter: Bring on the aliens!

And I don't mean a rehash of that movie.

I wouldn't mind Battlefield 1917. Or Battlefield 1792, come to that (though I have no idea how a setting where the best rate for fire was six rounds minute in good weather would work for an FPS).

Or a setting that hasn't been done for a while - go back to Vietnam, or Battlefield 1952. Or, and I can but dream, Battlefield M42.

What I'll get is a better version of Modern Warfare, which is alright, but getting really stale. I might buy it if it is good. If they must go for that setting, then at least I would like an intelligent plot, a la Spec Ops The Line.

edited 17th Mar '13 9:31:35 AM by Achaemenid

Well, I dunno. MW and Battlefield, although both in the spunkgargleweewee genre, tailor to different niches. Battlefield players want wide open maps, combined arms and vehicles, COD players want tiny maps, small arms only and killstreaks.

Eh, going back to WWI might be more interesting...

II. I don't think I've ever actually heard of a WWI groundpounding FPS (there are flying games set in it, however) ever. I occasionally wonder how the concept could turn out to be fun.

edited 17th Mar '13 10:25:11 AM by VutherA

Well, it'd be mostly a sniping simulator with an anti-climactic conclusion.

It got a bit more interesting by I end I believe. So it'd probably have to be set around there.

Well, the only ones who didn't think "TRENCH WARFARE IS AWESOMESAUCE" were the Americans, who tried it in their Civil War.

Stupid Hipster Americans.

I meant the campaign, which is virtually identical, except the Battlefield one does a better job of immersion and, imo, graphics.

I disagree. Battlefield definitely had the better graphics, but it didn't immerse me at all. Modern Warfare 3 felt like a narrative, a narrative that had a cliche villain, a story thrice flogged to death and a few poignant moments, but a narrative none the less.
Battlefield 3 felt more like a sequence of events. I mean, Paris is a Throwaway Country in both, but MW 3 shows you the devastation. The third mission of BF 3 was completely on rails, the tank mission felt like a BLAM, only there to explain one room in a later mission and never having an impact on the plot.
BF 3 felt too... Clean. Tons of people died, but nothing feels like that. MW 3 shows you the devastation, it gets into the grimy.

BF 3 campaign was pretty boring, the coop however was quite good apart from two missions. The main campaign had nice graphics, but I could say nothing else that is good about it. A lot of room for improvement. Or just have no single player campaign at all...

The worst part about BF 3 coop was no splitscreen. You can get a lot of idiots on Xbox Live.

Halo destroyed the thought of an FPS with no single-player. The days of Quake and Unreal style multiplayer only shooters are over.

Perhaps. This is all an inherently subjective anyway. Maybe I was just distracted by the shiny, like HALO jump with Dima and the Carrier launch, both of which were gorgeous sequences.

And its a shame, because I owned Battlefield 1942 and played it for five years. I was only online for the last two. It was just so good, playing against the bots was fun. Especially the Battle of Britain map, where you could fly over to France, jump out your plane, and start D-Day three years early

Honestly, I only ever played like 3 WW 2 FP Ss, so I'd actually like to play some new ones.

^ It'd have to be different. If I have to storm Omaha Beach or some French hamlet one more time...