Battlefield 2021 Is Reportedly Just Called “Battlefield,” Takes Place in Near Future with “Revolutionary” Campaign

[Tsing]

Image: EA/DICE



Industry insider Tom Henderson has shared information on what EA and DICE are purportedly planning for this year’s iteration of their hit FPS franchise, Battlefield. Apparently, Battlefield 6 will simply be called BATTLEFIELD and take place in the near future—around a decade from now. Henderson also claims that Battlefield 2021 will feature a revolutionary, co-op enabled campaign that lets players choose whether they want to fight alongside the United States or Russia as part of a specialist unit. Unfortunately, the reveal trailer isn’t expected to feature any gameplay or multiplayer footage.



NEW NEWSLETTER DEBUT – “Tom Henderson's weekly GONE GOLD Newsletter #1 – BATTLEFIELD” https://t.co/cfQ5Umz36s (via @revue)— Tom Henderson (@_Tom_Henderson_)...

Continue reading...

 

[Snowy]

I wonder if it will be on Steam..

 

[Denpepe]

I've had it with Battlefield and COD, they would neeed to make some serious changes to get me back into them.

 

[LazyGamer]

We'll see if it can pry away the BF4 community. Co-op campaigns actually sound somewhat fun if they're well-implemented!

I've had it with Battlefield and COD, they would neeed to make some serious changes to get me back into them.

There have been some positive 'changes' with BF1 and BFV, but very few that are worth caring about. Biggest one to me that stands out is being able to mark an objective without having to point at it. Half of my deaths in BF4 come from trying to do that.

 

[DrezKill]

I know I'm the only person who bothers with single-player campaigns in games like this, but I'd still like to see them put in more effort. BF3's campaign wasn't that bad. All the ones after were seriously half-assed and not worth the time.

I wonder if it will be on Steam..

Even if it does show up on Steam, it will still require Origin anyways. I know Apex Legends doesn't, but that one is the exception to the rule.

 

[LazyGamer]

All the ones after were seriously half-assed and not worth the time.

I played through BF4's too, but haven't managed to make it through the campaigns for BF1 or BFV. I don't know if they're really that bad, just not 'interesting' enough to hold my interest when I do have time for them.

 

[Denpepe]

I know I'm the only person who bothers with single-player campaigns in games like this, but I'd still like to see them put in more effort. BF3's campaign wasn't that bad. All the ones after were seriously half-assed and not worth the time.

I haven't bothered with the multiplayer bit of those games in ages, the last 2 battlefields campaign was pretty bad, and I haven't even gotten any COD after advanced warfare

 

[LazyGamer]

I haven't bothered with the multiplayer bit of those games in ages, the last 2 battlefields campaign was pretty bad, and I haven't even gotten any COD after advanced warfare

To be honest, I'll play the odd CoD game for the single-player experience. Battlefield for multiplayer, at least on the desktop. Most of that is the basics of the games, that CoD tends to avoid vehicles and goes more for the 'arcadey' game styles. Deathmatch with extra steps. The hard class differentiation in Battlefield appeals more, as it enforces the use of different classes even if it's at a near 'primal' level.