Battlefield: Hardline (Its war no more :( )
- Thread starter RenegadeRocks
- Start date
If EA wanted to historically correct they would of named the original franchise Skirmish. There is nothing large scale about 32 vs 32. LOL.
Last edited by a moderator:
They are basing that on the watermark that appears on the entire video that says as much. Everything about the way it is edited and narrated reinforces that. It is clearly and internal briefing video with incomplete graphics and assets never meant to be seen by anyone but EA employees, partner companies and possibly press.
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
Honest question: what's with this latest fashion about switching "would have" with "would of"?
It's grammatically incorrect. It's not english from any nation. It's annoying as hell.
Are the two additional characters that hard to type? You could even write "would've" and type the exact same number of characters as "would of".
LOL.
It is due to "would've" sounding like "would of" when spoken. Its a bad habit that falls through the cracks when proofreading isn't a requirement.
Another one of mine is "converse" not "conversate". But that is in the dictionary now so maybe in a few years "would of" will make it too. If that happens, I will be able to annoy you without you having any recourse.
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
How do you say "have" and "of" the same way?
I'm not saying it's annoying just for nitpicking. I'm saying it's annoying because at least for a non-native english speaker like me, I end up reading the same sentence 3 or 4 times trying to make sense of it before reaching the conclusion that "oh, it's one of those guys..".
I'm not saying it's annoying just for nitpicking. I'm saying it's annoying because at least for a non-native english speaker like me, I end up reading the same sentence 3 or 4 times trying to make sense of it before reaching the conclusion that "oh, it's one of those guys..".
not "have" but " ve" as "would've" is commonly pronounced as "would uhv".
Blame my dad who bombarded me from an early age with "woulda, coulda, shoulda" anytime I tried to make an excuse. It just naturally stuck with me as "would of, could of, should of".
Just for you I am going to extend its usage to "can of", "will of" and "shall of".
(These are the range of emotions I hope to take you through)
just joking.
Last edited by a moderator:
Phonetically, representing "would've" as "would of" makes perfect sense, but even as a native English speaker, I find it extremely annoying when people write it like that. I always have to do a mental triple-take to figure out what I'm looking at.
It's endemic in primary schools. I'd say a majority of children write 'would of' because that's how it sounds when speaking.
Now that's a game I could get behind!
On topic, how is crime fighting a battlefield? The scope is just too small. Gunfights involve a few armed baddies being surrounding by hundreds of police (if the movies are anything to go by). The inly time I can think of an actual sort of battlefield is some kind of cult siege, and even that isn't a battlefield but a, well, siege. I don't see how one can connect a vast expanse of war, whether an open field or jungle combat or street fighting, with cops and robbers. It's going to require a ridiculous portrayal of organised crime. Might as well just make Battlefield:Syndicate and excuse it as futuristic private factions.
deathindustrial
Regular
Have you ever read about how cartels were trained and armed? It's crazy. Scarier than you can imagine. They basically have private military trained and armed just like special forces. If it's cops vs bank robbers ... then yah, kind of ridiculous for the name Battlefield, but who cares? As long as the game is fun, they could call it Mrs Gigglemuffins Charity Pony Wash and I'd still play it.
BF has always gone for realism I thought. I can imagine BF fans wanting a continuation of that, though as a game it might reach a wider audience if it just goes for 'FPS shooter for the fun of it.'
Well, if they keep the "realism" in the gameplay, then it shouldn't really matter if the scenarios are outrageous. Battlefield has always had an illusion of realism. They make it look very real, with more focus on physics, but you can still fall great distances and live, get shot with too many bullets or survive an explosion from fairly close range.
RenegadeRocks
Legend
The premise is just not a "Battlefield". EA is just relying on the name to sell more than it would naturally. Its a slap on the face of all the hard work by DICE all these years building up that brand and staying unique.Now BF is a generic shooter like everyone else.
Yes, I am a fan thats hurt at seeing it go out of DICE and into non-military territory.
Yes, I am a fan thats hurt at seeing it go out of DICE and into non-military territory.
DavidGraham
Veteran
I agree. This is just a cash grab, if they want to extend the BF brand, they could have done another Bad Company or something. Calling this game a BF is plain deception. The BF brand is in a much weaker state right now due to BF4 problems (much weaker than COD), and another half assed job will not help, this game could easily be a Payday 2 copy cat with vehicles. So carrying the BF name is a gamble, The cycle for BF games is a game every 2 years, breaking that cycle like that on different concepts is bad. They should give this one a different name.
RenegadeRocks
Legend
DICE has been releasing a BF game game almost every year since the beginning. Some were smaller than others. its not the cycle thats the problem. But this will kill the repo DICE has been building around the game since 1942.