1. Metro

If you don't know what Metro 2033 or Metro: Last Light are, they are basically FPS games set in a wasteland after a tragedy has destroyed the surface of the Earth. Players can explore the underground areas of the metro system -- metro is the European version of subway--, and its catacombs, or venture outside into the wasteland to fight mutated creatures in an ever-haunting atmosphere.

Based on the setting itself, this game would be amazing as an MMO. Players can establish underground cities, markets, housing units, trading posts, etc. As for the action, players can either journey solo or together into the eerie atmosphere that was once the surface of our planet while not knowing what might happen next. 

---

There are of course many other FPS games out there. Which ones do you think would serve as interesting or unique versions of MMOs? Feel free to share in the comment section below!

2. Battlefield

We all have heard about the series at some point. Just a month ago, Battlefield 1, set during WW1, was released to many praised reviews. 

In the more recent Battlefield games, servers can hold up to 64 players at a single time. But, imagine the numbers being in the hundreds or thousands...now you're talking about an all-out gigantic war! And unlike Call of Duty, Battlefield has vehicles like tanks, fighter jets, armored cars, etc. Add that into the mix, and you got quite a vision for an MMO -- and that's an understatement!

3. Counter-Strike

Counter-Strike is a very well-known and popular FPS series. It can even be considered as a classic. 

An MMO version of it would certainly prove to be quite something. Terrorists against counter-terrorists in large scale battles, doing whatever is necessary to win. But, there will have to be some sort of interesting twist. Perhaps, some kind of a "one life" factor? If a player dies, they cannot respawn until the game is over. On the other hand, that could prove to be quite boring, especially considering the amount of players that would be in-game. If you die, you'll have to wait for a long time before your team or the enemy team wins or loses. Nonetheless, it would be a unique experience.

4. Call of Duty

If you have ever played or know anything about FPS games, then you'll clearly know what Call of Duty is. But could you imagine teams of hundreds, if not thousands of players rushing at one another, guns blazing, killstreaks going off...it's basically total chaos, if done as an MMO. 

Separate servers could work for specific gameplay aspects like, snipers only, or assault rifles only. It would also give players the freedom to run around wherever they want, and kill enemy players whenever they get the chance.

On a side note, the addition of a Tactical Nuke going off as some kind of killstreak from time to time would certainly add a dramatic aspect to the game -- especially as an MMO.

5. Overwatch

Let's be honest for a second -- Overwatch is a very popular game. Instead of running around like a headless chicken and guns blazing all over the place, players need to think tactically, and choose a hero that will serve well and bring their team the necessary support they need. I personally see it as more of a strategy FPS rather than a regular FPS, but an FPS nonetheless.

If Overwatch was an MMO, with servers that could have up to or more than 100 players, gameplay would certainly take an interesting turn. Players could create groups/clans of certain heroes, and embark on adventures or quests. Or, have an all-out strategic war with all long range heroes up on high vantage points, and assault and support heroes fighting on the ground. 

Speaking about servers, there could be servers for specific characters. For example, a Reinhardt and/or Genji only server where players can only fight one another in CQC.

There is no doubt that the FPS genre is a fan-favorite among gamers. The illusion of feeling like a soldier and holding a firearm in your hands while opening fire at your enemy is a popular image, especially among males. That is exactly why Call of Duty and Battlefield are so popular in the FPS genre.

But what if FPS games were MMOs? Imagine exploring areas to your heart's content, while also having a rifle, handgun, or sniper rifle strapped to your back. Basically, picture The Division, but as an FPS. 

The following list talks about some of the most current FPS games that would be excellent contenders as MMOs. 

Video game characters don't have to ever use the bathroom, eat food, sleep or even speak. But with all the simulated realism in most games today, it seems kind of odd to just galavant through the woods or a post-apocalyptic cityscape for hours on end and never have to do any of those (essential) things. And what's more, it's really crazy to see your character doing something that just down-right impossible to do in the real world. 

So, let's take a look at some of the necessities of life missing from games,  as well as the outrageous things you do in video games that would be insane in real life.

Never Eating. Never Drinking. 

There are games that often put you in a world in which you just don't need to eat, and your character will (somehow) be fine. This is definitely the case in Skyrim. Without any mods, Skyrim would let you waltz right on through the game without having to munch on a single piece of food. The same goes for drinking, often you can drink, but the affects are usually null. The ONLY affect drinking has on your character is when you're guzzling down potions to get a quick buff or debuff.

You Can Sleep When You're Dead ... Or Something Like That

If you're a gamer, you know this all too well: You will eventually pass out from gaming too much... Look, it's happened to us all. At some point, you'll need to snooze. Even science says we've gotta' sleep about a third of each day to function right.

But in the virtual world, your character can almost always go without sleep -- and almost never receive any kind of consequences from doing so. Haven't sleep in over 40-hours of dragon-slaying combat? Eh, no biggie. 

Yo, I Need a Place to Sit (Where the Heck's the Furniture?)

Okay, there are a lot of games out there that are guilty of this. I mean, what're all the digital carpenters and builders doing with all their time?

But let's single out one series that does this a lot: Battlefield. Okay, Dice kind of fixed this in Battlefield 1. But in the other Battlefield games, the devs would usually have a few building scattered around each multiplayer map -- WITH ALL OF THEM EMPTY OR ALMOST EMPTY! Where's all the detail? It's weird when a real-life house no furniture. And it's weird when it's like that in a game.

I Speak. I No Speak. 

This one is kind of a classic. In games like The Legend of Zelda and GTA 3, you play as a character who rarely, if ever, speaks. In games like South Park, the developers actually make fun of the fact your character doesn't speak. What's with all the silence, guys? 

Man, I really Gotta' (Not) Go. Where are All the Toilets? 

This is a big "whuh?" in the Elder Scrolls series of games. Dragonborn ain't got no time to go. And while it may be medieval and you might expect them to drop a poop in a bucket, you've got high-tech dwemer robots buzzing around for goodness sake. That's not to mention the sewer systems in Riften and Solitude being mucky cesspools of well, I really don't know...

And think about the imperial city in Oblivion. NOT A SINGLE TOILET. So yeah, the absence of even one toilet is a bit weird.

Okay. Weird Stuff Your Character Can Do, But You Can't

Just as it's weird that your character occasionally can't do the things above, it would also be weird to think you can do these things in real life:

Using Mounted Weapons as Portable Weapons

We've all done this in classic sandbox games like Just Cause or Saint's Row (heck, we've even done it in Call of Duty). Grab a minigun and run around firing it from the hip.

It's a bit funny when you think about it.

Running Into a Fire Just to See If It Will Kill You.

Look, this is just fun sometimes, okay? That's the beauty of games: You get to test anything and everything that should be lethal just to see if it will actually kill you. It sounds crazy and in real life, we have a sensibility about that kind of thing. But when it comes to gaming, there's no worry at all! 

Teabagging, or Showing Your Opponent Who's Boss

Now, we've all done this at one point or another in games, and it goes without saying it would be crazy to do in real life, ESPECIALLY if it's just to piss somebody off.

So, sure, real-life elements can be good sometimes to help gamers suspend their disbelief, but honestly, who wants to worry about the basic necessities of life in every video game? (Survival games are a different story).

Likewise, the crazy things you do in games would be insane to perform in real life! 

Do you find the things you do in games every day weird or vice versa? Do you have anything else to add to this subject? Let us know in the comments!

If you enjoyed playing the Recon class in the previous installments of the Battlefield series, then you will most likely have as much fun with the Scout class in Battlefield 1. It is also known as the Sniper class because sniping will play a huge role in your gameplay.

In this guide you will learn how to effectively take down enemies in the long distances and call out enemy positions for your teammates.

Sniper rifle is your main tool

Sniper rifle is probably the most powerful weapon in the game, as it usually only takes one precise shot to kill an enemy soldier. The optics will help you keep as much distance as possible from the enemy lines, which is important since Scouts don’t have too many good tools to protect themselves in the close combat, except of a couple of pistols.

Your main objective should always be enemy snipers and machine gun operators, and then when you’ve dealt with all of them, you can switch to enemies riding horses and vehicles. These moving targets can be difficult to take down at first, so you will need to practice this part a lot.

You should also maintain a one-shot kill instead of firing a series of successive shots, as in this way your position will be much harder to uncover for the enemy snipers. So, take this into consideration and better spend more time aiming rather than shooting.

Other useful gadgets and gear

Sometimes you can’t see other snipers hiding between the buildings or other object, and for this reason you have access to a Spot Flare – a flare gun that can help you identify the locations of the enemies in the hard-to-see areas.

Enemy vehicles can create a lot of problems for your team, so you can utilize your K-Bullets – a type of armor piercing bullets that can be used in your Mauser sniper rifle. They are extremely effective and can be compared to explosives when it comes to dealing with heavy machinery like tanks.

But don’t worry, you will still have some bombs in your inventory, if you suddenly are out of the K-Bullets. The Tripwire Bombs come in three different packages for different purposes: Gas, High Explosive and Incendiary.

Other Battlefield 1 class guides:

• Battlefield 1 Assault class guide
• Battlefield 1 Medic class guide
• Battlefield 1 Support class guide

Come back soon for more Battlefield 1 guides at GameSkinny!

Battlefield 1 has finally managed to create a solid Support class for players who want to help their teammates move forward without any obstacles. This class is just as important as an Assault one, and it requires a thoughtful approach.

This quick guide will introduce you to the main tactics that can be successfully used by the Support players in Battlefield 1.

Support weapons and gadgets

You will have access to some very useful LMGs (light machine guns) that are perfect for clearing out enemy lines in the long range. This means that your role requires you to purge any obstacle that stands on the path of your teammates.

That is why Support class should be mostly used in the open areas and constantly showering enemies with their bullets. There is also a slight similarity with the Medic class here, but instead of healing and reviving your teammates, the Support class provides them with Ammo Crates and Ammo Packs.

Support players will be especially useful in the Rush mode, when you are given a task to protect a certain point from the enemy attacks. This is where you can use your Mortar – a heavy deployable explosives launcher.

If you need to get rid of an enemy vehicle without too much fuss, then use a Limpet Charge, which is a small explosive that can be attached to a vehicle or any other object. It will detonate as soon as the timer goes off.

Communication is the key

In order to be effective, all Support players should communicate using a headset with microphone. In this way you can keep in check with all the positions of your teammates on the map and keep track of their movements and actions.

The lack of communication between players may quickly turn into a catastrophe for your team, as you need to react to their requests as quickly as possible. One of the biggest downsides of not knowing your partners’ situations is inability to provide them with ammo in time, and thus leaving your teammates completely vulnerable.

This is what you need to know about the Support class, and also check out the other class guides below:

• Battlefield 1 Assault Class Guide
• Battlefield 1 Medic Class Guide
• Battlefield 1 Scout Class Guide

Come back soon for more Battlefield 1 guides at GameSkinny!

Battlefield 1 introduces eight different classes of soldiers, and this quick guide is dedicated to an Assault class. If you like close combat and blowing up enemy tanks and vehicles, then you will be more than happy to play as Assault.

Let’s look into this class’ weapons and gadgets that you can use to dominate multiplayer maps in Battlefield 1.

Assault weapons and gadgets

As usual, the primary weapons of an Assault class are SMGs (sub-machine guns) that do wonders in close combat, but are not too effective for long ranges. So, if you want to benefit from this type of weapon, then stick to the towns and avoid open areas.

Your best spots are trenches, as this is where you can sit and wait for the enemies running by or even tanks rolling over you. Also, this is a great opportunity for using your Anti-Tank Grenades to take them down.

The tanks in Battlefield 1 represent the models used in WWI, which means they are not as heavy as modern tanks and are more agile. This greatly complicates your role as an Assault and you have to work through the towns really fast.

Assault team work

The most effective way to play online is to team up with several other Assault players. In this way you will be able to quickly take down any tank. This is necessary because it will be difficult for you to destroy an entire tank alone, as you will need to throw at least 3-4 grenades for a 100% result.

If you happen to play solo, then consider Anti-Tank Mines for a better strategy of taking the tanks down. Just set them up on high-traffic waypoints and wait for the enemy vehicles to ride over them.

Another alternative is the Rocket Launcher. It takes a bit of time to set up, but if you see the enemies approaching from the distance, then you can take your time and prepare the tripod for a devastating blow.

The last thing to remember is that you also have access to Dynamite that can be used for blowing up various obstacles on your way, so that you don’t have to use your other more valuable types of explosives.

Other Battlefield 1 Class Guides:

• Battlefield 1 Medic Class Guide
• Battlefield 1 Support Class Guide
• Battlefield 1 Scout Class Guide

Come back soon for more Battlefield 1 guides at GameSkinny!

If you’ve had experience with Battlefield 4 and Battlefield: Hardline, then you will notice that the Medic class in Battlefield 1 plays a slightly different role than in previous titles. Before, the medic has always been present in the frontline of the battle -- but this time the tactics have changed.

This quick guide will introduce you to the peculiarities of the Medic class in Battlefield 1, so you have a clear idea of what to expect.

Using your weapons and gadgets

Medics in Battlefield 1 need to stay behind the frontline and assist those who are in trouble.

Your primary weapons are semi-automatic rifles, such as Cei-Rigotti and Mauser, which are perfect for a midrange combat, but don’t work too well in short or long range.

So, there is no point for you to go all into the heart of the battle. On the contrary, you should stay behind and use your Bandages to heal up and Syringes to revive your teammates. Fortunately, the developers have now added the ability for them to call you up if they get low on health.

However, be careful with the Syringes on your teammates, as there is a danger of overdose. Alternatively, you can do this on the enemies and kill them right away.

As you see, the role of Medic in Battlefield 1 is limited due to the absence of some other powerful types of weapons, as it was the case in Battlefield 4.

Using additional equipment

Medics also have access to the Rifle Grenades that can be attached to one of your rifles and shot as a missile. This can be used for destroying some obstacles on the way using the High Explosive types, or dealing with huge crowds of enemies with the help of Frags or Smokes.

Another thing that Medics can accomplish is repairing vehicles. But first, in order to do this you need to get inside the vehicle. Apart from that, Medics should always be on the tips of their toes, as it is important to know how to avoid damage and provide help for others.

This is all that there is to medic class, and just keep in mind that killing enemies isn’t your priority, so don’t put yourself into an unnecessary danger. You will be more valuable, if you stay alive.

Other Battlefield 1 class guides:

• Battlefield 1 Assault Class Guide
• Battlefield 1 Support Class Guide
• Battlefield 1 Scout Class Guide

Come back soon for more Battlefield 1 guides at GameSkinny!

After this year’s E3, EA granted access to the closed alpha test of Battlefield 1 only to a small group of lucky gamers. It turned out that among them were the true masters of data mining, who discovered a whole set of multiplayer maps that will be available in the final version of the game scheduled for October 21, 2016 release date.

Overall, there are ten locations that have a huge historical significance. You may already know that events of Battlefield 1 take place during the World War I, so these locations are tightly connected to the most important battles that took place in real life.

Let’s take a look at all these maps and see which one is going to be the most exciting.

Battle of Fao Fortress

Fao Fortress is located in the town of Al-Faw, a small port on the Al Faw Peninsula in Iraq. This place had been successfully taken by the British forces on November 8, 1914.

The reason for the Battle of Fao was the endangered British oil facility that had to be protected. It was not an easy task since British troops arrived at the heavily guarded fortress without any artillery support. As a result, British soldiers had to dig trenches around and shoot back at the fortress for two days.

As soon as the artillery arrived, the British took advantage of the situation and conquered the Fao Fortress in mere 45 minutes. Over 300 enemy soldiers were captured and imprisoned. However, this was only the first battle for the safety of British oil rigs, but the true challenge laid ahead at Baghdad, which also had to be taken.

This map will feel just like the famous Allied landing on the beaches of Normandy during WW2. Also, those who have played Battlefield 4: Second Assault will see a lot of similarities with the multiplayer map “Gulf of Oman.”

Raid on the Suez Canal

The Suez Canal was created by the British at the end of the 19th century in order to connect Mediterranean Sea with the Red Sea for easy communication and transportation. However, the people of Egypt felt danger in the British occupation of the region and on August 2, 1914 the Ottoman (Turkish) armies mobilized in preparation to attack the Suez Canal.

The actual battles lasted from January 26 to February 4, 1915. The Ottoman army accumulated over 20,000 troops, but they still couldn’t manage to break through the British defense army, which had gathered a whopping 30,000 men (mostly recruits from the Indian army).

At first, the Turkish infantry gathered at the central route across the Sinai River, but as soon as the British and French ships entered the Suez Canal they immediately started firing at the Turks. It was quite unexpected for the Arab army, and those who tried to cross the river were met with Indian machine-gunners.

This multiplayer map will be really exciting, as it involves various types of action, including the infantry clashes, the battleship attacks and the support from the sky.

Desert Mounted Corps (Sinai and Palestine Campaign)

The Desert multiplayer map in Battlefield 1 is very similar to the “Silk Road” map from Battlefield 4: China Rising. The events take place in a huge deserted area at the times of Sinai and Palestine Campaign that started with an Ottoman Raid of the Suez Canal in 1915, and ended with the Armistice of Mudros in 1918.

The famous Desert Mounted Corps that took part in all the battles of Sinai and Palestine conflict consisted of Australian light horse, British yeomanry, and New Zealand mounted rifles brigades. These brave men had been assigned to patrol the deserts of the No Man's Land during WWI.

It is still not clear which of the many conflicts will be present in this multiplayer map, but you can be sure that there will be lots of heavy artillery and horse riding involved. Another possibility is that this will be an open map with random attack-and-defense campaigns.

St. Quentin Scar

This map is prominently featured in all the available gameplay videos of Battlefield 1, so you should be familiar with it, if you’ve been following the game’s development. The events of The St. Quentin Scar took place in the village of Travecy, France during WWI.

The environment of the countryside allows for various tactical decisions: you can hide behind the hills or in the fields, control roads and outskirts for long-range combat with armored vehicles, or engage in the close-range combat with infantry right in the center of the village.

There had been many significant battles in France at the latter stage of WWI, but the conquest of Mont Saint-Quentin is considered by many as the greatest military achievement of the war.

At the center of the battle were the troops of the Australian 2nd Division against the German infantry. The casualties were quite significant with over 3,000 dead Australian soldiers, but the conquest ensured a complete German withdrawal eastwards back to the Hindenburg Line.

Battle of Passchendaele (Château Wood, Belgium)

It is interesting that developers of Battlefield 1 have decided to make a map based on a minor, but quite terrifying event that took place from July to November 1917 in the Château Wood, Belgium -- instead of the more famous Battle of Château-Thierry in France.

The Battle of Passchendaele had to be won since it was a major supply channel for the Germany’s Fourth Army. Many adverse factors played a role in the events of the Château Wood, which is one of the trickiest areas for military operations to begin with. On top of that, it was a rainy and unusually cold autumn, which made this battle a true challenge for both sides.

The area in the game looks like a burned down forest with dirty moist soil everywhere. So, if you enjoy particularly grim and challenging missions, try this map out when the game is released. And, if you can’t wait, then sign up for the early access beta-test here.

Battle of Amiens

The famous final battle of Amiens marked the end of the exhausting war. The event took place from August to November 1918 in the city of Amiens that is located in the northern part of France.

This is the only multiplayer map in Battlefield 1 that showcases a life-sized city of the early 20th century, so it is quite unique in this regard.

The hundred day battle hit the final nail in the coffin of Germany’s attempt to take over the world. The German army had been so demoralized that it led to massive deserter incidents. This victory allowed the British Fourth Army to send in almost a thousand tanks into the very center of German territory. As a result, German army had no other choice but to capitulate.

Maas-Argonne Offensive

This great battle that lasted for 48 days along the entire Western Front had several phases, hence the two separate multiplayer maps in Battlefield 1 - Maas-Argonne Offensive and the Battle of the Argonne Forest.

Maas-Argonne Offensive was the second most important battle at the latter part of 1918 that set the course to end the war. The first phase of this battle (Sep. 26 – Oct. 3) was marked with an unpleasant loss of many American soldiers due to incompetent leaders who had been replaced shortly after the first attack.

The second phase of the Offensive (Oct. 4 – Oct. 28) was significantly more successful and allowed the Allied Forces to push the German troops into the Argonne Forest. This battle continues in the next Battlefield 1 map.

Battle of the Argonne Forest

The third and the final phase of the Maas-Argonne battle (Oct. 28 – Nov. 11) was marked with a complete victory of American troops over Germans in the forest of Argonne. This operation also allowed them to conquer all the surrounding hills, which let the French forces move beyond the River Aisne and capture Le Chesne commune – an important strategic point.

Maas-Argonne Offensive is considered the deadliest battle in the US history that took the lives of 26,000 American soldiers.

Italian Front

Italy never had any significant battles during WWI except a series of battles at the border of Austria-Hungary and Italy. This multiplayer map doesn’t focus on any particular part of the Italian Front, but gives a hint on several sea warfares and coastal clashes.

The Adriatic Campaign of WWI, on the other hand, was marked with significant battles on the surface of the sea, mainly between the battleships of Austro-Hungarian navy and the Allied Forces. However, the Allied Forces could do nothing against the German–Hungarian U-boats, which freely roamed the Adriatic Sea and constantly torpedoed the Allied ships.

Battles of the Isonzo

The final multiplayer map in Battlefield 1 replicates the battle at Isonzo, Slovenia. This location is interesting due to its mountains and hills that were both a significant obstacle and a great hiding spot for Austro-Hungarian and Italian armies.

Huge amounts of resources had been poured into the 12 consecutive battles that took place in the Valley of Isonzo. The area proved to be extremely dangerous for both sides and casualties had been enormous: the Austro-Hungarian army lost about 200,000 soldiers, while the Italians lost a mind-boggling half of its 600,000 army.

However, the Battles of the Isonzo served as a great catalyst for the development of artillery, aircrafts and general military tactics.

Conclusion

As you see, all ten multiplayer maps based on these historical battles are quite varied, and they should provide lots of innovative gameplay mechanics for us to explore. The realistic approach is another important part of Battlefield 1 that should be mentioned.

This time developers went really far ahead with the technologies and every little detail really feels like an actual item and not just a block of polygons. Everything from the military uniforms to the destructibility of environment has been polished to highest possible degree. In this regard, Battlefield 1 will most definitely earn the title of the best shooter of the year.

What is your favorite upcoming multiplayer map in Battlefield 1? Share your impressions in the comments section below.

On Thursday May 26^th, 2016 from 7:30pm-10:00pm, the Gnomon School of Visual Effects, Games + Animation is hosting an exclusive event!

The event features an artist panel for 3D environment artists Joy Lea (EA DICE), Helder Pinto (Blizzard), and Martin Teichmann (Naughty Dog). Each of the artists will be sharing their own tips and techniques for those looking to break into the video game industry. 

According to the Gnomon School itself, there will be a special feature for fans of Naughty Dog:

"Martin Teichmann’s presentation will include a workflow example of a scene created from the newly released Uncharted 4." 

The event is free, but just make sure that you RSVP by following this link. Seating is first-come-first-served.

There will be a Q&A session at the end, where you will be able to meet speakers in person. But for those of you who can't make it, here's a little about the panelists:

Joy Lea

3D Artist at EA DICE

Joy Lea is a 3D Artist that has worked on a multitude of titles, from AAA to indie. Currently, she's at DICE LA working on the award-winning Battlefield series. She most previously worked with ThreeOneZero on ADR1FT, releasing on the Oculus Rift. Her varied experience in working on a wide range of quality titles gives her a unique outlook on art and the video game industry.

Helder Pinto

3D Artist at Blizzard Entertainment

Helder Pinto is a 3D Artist originally from Portugal who specializes in 3D and environment art, with nine years of professional experience in the video game industry. Though he started out doing level design work for mods on Half-Life and Max Payne, he has most recently worked on Overwatch, Blizzard Entertainment’s newest multiplayer FPS game.

Check out more of his work here.

Martin Teichmann

Environment Modeler at Naughty Dog

 Martin Teichmann is an Environment Modeler at Naughty Dog, originally from Germany. He previously worked at Deck13 Interactive, Crytek, and later moved to London to work on Rocksteady Studios’ Batman: Arkham Knight. Martin moved to Santa Monica in in early 2015 to join Naughty Dog, where he has been working on Uncharted 4.

Check out more of his work here.

This is an exciting networking opportunity you will not want to miss!

Schedule:

• 7:30 pm – 8:10 pm: Joy Lea, 3D Artist at EA DICE
• 8:10 pm – 8:50 pm: Helder Pinto, 3D Artist at Blizzard Entertainment
• 8:50 pm – 9:30 pm: Martin Teichmann, Environment Modeler at Naughty Dog
• 9:30 pm – 10:00 pm: Audience Questions

Location:

Gnomon Campus

Gnomon School of Visual Effects, Games + Animation
1015 N. Cahuenga Blvd.
Hollywood, CA 90038

The event will also be featured on Gnomon’s Livestream channel for those who can't make it in person. Click here to watch the stream.

There's a Battlefield player out there, StoneMountain64, who's either taking the game too seriously or is one helluva comedian. We'll let you decide. 

When he started using military terms, I lost it. He begins by addressing his teammates and it's only uphill from there. When players start to say they're going to mute him? "Negative on that mute soldier!" But it only escalates, and I couldn't stop laughing. If you haven't seen this video yet, you can't pass it up.

This is gold. And I only want more. 

1. Concentration camp liberations 

Era: World War II

Speaking of the dark side of humanity, let's talk about the Holocaust. As you may already know, the Holocaust was a massive "final solution" campaign issued by the Nazi party in order to eradicate the "undesirables" from the German Empire. Jews, homosexuals, Poles, gypsies, nobody was safe if you were deemed unfit for society. You would be shipped off to a concentration camp, where some of history's darkest acts would occur in the span of only a few years.

Why Include This?

The holocaust is rarely, if ever, addressed in war video games. Don't get me wrong, I understand the dark nature of the Holocaust and why it'll probably never be explored by Activision, but if popular shows such as The Walking Dead or Game of Thrones prove anything, it's that we love to revel in humanity's darkest hours. Even fellow games like The Last of Us took some of humanity's greatest evils (turning against your neighbor, killing for survival, etc.) and made something magnificent out of it. I would love to see the Holocaust be explored more in the market sometime in the near future, and the concentration camp liberations would be a great place to start. 

Did we miss any battles you would love to see Call of Duty or Battlefield explore in the future? Be sure to comment below and let us know if you agree with these battle decisions, or have some suggestions of your own!

2. Siege of Leningrad 

Era: World War II

Wars are won by soldiers. Sometimes on the front, sometimes from behind enemy lines, but how many stories have you heard where soldiers had to fight to reclaim what was once there's? Leningrad fell under Nazi control for a grand total of 872 days, with Soviet forces spending that entire rime trying to reclaim their city once more. 

Why Include This?

The locale could serve as a great backdrop for a story of rebellion against the occupied Nazi forces. Additionally, the conditions within Leningrad during the siege could serve as a grave reminder of what an unsympathetic force is capable of. It was reported that some of those who weren't forced out of Leningrad by the incoming Nazis were forced to resort to cannibalism in order to survive, and not just the consumption of human bodies so much as murdering others for your own survival. 

3. Hundred Days Offensive

Era: World War I

While not specifically one battle, the Hundred Days Offensive was perhaps the most vital series of combat campaigns that ensured the collapse of the German empire. The Allied forces launched a series of offensive battles that would eventually result in depleted German morale, and the high commanders of the empire realizing they could no longer keep fighting an unwinnable war.

Why Include It?

The Hundred Days Offensive would not only serve as a plentiful backdrop for a narrative to explore, but what better way to win a game about war than actually winning the war? Being there on the front lines of seeing the Germans finally surrender, there would be no better feeling for a player to experience than actually being a part of the final battles.

4. Battle of Hue

Era: Vietnam War

The series may have briefly visited the Vietnam war front in Black Ops, but there's still plenty of ground left to cover in this largely unrecognized era. The Battle of Hue is considered one of the bloodiest and most drawn out campaigns of the entire Vietnam War. The battle ended up being a showcase of the U.S' lack of preparation for the Tet Offensive, as the city of Hue was quickly overrun by Viet Cong forces before slowly being driven out one by one.

Why Include It?

It was the battle that helped sway American opinion against the entire war. With heavy loses from both the Viet Cong and the American troops, public opinion became heavily affected as citizens began to question if this was a war really worth fighting.  What's worse is that while it was declared a victory by U.S. forces, the city of Hue was almost virtually destroyed from the fighting, with an estimated 5,000 civilians killed in the process. While serious in tone, a game focused entirely on the travesties of this battle would be a breath of fresh air in a series with no stakes in the narrative. 

5. Battle of Somme

Era: World War I

The Battle of Somme was an offensive campaign lead by the British and French forces against the German Empire. While this resulted in the British and French's victory, it came at a hefty price. The Battle of Somme lasted over four months, with well over a million soldiers wounded or killed in the process on both sides. 

Why Include It?

The Battle of Somme was the first instance of a tank being used in warfare combat. What more of a reason do you need to include this fight in the next Call of Duty? Granted, this battle could very well be in Battlefield 1 as there are similar tanks included in the trailer, but there's always more than one way to take a perspective on one of the bloodiest battles in World War I.

With the recent announcement that Activision is choosing to stick with futuristic shooters in Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare, the reaction by most players has been largely negative.

With a genre filled almost entirely by FPS games set in the not so distant future, largely by Activision themselves, gamers have become tired of the same of shtick being force fed to them year after year. This in large part is why customers have been asking game companies, such as Activision and EA, to visit other historical war periods to liven up the market. It appears, however, that only one of them is choosing to listen to the fans' requests.

Battlefield 1, an upcoming shooter created by DICE and published by Electronic Arts, is set to take place in World War I and explore the landscape which once dominated the shooter genre before Call of Duty redefined it. Considering the massive backlash towards Infinite Warfare, while Battlefield 1 is seeing major support from followers, it's entirely possible that Call of Duty's sales will fall to the likes of its biggest competitor. So, if said instance were to happen, it's likely Activision will follow in EA's footsteps and return to World War shooters as well. To help give Activision some new ideas to spice things up a bit, let's throw out some real life battles that could help redefine Call of Duty once more in the near future. 

The title for the new Battlefield has been revealed along with its trailer. Now it’s time to take a look at Battlefield 1’s screenshots and gameplay.

Battlefield 1's title refers to World War I, which is where the new Battlefield takes place. Within the campaign, players fight different war stories on multiple fronts, including the Italian Alps, the Western Front and the Arabian desert. During the announcement live stream, DICE mentioned placing more sandbox elements into the campaign.

A big change in Battlefield 1’s gameplay, and also its strongest aspect, is the melee combat. This is ideal and essential for a World War I setting.

There are multiple different editions available for Battlefield 1:

The Standard Edition can be pre-ordered on Amazon for $59.99. This pre-order includes:

• Hellfighter Pack
• 7 day early access map - resembling Star Wars Battlefront’s Jakku DLC

The Early Enlister Deluxe Edition is $79.99 includes:

• Red Baron Pack
• Lawrence of Arabia Pack featuring themed weapons
• Vehicles with the ability to change visual appearance of the three largest vehicles,
• Many more items which will be revealed at E3

The Collector’s Edition is $220 and comes with:

• Battlefield 1 Deluxe Edition Base Game
• Collection’s Edition Statue
• Exclusive Steel Book
• Deck of Playig Cards
• Messenger Pigeon Tube with exclusive DLC content
• Exclusive Patch
• Premium Packaging

Electronic Arts announced a Battlefield event planned for Friday of next week to talk about the future (and past) of the franchise.

The Battlefield Word Premiere event is scheduled for May 6th at 4 p.m. ET, DICE confirmed on Twitter today. Electronic Arts invites players to the stream "for a first look at the future of Battlefield," according to the franchise’s website. Details of the upcoming installment, Battlefield 5, are likely to be announced during the livestream.

Rumors of the setting of Battlefield 5 have been circulating recently - with an apparent emphasis on a World War II backdrop. Other rumors mentioned that the release date of Battlefield 5 is expected for Winter 2016 and it will have four DLC packs, but none of the speculation has been confirmed or denied as of yet.

See the future of Battlefield. The #Battlefield World Premiere is on May 6 at 4PM ET. https://t.co/YurgN6rLHW pic.twitter.com/7ULKB6LS47

— Battlefield (@Battlefield) April 29, 2016

Battlefield Hardline was the last game released, which took the series into a different direction - focusing on policing and crime instead of military focused gameplay.

The initial impressions of EA's new blockbuster entrant into its equally block-busting Battlefront series have been quite mixed across the net. The comments haven't been as simple as "this game is sh*t" or "this game is awesomesauce". Some interesting discussion has come up about whether or not it's dumbed down some well-known online multiplayer tropes. Pair that up with some directionless multiplayer objectives, and Star Wars: Battlefront is shaping up to be a pretty polarizing experience.

I played a fair amount of the beta last week, so what does a self-entitled gaming guru have to say about it?

For starters, it's not quite as casual as some have put it, but that notion does have some merit.

Both abilities and equipment come into play through "card hands". These are much like a deck of cards, and you have a max of 3 slots. Throw in your primary blaster weapon - which has its own slot - and that's pretty much your full loadout.

You don't start with much. Charge in with whatever your team's default blaster is and do your worst. You'll have to level up and purchase a grenade card, then toss it in your hand before you toss it at an enemy. Cards do seem to come slow at times, but once you reach rank 5 (the max level in the beta), you'll have some variety in both weapons and card abilities.

Cards that you are eligible to buy include grenades, a sniper rifle (which only equips as a one shot ability with a cooldown) and an awesome jet pack that lets you leap across Hoth. But the way that these card abilities are presented (and the limited options) do give the game's progression system a bit of a casual feel.

A very similar system is used for vehicle and hero power-ups, as well. But how do you hop in those vehicles or channel the powers of Lord Vader?

Simple. Along with other equipment, such as emplacement/auto turrets, rocket launchers, and orbital strikes, these goodies are randomly found and picked up across the battlefield. Hero and vehicle power-ups have to be activated quickly after they are picked up, or else they'll disappear. Thankfully, the rest of the usable equipment can be carried over through multiple respawns.

"We looked at what Star Wars stands for, rather than asking how can we tweak Battlefield to be something else." - DICE's Patrick Bach, via Gamespot

The inherent "casualness" of this power-up system seemed fine to me when I started out.

Vehicle powerups seemed to be in similar areas each round, and some were literally next to the parked vehicles they represented. Throughout my time playing, I still couldn't quite pin down a pattern with the power-ups and their locations. Due to this, my experience in the vehicle combat sections was a very limited and frustrating experience. I eventually had some success in the A-Wing, so I'll chalk up most of my vehicle difficulties to the lack of a beta tutorial. Despite my personal (and the Internet's) lukewarm reception to the powerup system, I feel it really could work if it were adjusted.

Although this is just a rumor, recently there have been leaked images of Battlefield 2143 swirling around on reddit. With that said, keep in mind that you shouldn't believe everything you see on the internet, but these pictures do look pretty legit.

The person who took this picture did apologize for the picture quality because of the fact that it looks like it was taken by a potato, but the shots do seem to show behind-the-scenes action of the game. With the person saying he was being rushed around, it looks as if he quickly pulled out his phone and sneaked some shots of the screen in front of him without anyone knowing.

Battlefield 2142 is a futuristic military shooter set in the 22nd century after the occurrence of an ice age. It released right after Battlefield 2, and since then fans everywhere have been waiting for a sequel. As EA plans to release another Battlefield game in 2016, Battlefield 2143 could join the ranks along with Call of Duty in today's plentiful market of futuristic shooters.

There is an unholy trinity of video game bad guys. They appear in some incarnation in just about every game. Not only are they copy-pasted by the thousands, but they also die really easily. And they can be killed in any number guilt-free.

One is slimes. One is skeletons. And one is freakin' Nazis.

Since Modern Warfare came out, World War II games have kind of gone out of style. But for much of gaming's history, Nazi-killing was as common as treasure chests. They're the perfect bad guy, really. They were historical, way scarier than fantasy bad guys like goblins, and they were evil/alien enough that you could mow down masses of them and never feel bad about it. And because they were so into the occult and weird science stuff, you could put Nazis into all sorts of awesome scenarios.

So naturally, WW2 games permeated every genre imaginable, from shooters and flight simulators to RTS titles and interactive novels. We killed Nazi zombies, Nazi werewolves, cyborg Nazis, time-traveling Nazis, more Nazi zombies, and lots and lots and lots and lots of regular Nazis. They're too evil to be allowed to live, and so much fun to kill.

Origins

The ancient-looking game above is the first example of a WW2 game I could find: Castle Wofenstein, for the Apple II, 1981. Not to be confused with id Software's Wolfenstein 3D, Muse Software's Castle Wofenstein was an action/stealth game where you were supposed to infiltrate the castle, kill the Nazis, and blow it all up. Yes, Wolfenstein 3D ripped them off and became the legendary landmark game while this one was forgotten. Yes, Metal Gear was lauded as a "progenitor of the stealth game genre" when it came out 6 years after this one. Technically 005 is older, but I think it's safe to say that Castle Wolfenstein is the true granddaddy of all stealth games and WW2 games. Shame that more people don't remember it.

A year later, Sid Meier released his first major project, Spitfire Ace, in 1982 on the Atari 400/800 and other 8-bit home computers. Not satisfied with letting the player just kill Nazis on the ground, Sid Meier made several simulators and strategy games throughout the '80s that allowed for wholesale pixel-Nazi slaughter by air, land, and sea. It's nice to know that before he became world-famous for his Civilization series, Sid put down roots in about 40 cubic feet of jackboot guts. Good start.

But of course, it was Wolfenstein 3D that really got the ball rolling.

It's no great surprise that the world's first FPS was all about killing Nazis.

Who else could you have gotten away with graphically gunning down by the hundreds in 1992? I might be a little peeved that the game piggy-backed on Castle Wolfenstein's idea, but regardless, Wolfenstein 3D is influential and legendary for a reason. This is the game that paved the way for decades - literally decades - of WW2-themed FPS titles. Call of Duty, Medal of Honor, Battlefield, Brothers in Arms...all of those series owe this game about 20 years-worth of Father's Day neckties. And thanks to this game's popularity, all other genres under the sun jumped on the WW2 wagon.

While nowadays cyber-robotic-future-style warfare is more in vogue, let's not forget that WW2 games have been there at every step of video game innovation, even back to the beginning. Never has there been a war more romanticized, more easily reduced to a timeless battle between good and evil. What better war could there possibly be to adapt to video games than that? Even well into the 21st century, it will be a long time before we ever get truly tired of murdering Nazis.

What's your favorite WW2 game? Got any veteran's tales? Let us know in the comments below!

Battlefield: Hardline has been out for about a month now, and will soon have a major update that addresses the "top 5 priority issues" voted in by the fans. Along with some smaller miscellaneous fixes, Visceral Games has put the focus on complaints from players of Battlefield Hardline, and the first patch release will be coming to all platforms in the future. A date has not yet been listed.

Some of the fixes include the TDM spawns, extending conquest times, the balance of weapons, and fixes to Punkbuster. Further information can be found on the Battlefield website along with a more detailed version on the new changes.

The new update also comes with a new Rent-A-Server program for all consoles. Players will be allowed to customize their own servers, and invite friends to play with them. No price or demand has been announced for an individual server though.

Visceral Games wants everyone to know that they will continue to take in comments from the community, so if you want anything to be fixed then go ahead and make it known on battlefield.com.

Payday 2 Game Director David Goldfarb announced recently on Twitter that he was going to start a new indie studio, called The Outsiders, with a colleague of his: former Battlefield Executive Producer Ben Cousins.

I'm starting a new studio. It's called the Outsiders. My old friend and colleague @BenjaminCousins is co-founding it with me.

— David Goldfarb (@locust9) February 19, 2015

Goldfarb says that their first project will be his "first real stab" at RPGs and that they're aiming for a mid-tier game, not quite AAA and not quite 'indie' since there's a market for mid-tier games like those from Paradox Interactive.

There isn't that much information out about the studio or the game they will be working on, but they do have a website. The website is pretty much barebones at the moment only really having links to their Twitters as well as a flyer-like image for the studio.

More news about their studio and about their game will probably come out as the two get started.

GameSpy, the engine designed to host and run online games, will be shutting down on May 31st. Many games that still have a supportive player base will be shutting down on that date or at the end of June. A few of the more popular games such as Battlefield 2, Battlefield 1942 and Star Wars: Battlefront 2 will be affected by the shutdown with no official solution to keep online support.

EA has announced they are "exploring community-supported options to preserve online functionality for these titles, such as multiplayer."

Through service updates, a large list of affected games has been posted. EA has set a benchmark, "fewer than 1% of peak online players," for choosing to shutdown online play due to the expenses and work required to keep the games online.

Several 2K and Rockstar games will also be affected by the closure and have not all found online support. Some Playstation 2, Wii, and Nintendo DS games that were running online support on GameSpy servers will need to find new homes or be shut down as well.

Before you dive into this article I just want to give you an idea what I mean by old and young.

Old is when you were a child or teenager at the time of 8-bit or 16-bit consoles. Think the Sega Genesis/Mega Drive or NES/SNES era, maybe even Commodore 64.

Young is when you were a child or teenager when 3D games were here. Think Sony PlayStations, Microsoft Xbox (not One but the first one), Nintendo GameCube and N64 type eras.

Gamers who are children or young teenagers (below 14) now, and are growing up with the Xbox 360, PS3 (and now Xbox One and PS4) are included in the group Young. However they will be dubbed as baby gamers for the purposes of this article.

Right are we all understood? Great, let’s dive head first into this.

Who Gets the Bigger or Louder Say?

The Debate

There’s been a debate raging between gamers for as long as I can remember so, this is nothing new. It’s got everything to do with who gets the biggest say between gamers and their ages. Do the older gamers get a bigger say about what should happen in the gaming industry because they used to play 8-bit or 16-bit 2D platformers? Do the young gamers get a bigger say because they were the reason 3D gaming became a thing? Do baby gamers have the biggest say because they are the future of gaming? Because they will shape what gaming will be like in the future, how it will be perceived?

As I said, this debate is nothing new. I simply wanted to share my feelings as a young, 20-year-old, gamer who grew up in the PS2 and Xbox Original era. There is no one, of any age, who is right, or better. No one gets a bigger say. No one has a better opinion, but let’s think why some age groups think they are better. Well, my opinion of why at the very least.

The Righteous Wiseman

There are older gamers out there who believe they have the only say. That they have the ultimate power for what games should be like. Gamers who were... say, under 15, when Thief first came out, World of Warcraft, or even Half Life. On the console side, they played the 2D platformers, like Sonic. Scrolling beat-em ups, like Streets of Rage. Fighting games like Punch-Out.

The Original Sonics are the best.

Some of them believe games should go back to how they were when they were kids: they have to be brutal, unforgiving and have no saves. They believe that those sorts of games are the only way to game, and that everyone should love them.

This has nothing to do with if I like the game or not, I personally love Sonic (lately it has gone down a very steep hill). But why do some older gamers feel the need to tell us young gamers what we should and should not play, or like? Is it because they grew up with these games? So they feel if they had to play them, that we must play them also? By "had", I mean if they wanted to play games, they had no other choice than to play what they had. This isn’t inherently bad.

So the above is the stereotype, but these come from where right? Of course the older gamers how have legitimate complaints are voicing opinions like,  hit a button and go, no 100 hoops to jump through. To be able to be in the privacy and comfort of your own room. Having no forced multiplayer, no constant "sharing" via social media. And nobody knowing what you're playing and doing 24/7. Along with no constant patches, updates, DLC, etc. Thank you Fathoms_4209 for bringing this up.

I agree with Fathoms

Why do we have multiplayer thrown at us all the time, along with patches, DLC and social media? Can we not just enjoy a nice single player game? Ok, so this is slightly off the topic. There are games for you, The Last of Us being one of the best examples for this in really recently times.

Can we all be Happy?

Old gamers want their super-tuff-no-save 2D platformers, but I want my not-too-hard, always save FPSs. Ok not me per say, but some baby gamers find the 2D games to be terrible, a waste of time and boring. And that’s fine to. Let’s just have both, with games like Super Meat Boy, Spelunky or VVVVVVVV (how many Vs does the game have?) older gamers have their platformers.

I have yet the play Spelunky as I feel 2D platforming games are a bit saturated. But there are still some great ones out there, and which are going to come out.

With the Call of Duty and Battlefield franchises, and now Titanfall, baby gamers have lots to choose from for their FPS gaming.

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 had some amazing moments, but marked the beginning of the downfall of Call of Duty for me.

Baby Gamers Baby Crying

Baby gamers want JUST Call of Duty (or that fish game, CoD is it?). I mean look at the sales, it shows it’s the best game ever created right? Wrong. There are lots of baby gamers who use the, “it sold more than your game” argument to prove that the game is better. Sales do not equate to quality.

It’s apparent that the quality of Call of Duty, or even Battlefield, has been decreasing. They are getting more and more buggy. But their sales are rising. Why is this? Is it because baby gamers just want the same thing over and over? Well that’s just the thing, there is more and more outcry about how all games are becoming Call of Duty. Even the likes of racing games, other FPS games or even 2D platformers--but why is this?

Each Call of Duty sold more and more, but are they getting better a better?

Online Ranking Systems

Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare brought online ranking systems to the forefront of how a multiplayer shooter should be. With its successes, many games started copying it. Which is fine; if something does well why not take its ideas? It works with the Batman Arkham games. They don’t do anything new, but they put a fresh spin on ideas.

As this ranking system got more popular, other genres started to use it. Look at the Forza Motorsport series, most notably Forza 3. This version in the series introduced an online ranking system, which works much like Call of Duty: compete to gain points. Get specific levels you get bonuses, like cars or XP boosts, or a reduction on cost of parts. Look at Ace Combat: Assault Horizon--many calling it Call of Duty in the sky. I tend to agree with them, but it was an enjoyable game. Which brings me to my next point.

Ace Combat changed, but was it for the better?

Gamers Both Want Change and Loath Change

An example of wanting and liking change, Deus Ex: Human Revolution. The game is different from the originals by adding a cover mechanic, the praxis points and the ability to lift only very specific things. But they kept the core of what Deus Ex was, the ability to play the game how you wanted.

An example of going against change, Thief (the new one). Again the game is different from the originals by adding a cover mechanic, adding a leveling and upgrade system. Also only allowing you to jump or climb at specific points. They also kept the core of what Thief is, the ability to play the game how you wanted. Ghosting or more aggresive stealth (of course the only option is stealth).

How is this different from Deus Ex? Not letting you jump all the time? Why would you want to? Would Garrett really bunny hop? Have they not kept the core of what Thief is? The similarities between how Eidos Montreal made the Thief and Deus Ex reboots are close. They both add a hub type world, they restrict what you can do without making it feel like you can’t do anything. And, above all, they both made mistakes but, overall are fantastic. Are they not? If you don't like them, tell me why.

With both of these games they tried something new and both had different outcomes on what people thought. They both made mistakes, but both kept to what the series is known for. Young gamers really like the games, but some old gamers do not.

Deus Ex: Human Revolution, the Detroit hub world.

Whose Voice is for Change?

It seems like there are plenty of voices for change, but there are plenty against. It sounds like to me that most of the noise for change is coming from my era, the PS2 era. But that may be me being a little bit biased. What do you think?

Baby gamers are saying we need more FPS games. Older gamers are saying, with any reboots they need to be made exactly the same as the originals. But the PS2 era gamers are saying we need hybrids of each.

Who’s Right?

There is no right and wrong. There are currently games for everyone and anyone, games for all ages, all gamer styles. They are not all old 1980s games, there are plently of older style games which have come out very recently.

Whose Voice is the Truth?

After going off track, let’s bring it full circle. Your voice is the truth, but only for you. My voice is the truth, but for everyone! Ok, everyone who agrees with me. If you are reading this thinking, "God! SpazldNinja has written utter rubbish!" Please write a counter argument telling me why. I always love to hear both sides.

I honestly think that this whole my voice is the best attitude is rubbish, everyone is correct for themselves, and the sooner everyone accepts that, the quicker we will all get along.

Generalising the Minority

Of course for anything said I am generalising. For the purposes of this article, I had to. The people arguing like this are the minority, they are just a bit more vocal.

Back to Entitlement

No one has the entitlement to be the only correct voice. No one has a louder voice. Everyone is equal. So with that cheese out the way, let’s get into the meat of this. I've said this about 10 times by now right? Sorry.

If everyone thinks they are the only truth, then are we not all wrong? After saying your voice is the truth, I am now saying you are wrong, why? For me, if you say Call of Duty: Ghosts is the best game, I will say you are wrong. That means you are wrong, right? Wrong. But... what? You are right for you, and that is all that counts. So, again, your truth is the truth for yourself, and not fact.

What Does your Voice Say About You?

Instead of thinking that your voice is correct, think about how your voice comes across to others. Does it make you seem like you’re arrogant? Does it make you come across as a person with an opinion, who also respects others? Does it say that you’re immature and dumb, even when you aren’t?

Do you think I’m right or wrong? How did I come across to you in this article? What do you think? Have I respected your age group? Let me know in the comments below.

Disclaimer

If anything in this article offends you, please let me know. Then I can explain that I didn’t mean to. I will then add to the article explaining why I have said what I did.

All of this was from my head, if I got anything wrong, please let me know.

The recent Electronic Arts investor call saw one of what I feel to be the dirtiest words in the modern gaming industry applied to the company's Battlefield franchise.  It is a word almost guaranteed to consign a franchise to derision and accusations of even more blatant than usual monetization.  The word is annualization, and as a gamer, I have a very strong negative reaction to it.

In response to the idea being presented, Blake Jorgensen, EA's chief financial officer, has stepped forward to offer his own thoughts on the idea.  They are much more sensible than one might expect from someone in charge of the money of those investors who want annualization to make.

The challenges are you’ve got to most likely do it out of two studios because it’s hard. It’s a two-year project.

Battlefield takes us about two years to develop and so you want to make sure that you’re sharing talent across studios, so you keep [the] core talent of the product and the experience for the consumer there. You also want to be really careful that you don’t destroy the franchise along the way. You got to make it exciting and different, but at the same time you want to make sure you maintain a great franchise.

It is not often a major gaming studio discusses how long it takes to make a game as an argument against a new form of monetization.  While we've heard talk of timetables before, it is mostly used to explain delays for a game's release.  A two-year development cycle makes a lot more sense than an annual one, even if the game can technically be put together in a single year, and Jergensen hits on all the main reasons.

He also pointed out a bit later that the game does not just sell when it is released initially, but over the full two-year timeframe, meaning selling the game annually would likely cut into its final sales numbers for the sake of getting the initial sales more regularly.  It is also much harder to market for a game when it comes out every year, as the very knowledge of it being an annual release dilutes excitement.

My favorite of his points, however, is definitely where he warns about destroying the franchise.  The main argument gamers make against annualization is always nice to hear worded in such uncompromising terms.  Fans of the Battlefield series can only hope EA takes Jergensen's words as seriously as they should.