I’m a little concerned at the prospect of Battlefield 2, which is being named as the true successor to Battlefield 1942. It leaves me thinking that Battlefield: Vietnam was probably a quick little money maker in the interim to pad BF2′s development, even though it has garnered some very respectable reviews. It doesn’t seem to be picking up the momentum I thought it would – some gamers I’ve talked to are still happy to play Desert Combat or Eve of Destruction and are in no rush to pick up BFV. And Desert Combat appears to be what Dice is going for in Battlefield 2, which I find a bit strange. Sure, they gave the guys at Trauma Studios their big break – but does that also mean taking their mod, slapping it in a box and selling it to PC gamers? It’s an easier route to be sure, but definitely not one to take if they want to retain the fanbase.

According to the press releases Battlefield 2 will take “modern warfare” and put it into the familiar gameplay format of Battlefield 1942, upgrade the graphics and base the physics engine in some semblance of our reality instead of allowing tanks to jump 50 feet in the air and crates block the 5 ton blast of a Sherman tank. Dice also plans to include a “Commander” mode that gives the more strategy inclined a larger view of the battlefield and allows them to issue commands to ground troops. The new playable factions are the US, China and some fictional middle-eastern conglomerate. With the screens depicting a desert setting, I can’t really see why I should be uninstalling DC anytime soon. Still, the Savage-like FPS meets RTS is an interesting design concept and definitely fits as an improvement to the genre. The only thing that puzzles me is Battlefield: Modern Combat. Why make a Battlefield game for the PS2 so late in the console’s lifespan? The screens only cause a deep sadness in me for PS2 owners.

A couple weeks ago I started playing Call of Duty on “Hardened” after watching the “Carentan” episode of Band of Brothers. Playing through CoD is still as breathtaking as the first time, but now that the idea of Brothers in Arms is in my head, it’s hard to focus on what made me enjoy CoD in the first place. The recently announced first expansion for CoD entitled “United Offensive” contains three new campaigns from the same nations in the first game, and is supposed to be ready for October. The Americans will be tackling Battle of the Bulge, the British will be involved in some sort of bombing campaign, and as the Russians you will play through the Battle of Kursk. The ending of CoD gave a brief taste of the Ardennes, and I hope that Grey Matter has enough sense to try and capture the gritty realism of Episodes 6 and 7 of Band of Brothers, moreso than the Spearhead expansion did for MoHAA. I can’t say I’m looking forward to sitting in the back of a plane on the new British missions in a game that has primarily been all about infantry combat, though. As a huge fan of CoD I should be excited about this – and I am – but while the concept of adding more content to an already great game is tantalizing, why not just focus on bringing us an outstanding sequel? I suppose my apprehension can be blamed on the downward spiral of expansions that were released for Medal of Honor – Spearhead was fine, but Breakthrough was not an experience I want to repeat.

I might as well talk about Men of Valor since the subject is already at hand – a couple of movies were released recently, and although 2015 knocked me on my ass with Allied Assault I can’t say I’m impressed with this outing. You can really notice the similarities with MOHAA than say, comparing it to EA Pacific’s Pacific Assault. It would be different if 2015 went out of their way to capture the era like Dice Canada did for Battlefield Vietnam, but some of those screens make me think this is just a mod on top of an engine that’s long since been discarded as old technology. Even Shellshock: Nam ’67 seems to have secured the style of combat dictated by the dense jungles of Vietnam; I won’t hold the fact that it’s a multiplatform title against it.