What do you think about it and are you excited, I am.

Cool for those who want it. I couldn't care less personally.

I'm interested to see how they utilize the gamepad. I'm guessing squad management would be something good to have on the pad. Of course weapon management, plus you can't forget an in-depth map!

I'm more disappointed that there's a Battlefield 4 already....I thought this series was above such frequent releases?

Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa! Hold up! There's a Battlefield 4?

I'll pass on any system... And welcome back MickeyMac!

My brother loves Battlefield 3 on 360. If they utilize pointer controls, I may have to see what the fuss is about. If not, I may still try it, it will just depend.

I loved Battlefield 3 (one of the few war games that are still good), so I'll definitely get this.

I haven't heard about it being announced (might have been but seen nothing of it) but activision annouced battlefield was comong to the Wii U when the system was announced and battlefeild 3 is pretty old now so it only makes sense for Battlefield 4 to come to Wii U.

Battlefield is not a wargame.

This is a wargame:

Battlefield is a FPS.

On topic - since FPSer tend to use the L3/ R3 click sticks and since the Wii U's click sticks suck, I'll stick to the PS3 version.

A TRUE war game is the board game Stratego! Educate yourself!

Stratego is a board game, not a wargame.

If you want to talk about really true wargames, you're actually looking at games like this:

If you're going to tell me to educate myself, you'd do well to know what you are talking about in the first place.

Yeah it's a board game.... That just so happens to be a war game! Did you ever think of that? My guess is no.

Also Chess is the original "war game."

Do you understand what wargames are? Wargames are simulations of actual conflict, not abstractions. Board games such as Stratego and Risk are abstractions - filtering some basic military strategies into an easily digestible form designed for entertainment and accessibility.

Wargames are games that take into account supply, morale and when it comes to grand-scale wargames, politics - they're designed to recreate historical battles or, alternatively, fantasy conflicts but conflicts in which traditional military strategy is still applicable. They're designed less for entertainment, and more for real-world accuracy and high-level thought engagement (such as "if Napoleon did this would he have won Waterloo).

Battlefield is actually closer to a wargame than Stratego. Basic military strategy applies to those games. However, because it's skirmish level, and because players control one human being, rather than an army, and because it ignores rules such as supply and morale, it's not an accurate recreation of battle field conditions, and therefore not a wargame.

Why do people try and shove squares into circle holes?

Also Chess is the original "war game."

I have no idea whatsoever where you're getting this stuff. Firstly, Chess is not a wargame. It's a board game. Secondly, Go existed before Chess and Go is also an abstraction of military strategy. Indeed, Go is more complex than Chess. Therefore, even if these games were wargames, Go would be the original one.

The original wargames were actually sports such as soccer and the like, which were historically played by warriors (in the case of soccer, Chinese warriors) as a way to bloodlessly train for combat.

@WhiteKnight Oh my God man! A "War Game" is a game based on the principle or concept of war! You are being far to nit-picky!

I find Battlefield to be a war game since it's a game that's based around a war.

Anyhow, yeah, the Battlefield/Medal of Honor franchises are trying to take the FPS helm since it's releasing yearly entries nowadays. After Warfighter, I honestly don't want to see any more from DICE.

What about FPSs that are not realistic, but instead based on fantasy like Halo? I find myself still enjoying those.

i love scfi and military fps. so this will be sweet, plus of you don't know already modern warfare 4 is coming out on wii u too.

Sigh. This is as stupid as "any game is an RPG because you're playing a role. Hurr"

Let's go over this one more time.

The reason genre exists is so that, rather than describe a game, book, movie in a billion words, you can say a single word and the person you're talking to will immediately understand what you're talking about.

It's a linguistic short-cut to facilitate conversation, in other words.

It also fails to work when the "genre" becomes so broad that it looses meaning - ie if object A is nothing like object B, but belong to the same genre, then it's pointless if I say to you "oh, object C belongs to that genre," because you have no way of telling if that means it's like object A, or object B.

Zelda is not anything like Dragon Age, and therefore they can't both be RPGs. And guess what, they're not, because the actual genre definition of RPG is not "game in which you play a role." It's actually "game in which the player directly participates in the creation of a narrative within a world set down by a creator." Because the player doesn't create a narrative in Zelda, it's not an RPG.

Now. Wargames. Wargames are simulations of real-world military strategy and tactics. Wargames are not abstractions of real-world military strategy and tactics. Stratego, Chess, Go and Risk are all abstractions. They are not wargames. The old Avalon Hill board games are simulations. They are wargames.

This above is actual fact. Based on linguistics and semantics. There are rules about genre, and it's not "because I said it is."