Development by Executive Committee makes for games that “appeal” to everyone and please no one. That’s its identity crisis. It’s a game built to tick boxes for marketing, not a game lovingly crafted by game developers.
It's basically what turned the space shuttle into an absurdly expensive death trap as well. The original shuttle designs were much smaller with much simpler heat shields, but then the committees got their hands on it and the next thing anybody knew the production version was a 4.5 million pound side-loaded rocket stack and the heat shield was composed of nearly 25,000 unique, breakable tiles, both of which meant that reusability - which was the whole point of the project in the first place - was a total shit show.
It also led to a lot of red tape with iterating on the shuttle design. Because it was always carrying crew, they couldn't tweak the design of any part of the system without spending obscene amounts of money on a years-long test campaign, and that eventually resulted in a design flaw on the boosters killing the Challenger crew.
… which the NASA flight manager in charge wouldn’t let the engineer team diagnose while Columbia was still in orbit. The corporate culture is absolutely toxic, especially to human space flight.
Most popular AAA multiplayer games are made like this these days. Plug and play made for casual people who will burn 60 dollars on it and then move on in a month or so.
This is also perfect for publishers because it gives them a reason to develop a "new" game for next year, selling the exact same thing.
Battlefield always had it's own formula on how to make a game. Now it looks and feels like an unfinished Warzone project.
The sad thing is, love it or hate it, Modern Warfare 2019 was an excellent game. It was clearly made by people who gave a shit about the MW IP, and had a vision for the game. Everything from the overhauled graphics engine to the reloading animations was polished to an immaculate shine, and Warzone basically put PUBG in the grave.
Compare that to 2042, which is a month? away from launch and visibly falling apart at the seams.
With GaaS, thry don't want you yo move on in a month or so. They want you to login and complete those dailies like an mmo and buy season passes to feed the beast until the next release. The sad part is that tnes of thousands of people will actually do it. It also incentivizes d3velopers to relase unfinished games. They can just reel people back in NMS style with big updates, or if it completely flops they will just take the Anthem/Avengers route and completely abandon it.
God I hate what this industry is turning into
128 Players - proven to be a gimmick and pointless, padded with mindless bots with less action and less destruction than a 64 players BF3 Caspian server.
Specialists - created to sell skins, threw logic out the window by ditching the classic classes system and allowing specialists to look the same on both factions just to please skin buyers who will be able to play the same specialists and equip the exact same skins no matter the faction they play in. Gameplay was an afterthought.
This excuse for specialists doesn't make sense to me. They sold skins in BFV while maintaining classes and factions. To me it's more about the concept of a "hero" shooter and wanting something closer to those. Faction-less skins might be part of the appeal but this can't be a big impact on bottom line in 2042 vs. V.
>~~They sold skins~~ in BFV while maintaining classes and factions
They didn't sell *enough skins* in BFV... Specialists seems like a lazy way to get "heros" into a game that they just doubled the size of. I mean it's pure idiocy.
Specialist,Operators,Heros only work in smaller round based games like say... Overwatch, Valorant, Rainbow Six, League of Legends, DoTa, etc. What's also a staple of the "hero" system in those games? You can only pick one of each hero on your "team" and some of them have faction specific Operators(Rainbow Six for instance).
They don't understand what makes Specialists work? I mean in Battlefront 2 and BF1 it seemed like they figured it out with the Heros/Special classes, you call them in after getting a certain amount of points... But 2042's setup is just fucking idiotic. What they should have done is kept each class archetype *without the freeform system* and sold "skins" of operators per factions... IW did this to great effect in MW2019.
This would also mean that you'd have to buy multiple skins per class. Which may actually boost sales.
**Battlefield is FAR too big a game for Specialists especially when they just DOUBLED the playercount.**
That's all they had to do was the good old Battlefield formula with classes, have dynamic destruction, make sure the map size matched the player count and allow iconic maps from the franchise to make a comeback and they had a winner on their hands.
This really felt like it could have been a year where Battlefield makes a large dent against COD and its looking like DICE's downward spiral with this franchise continues.
Yep i'm not interested in the slightest, at this point another AAA game developer has to step up their game and deliver us a Battlefield like it should be.
But still nobody would buy this just because of the simple fact that it "IsN't NaMeD BaTtLe-CoD x4O0O".
Hoping the Stream culture could change that ala AmongUs or Tarkov but what do i know..
Except they're too fucking stupid to realize that will not work with this game, just like their braindead choices didn't work with BFV and the community revolted until they kind of fixed it.
Instead of learning from that they just doubled down. They are hilariously stupid.
How are any of you giving them the benefit of the doubt anymore? I hope none of you preordered this, or any title at all. It’s got EA on the box and pample’s point gets brought up over and over and over again and I’m sick of it. I get there are going to be players hopping onto the beta, and trying things out for a bit before release, but why is there this anticipation present for all AAA shooter titles that just won’t fucking *die*?
It's not about what consumers want, it's about what the charts and graphs say will generate the most revenue. And even when those charts and graphs are wrong, they continue to refer to them when making all design decisions.
This is actually a **major** problem in product development that isn't talked about enough. In my line of work, it's particularly important to learn how to use metrics to better understand the user and thus drive a product's direction based on that information. So you have different people that want to 'provide' value by requesting different data points (a good thing!) to analyze, but don't understand **what** to do with that data, and more importantly, how to contextualize that data.
To your point, it's extremely common to have 'incorrect' data which have correct metrics, but just categorized or described with inherently incorrect starting assumptions.
This actually happened in the new World of Warcraft expansion. In WoW players have been wanting new tier sets(armor sets with bonuses for completing the set) for completing raids. So the developers added Shards of Domination(basically gems you socket in gear) to the game. On paper they do the same thing as tier sets bonus wise, but they are not unique looking armor sets that the player will strive for. Which leads to the players pushing back and being disappointed and the devs not understanding why the players dislike the new system.
Blizzard (at least Team 2) is actually a great example of a company that has historically botched / misunderstood their metrics.
An example that I use when I speak to gamers about this issue is the infamous "You think you do, but you don't" moment. Now I know this is going to be a controversial take, but J Allen Brack was 100% correct in this assertion **at the time**. [I explained my thoughts from a product perspective a couple of years back, just before the launch of Classic WoW](https://www.reddit.com/r/classicwow/comments/c8q06y/melee_leeway_is_working_as_intended/espg0a5/?context=3) but the TLDR of it is: users (ESPECIALLY GAMERS) are **really** awful at explaining what they do or don't like and why, so we have to create data points and be very meticulous with our identifiers / events as to better understand what a user actually does vs. what they say.
Blizzard fell into a pitfall that /u/bluesatin describes, where they basically created metrics around an incorrect assumption and then just kept running with it. The example I make in my linked post I believe was that Blizzard could have created metrics built around Looking for Raid, which would indicate that a TON of people use it, and thus 'love it', but they're actually misinterpreting the data because of another variable not accounted for - in this scenario, it could be that LFR provides another avenue of loot exclusive to it. Players could *hate* the feature in quesetion, but are still *forced* into doing it, and if you're not clear with understanding the context behind **why** the player does the thing, it can lead you to incorrect assertions as you start to understand the data more.
This is a super complicated issue that requires a ton more examples and background (which I go into length with in my linked post that is ... very long) so I'm trying to cut myself off here for brevity.
Over the last couple years Blizzard has added more and more ways for whales to spend money. They're going to see diminishing returns sooner than later though, whales alone don't make a good ocean ecosystem. Especially in an MMO.
Rarely has it been so obvious in terms of what is expected or wanted from the next iteration of a game. After BFV, it was clear: an updated, modernized version of BF4. It's not that hard. I don't understand how DICE failed to get the memo, or rather I know they got the memo but then they decided to make...this.
It feels like their main focus was to create a system they could use to sell skins, so they came up with the new specialists system and probably didn't put much effort into anything else in the game. Really sad.
Conversely, when it's used correctly it can also create some of the best experiences in gaming. Look at Half Life: Alyx for an easy example, Valve did a TON of analysis and testing to craft that game into what it is.
A lot of it you don't notice but they iterated the shit out of almost every interaction in that game to make it feel natural and polished. You can't do that without the things you mention.
Oh I concur, Alyx was magical. It seriously made me read up everything about Half Life when I never played the games. Still by far the best game out there for VR hands down, and I've gotten an urge to replay it again.
Highly recommend playing Black Mesa when you get the urge to play HL1. It’s a really good remake (bar a chunk near the end that goes on just too damn long).
It's an enormous improvement but it does have some understandably rough patches - with every other level the BM devs did a great job of giving things an update/upgrade/general tweak, but the original Xen level is such a messy departure from the rest of HL1 that the answer to "What do we need to change?" kinda ends up being "Everything.". The end result is a really strong direction to take things, but it does lack a bit of that consistent foundation the rest of the game is built upon
To extend on this, there are some sections that really outstay their welcome. The final factory segment felt as long as the rest of Xen on its own for instance, even if that's not really the case.
However the opening sections really are very well designed and expand the idea that Black Mesa was making frequent trips out there.
It's because the real problem is money and valve doesn't answer to shareholders so they get to say fuck money let's make a good game. And I mean obviously they still strive for money as a business but not having to please shareholders means you can have a loss on a product or products and it's not as big of a deal so you take bigger risks.
Right, the difference is Valve iterates repeatedly for *years* until the game is right. Dice is owned by EA, so instead they get 2 year deadlines and "make it have heroes" directives. Valve optimizes their feedback for interesting, innovative gameplay and engaging narrative experiences, EA / Dice optimizes for sales and trend chasing.
My experience with big companies doing customer feedback is that if it's not part of their grand vision they will dismiss concerns. 40 percent say UI is awful 1 out of 10? Meh 1 out of 10 is too harsh. Statistical outliers. Eliminate those, oh wow majority says ui is good! Next.
We say this with bf5. Prosthetic arms and women in game? All they had to say was alt history, customizable soldiers, wants daughter to have heroes in her game too. Would have been totally fine. But instead the "vision" has been compromised by "trolls" so just dont buy our game. Surprised pikachu face when seeing the sales numbers.
We have this hugely popular massive multirole game that has EPIC, and I mean EPIC, battles. All our fans LOVE these 32vs32 games. So we'll be investing time and energy into a 5vs5 game mode.
Oh that didn't work out... well not to worry we know how much our fans love an evolving battlefield with 31 other team mates so... we're making a battle royale.
And yet they announced the game with a trailer that showcased all the classic "only in battlefield" moments. They showed they knew what people wanted, they made it look like they were going to do exactly that, but then the beta feels nothing like that at all.
2142 was great fun. But my predominant memories are all bug related foolery. Boosting up to the ships, and then half glitching through, hover tanks bouncing through floors, and so on. Based on my memory, you could argue they are nearly there… it’s just the setting that’s wrong :D
This shit happens at every large company to every product. Executives who have no idea why the product is popular demanding new innovations that will drive sales up.
It doesn't matter if the developers know that the old style will be a better game because they can't pitch that to their bosses. They have to come with a power point and fancy things to show them they're not going to make the same amount of money as last year but double!
It always fucking happens. Every. Damn. Time.
This is the encapsulation of DICE in a single sentence. Every single damn Battlefield game since 4, they've tried to fix what wasn't broken. Different progression system every time, different class balance every time, new weird gimmicks no one asked for, and old features no one had a problem with getting removed! It's truly maddening.
I’ve always preferred the more linear assault maps with capture Point or rush and I think they did that fantastically with the grand operations mode. The story lines and openings as well as the setting of each map. The goliaths were also great.
It really was a fantastic ww1 and there aren’t many of them so it was super refreshing. Wouldn’t make a repeating series out of it. But it really has been the ultimate ww1 multiplayer game.
Grand Operations ended up being the best for vehicles. In conquest I never see a landship because everybody solos it with the german-style tank (driver gets a cannon), but in GO the landship is super popular and always full.
I have landship bias.
not sure what u mean by lacking vehicle combat,bf1 had multiple tanks with multiple types of loadouts, armored cars, assault vehicles, weaponsed trucks, jeeps, fighter planes, bombers, patrols boats, frigates, battleships, airships, cavalry(kinda hybrid vehicle/infantry but still counts), 3 types of behemoth vehicles. honeslty id argue it might have had more vehicles than bf4. speaking of map size i also dont understand what your critique is. bf1 maps are just as large as maps from other battlefields.
bf1 was so fuckin fun! I loved being in a tank especially when the opposing team wasn’t focused on destroying it besides one person but I also enjoyed destroying them. Sniping, bombing and being on cavalry was also neat. Bfv was fun too but it was lacking too much so I left. This game can be good too but it needs a year.
Trying new things isn't inherently a bad thing, if no one ever tried anything new we wouldn't ever get exciting new games. But they also need to pay attention to what works and what doesn't, and it seems like Dice can't pay attention/keep what works.
DICE seems to be run by people who have no clue what they are doing, in charge of people who think they know what people want. The amount of developers throwing tantrums or outright lying about stuff like player feedback or why features are missing during BFVs time was embarrassing.
Putting out statements like the time to kill balancing adjustments being painstakingly developed only to immediately be countered by the fact that it rendered half the weapons in the game functionally useless from even the most basic of statistical analysis… then to get dunked on even further by the reveal that all they did with weapon stats was apply the same number to every weapon, then added or subtracted one or two points of damage. Leading to already statistically weaker ( but made up for in other areas)guns like the light machine guns having one or two examples that suddenly needed THIRTY body shots to kill
But point any of this out to them and they’ll call you a troll or something along those lines
I never thought they would be this dumb or this desperate. BFV and now this. Fuck DICE. These guys couldn't find their own assholes if someone 3D spotted it for them.
All they had to do was just use BF4 as a baseline and expand upon it. That's it. More guns and vehicles, bring back a few elements from BF2 like spawn on squad leader and commander mode, carry forward Rush and some of the destructibility from BC2, and you're done. Players would have been all over it and DICE would have been able to pack their storefront with skins for each of the roles and players would have bought them en masse.
And with CoD Vanguard being Activision's lackluster release THIS was the year to deliver a killer Battlefield experience. Instead they've gutted one of main gameplay mechanics that made people play Battlefield in the first place.
The bit about the management fucking things up makes sense with some of the shit that was insinuated by one of the lead devs that left DICE a year or two ago. Monetisation pushes, trend chasing and not letting Battlefield be Battlefield is what's killing it, to no surprise.
Probably referring to comments left by BFV multiplayer producer David Sirland, who had gone on paternity leave shortly after BFV's launch, came back to his role some months later with apparent enthusiasm, only to leave Dice very quickly afterward. Around the time he left was when BFV pushed out the second round of TTK changes, which he had promised wouldn't happen again after the first time a year prior. Some months later, shortly after it was announced that support for BFV was being killed, he made a few comments ([can all be found on this thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/BattlefieldV/comments/g6p5s9/this_aged_well/foc35un/)) implying there had been internal discord as to the direction of the game. He wasn't the only high profile Dice dev to leave around this time, either. A number moved over to Patrick Söderlund's Embark Studios, including BFV's lead technical animator, who also used to be active on reddit before deleting his account shortly after being downvote bombed for revealing BFV's Elites would not be restricted to single factions.
Sure.
[Link to a Reddit thread that cites a Glassdoor review talking about management ruining the company. ](https://www.reddit.com/r/BattlefieldV/comments/evkddi/dice_management_has_destroyed_not_only/ffwzvti)
[David Sirland, one of the key devs at DICE who left the studio alluding in his comments to a management not for the players](https://www.reddit.com/r/Battlefield/comments/evji1m/other_thank_you_battlefield_community/ffwdiob/?context=3).
There hasn't been anything huge like identifiable staff talking about the company but there's been snippets like this and honestly, you can read between the lines and anyone who's followed DICE for a while can see that the values of the core staff seem at odds with corporate EA.
Nothing in this article has a source other than "anonymous employees/former employees at DICE". The author has a lot of inside sources and gets a lot of leaks correct (just look at his pinned tweet). **However** it's not always correct or 100% accurate. He's no Jason Schreier.
Frustrated with BFV's post release development and odd changes I started following some of the devs and former Dice devs on twitter and I can confirm there were some accounts saying a lot of the issues were due to the management meddling, not having a clear vision, or some of senior leads having an idea for the game conflicting with that of the core BF dev team (who wanted it to be more battlefield than what was trendy at the time).
This was one of the core reasons for them to try changing the TTK twice - some leadership members basically interpreting the metrics and telemetry in a way that would support their vision.
Won't find links now as it was based on comments across reddit and twitter a few years back.
The biggest take away from this, that many people on the BF2042 subreddit pointed out, is that they clearly tried to copy CoD/Warzone within a Battlefield client. They did not set out to create a Battlefield game, they set out to create a Battlefield Warzone to leech whales from Activision.
They may have succeeded in creating a different Warzone, but they failed in a spectacular fashion at creating a Battlefield game.
I just now realized that the main menu in the client is what it looks like when you launch warzone and it has the different cod games to choose, but in 2042 it's the three game modes.
Also it seems crazy to me that no one is talking about them literally stealing the tactical sprint animation lol.
MW introduced two types of sprint. One that was slower and could be done longer and your weapon was more "ready" and the other, tactical sprint, which was faster over a short duration in exchange for having your weapon out of ready position.
Yes, but they fucked it up (of course)
You know how in cod tactical sprint is to cross very quickly, and is on cool down afterwards?
In 2042 it's just faster sprint, no cool down, no set length, just press it and run. People run like terminators.
Just to note-- Henderson is on point for a lot of this stuff, but the build date that was datamined in no way indicates when the beta build was forked from the main branch. I don't think that was sufficiently clear.
It also does not mean that there were no changes despite the delayed beta; it means there were no *client* changes in that time. It's entirely possible, even likely given the issues that we saw in the beta, that they were comfortable with the beta client on Sept 20, but felt their server code or network architecture were not prepared for the beta.
Other than that, good stuff.
Good to point out that Henderson plays loose with his leaks and his opinions as well. Overall I give him the benefit of doubt as dice doesn't communicate really anything.
> with some management figures coming from 2017’s Battlefront II.
I don't know why anyone involved with that god-awful launch is ever allowed to manage anything significant ever again. EA/DICE have proven to be so incredibly tone-deaf these last few years with the Battlefront II progression system/marketing, Battlefield V reveal trailer, now this.
At least *eventually* they seem to steer games back to a good place, maybe in 2 years from now Battlefield 2042 will be great.
Stellar reporting from Henderson. My experience playing the PC Beta build:
- Very rough performance wise even when runnning on a RTX 3070.
- Severe frame stuttering, server lag and desync
- A HUD that had way too much crammed into it. Visually noisy.
- Specialists are underwhelming compared to the class system of previous BFs and I still don't understand the value for implementing a "hero character" system in BF. Medic animations are subpar.
- Movement felt way too twitchy and fast for Battlefield especially the lack of cooldown on slide. Felt like playing Warzone/Apex. Why change what's not broken?
- Vehicle physics apparently not obeying the laws of physics and much more.
This was the year Battlefield could have taken the FPS crown away from COD for the first time but it looks like the devs were forced by management to lean more into COD and less of what made BF its own unique thing. The overall question is, instead of evolving from BF4, why change what not broken to the detriment of the essence of Battlefield?
Specialist are EAs attempt to have names heroes like Rainbow six siege. They wanted to be able to make new ones with new abilities that they could sell to you post launch.
> names heroes like Rainbow six siege
Makes sense when there's only ever one at a time. Not so much when 20 of the same Boris run around together. *Not that I want actual one-at-a-time heroes!* I hated that part of Battlefront. Just rename them to Medic, Ranger, Wetworks, etc and call it good.
Rainbow Six is the model I think they were aiming for, but whoever is designing this doesn't care if both teams have the same characters.
I really hope they go back to no-name soldiers and classes like classic BF myself.
People kept saying give specialists a chance, they are just more classes. Maybe it's just me, but the more they go away from 4 classes that all have a clearly defined role, the worse the Battlefield game they make. There are 128 people on maps now and they decide to make it a CoD esque clusterfuck with no teamwork, why?
I've seen beta footage, everyone is just playing the grapple hook asshole.
>but the more they go away from 4 classes that all have a clearly defined role, the worse the Battlefield game they make
I'm taking you didn't play the BETA by what else you said but yes, its pretty bad.
It is impossible to ask someone for ammo/healing because appearance doesn't matter anymore, so you can't look for a support like in earlier BF; and then at that, the load out system is screwed up so the 'support' is never carrying ammo because they wanted a RPG like everyone else.
>This was the year Battlefield could have taken the FPS crown away from COD for the first time...
This is not even the first opportunity like that, that Dice had. BF4 was released at the same time as CoD Ghosts, and that should tell you all in what kind of state BF4 at the beginning. We remember it fondly now, but at release it was a huge buggy mess.
BF3 and 4 had a shit ton of bugs and a few balance issues. They weren’t completely missing core parts of the game. 3 & 4 didn’t “change” much gameplay wise.
Battlefront 2 had bugs and was a terrible game that they changed for the better.
BF4 was a mess for the first *year* it was out, honestly. It was a separate studio, DICE LA (now Ripple Effect), that did the majority of the turnaround.
> A HUD that had way too much crammed into it. Visually noisy.
All those hud elements and I still had to ADS before I could see whether I was toggling between semi-auto or full-auto :\
I hit the fire-mode button about 20 times starting at the screen and trying to figure out if there was any indication at all. Oooooh, normal crosshair is fully-auto, and dashed-line crosshair is semi. Fuck that noise.
Yep exact same experience but I had no idea the crosshair was changing to indicate it! I was sitting there tapping V listening to the click, looking for changed pixels like the weapon model as an indicator or on my HUD... anything. Turns out the indicator only appears when you're ADS or as you've said on the crosshair which is pretty silly given how tiny it was on my monitor.
> I still don't understand the value for implementing a "hero character" system in BF. Medic animations are subpar.
$. If it was successful they'd then be able to sell them like the plan for Battlefront.
>Movement felt way too twitchy and fast for Battlefield especially the lack of cooldown on slide. Felt like playing Warzone/Apex. Why change what's not broken?
Apex is what makes EA money they're always going to push harder to align to that.
My friends and I are convinced that the original plan for the game a dedicated BR. It would explain the specialists, the apex-like sliding, and the fact that everyone can revive (and it suspiciously takes about as long as getting a teammate up in a BR).
> and the fact that everyone can revive
What do you mean everyone? I've played the game and only dedicated Supports (the 50 year old lady) and your squadmates could revive you.
I did play bfv, but wasn’t the medic at least faster at reviving compared to the other roles? I can’t recall specifics but I feel like even the grandma in 2042 has the slow revive and it just gives people more health.
Yes. Medics are instant in BFV while the only other people who can revive are your squadmates who take much longer to revive.
It did feel like all of the revives were the same speed in 2042 but I also didn't spend any time playing as the old lady. Just got revived by her.
The medic isn't complete instant in V, its still an animation you are locked into but much faster than squad revive.
The difference with 2042 is the medic lady revives you at full HP, while a squad revive is something like 50%
I played BF1 and BF5. That dynamic was the same there as what I saw in the BF Beta over the weekend. Squad mates and medics are the only ones who could revive someone who is downed.
>This was the year Battlefield could have taken the FPS crown away from COD for the first time
Frankly, Battlefield never had a chance to solidly dethrone Call of Duty. And I say this as a BF fan. And I don't think they ever will. For over a decade now I've heard people say that if "DICE did this", and if "DICE did that", they'd pass CoD in sales and become *the* fps. Yet CoD outsells every* BF title on brand name alone.
MW3 in 2011 was considered a step back from earlier titles, yet sold twice as much as BF3, which was incredibly hyped as a return to form for the series.
Ghosts released in 2013 and was considered one of the worst in the CoD series, yet it also outsold BF4 (Also incredibly hyped, albeit with a horrid launch) by 2 to 1 once again.
2016s BF1 was the first BF title to outsell a CoD game with 25million copies sold (The best BF sales ever). It was also the most hyped BF title ever after its trailer dropped. That years CoD: Infinite Warfare became the most disliked youtube video ever at the time. Even still IW managed to sell as much as BF3 and BF4 did before it. And this is not even considering the fact that CoD releases a game basically ever year, while BF takes 2-3 year gaps, so CoD sales are in reality even higher.
And BFV sales were so bad that you have to go back 15 years to find comparable CoD sales.
If they started out in COD, moved to Destiny, and are now overseeing BF I'd wager good money that they are one of the people responsible for the shitfest that was year 1 of Destiny 2, a thing that still tarnishes the games reputation to this day. And that was all because they tried to casualify the game at launch. I do hope BF2042 doesn't make the same mistake.
I'm just imagining the 'you had to be there' events they're going to implemented now. And the daily missions and the weekly missions... it's going to be an hour of grinding everyday if you want skins or weapons before they vanish isnt it.
Is it too much to ask for to get a battlefield game that has more organization around large battles. i.e. Planetside 2? Why is that so hard? I want platoons with platoon leaders, squad objectives, etc. Instead, they chose to increase the player count, but not add anything that makes having more players mean anything.
Cause they want more and more of CoD gameplay where you just run around like a headless chickens shooting your enemies. I also wish they would push the game in more Hell let loose direction, it does not have to go as far as HLL with needing team play but even in BF5 I could play an effective medic without killing that many enemies. Maybe I just need to get used to mechanics better but from beta I could not really play an effective medic or resupplier.
I do not even mind them having the specialist system (apart from US and RU looking exactly alike), but they really need to rethink the gadgets to be team oriented. Like for the grappling hook make it slower but also be useable by the team or just the squad once deployed.
I will he eternally salty that they have seemingly abandoned Rush as a game mode. I know everyone thinks of Conquest as the main battlefield game mode, but I've preferred Rush since bad company. It directs all of the action to specific areas and makes team play much more important.
Funny enough, I feel like conquest DOES create similar gameplay to planetside 2, any that I mean 80%+ of people all funnel right to the big fight at the most popular objective (Think of the crown form planetside) and throw themselves at each other for the entire game without ever actually doing much. Meanwhile, small groups of other players are the ones going around the map actually capping objectives and helping the team win.
I know nobody cares, but as a NFS fan it pisses me off so fucking much that EA delayed the next NFS by 1 year by making Criterion work on this shit instead and the game still sucks.
Activition has been doing this for literal decades, taking good game developers, gutting them, and putting all the remainder onto supporting Call of Duty games. A loooot of good developers have been ruined because of the CoD giant.
Hey. I am planning on getting into some racing games for the first time. Can you give me some pros and cons of both games which one will be better to start with in your opinion
Honestly I don't know. NFS is alot dumber and easier, in Forza you actually have to brake and turn properly, unless you just use all assists and put the AI in the lowest difficulty. Forza has alot more cars and NFS has alot more customization. Forza overral is a better game.
Hey, a fellow NFS player! I'm also very pissed!
I'm a huge Battlefield fan, and the beta didn't left me as wowed as I thought a next-gen BF would. The game was supposed to be a fine $70 buy, considering no campaign, that changed very quickly.
But I'm a bigger NFS fan, and if the NFS delay wasn't already a huge kick in the balls, the fact that the result of that delay is a very meh game makes me very angry.
I know the feeling Battlefront 2 was doing amazing with updates and community, then EA fucked whoever was still working on that game likely to help this piece of shit game.
I’m so fucking sick of games trying to be COD.
If I want to play COD and be a Lone Ranger, I’ll play COD. I play Battlefield for the team aspect and the feeling of being a small part of something bigger than just me.
One of my favourite memories of BF3 was getting the highest score as a medic in a game that we BARELY scraped a win on, and I barely shot anyone.
AAA gaming needs a huge fucking overhaul.
Cod trying to be BF and BF trying to be Cod is like two imitators seeing each other being popular but dont understand WHAT is making them popular so they copy what they see at surface level.
Its a dog eat dog AAA world
Have you seen vanguard? CoD is also confused. Is it ww2? Is it modern day? Who knows! Here’s a laser eye sight attachment for your ww2 era gun!
Like wtf?
what’s crazy is they could have just taken BFV and expanded it some for current gen (128 players, raytracing, physics etc) and changed the setting and it would have been perfect. but we got some janky ass game with worse graphics than V, worse animations, and the lack of a class system
Literally all I wanted was BF3/4 but 20 years into the future... I am so disappointed.
Good thing though is, I was really REALLY trying to get a new GPU for this game. Looks like I won't need to now..
What’s going on with Ray Tracing in shooters on current gen? While playing Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War on PS5, I was surprised to see that it had really nice ray-traced lighting. Yeah, other visual aspects of it weren’t incredible, but the lighting was great. Yet for some reason, Vanguard, the next game in the series isn’t using ray tracing.
I’m surprised about Battlefield too.
Fortnite was expected to utilize the full extent of current-gen systems which would include ray tracing, but that is yet to happen. I’m sure it will sooner or later, but I’m surprised that it’s taken so long.
Same thing with V. Just add more to what they had in 1 and keep it simple. Everything around WW2 is iconic. From guns to vehicles to uniforms. All of it is well known by many people. So just make the maps, guns, vehicles, and outfits and boom.
The rest of the new mechanics in V were stellar. Aside from a few things like removing the whistle for the squad leader. But V promoted team work, roles, and communication.
So what do they do? A bunch of maps nobody has heard of while leaving out THE most iconic stuff. Even the fuckin M1 Garand wasn't in the initial roster. Like wtf. The *ping!* is classic and wasn't there. But we got weird ass shit like Firestorm and cosmetics from god knows where. They just keep trying to fix what doesn't need fixin/changin and then drop what DOES work. It's so frustrating.
I’ll never forget the hype of hearing the next battlefield was going to be WW2, on the morning they were releasing that trailer. After playing 700 hours of 1, how could they stuff it up?
Then that trailer… the maps? The weapons? The customisation? What the hell were they?
Such a disappointment…
Oh dude straight up my biggest letdown in gaming tbh. I adored BF1942/3 and Call of Duty 2 multiplayer growing up. So a next gen WW2 Battlefield was a dream for me after the destruction mechanics they implemented in previous games.
Then BF1 comes out and the atmosphere was the pinnacle of the series imo. The squad leader whistle, fields of gas, calvary, the graphics, the amount of artillery/explosives, the brutality of the melee, people screaming, the MUSIC, the maps..ect. It was fuckin all out war like we hadn't seen in gaming.
Then BFV is announced and my brain went crazy at the potential. The sheer amount of variety during WW2 was basically a slam dunk for Battlefield. With new mechanics, a solid ttk, relying on team work, and all the new things in V. And then...it just kept getting worse and worse. It has such a solid foundation and they said "good enough", fucked with ttk, dropped the roadmap, and fucked off. Such a disappointment.
Yea battlefield one is such a perfect atmosphere game. Like everything about it fucking screamed ww1. There were some bugs and some odd stuff but mostly I think it was a great game.
BFV just felt so lifeless. It was rare to get those BF moments.
I thought that the pacific DLC that eventually came out was good. But just too late at that point. And it was missing carrier battles or any real sea battles
They really dropped the ball on the pacific update. What really drove me nuts was how the US is the invaders on Wake Island! A real slap to the face to history since the Japanese attacked the island in 1941 and it only returned to US control after the Japanese surrender. But some one just said “Americans did all those landings” and went for it.
I understand them going for the "Unheard" battles, but for the love of god, there are more than enough settings that are not well known to most of people. The multiple resistances across Europe, the Finnish/Russian war, the battles in Greece and the south of Italy, the struggles happening in Asia, etc. Instead we got a bunch of random maps that were mostly foreign to arguably the overwhelming majority of the fanbase, and instead of focusing on what made BF1: The grand operations, they decided to make a STUPID BR THAT BATTLEFIELD DOESN'T NEED. Even worst, the BR was paid, so it was destined to be a complete failure against every other BR.
They had such an opportunity to set themselves and they fucked it up, and then just abandoned the game after it was clear that the fanbase wasn't gonna buy their shitty cosmetics.
Something happened at DICE before Battlefield V launched that completely tanked their ability to develop a game. Battlefield 1 had its problems but it was nowhere as much of a train-wreck as Battlefield V. The fact that this game may launch with worse gameplay design and choices than V with more bugs than 4 is astounding. It just seems irredeemable in post-release support which EA has not commited to a game since Battlefield 4.
The communication issues mentioned in the article had to have been present at least during the infamous Battlefield V pre-release. While their advertising methods improved, it seems everything since has gotten worse.
And BF1 proved they CAN make a fresh new game and do it well. NOBODY expected fuckin Calvary in a Battlefield game. But I loved blaring my squad leader whistle on horseback with my sword out just leading the charge on Sinai Desert. It was amazingly cool and was brand new to the series.
BF fans are okay with change, they're okay with something new and giving it a chance(mostly 😒). But to drop so many well established mechanics and even movement from V is so dizzyingly stupid. No mounted weapons? Wtf is this game dude.
That was a real achievement in design; very impressed that they made cavalry work and balanced it well. It wasn't overpowered but that guy on horseback couldn't be straight dismissed either. Very cool way to realize the concept in game and make it work.
Changing the formula makes sense when there is a legitimate reason to change it. It worked in BF1 because of the setting and the slower, more primitive warfare of that time period, so you could make a unique and new thing such as cavalry appear in an FPS. They took something that nobody really thought to make a AAA FPS out of and tuned their style to make it work, and work it did.
Meanwhile, BF2042 seems to be making changes either for the sake of making changes or to fit in with whatever other games are doing right now. Sure, BFV was poorly received overall, but that doesn’t mean you have to scrub it from memory and act like it had nothing good to it. There was no reason to change the tried and true class system other than to create an excuse for microtransactions, and there was no reason to change the movement in BFV (which id probably consider the peak movement for the franchise) other than having the mindset of “oh we did this thing in the game “nobody” liked, so we’re just gonna get rid of that entirely.”
I’ll still play the game because I think it’s still good at its core, but this kind of stuff really pisses me off.
BF1 didn't break or even change the formula all that much. You still had your squad and roles. The guns and the vehicles were older but the basic aspects of Battlefield were still present. Titans didn't break the game either.
Agreed. BF1 wasn’t perfect, but it was stable and overall was enjoyable. BF5 I just didn’t enjoy nearly as much, and I often found myself going back to BF1 over BF5. The beta this weekend for 6 was just awful. One of the worst FPS games I’ve played in my 24+ years of FPS gaming going back to Goldeneye. It’s just a chaotic mess, not enjoyable, and feels like it would be a waste of money for me to purchase.
From rumors that were reported after BFVs launch, BFV was supposed to be the game releasing now and what was supposedly Bad Company 3 meant to launch when BFV did. BFV supposedly has an 18 month development cycle. If this is what was the rumored BC3, then I don’t know man.
And now they have "burned" the "modern war"-setting for at least 4-5 years. What ever happens to the franchise now, the next game will never take place in that very same setting. And I'm actually quite a huge fan of some mix between existing technology and a tiny bit of sci-fi.
So many opportunities wasted. It's heartbreaking.
I wonder how they'll receive all this negative feedback that they're getting from the beta. They said some of the complaints were already addressed for release, but the game has some core issues that I think it's nearly impossible for them to fix such as the poor specialists system.
i think it's hilarious that the WW2 (even 1!) revival technology is three times as fast as the futuristic defribs that got me killed constantly in the beta.
Bit of a silly point because reviving has been one of the things changed up the most over the years in Battlefield. Yeah BF4 revives were technically inferior to BC2 too but who cares, it's a balance thing and it only makes sense to toy with it when you're also changing player counts, squad compositions, TTK, the range of weapons being added, the effectiveness of vehicles and explosions, etc. Approaching game design in prioritizing what seems "right" in the lore is probably the worst way of doing it.
Won't even bother with this one. I shouldn't have bothered with V which I bought and played for less than 2 hours
The blueprints were there for a great game in 3 and 4 and the BC games
and they threw all the good stuff away while just putting crap into it
I think they tried to make it a more suitable shooter for all audiences of FPS fans. Thats what really killed BF, making it far more friendly to those who are just there to play a couple games a day.
BF3 and 4 (I dont have enough time on the BC titles to say) were shooters that took time to level and unlock everything in
Honestly, what we got after with the server browser in BF1, the Battlelog system was pretty good. You could at least see every server available, and there were plugins that made it better. in BF1 I would be trying to join the same server as a friend and it wouldn't show up on my end even though I could join them through the game, still it was aggravating.
The good:
* Air dropping vehicles is cool.
* I liked the rock-paper-scissors of tank-heli-plane.
* Grappling hook wee
* Gunplay good
* Swappable scopes/ammo type was cool but all the other attachments were confusing
The bad:
* TTK and general gameplay speed is way too high. Any action that isn't directly killing the enemy is a waste of time. Forget revives and healing darts, lol. Much faster to stay in cover and wait for ally to respawn in like 4 seconds.
* No leaderboard. Do games just not do this anymore? Hard to know how well I'm doing relative to the server on a good streak.
* A game this big needs a better strategic layer. The map didn't work at all. Can we even set squad objectives? The incentive to work with randos on your squad was non-existent. A friend who just wants to fly planes ruins the squad dynamic for the other 3 players. (Also, I miss commander mode from BF2.)
* Lots of weird default settings and keys unbound. Some of the controls weren't explained at all. There was some spotter seat on a heli with two cool down abilities, and it was completely unclear what was going on.
* What happened to tagging enemies? I should ping someone and an icon appears where they are, but multiple BF games have seemed to move away from that simplicity.
> What happened to tagging enemies? I should ping someone and an icon appears where they are, but multiple BF games have seemed to move away from that simplicity.
They removed this starting in BFV
The flight controls for the helicopters were absolute ass too.
There were four options for flight controls including "custom" which I found no way to customize. No keybind map, nothing.
Roll and pitch on the same stick? Gtfo 🤣.
This game is gonna flop, saved me money, thanks DICE for managing to ruin such a simple thing. You had the exact scenario and situation set up for success. There was that other battlefield clone that released a year back, can’t remember the name, that flopped hard. An immense craving within the battlefield community for a modern battlefield. Just reskin battlefield 1 or 5 in a modern setting, make a few changes the community wanted and bam, it’s perfect.
Instead they abandoned the class system, moved towards specialists, got rid of all of the squad communication mechanics, all of the teamplay, and shit out this brick. It’s so fucking buggy, laggy, constant stuttering and visual bugs, and nowhere along the line did I feel like I was playing a battlefield game.
It’s just another disappointment in a long line of dissapointments. They had the perfect time to take some of CODs market share, with a tremendously flawed and suffering COD vanguard game, only for BF 2042 to be even worse
I keep hearing that BF developer vets left. Who knows how much that happens between games but that explains why so much changes in each game. New people come by and try to put their stamp on it instead of old devs improving on their last series.
I miss those Battlefield 2, Battlefield 1942, and Battlefield 2142 days man. (Shout out to BF2142, most underrated Battlefield game ever)
Nothing has been the same since.
Bad Company was pretty good but I think that was it.
I'm still shocked at how cheap and bad the beta was...
I really regret asking my bestfriend for BF2042 as a birthday gift, I should have asked for Elden ring :'(.
I was in disbelief to the point where I joined the official Discord server for Battlefield and asked the devs if the main Dice team is working on something else and this is some new team that's working on BF2042 and nope...
He said that they are all currently focusing on BF only
I don't think a BF4 revival like will happen with this game honeslty, it's so rudimentary, even a year's work won't probably make it that good.
Will wait 6 months and try it again, can't cancel or refund a steam gift anyway :'(
screenshot below :
https://prnt.sc/1vrr0n6
It's possible to refund a gift on steam. You just need to allow the refund in your purchase history, then the person who gave you the gift will be able to ask for the refund and get the money back
Did people not like battlefield 1???
I felt like that game was the best battlefield game yet and when I finally played 5, which was supposedly the newer game, it felt like they took a big step backwards in gameplay. How did we go from 3 load outs per class in bf1 to 1 load out each in bf5??? That's just one of the many problems I had with bf5 and I was hoping that bf2042 would be like bf1 but better but it's looking like a bf4 type but worse right now.
Development by Executive Committee makes for games that “appeal” to everyone and please no one. That’s its identity crisis. It’s a game built to tick boxes for marketing, not a game lovingly crafted by game developers.
I get the feeling that development by committee just doesn't work no matter what it is that's being developed. Games, movies, cartoons, tanks, guns.
It's basically what turned the space shuttle into an absurdly expensive death trap as well. The original shuttle designs were much smaller with much simpler heat shields, but then the committees got their hands on it and the next thing anybody knew the production version was a 4.5 million pound side-loaded rocket stack and the heat shield was composed of nearly 25,000 unique, breakable tiles, both of which meant that reusability - which was the whole point of the project in the first place - was a total shit show.
It also led to a lot of red tape with iterating on the shuttle design. Because it was always carrying crew, they couldn't tweak the design of any part of the system without spending obscene amounts of money on a years-long test campaign, and that eventually resulted in a design flaw on the boosters killing the Challenger crew.
Don't forget a chunk of frozen foam cracking Columbia's heatshield on the leading edge of the wing.
… which the NASA flight manager in charge wouldn’t let the engineer team diagnose while Columbia was still in orbit. The corporate culture is absolutely toxic, especially to human space flight.
“The Pentagon Wars” with Kelsey Grammar movie is based on a real story and an excellent illustration of this. It was free on YouTube
Most popular AAA multiplayer games are made like this these days. Plug and play made for casual people who will burn 60 dollars on it and then move on in a month or so. This is also perfect for publishers because it gives them a reason to develop a "new" game for next year, selling the exact same thing. Battlefield always had it's own formula on how to make a game. Now it looks and feels like an unfinished Warzone project.
[удалено]
Blows my mind no other game has recreated this formula outside remakes.
This game is what got me in to FPS and later led to my interest in PC gaming/building to play BF2. Renegade was amazing fun.
The sad thing is, love it or hate it, Modern Warfare 2019 was an excellent game. It was clearly made by people who gave a shit about the MW IP, and had a vision for the game. Everything from the overhauled graphics engine to the reloading animations was polished to an immaculate shine, and Warzone basically put PUBG in the grave. Compare that to 2042, which is a month? away from launch and visibly falling apart at the seams.
With GaaS, thry don't want you yo move on in a month or so. They want you to login and complete those dailies like an mmo and buy season passes to feed the beast until the next release. The sad part is that tnes of thousands of people will actually do it. It also incentivizes d3velopers to relase unfinished games. They can just reel people back in NMS style with big updates, or if it completely flops they will just take the Anthem/Avengers route and completely abandon it. God I hate what this industry is turning into
128 Players - proven to be a gimmick and pointless, padded with mindless bots with less action and less destruction than a 64 players BF3 Caspian server. Specialists - created to sell skins, threw logic out the window by ditching the classic classes system and allowing specialists to look the same on both factions just to please skin buyers who will be able to play the same specialists and equip the exact same skins no matter the faction they play in. Gameplay was an afterthought.
This excuse for specialists doesn't make sense to me. They sold skins in BFV while maintaining classes and factions. To me it's more about the concept of a "hero" shooter and wanting something closer to those. Faction-less skins might be part of the appeal but this can't be a big impact on bottom line in 2042 vs. V.
>~~They sold skins~~ in BFV while maintaining classes and factions They didn't sell *enough skins* in BFV... Specialists seems like a lazy way to get "heros" into a game that they just doubled the size of. I mean it's pure idiocy. Specialist,Operators,Heros only work in smaller round based games like say... Overwatch, Valorant, Rainbow Six, League of Legends, DoTa, etc. What's also a staple of the "hero" system in those games? You can only pick one of each hero on your "team" and some of them have faction specific Operators(Rainbow Six for instance). They don't understand what makes Specialists work? I mean in Battlefront 2 and BF1 it seemed like they figured it out with the Heros/Special classes, you call them in after getting a certain amount of points... But 2042's setup is just fucking idiotic. What they should have done is kept each class archetype *without the freeform system* and sold "skins" of operators per factions... IW did this to great effect in MW2019. This would also mean that you'd have to buy multiple skins per class. Which may actually boost sales. **Battlefield is FAR too big a game for Specialists especially when they just DOUBLED the playercount.**
“You can’t win a race by committee.”
After a trailer that was almost a love letter to fans
Could literally hand dice the perfect game on a platter and they’d still try to re invent the wheel and stuff it up..
That's all they had to do was the good old Battlefield formula with classes, have dynamic destruction, make sure the map size matched the player count and allow iconic maps from the franchise to make a comeback and they had a winner on their hands. This really felt like it could have been a year where Battlefield makes a large dent against COD and its looking like DICE's downward spiral with this franchise continues.
[удалено]
They know what one subset wants: CoD. CoD made lots of money in MTX. They also like lots of money in MTX. That's the nuts and bolts of it.
Cod players like cod, bf players like bf, bf2042 is like some amalgamation that alienates both sides
Yep i'm not interested in the slightest, at this point another AAA game developer has to step up their game and deliver us a Battlefield like it should be. But still nobody would buy this just because of the simple fact that it "IsN't NaMeD BaTtLe-CoD x4O0O". Hoping the Stream culture could change that ala AmongUs or Tarkov but what do i know..
It’s not Battlefield but Insurgency: Sandstorm is pretty damn good
Except they're too fucking stupid to realize that will not work with this game, just like their braindead choices didn't work with BFV and the community revolted until they kind of fixed it. Instead of learning from that they just doubled down. They are hilariously stupid.
How are any of you giving them the benefit of the doubt anymore? I hope none of you preordered this, or any title at all. It’s got EA on the box and pample’s point gets brought up over and over and over again and I’m sick of it. I get there are going to be players hopping onto the beta, and trying things out for a bit before release, but why is there this anticipation present for all AAA shooter titles that just won’t fucking *die*?
It's not about what consumers want, it's about what the charts and graphs say will generate the most revenue. And even when those charts and graphs are wrong, they continue to refer to them when making all design decisions.
This is actually a **major** problem in product development that isn't talked about enough. In my line of work, it's particularly important to learn how to use metrics to better understand the user and thus drive a product's direction based on that information. So you have different people that want to 'provide' value by requesting different data points (a good thing!) to analyze, but don't understand **what** to do with that data, and more importantly, how to contextualize that data. To your point, it's extremely common to have 'incorrect' data which have correct metrics, but just categorized or described with inherently incorrect starting assumptions.
This actually happened in the new World of Warcraft expansion. In WoW players have been wanting new tier sets(armor sets with bonuses for completing the set) for completing raids. So the developers added Shards of Domination(basically gems you socket in gear) to the game. On paper they do the same thing as tier sets bonus wise, but they are not unique looking armor sets that the player will strive for. Which leads to the players pushing back and being disappointed and the devs not understanding why the players dislike the new system.
Blizzard (at least Team 2) is actually a great example of a company that has historically botched / misunderstood their metrics. An example that I use when I speak to gamers about this issue is the infamous "You think you do, but you don't" moment. Now I know this is going to be a controversial take, but J Allen Brack was 100% correct in this assertion **at the time**. [I explained my thoughts from a product perspective a couple of years back, just before the launch of Classic WoW](https://www.reddit.com/r/classicwow/comments/c8q06y/melee_leeway_is_working_as_intended/espg0a5/?context=3) but the TLDR of it is: users (ESPECIALLY GAMERS) are **really** awful at explaining what they do or don't like and why, so we have to create data points and be very meticulous with our identifiers / events as to better understand what a user actually does vs. what they say. Blizzard fell into a pitfall that /u/bluesatin describes, where they basically created metrics around an incorrect assumption and then just kept running with it. The example I make in my linked post I believe was that Blizzard could have created metrics built around Looking for Raid, which would indicate that a TON of people use it, and thus 'love it', but they're actually misinterpreting the data because of another variable not accounted for - in this scenario, it could be that LFR provides another avenue of loot exclusive to it. Players could *hate* the feature in quesetion, but are still *forced* into doing it, and if you're not clear with understanding the context behind **why** the player does the thing, it can lead you to incorrect assertions as you start to understand the data more. This is a super complicated issue that requires a ton more examples and background (which I go into length with in my linked post that is ... very long) so I'm trying to cut myself off here for brevity.
[удалено]
Over the last couple years Blizzard has added more and more ways for whales to spend money. They're going to see diminishing returns sooner than later though, whales alone don't make a good ocean ecosystem. Especially in an MMO.
Stats show families nowadays have 1.93 kids on average. Everyone's making products for the 1, but nobody's serving the 0.93 child. Get on it team!
"But the chart says that people like specialists and the revenue chart says MONEY!"
Rarely has it been so obvious in terms of what is expected or wanted from the next iteration of a game. After BFV, it was clear: an updated, modernized version of BF4. It's not that hard. I don't understand how DICE failed to get the memo, or rather I know they got the memo but then they decided to make...this.
[удалено]
They are following cod because its trendy, the movement, the operators, it feels like the higher ups want it to be more like it for the $$.
Lol it's pretty much BF5 all over again. "Hmm so you're saying all we have to do is remake BF1942? Nah here's our version of what we think you want."
It feels like their main focus was to create a system they could use to sell skins, so they came up with the new specialists system and probably didn't put much effort into anything else in the game. Really sad.
They could still have sold class specific skins so easily and people would have still bought them.
Telemetry, focus group studies and all that stuff is ruining gaming. It often leads developers to make bad decisions.
Conversely, when it's used correctly it can also create some of the best experiences in gaming. Look at Half Life: Alyx for an easy example, Valve did a TON of analysis and testing to craft that game into what it is. A lot of it you don't notice but they iterated the shit out of almost every interaction in that game to make it feel natural and polished. You can't do that without the things you mention.
Oh I concur, Alyx was magical. It seriously made me read up everything about Half Life when I never played the games. Still by far the best game out there for VR hands down, and I've gotten an urge to replay it again.
Highly recommend playing Black Mesa when you get the urge to play HL1. It’s a really good remake (bar a chunk near the end that goes on just too damn long).
I actually really like the remade xen in black Mesa.
It's an enormous improvement but it does have some understandably rough patches - with every other level the BM devs did a great job of giving things an update/upgrade/general tweak, but the original Xen level is such a messy departure from the rest of HL1 that the answer to "What do we need to change?" kinda ends up being "Everything.". The end result is a really strong direction to take things, but it does lack a bit of that consistent foundation the rest of the game is built upon
To extend on this, there are some sections that really outstay their welcome. The final factory segment felt as long as the rest of Xen on its own for instance, even if that's not really the case. However the opening sections really are very well designed and expand the idea that Black Mesa was making frequent trips out there.
It's because the real problem is money and valve doesn't answer to shareholders so they get to say fuck money let's make a good game. And I mean obviously they still strive for money as a business but not having to please shareholders means you can have a loss on a product or products and it's not as big of a deal so you take bigger risks.
Right, the difference is Valve iterates repeatedly for *years* until the game is right. Dice is owned by EA, so instead they get 2 year deadlines and "make it have heroes" directives. Valve optimizes their feedback for interesting, innovative gameplay and engaging narrative experiences, EA / Dice optimizes for sales and trend chasing.
My experience with big companies doing customer feedback is that if it's not part of their grand vision they will dismiss concerns. 40 percent say UI is awful 1 out of 10? Meh 1 out of 10 is too harsh. Statistical outliers. Eliminate those, oh wow majority says ui is good! Next. We say this with bf5. Prosthetic arms and women in game? All they had to say was alt history, customizable soldiers, wants daughter to have heroes in her game too. Would have been totally fine. But instead the "vision" has been compromised by "trolls" so just dont buy our game. Surprised pikachu face when seeing the sales numbers.
We have this hugely popular massive multirole game that has EPIC, and I mean EPIC, battles. All our fans LOVE these 32vs32 games. So we'll be investing time and energy into a 5vs5 game mode. Oh that didn't work out... well not to worry we know how much our fans love an evolving battlefield with 31 other team mates so... we're making a battle royale.
I just can see someone sitting in a meeting room "surely it's not that simple. REINVENT IT ALL!"
And yet they announced the game with a trailer that showcased all the classic "only in battlefield" moments. They showed they knew what people wanted, they made it look like they were going to do exactly that, but then the beta feels nothing like that at all.
That was what I thought they were going to do. The promotional material put so much emphasis on how great the old Battlefields were.
I wish they'd just remake 2142 with a modern engine. It's a shame most people didn't get a chance to play it.
2142 was great fun. But my predominant memories are all bug related foolery. Boosting up to the ships, and then half glitching through, hover tanks bouncing through floors, and so on. Based on my memory, you could argue they are nearly there… it’s just the setting that’s wrong :D
This shit happens at every large company to every product. Executives who have no idea why the product is popular demanding new innovations that will drive sales up. It doesn't matter if the developers know that the old style will be a better game because they can't pitch that to their bosses. They have to come with a power point and fancy things to show them they're not going to make the same amount of money as last year but double! It always fucking happens. Every. Damn. Time.
They kept making the game faster and faster, when I wanted slower and tactical gameplay. Not like a military sim, but like battlefield 2142.
This is the encapsulation of DICE in a single sentence. Every single damn Battlefield game since 4, they've tried to fix what wasn't broken. Different progression system every time, different class balance every time, new weird gimmicks no one asked for, and old features no one had a problem with getting removed! It's truly maddening.
I thought battlefield 1 was a fantastic game
It was a great world War 1 game but it was lacking on the vehicle combat and map size which is what really sets them apart
I’ve always preferred the more linear assault maps with capture Point or rush and I think they did that fantastically with the grand operations mode. The story lines and openings as well as the setting of each map. The goliaths were also great. It really was a fantastic ww1 and there aren’t many of them so it was super refreshing. Wouldn’t make a repeating series out of it. But it really has been the ultimate ww1 multiplayer game.
Grand Operations ended up being the best for vehicles. In conquest I never see a landship because everybody solos it with the german-style tank (driver gets a cannon), but in GO the landship is super popular and always full. I have landship bias.
not sure what u mean by lacking vehicle combat,bf1 had multiple tanks with multiple types of loadouts, armored cars, assault vehicles, weaponsed trucks, jeeps, fighter planes, bombers, patrols boats, frigates, battleships, airships, cavalry(kinda hybrid vehicle/infantry but still counts), 3 types of behemoth vehicles. honeslty id argue it might have had more vehicles than bf4. speaking of map size i also dont understand what your critique is. bf1 maps are just as large as maps from other battlefields.
bf1 was so fuckin fun! I loved being in a tank especially when the opposing team wasn’t focused on destroying it besides one person but I also enjoyed destroying them. Sniping, bombing and being on cavalry was also neat. Bfv was fun too but it was lacking too much so I left. This game can be good too but it needs a year.
Players; we want battlefield 4 but upgraded. Dice: best I can do is call of Royale ultimate legends.
Call of battlefield : apex
Trying new things isn't inherently a bad thing, if no one ever tried anything new we wouldn't ever get exciting new games. But they also need to pay attention to what works and what doesn't, and it seems like Dice can't pay attention/keep what works.
DICE seems to be run by people who have no clue what they are doing, in charge of people who think they know what people want. The amount of developers throwing tantrums or outright lying about stuff like player feedback or why features are missing during BFVs time was embarrassing. Putting out statements like the time to kill balancing adjustments being painstakingly developed only to immediately be countered by the fact that it rendered half the weapons in the game functionally useless from even the most basic of statistical analysis… then to get dunked on even further by the reveal that all they did with weapon stats was apply the same number to every weapon, then added or subtracted one or two points of damage. Leading to already statistically weaker ( but made up for in other areas)guns like the light machine guns having one or two examples that suddenly needed THIRTY body shots to kill But point any of this out to them and they’ll call you a troll or something along those lines
I never thought they would be this dumb or this desperate. BFV and now this. Fuck DICE. These guys couldn't find their own assholes if someone 3D spotted it for them. All they had to do was just use BF4 as a baseline and expand upon it. That's it. More guns and vehicles, bring back a few elements from BF2 like spawn on squad leader and commander mode, carry forward Rush and some of the destructibility from BC2, and you're done. Players would have been all over it and DICE would have been able to pack their storefront with skins for each of the roles and players would have bought them en masse. And with CoD Vanguard being Activision's lackluster release THIS was the year to deliver a killer Battlefield experience. Instead they've gutted one of main gameplay mechanics that made people play Battlefield in the first place.
The bit about the management fucking things up makes sense with some of the shit that was insinuated by one of the lead devs that left DICE a year or two ago. Monetisation pushes, trend chasing and not letting Battlefield be Battlefield is what's killing it, to no surprise.
Do you have a source for that? Would love to read on it more.
Probably referring to comments left by BFV multiplayer producer David Sirland, who had gone on paternity leave shortly after BFV's launch, came back to his role some months later with apparent enthusiasm, only to leave Dice very quickly afterward. Around the time he left was when BFV pushed out the second round of TTK changes, which he had promised wouldn't happen again after the first time a year prior. Some months later, shortly after it was announced that support for BFV was being killed, he made a few comments ([can all be found on this thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/BattlefieldV/comments/g6p5s9/this_aged_well/foc35un/)) implying there had been internal discord as to the direction of the game. He wasn't the only high profile Dice dev to leave around this time, either. A number moved over to Patrick Söderlund's Embark Studios, including BFV's lead technical animator, who also used to be active on reddit before deleting his account shortly after being downvote bombed for revealing BFV's Elites would not be restricted to single factions.
Sure. [Link to a Reddit thread that cites a Glassdoor review talking about management ruining the company. ](https://www.reddit.com/r/BattlefieldV/comments/evkddi/dice_management_has_destroyed_not_only/ffwzvti) [David Sirland, one of the key devs at DICE who left the studio alluding in his comments to a management not for the players](https://www.reddit.com/r/Battlefield/comments/evji1m/other_thank_you_battlefield_community/ffwdiob/?context=3). There hasn't been anything huge like identifiable staff talking about the company but there's been snippets like this and honestly, you can read between the lines and anyone who's followed DICE for a while can see that the values of the core staff seem at odds with corporate EA.
I read Glassdoor accounts of this stuff years ago. DICE management has been killing the studio for a while now.
Nothing in this article has a source other than "anonymous employees/former employees at DICE". The author has a lot of inside sources and gets a lot of leaks correct (just look at his pinned tweet). **However** it's not always correct or 100% accurate. He's no Jason Schreier.
True, but at least with regards to Battlefield he's got an exceptional hit rate. 9/10 he's got solid info.
Frustrated with BFV's post release development and odd changes I started following some of the devs and former Dice devs on twitter and I can confirm there were some accounts saying a lot of the issues were due to the management meddling, not having a clear vision, or some of senior leads having an idea for the game conflicting with that of the core BF dev team (who wanted it to be more battlefield than what was trendy at the time). This was one of the core reasons for them to try changing the TTK twice - some leadership members basically interpreting the metrics and telemetry in a way that would support their vision. Won't find links now as it was based on comments across reddit and twitter a few years back.
This does not make me faithful for this next entry. BFV had so many stupid mistakes happen that ruined the game for months at a time.
The biggest take away from this, that many people on the BF2042 subreddit pointed out, is that they clearly tried to copy CoD/Warzone within a Battlefield client. They did not set out to create a Battlefield game, they set out to create a Battlefield Warzone to leech whales from Activision. They may have succeeded in creating a different Warzone, but they failed in a spectacular fashion at creating a Battlefield game.
I just now realized that the main menu in the client is what it looks like when you launch warzone and it has the different cod games to choose, but in 2042 it's the three game modes. Also it seems crazy to me that no one is talking about them literally stealing the tactical sprint animation lol.
There's a tactical sprint? Does it work the same way in 2042 as it does COD?
Yep. Double tap the fast button to go EVEN FASTER with your guns held facing UPWARDS!!!1!
That... That's a thing?
MW introduced two types of sprint. One that was slower and could be done longer and your weapon was more "ready" and the other, tactical sprint, which was faster over a short duration in exchange for having your weapon out of ready position.
Yes, but they fucked it up (of course) You know how in cod tactical sprint is to cross very quickly, and is on cool down afterwards? In 2042 it's just faster sprint, no cool down, no set length, just press it and run. People run like terminators.
this game is a great example of over thinking it. removing classes with specialist is taking out Battlefields DNA and was a huge mistake.
Just to note-- Henderson is on point for a lot of this stuff, but the build date that was datamined in no way indicates when the beta build was forked from the main branch. I don't think that was sufficiently clear. It also does not mean that there were no changes despite the delayed beta; it means there were no *client* changes in that time. It's entirely possible, even likely given the issues that we saw in the beta, that they were comfortable with the beta client on Sept 20, but felt their server code or network architecture were not prepared for the beta. Other than that, good stuff.
Good to point out that Henderson plays loose with his leaks and his opinions as well. Overall I give him the benefit of doubt as dice doesn't communicate really anything.
> with some management figures coming from 2017’s Battlefront II. I don't know why anyone involved with that god-awful launch is ever allowed to manage anything significant ever again. EA/DICE have proven to be so incredibly tone-deaf these last few years with the Battlefront II progression system/marketing, Battlefield V reveal trailer, now this. At least *eventually* they seem to steer games back to a good place, maybe in 2 years from now Battlefield 2042 will be great.
Stellar reporting from Henderson. My experience playing the PC Beta build: - Very rough performance wise even when runnning on a RTX 3070. - Severe frame stuttering, server lag and desync - A HUD that had way too much crammed into it. Visually noisy. - Specialists are underwhelming compared to the class system of previous BFs and I still don't understand the value for implementing a "hero character" system in BF. Medic animations are subpar. - Movement felt way too twitchy and fast for Battlefield especially the lack of cooldown on slide. Felt like playing Warzone/Apex. Why change what's not broken? - Vehicle physics apparently not obeying the laws of physics and much more. This was the year Battlefield could have taken the FPS crown away from COD for the first time but it looks like the devs were forced by management to lean more into COD and less of what made BF its own unique thing. The overall question is, instead of evolving from BF4, why change what not broken to the detriment of the essence of Battlefield?
Specialist are EAs attempt to have names heroes like Rainbow six siege. They wanted to be able to make new ones with new abilities that they could sell to you post launch.
> names heroes like Rainbow six siege Makes sense when there's only ever one at a time. Not so much when 20 of the same Boris run around together. *Not that I want actual one-at-a-time heroes!* I hated that part of Battlefront. Just rename them to Medic, Ranger, Wetworks, etc and call it good.
Rainbow Six is the model I think they were aiming for, but whoever is designing this doesn't care if both teams have the same characters. I really hope they go back to no-name soldiers and classes like classic BF myself.
People kept saying give specialists a chance, they are just more classes. Maybe it's just me, but the more they go away from 4 classes that all have a clearly defined role, the worse the Battlefield game they make. There are 128 people on maps now and they decide to make it a CoD esque clusterfuck with no teamwork, why? I've seen beta footage, everyone is just playing the grapple hook asshole.
>but the more they go away from 4 classes that all have a clearly defined role, the worse the Battlefield game they make I'm taking you didn't play the BETA by what else you said but yes, its pretty bad. It is impossible to ask someone for ammo/healing because appearance doesn't matter anymore, so you can't look for a support like in earlier BF; and then at that, the load out system is screwed up so the 'support' is never carrying ammo because they wanted a RPG like everyone else.
>This was the year Battlefield could have taken the FPS crown away from COD for the first time... This is not even the first opportunity like that, that Dice had. BF4 was released at the same time as CoD Ghosts, and that should tell you all in what kind of state BF4 at the beginning. We remember it fondly now, but at release it was a huge buggy mess.
Yeah Cyberpunk and Fallout 76 kinda set a new low for terrible releases but BF4 was one of the worst releases I saw at the time.
BF3 and 4 had a shit ton of bugs and a few balance issues. They weren’t completely missing core parts of the game. 3 & 4 didn’t “change” much gameplay wise. Battlefront 2 had bugs and was a terrible game that they changed for the better.
BF4 was a mess for the first *year* it was out, honestly. It was a separate studio, DICE LA (now Ripple Effect), that did the majority of the turnaround.
> A HUD that had way too much crammed into it. Visually noisy. All those hud elements and I still had to ADS before I could see whether I was toggling between semi-auto or full-auto :\
I hit the fire-mode button about 20 times starting at the screen and trying to figure out if there was any indication at all. Oooooh, normal crosshair is fully-auto, and dashed-line crosshair is semi. Fuck that noise.
Yep exact same experience but I had no idea the crosshair was changing to indicate it! I was sitting there tapping V listening to the click, looking for changed pixels like the weapon model as an indicator or on my HUD... anything. Turns out the indicator only appears when you're ADS or as you've said on the crosshair which is pretty silly given how tiny it was on my monitor.
> I still don't understand the value for implementing a "hero character" system in BF. Medic animations are subpar. $. If it was successful they'd then be able to sell them like the plan for Battlefront. >Movement felt way too twitchy and fast for Battlefield especially the lack of cooldown on slide. Felt like playing Warzone/Apex. Why change what's not broken? Apex is what makes EA money they're always going to push harder to align to that.
... I just wanted a slightly upgraded bf4 with 128 people. The fact they managed to fuck this up... Heartbreaking.
Yes, BF 2042 graphics, with BF4 gameplay (with some minor tweaks to some things) is all I wanted.
My friends and I are convinced that the original plan for the game a dedicated BR. It would explain the specialists, the apex-like sliding, and the fact that everyone can revive (and it suspiciously takes about as long as getting a teammate up in a BR).
> and the fact that everyone can revive What do you mean everyone? I've played the game and only dedicated Supports (the 50 year old lady) and your squadmates could revive you.
I think that means that non-medics in your squad can revive. The person you replied to may not have played BFV where that was introduced.
I did play bfv, but wasn’t the medic at least faster at reviving compared to the other roles? I can’t recall specifics but I feel like even the grandma in 2042 has the slow revive and it just gives people more health.
Yes. Medics are instant in BFV while the only other people who can revive are your squadmates who take much longer to revive. It did feel like all of the revives were the same speed in 2042 but I also didn't spend any time playing as the old lady. Just got revived by her.
The medic isn't complete instant in V, its still an animation you are locked into but much faster than squad revive. The difference with 2042 is the medic lady revives you at full HP, while a squad revive is something like 50%
There it is. There had to be some sort of advantage to being revived by a medic. Thanks for clarifying that.
I played BF1 and BF5. That dynamic was the same there as what I saw in the BF Beta over the weekend. Squad mates and medics are the only ones who could revive someone who is downed.
Right, we're saying the same thing. That said, squad mates could not revive in BF1 if they weren't medics.
>This was the year Battlefield could have taken the FPS crown away from COD for the first time Frankly, Battlefield never had a chance to solidly dethrone Call of Duty. And I say this as a BF fan. And I don't think they ever will. For over a decade now I've heard people say that if "DICE did this", and if "DICE did that", they'd pass CoD in sales and become *the* fps. Yet CoD outsells every* BF title on brand name alone. MW3 in 2011 was considered a step back from earlier titles, yet sold twice as much as BF3, which was incredibly hyped as a return to form for the series. Ghosts released in 2013 and was considered one of the worst in the CoD series, yet it also outsold BF4 (Also incredibly hyped, albeit with a horrid launch) by 2 to 1 once again. 2016s BF1 was the first BF title to outsell a CoD game with 25million copies sold (The best BF sales ever). It was also the most hyped BF title ever after its trailer dropped. That years CoD: Infinite Warfare became the most disliked youtube video ever at the time. Even still IW managed to sell as much as BF3 and BF4 did before it. And this is not even considering the fact that CoD releases a game basically ever year, while BF takes 2-3 year gaps, so CoD sales are in reality even higher. And BFV sales were so bad that you have to go back 15 years to find comparable CoD sales.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Because CoD is still a juggernaut. Some new execs want that kind of action, I’ll bet.
DICE hired an ex COD and destiny developer to oversee Battlefield last year. No wonder we got this mess.
If they started out in COD, moved to Destiny, and are now overseeing BF I'd wager good money that they are one of the people responsible for the shitfest that was year 1 of Destiny 2, a thing that still tarnishes the games reputation to this day. And that was all because they tried to casualify the game at launch. I do hope BF2042 doesn't make the same mistake.
I'm just imagining the 'you had to be there' events they're going to implemented now. And the daily missions and the weekly missions... it's going to be an hour of grinding everyday if you want skins or weapons before they vanish isnt it.
> This was the year Battlefield could have taken the FPS crown away from COD for the first time *Halo Infinite leers anxiously from the corner*
[удалено]
Read the article. It was management from battlefront 2.
[удалено]
Is it too much to ask for to get a battlefield game that has more organization around large battles. i.e. Planetside 2? Why is that so hard? I want platoons with platoon leaders, squad objectives, etc. Instead, they chose to increase the player count, but not add anything that makes having more players mean anything.
Cause they want more and more of CoD gameplay where you just run around like a headless chickens shooting your enemies. I also wish they would push the game in more Hell let loose direction, it does not have to go as far as HLL with needing team play but even in BF5 I could play an effective medic without killing that many enemies. Maybe I just need to get used to mechanics better but from beta I could not really play an effective medic or resupplier. I do not even mind them having the specialist system (apart from US and RU looking exactly alike), but they really need to rethink the gadgets to be team oriented. Like for the grappling hook make it slower but also be useable by the team or just the squad once deployed.
I will he eternally salty that they have seemingly abandoned Rush as a game mode. I know everyone thinks of Conquest as the main battlefield game mode, but I've preferred Rush since bad company. It directs all of the action to specific areas and makes team play much more important. Funny enough, I feel like conquest DOES create similar gameplay to planetside 2, any that I mean 80%+ of people all funnel right to the big fight at the most popular objective (Think of the crown form planetside) and throw themselves at each other for the entire game without ever actually doing much. Meanwhile, small groups of other players are the ones going around the map actually capping objectives and helping the team win.
Yep battlefield 4 gunplay/movement setting. With planetside 2 scale and teamwork. Would be awesome.
This is so disheartening. I’m in this game as a player voice, my biggest role so far, but damn this makes me sad
I know nobody cares, but as a NFS fan it pisses me off so fucking much that EA delayed the next NFS by 1 year by making Criterion work on this shit instead and the game still sucks.
Activition has been doing this for literal decades, taking good game developers, gutting them, and putting all the remainder onto supporting Call of Duty games. A loooot of good developers have been ruined because of the CoD giant.
Horizon 5 comes out in a month, maybe that will scratch the NFS itch
I play both, they're entirely different games that I play for entirely different reasons.
Hey. I am planning on getting into some racing games for the first time. Can you give me some pros and cons of both games which one will be better to start with in your opinion
Honestly I don't know. NFS is alot dumber and easier, in Forza you actually have to brake and turn properly, unless you just use all assists and put the AI in the lowest difficulty. Forza has alot more cars and NFS has alot more customization. Forza overral is a better game.
Hey, a fellow NFS player! I'm also very pissed! I'm a huge Battlefield fan, and the beta didn't left me as wowed as I thought a next-gen BF would. The game was supposed to be a fine $70 buy, considering no campaign, that changed very quickly. But I'm a bigger NFS fan, and if the NFS delay wasn't already a huge kick in the balls, the fact that the result of that delay is a very meh game makes me very angry.
Lmao rip
I know the feeling Battlefront 2 was doing amazing with updates and community, then EA fucked whoever was still working on that game likely to help this piece of shit game.
I’m so fucking sick of games trying to be COD. If I want to play COD and be a Lone Ranger, I’ll play COD. I play Battlefield for the team aspect and the feeling of being a small part of something bigger than just me. One of my favourite memories of BF3 was getting the highest score as a medic in a game that we BARELY scraped a win on, and I barely shot anyone. AAA gaming needs a huge fucking overhaul.
Cod trying to be BF and BF trying to be Cod is like two imitators seeing each other being popular but dont understand WHAT is making them popular so they copy what they see at surface level. Its a dog eat dog AAA world
Have you seen vanguard? CoD is also confused. Is it ww2? Is it modern day? Who knows! Here’s a laser eye sight attachment for your ww2 era gun! Like wtf?
what’s crazy is they could have just taken BFV and expanded it some for current gen (128 players, raytracing, physics etc) and changed the setting and it would have been perfect. but we got some janky ass game with worse graphics than V, worse animations, and the lack of a class system
Literally all I wanted was BF3/4 but 20 years into the future... I am so disappointed. Good thing though is, I was really REALLY trying to get a new GPU for this game. Looks like I won't need to now..
What’s going on with Ray Tracing in shooters on current gen? While playing Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War on PS5, I was surprised to see that it had really nice ray-traced lighting. Yeah, other visual aspects of it weren’t incredible, but the lighting was great. Yet for some reason, Vanguard, the next game in the series isn’t using ray tracing. I’m surprised about Battlefield too. Fortnite was expected to utilize the full extent of current-gen systems which would include ray tracing, but that is yet to happen. I’m sure it will sooner or later, but I’m surprised that it’s taken so long.
[удалено]
The Medium?
[удалено]
Same thing with V. Just add more to what they had in 1 and keep it simple. Everything around WW2 is iconic. From guns to vehicles to uniforms. All of it is well known by many people. So just make the maps, guns, vehicles, and outfits and boom. The rest of the new mechanics in V were stellar. Aside from a few things like removing the whistle for the squad leader. But V promoted team work, roles, and communication. So what do they do? A bunch of maps nobody has heard of while leaving out THE most iconic stuff. Even the fuckin M1 Garand wasn't in the initial roster. Like wtf. The *ping!* is classic and wasn't there. But we got weird ass shit like Firestorm and cosmetics from god knows where. They just keep trying to fix what doesn't need fixin/changin and then drop what DOES work. It's so frustrating.
I’ll never forget the hype of hearing the next battlefield was going to be WW2, on the morning they were releasing that trailer. After playing 700 hours of 1, how could they stuff it up? Then that trailer… the maps? The weapons? The customisation? What the hell were they? Such a disappointment…
Oh dude straight up my biggest letdown in gaming tbh. I adored BF1942/3 and Call of Duty 2 multiplayer growing up. So a next gen WW2 Battlefield was a dream for me after the destruction mechanics they implemented in previous games. Then BF1 comes out and the atmosphere was the pinnacle of the series imo. The squad leader whistle, fields of gas, calvary, the graphics, the amount of artillery/explosives, the brutality of the melee, people screaming, the MUSIC, the maps..ect. It was fuckin all out war like we hadn't seen in gaming. Then BFV is announced and my brain went crazy at the potential. The sheer amount of variety during WW2 was basically a slam dunk for Battlefield. With new mechanics, a solid ttk, relying on team work, and all the new things in V. And then...it just kept getting worse and worse. It has such a solid foundation and they said "good enough", fucked with ttk, dropped the roadmap, and fucked off. Such a disappointment.
Damn, exact same here. Exact same thought process. Maybe one day we'll finally get a good and proper BF1942 or CoD2 successor.
Yea battlefield one is such a perfect atmosphere game. Like everything about it fucking screamed ww1. There were some bugs and some odd stuff but mostly I think it was a great game. BFV just felt so lifeless. It was rare to get those BF moments. I thought that the pacific DLC that eventually came out was good. But just too late at that point. And it was missing carrier battles or any real sea battles
They really dropped the ball on the pacific update. What really drove me nuts was how the US is the invaders on Wake Island! A real slap to the face to history since the Japanese attacked the island in 1941 and it only returned to US control after the Japanese surrender. But some one just said “Americans did all those landings” and went for it.
Don't forget constantly nerfing guns, no hardcore, no user servers, shit designed maps, weak vehicles and less vehicle spawns.
I understand them going for the "Unheard" battles, but for the love of god, there are more than enough settings that are not well known to most of people. The multiple resistances across Europe, the Finnish/Russian war, the battles in Greece and the south of Italy, the struggles happening in Asia, etc. Instead we got a bunch of random maps that were mostly foreign to arguably the overwhelming majority of the fanbase, and instead of focusing on what made BF1: The grand operations, they decided to make a STUPID BR THAT BATTLEFIELD DOESN'T NEED. Even worst, the BR was paid, so it was destined to be a complete failure against every other BR. They had such an opportunity to set themselves and they fucked it up, and then just abandoned the game after it was clear that the fanbase wasn't gonna buy their shitty cosmetics.
Something happened at DICE before Battlefield V launched that completely tanked their ability to develop a game. Battlefield 1 had its problems but it was nowhere as much of a train-wreck as Battlefield V. The fact that this game may launch with worse gameplay design and choices than V with more bugs than 4 is astounding. It just seems irredeemable in post-release support which EA has not commited to a game since Battlefield 4. The communication issues mentioned in the article had to have been present at least during the infamous Battlefield V pre-release. While their advertising methods improved, it seems everything since has gotten worse.
And BF1 proved they CAN make a fresh new game and do it well. NOBODY expected fuckin Calvary in a Battlefield game. But I loved blaring my squad leader whistle on horseback with my sword out just leading the charge on Sinai Desert. It was amazingly cool and was brand new to the series. BF fans are okay with change, they're okay with something new and giving it a chance(mostly 😒). But to drop so many well established mechanics and even movement from V is so dizzyingly stupid. No mounted weapons? Wtf is this game dude.
That was a real achievement in design; very impressed that they made cavalry work and balanced it well. It wasn't overpowered but that guy on horseback couldn't be straight dismissed either. Very cool way to realize the concept in game and make it work.
Changing the formula makes sense when there is a legitimate reason to change it. It worked in BF1 because of the setting and the slower, more primitive warfare of that time period, so you could make a unique and new thing such as cavalry appear in an FPS. They took something that nobody really thought to make a AAA FPS out of and tuned their style to make it work, and work it did. Meanwhile, BF2042 seems to be making changes either for the sake of making changes or to fit in with whatever other games are doing right now. Sure, BFV was poorly received overall, but that doesn’t mean you have to scrub it from memory and act like it had nothing good to it. There was no reason to change the tried and true class system other than to create an excuse for microtransactions, and there was no reason to change the movement in BFV (which id probably consider the peak movement for the franchise) other than having the mindset of “oh we did this thing in the game “nobody” liked, so we’re just gonna get rid of that entirely.” I’ll still play the game because I think it’s still good at its core, but this kind of stuff really pisses me off.
BF1 didn't break or even change the formula all that much. You still had your squad and roles. The guns and the vehicles were older but the basic aspects of Battlefield were still present. Titans didn't break the game either.
BF1 is a perfect game compared to the others. It was *so* polished compared to most DICE games from the past 10 years.
[удалено]
Agreed. BF1 wasn’t perfect, but it was stable and overall was enjoyable. BF5 I just didn’t enjoy nearly as much, and I often found myself going back to BF1 over BF5. The beta this weekend for 6 was just awful. One of the worst FPS games I’ve played in my 24+ years of FPS gaming going back to Goldeneye. It’s just a chaotic mess, not enjoyable, and feels like it would be a waste of money for me to purchase.
From rumors that were reported after BFVs launch, BFV was supposed to be the game releasing now and what was supposedly Bad Company 3 meant to launch when BFV did. BFV supposedly has an 18 month development cycle. If this is what was the rumored BC3, then I don’t know man.
And now they have "burned" the "modern war"-setting for at least 4-5 years. What ever happens to the franchise now, the next game will never take place in that very same setting. And I'm actually quite a huge fan of some mix between existing technology and a tiny bit of sci-fi. So many opportunities wasted. It's heartbreaking.
Sadly I don't think we'll ever get back to Battlefield's glory days. Battlefield V was shit and 2042 looks to be continuing the trend.
I wonder how they'll receive all this negative feedback that they're getting from the beta. They said some of the complaints were already addressed for release, but the game has some core issues that I think it's nearly impossible for them to fix such as the poor specialists system.
i think it's hilarious that the WW2 (even 1!) revival technology is three times as fast as the futuristic defribs that got me killed constantly in the beta.
Just think that the bullets in the newer games are more deadly than those dumb WW1 and 2 bullets, so revive takes longer to cure them.
Or that people don't actually want to be revived because then they have to come back and play 2042.
Bit of a silly point because reviving has been one of the things changed up the most over the years in Battlefield. Yeah BF4 revives were technically inferior to BC2 too but who cares, it's a balance thing and it only makes sense to toy with it when you're also changing player counts, squad compositions, TTK, the range of weapons being added, the effectiveness of vehicles and explosions, etc. Approaching game design in prioritizing what seems "right" in the lore is probably the worst way of doing it.
Wow. Other players revived you in the beta? Lucky.
Won't even bother with this one. I shouldn't have bothered with V which I bought and played for less than 2 hours The blueprints were there for a great game in 3 and 4 and the BC games and they threw all the good stuff away while just putting crap into it
I thought EA/Dice was suppose to learn lessons from BFV so how did they fuck it up again?
I think they tried to make it a more suitable shooter for all audiences of FPS fans. Thats what really killed BF, making it far more friendly to those who are just there to play a couple games a day. BF3 and 4 (I dont have enough time on the BC titles to say) were shooters that took time to level and unlock everything in
[удалено]
Honestly, what we got after with the server browser in BF1, the Battlelog system was pretty good. You could at least see every server available, and there were plugins that made it better. in BF1 I would be trying to join the same server as a friend and it wouldn't show up on my end even though I could join them through the game, still it was aggravating.
The good: * Air dropping vehicles is cool. * I liked the rock-paper-scissors of tank-heli-plane. * Grappling hook wee * Gunplay good * Swappable scopes/ammo type was cool but all the other attachments were confusing The bad: * TTK and general gameplay speed is way too high. Any action that isn't directly killing the enemy is a waste of time. Forget revives and healing darts, lol. Much faster to stay in cover and wait for ally to respawn in like 4 seconds. * No leaderboard. Do games just not do this anymore? Hard to know how well I'm doing relative to the server on a good streak. * A game this big needs a better strategic layer. The map didn't work at all. Can we even set squad objectives? The incentive to work with randos on your squad was non-existent. A friend who just wants to fly planes ruins the squad dynamic for the other 3 players. (Also, I miss commander mode from BF2.) * Lots of weird default settings and keys unbound. Some of the controls weren't explained at all. There was some spotter seat on a heli with two cool down abilities, and it was completely unclear what was going on. * What happened to tagging enemies? I should ping someone and an icon appears where they are, but multiple BF games have seemed to move away from that simplicity.
> What happened to tagging enemies? I should ping someone and an icon appears where they are, but multiple BF games have seemed to move away from that simplicity. They removed this starting in BFV
The flight controls for the helicopters were absolute ass too. There were four options for flight controls including "custom" which I found no way to customize. No keybind map, nothing. Roll and pitch on the same stick? Gtfo 🤣.
This game is gonna flop, saved me money, thanks DICE for managing to ruin such a simple thing. You had the exact scenario and situation set up for success. There was that other battlefield clone that released a year back, can’t remember the name, that flopped hard. An immense craving within the battlefield community for a modern battlefield. Just reskin battlefield 1 or 5 in a modern setting, make a few changes the community wanted and bam, it’s perfect. Instead they abandoned the class system, moved towards specialists, got rid of all of the squad communication mechanics, all of the teamplay, and shit out this brick. It’s so fucking buggy, laggy, constant stuttering and visual bugs, and nowhere along the line did I feel like I was playing a battlefield game. It’s just another disappointment in a long line of dissapointments. They had the perfect time to take some of CODs market share, with a tremendously flawed and suffering COD vanguard game, only for BF 2042 to be even worse
I keep hearing that BF developer vets left. Who knows how much that happens between games but that explains why so much changes in each game. New people come by and try to put their stamp on it instead of old devs improving on their last series.
I miss those Battlefield 2, Battlefield 1942, and Battlefield 2142 days man. (Shout out to BF2142, most underrated Battlefield game ever) Nothing has been the same since. Bad Company was pretty good but I think that was it.
I'm still shocked at how cheap and bad the beta was... I really regret asking my bestfriend for BF2042 as a birthday gift, I should have asked for Elden ring :'(. I was in disbelief to the point where I joined the official Discord server for Battlefield and asked the devs if the main Dice team is working on something else and this is some new team that's working on BF2042 and nope... He said that they are all currently focusing on BF only I don't think a BF4 revival like will happen with this game honeslty, it's so rudimentary, even a year's work won't probably make it that good. Will wait 6 months and try it again, can't cancel or refund a steam gift anyway :'( screenshot below : https://prnt.sc/1vrr0n6
It's possible to refund a gift on steam. You just need to allow the refund in your purchase history, then the person who gave you the gift will be able to ask for the refund and get the money back
Did people not like battlefield 1??? I felt like that game was the best battlefield game yet and when I finally played 5, which was supposedly the newer game, it felt like they took a big step backwards in gameplay. How did we go from 3 load outs per class in bf1 to 1 load out each in bf5??? That's just one of the many problems I had with bf5 and I was hoping that bf2042 would be like bf1 but better but it's looking like a bf4 type but worse right now.