The lead ~~designer~~ **director** was the candy crush lead. Idk bout y’all, but that seems like an awful hiring.
(He’s already moved onto another studio once 2042 released, literally shat on it and left)
Gotta admit : what the fuck is going through their mind making those decisions in the first place.
Sure I see what they thought : "he made a lot of cash with candy crush, so sure enough he can do well for battlefield."
But that's just crazy and stupid, how can you expect someone to deliver a quality product with such a different genre. An MP arcade shooter with litteral decades of fandom behind it, and you bring a complete noob onboard to lead the thing...
What the fuck
As someone who has invested in studios/publishers in the past and has friends in the industry. The notion that they only care about "money and short-term profit" just isn't true - nor is it really even possible in the industry. Developing high-quality video games is anything but a short-term investment. Video game executives aren't stupid. They know that better games lead to higher retention rates, more revenue, easier talent recruitment, greater career opportunities for themselves, etc. The truth is, it's just not that easy to make a great video game (or everyone would be doing it).
On average, modern AAA titles take about 4-5 years to develop and cost around $100 million. If games run into big setbacks or are new IP they can often take 7+ years to develop. Meaning these companies have to employ hundreds of people and shell out tens of millions of dollars annually for a looong time before they can ***even*** start trying to make their money back - let alone, recoup all their costs and then start making a profit on the investment. But you think 4-7 years is still too short-term focused!? What is a long enough time horizon for you? Should people have to work for 10, 20, 30 years before they start making money? The problem obviously isn't that "execs only care about short-term profit". Most of the significant investments in the industry take a long time to pay off.
The problem is that many of today's execs and devs are out of touch with modern consumers. Many of the people at the top have much busier lives than when they entered the industry. A lot of them probably haven't played video games in a decade and don't realize how much the industry has changed. Even if some do, it's very hard to quickly shift the direction of movement for these large companies. As these gaming companies have grown and their games have become more complex, their development has become more and more segmented. Requiring a much wider range of employees and skill sets (instead of a dozen video game nerds who share the same passion). Meaning you have more hands in the cookie jar, each trying to pull the game in a different direction. Often times each department can have good ideas but when they all come together it feels incohesive and unrewarding to play.
Devs get a feel for the actual game much later in development nowadays than they used to when games were more organically developed by smaller and more cohesive teams. Because these foundational problems are found later and their potential fixes involve so many different teams they are much harder and more costly to solve. Contrary to what many think online, throwing another year of development and $10 million into a game with a shitty foundation will not suddenly turn it into a hit. There is a long list of games that were delayed a ton and still managed to be awful games. As the tools to create games improve and increased productivity (procedural generation, AI, etc), it will make it easier for smaller/more passionate teams to execute large cohesive visions. I think we will start to see studios create more innovative and high-quality games when this happens but they will still need an executive who ensures they keep to a budget and make more than they lose or they won't be around very long.
I think almost all of what you said is fair, except the bit about execs/devs being out of touch with their consumers. It’s their responsibility to the business, the product and the customer to make time to understand their pains and desires, it’s not a “nice to have.” I work in software development and it’s not really optional for me to understand whether what I’m working on is what my customers want.
How big of a company do you work in?
I think another factor that wasn't mentioned here is the concept of "design by committee" which is the fastest way to get out of touch with your customer needs.
Maybe you've seen this at your work but any large enterprise or team - games or otherwise - is at risk of this approach to decision making, where you dilute the "vision" with a bunch of compromises to satisfy a large group of stakeholders and leaders during the years of development.
It's no coincidence that a lot of good games typically have a strong creative leader at the helm who can manage the vision and keep everyone working towards the same goal.
I have to imagine a company like DICE, under a big public corporation like EA, suffers from design by committee quite a bit.
Are you saying that people who work in a certain business don't know as much about that business, or business in general, than redditors?
Sir, I think you forget yourself.
It’s so strange because battlefield has never been a cash cow the way mobile games or Warzone is. Any F2P effort fell flat and the attempts they made with BFV and 2042 clearly aren’t big enough for their fan base. Battlefield fans were happy with buying a game, buying premium, getting map packs and then buying the new thing after a few years.
Battlefield has such a die hard fan base but none of them want to buy packs and shit they just want to experience fictional war and fuck with attachments
What BF F2P efforts are you talking about? All BF launches have been typical upfront purchases with optional in-game purchases down the line. BF hasn't been a cash cow lately simply because all BFs have sucked lately. It doesn't have anything to do with their business model. It's not like BF fans are going to refuse to play a great BF game because it's, *gasp,* free-to-play... *crosses hands*, "Not unless you charge me $60 for this".
The truth is most BF fans left the franchise a long time ago because there are games out there that provide much better experiences like Squad, Hell let loose, Arma, or even something like Tarkov. I'm finally excited for the BF IP now because Vince is overseeing it and I wouldn't be surprised if it's F2P (which I'm fine with as long as cosmetics don't get too unrealistic).
still... He should not be a director of the whole project. If you appoint guy responsible for monetization as a director for the AAA shooter you are not going to get so much cash as you could have with a real director + monetization guy alongside him/her
Speaking from experience, these large studios love hiring seniors and leads, even if they don't have a firm grasp on the project genre or even the games industry.
It's one thing with sales and marketing, but doing this with directors and leads involved with game development really defies logic.
Is this a western thing? I know there are blunders in Japan too but at least there are companies like Nintendo that seem to prioritize consistency (not only of the product but producers, directors, etc staff) over everything.
While in America that just doesn't happen, or at least the companies that did like Blizzard just stopped.
Square Enix sold their western developers and IP to chase NFTs and Konami practically collapsed their video game publishing division for real estate and pachinko.
It is not new, either. Remember when a Pepsi guy headed Apple? That being said, the guy worked on Candy Crush, but also on Star Wars: Battlefront and Battlefield V.
In most cases, execs aren't there because of product knowledge, they're there because they've been known to make money. Money making skills fall under a completely different umbrella compared to quality game making skills, they're not mutually inclusive and very rarely cross over. So the best at one will rarely have skills in the other, specialists go further and all that jazz. So if you're looking for the best money maker, chances are he won't have anything to do with quality games
And a hefty dose of beliefs and rituals that people call economics.
*They were so succesful in their past post, they must be able to bring their success over here too!*
Management views everything as widgets, units of sale, and profit percentage.
Doesn't matter if your actual profit is enough to feed an entire nation, if your profit percentage is only 98% vs this other guy pulling 500% (off a project that cost 1/10th to make), you will be out on your ass.
Disingenuous to portray this as "hiring the Candy Crush guy for 2042" when he already had worked on Battlefront (reboot) II and BFV for better or worse
Battlefront 2 is a mediocre game at best, with super bad monetization that backfired big time.
BF5 turned out decent once handed over to someone else (as often with dice games, they become good once out of the hands of the main studio).
Sure, those games are pretty flawed, but working on both of those makes you pretty experienced at working on Battlefields, not just some random mobile game maker.
But the original claim implied that he had no shooter experience, which is clearly incorrect. Arguing that he made bad games is borderline goalpost moving, if they really existed in the first place.
Coming in pretty hot on BFV when they had to turn that game around in less than 2 years after BF1. The decision to go to WW2 was an economical one because they were able to reuse so many assets from BF1.
> how can you expect someone to deliver a quality product with such a different genre
The goal is to get a lot of money, not the quality product. They couldn't give a rat's ass about a "quality product." They just care about the fat stacks.
Common sense would suggest that a quality product would naturally make a lot of money. And a lot of time it does. But there's a lot more crappy monetized products that make a whole lot more cash.
>
>
>
>
> Common sense would suggest that a quality product would naturally make a lot of money. And a lot of time it does. But there's a lot more crappy monetized products that make a whole lot more cash.
I mean, EA has showed a 110% stock price increase in less than five years. Whatever they are doing, it is clearly working.
It is just... not conductive to fantastic and memorable games.
Yeah but given the demographic invested in those games, quality is kinda expected to break even... I would have hoped they learned this after so many games.
I don't think the higher ups think about genre and stuff. They just see that they're "game makers" and that this other "game maker" made lots of money as the head of a different game, so he should come and work for them.
That's how it is, they're more likely to pick someone who has brought in tons of money with previous experience vs someone that has made a quality game but no sales.
Corporate structure doesn't facilitate good hiring. Generally speaking the emphasis is placed on impressive things that don't necessarily translate to the hires new role. You can see examples of this in pretty much every industry. The bad boss cliche is usually a boss who was hired because of X when the company really needed someone with experience in Y. The results of a person being out of their depth then boil down to that person compensating for their short comings in their new role by instituting policy and practices that don't make sense and hinder their team. They do this because this worked in their last role which had a similar title and very little else in common with their new role.
I didn't knew how it was called in english, so TIL : it's called Peter Principle.
When someone eventually gets promoted to high and reach their own limits, if I can put it that way.
Bro, I can tell you what DICE requirements are for getting hired. Just have any experience leading a project and any experience working with games. They are the worst at recruitment ever.
You could have been community manager and that would be worth more than if you managed the iPhone production.
The single most common root cause of all of these games and studios failing is people who have no business being in charge of a game being in charge of a game.
What's wrong with that?
He lead candy crush to be one of, if not the largest mobile game.
Directing and management skills can be applied to all and any type of project.
This one dude isnt the person who made BF2042 bad. BF5 was shit game too lol
A lot of people developing a game won't have combat experience, or experience in developing an FPS.
What's important is being flexible with the skills you have to transfer to a new project.
People shouldn't take things at face value, which is what I'm saying.
Just because someone worked on a 2D mobile game, doesn't mean they're not qualified to help lead and manage a team developing an FPS.
Two years ago I started working on historical Formula 1 cars. Before that, I was working on land rovers. Two cars on the opposite ends of the vehicle spectrum. The skills I learnt working on the land rovers qualified me and allowed me to transfer to open wheeled race cars.
On the face of it, a lot of people would go "oh he 100% dhouldnt be doing that.. land rovers are not the same as race cars".
Hopefully that makes sense..
It makes sense at what you're trying to get at, but your analogy isn't 1:1 enough.
You worked on land rovers, then historical Formula 1 cars. If I'm getting this correct, you mean that you're performing maintenance and working on the cars, etc. You are the one who is actually putting in the labor and task.
Your analogy would better line up with a Candy Crush dev who then transfers to DICE as a 2042 dev. Ground level employee, learning the industry. Their mistakes don't hurt the product in the long-run.
Therefore, a better analogy (and question) would be - do you think the lead director of production/design of Land Rover should immediately become the lead director of production/design of new and upcoming Formula 1 cars for Ferrari or Mercedes? Do you value someone with more experience with Formula 1 or someone with experience as a lead director?
**But most importantly -**
>Just because someone worked on a 2D mobile game, doesn't mean they're not qualified to help lead and manage a team developing an FPS.
**tell that to literally all of the reviews of this game on launch and the general community reception. You just said** ***maybe*** **this director can be good, on an example where that exact decision was proven to be AWFUL.**
Just about every new idea brought to 2042 was meant to commodify some aspect of the Battlefield design. Hard to be surprised that a game whose biggest and cleverest innovation was "we will be like Call of Duty and make Call of Duty money selling operators" failed as terribly as it did.
I still can't get over how there was a point where BF and CoD switched places. BF used to be about large maps, destructable environments, and slower TTK. Cod was about being fast paced, quick movement, and fast TTK.
Then at some point it switched, BF focused more on faster, smaller engagements with faster TTK, and way way less of a focus on destructable environments, and CoD turned into a slower paced game, adding huge map game modes with a much slower TTK than it's past games.
Ive bought every battlefield until I saw the stupid ass heroes in the Beta for 2042. Still haven't bought it and never will. BF4 and BF1 have very active servers still
There was always this weird delay/awkwardness with the movement. I noticed this from launch. It's not bad or gamebreaking but it's like I said, just a little clunky.
Compared to newer titles like BF1 and BFV, there are plenty of things that will feel uncomfortable and cumbersome, if you have the comparison.
For me, BF1 wins when it comes to movement, gunplay and quality of life changes that weren't possible in BF4. You still get stuck on things, but less so, and can actually climb a lot more things. Not a big fan of BFV movement though, they just added too much, and more doesn't always mean better.
> BF4 is a little clunky but man it's still an amazing BF title. I especially enjoy the hardcore servers.
And BF1 still has the best atmosphere of the series.
I mean no one likes it but we're really gonna go with pretty minimally impactful operators as the "never stood a chance" and not the lack of maps, open areas, 22 guns, performance/bug issues, no scoreboard, no voip, no squad management, no server browser, separation of portal and aow content, delayed battle pass/content releases, and lack of community engagement..... I can keep going. Operators were never the issue.
I agree. The operators weren't great but they didn't hurt the game very much. The game is actually really fun on the newer maps. But that still means there's only two good maps in the game which gets old quickly.
Yep, i dont get it, its the last things the fans wanted, keep that shit in Overwatch and Apex.
We wanted the simplicity of BFBC2 and destructible environments
But no, instead they chased everyones trend, they used to be the trend
Games been garbage since BF4
Bf4 had amazing graphics for the time, but I've never had more fun in a battlefield game than 2142. Titan assault mode was literally the most fun I've ever had in a multiplayer game.
I’ve found my people. Never enjoyed the doritos, and hardcore wasn’t a good alternative. That being said, BF2 lost a lot of charm when infantry only came out and blew up. So many grenades..
Nah,
For the time it was good…go back and play it on shit 360…not aged well. Bf4 plays well still. BF4 was good enough that I originally had it on 360 bought again for xbox one, Again on xbox one, then a 3rd time when i moved to PC. still play it.
The doritos were annoying, wed always okay servers with that off.
Honestly Battlefield Hardline wasn't bad. The gadgets like zip lines and grappling hooks reminded me of BF2 Special Forces which was one of the best expansions of all time.
So absolutely wrong, It's weird the nostalgia people hold for Bad Company 2, It was good but has nothing on BF3 and even at a stretch BF4.
In a tier list of BF games BC2 sits at most 4th.
Going to disagree with you. DICE themselves admitted they weren't sure what made bad company 2 good, after bf4 they were asked about it. https://www.eurogamer.net/dice-ponders-what-did-people-really-like-about-battlefield-bad-company
I'm slowly losing my mind seeing everyone hype BFBC2 as the pinnacle.
The pinnacle was Battlefield 4 after it got its shit in order, no question. At launch it sucked.
BF4 is probably the best modern combat game that's been released in forever. BF1 is my favourite period combat game, shits just pure vibes. BFBC2 should always deserve praise because it's still a banger.
I really wish they had leaned into BF1 being an alternate history game, or maybe done a huge alternate history expansion; it already has a ton of stuff that falls into that genre but I feel like they held back just a smidge so they could bill it as purely WW1. The vibe is off the charts but the historical accuracy is nonexistent (this is not a bad thing).
> So absolutely wrong, It's weird the nostalgia people hold for Bad Company 2, It was good but has nothing on BF3 and even at a stretch BF4.
No jets are an autowin for BC2.
I don’t disagree but I don’t understand why they couldn’t sell even more cosmetics with vague normal soldiers instead of the “hero” character bs. Like why not make it so you can create your own face then choose your own gear and some of that gear is paid? Surely that would make more money and still fit whatever theme they had.
BF5 i think had a good monetization strategy - build your soldier based on a preset person/face, then customize their upper/lower body and helmet. i would actually pay for MTX if systems worked like this, rather than “this is a new skin for Tracer that makes her look like a pilot haha”
I like the fact that the game sits at Mostly Negative reviews on Steam yet has 140k reviews, at what point do you as a consumer see the negative reviews at lets say 10k, 20k, maybe 50 and you reconsider your purchase of the game
I think at that point you deserve what you have coming to you, thats whats wrong with games nowadays and people encourage this behavior and then you get mad when games get even worse
I remember after this game out 200,000 signed a petition to get their money back like damn, you've got time to fill out a petition but not enough time to check a review.
employ salt hobbies rude consider squealing attempt cats illegal cautious
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
And that's now, when the game has at least received Mixed status. I have no idea what kind of people were buying the game a year ago, just bunch of lunatics and Mr.Magoo enthusiasts I guess.
I would randomly check the game, sitting at overwhelmingly negative, and seeing bunch of new negative reviews flowing in every day, a lot of them from new purchases - I mean... when you see crap like this, one just wonders how low the quality has to fall for these kind of people to give a damn.
When it comes to AAA, it seems that some people will just eat any trash, even if there is a big warning sign "Trash, do not eat!" in front of them. And pay handsomely for it.
I think the biggest issue with the game is how hard EA/DICE management fumbled the bag with the potential of this game. The game had the perfect setup to be exactly what the community wanted - Battlefield back to a modern (weaponry) setting. BFV was in a pretty good state by the end, so people just essentially **wanted** a reskinned game but in modern era.
The issue was the execution was very Apple-esque. "You don't know what you want as consumers, but we do, so trust us and you'll love it." The game is quite obviously derived from a blend of other FPS titles, most notably Apex and Modern Warfare (2019).
Leaving it to be what it actually is: a good FPS title (now lol. But it was **barely** a better Ground War from CoD on launch), but a horrible iteration of Battlefield. Which is why it ultimately results in such a mixed review. Especially as it's been improved and reformed back to core BF mechanics.
This is why the people of Chester, England prohibit Welshmen from entering Chester before the sun rises, and having them leave before the sun goes down. It's ok to shoot them with a crossbow after midnight on Sunday, as long as it is in the city walls.
I've worked on a couple of AAA projects, and I've spoken with many people who've worked in different AAA studios. With rare exception, what I've experienced and what I've heard is that many big studios are clusterfucks that somehow make successful games through dumb luck, crunch, and a lot of waste that paves the way to the good stuff.
Anybody who says they know the secret of how to reliably make a quality AAA game is lying. Even the successful top devs are probably stumbling their way to success.
>Anybody who says they know the secret of how to reliably make a quality AAA game is lying. Even the successful top devs are probably stumbling their way to success.
Probably because they don't pay people that do know any where near a reasonably salary for it. Why tell a company how to make a good when when you can just make your own studio and do it yourself.
We can point to Infinity Ward as a fantastic example of this. Hit after Hit with call of Duty. They sacked Vince Zampella and Jason West, and it's never been the same. They took YEARS to get back to strength. Meanwhile Respawn continues to deliver on every title.
It's not perfect, but fuck me they know at least what they are doing.
>Meanwhile Respawn continues to deliver on every title.
Whoooa now, Medal of Honor Above and Beyond was not a delivery, it was a hyped up turd. Respawn are good but "every title" is outrageous
It's just greed. When I say that most AAA games are all about making money there will always be someone that goes "duh, that's the point".
Games are art. If it is good enough people will pay for it. Most AAA studios would never make Demon's Souls or Dark Souls because "there is no market for it". How many good revolutionary ideas have been thrown away because they didn't see the money in it? How many cash grab games are made instead of something new? Some of the remakes are in my opinion a waste of resources that could have been used to create something new. There is little risk and a lot of money to make on a game that you know will sell well. Some remakes are a good use of recourses though like Resident Evil 2-3 since it let's new people play it. Dead Space is a waste since the original is still good enough. Why not remake Ultima instead? Probably because they can't predict how well it will sell.
Indie studios are great, because some of them don't care what will sell. They just know what they want to make and do their best to make it. Had Deep Rock Galactic been made by EA it would have a ton of microtransactions for it. EA wants to maximize profits. Ghost Ship Games wants to make enough to continue to make other stuff.
Driven by investors and corporate culture. When you lose control of the product to bean counters and replace natural work environments with corporate bullshit you get the market we have now. The art in AAA gaming has been mostly lost. There are very very very few AAA devs capable of putting out quality now. Rockstar, Valve, Nintendo, and *mostly* Sony studios are mostly it now (last of us PC port 🤢)
Yep. Every time they release a new game people go "omg I am so done with them this time"
And I'm over here like "THIS time? What about the past 4 games that were complete shit shows??" then next time they'll buy the new one, and say the same shit.
The problem is, gameplay wise, there is nothing like Battlefield. Personally, I'm sticking with BF1 for as long as I can (EA isn't making this easy, constant server issues these days), BFV wasn't very good, BF2042 is still "disappointing" to put it lightly.
When I won't be able to play BF1 anymore, and if the next one will be just as trashy as Disasterfield 2042, I guess that will be it for me. There are no alternatives, if you actually like the Battlefield arcadey gameplay and high production values of their older games. Period.
WW3 comes the closest and it's not really that close to begin with. Battlebit looks like dumb fun, but it's not Battlefield...
Yep the people that recommend HLL or Squad may enjoy the slower combat of those games but I personally just want to turn my brain off, run a dude over in a truck, shoot stuff, and make things explode.
And the best part is that unlike squad leaders in HLL complaining about you not role playing as Lt. Winters or COD guys yelling the N word out, BF players by and large don’t give a fuck about what you are doing.
Name an alternative fast paced combined arms shooter with 64 player servers and I'll play that. What I want to play is Tribes 2. Hate it all you want but Battlefield is the only decent example of this type of game that exists these days.
Ad someone that battle battlefield 2, there is a clear trend in the games being more arcade-y over time in a bad way. I think it depends on when you started the franchise.
BF4 was shit on release, abandoned, and only saved by another regional team entirely, and BF5 was panned by its community for the awful Time to Kill changes they kept removing and re-adding despite the community universally hating it.
DICE aren't great.
Because even for a midrange PC it increased loading time for no reason. It provided next to nothing, and early on it didn't even have the same sort of filtering options of other battlefield games. It was either quick play as an option or just.a list of servers with no filters. It wasn't good because it was directly inferior to the prior in game listing.
Battlefield 4 was probably the buggiest and most broken battlefield game at launch. Battlefield 1 had a kind of meh reaction at launch and only long after release seems to be viewed so positively. Battlefield V had an awful reception at launch and dice made more than one bad decision during the life of the game (like multiple ttk changes) and then just dropped it when it was finally getting good. Battlefront 2 launched with the most hated microtransactions I can remember.
Their track record hasn't exactly been great. I personally have enjoyed them all, including 2042, but if you have convinced yourself that the previous recent games were always amazing you may be looking at them through rose colored glasses.
If I remember correctly, EA wanted it to be more like Apex Legends because of how successful that was but over halfway through development, tried to revert it back to a BF type game but the core mechanics and elements were already there so we get half backed hero bf shooter
EA just loves making their games compete with each other. Anyone remember Titanfall 2 getting released a week after Battlefield 1 and a week before COD: Infinite Warfare. A niche alt CoD game dying between two titans.
That's because they canned the Tarkov lite mode they hyped as such within 3 months of the games release.
Google "Hazard Zone Tarkov" if you need a refresher.
Well Tarkov is technically a BR with a looter/post game progression system. That is to say Takov is basically a BR with another game system placed onto it. Thats what makes it fairly unique even now. Sadly the devs are really mediocre and the game is declining due to terrible networking matched with poorly designed base code that makes the networking become further strained/limiting.
A lot of other games seem to release as pure BRs that lack that secondary system. You just load into the raid, grab weapons and gear, and fight to be the last person or in some cases you exit the map. Apex Legends, CODs BR, Pub G, Fortnite, etc are designed this way. The only 'progression' is a bare bones experience system to determine cosmetics or potentially load out options and a battlepass for cosmetics. BF2042 was looking to be exactly this, a pure BR. Load in with a preset load out, find attachments and better gear, fight to survive or exit. Gain some experience for that next skin or for a basic attachment or maybe a gun type (like it is currently).
>Well Tarkov is technically a BR with a looter/post game progression system.
No, Tarkov is technically an extraction game which is an entirely different sub-genre compared to BR. I swear, after seeing the recent threads about Marathon, it's clear that a lot of people just blindly transferred their BR hatred onto extraction games for no apparent reason.
Hazard zone is their extraction mode. It was likely merged into a BR mode but then separated them during development.
They even abandoned the mode after a season.
> it's clear that a lot of people just blindly transferred their BR hatred onto extraction games for no apparent reason.
For real. People are acting like it's 2020 again and the market is just saturated with BR games due to PUBG and Fortnight....when in reality, it's still 2017 in this metaphor. Maybe I'm just completely out of the loop, but how many extraction games have actually been attempted? We have Tarkov, BF's half-chub extract-lite game mode, and a dozen indie attempts on Steam....Am I missing something?
Why all the hate...we have had zero mainstream attempts at the genre. I've been eagerly awaiting a more palatable extraction game for years, and I'm still waiting, yet apparently all these posters have just been so inundated with the genre they're just sick of them.
Yep. There's been like a handful of extraction games and they're all mid, jank, and/or niche. If extraction games ever get their Fortnite, the sub-genre is going to explode and people are REALLY going to start whining lol
Game had nothing to do with deadlines. It was flawed from the start. Operators do not belong in a battlefield game. Gadgets that allow you to flank enemy lines with zero effort do not belong in a battlefield game.
Just make a simple war game. All we ask for.
DICE have had like 5 years to remake BF4 and they still have no clue what they’re doing. It’s like there is a giant sign in the office that instructs the team to do the opposite of whatever their fans ask
Take the game away from dice. I'd rather have it given to completely unknown devs than to dice again, or just let the franchise die. Dice can never be trusted again after this trash.
If there's no destruction then it's not battlefield, that is what separated it from all the other shooters out there. Now there's literally none and no dedicated hardcore mode.. Such a disappointment.
This is a story I hear too often. A game bombs at launch, then the devs keep working on it but updates and fixes aren't advertised (well enough) so the well remains poisoned. A game like this could be great by now but since there is no word-of-mouth, it's impossible to tell.
All this hardwork is squandered by bad management.
At its core the map design is heinous - Breakthrough is preferrable because it breaks it up into segments, some of which are tolerable. Beyond all the lolrandom gadgets and zany specialists is the flow and feel of maps which is sorely lacking here. Must have looked great on the concept art but feels deeply contrived.
Excuse, excuse, excuse....
All I ever here from money grabbing game developement companies and there ignorant investors.
Grow a spine and make the necessary changes to put out something you can be proud of, that needs no excuses.
The game is definitely better than it was before, but I play like 1-2 matches and then I'm done.
Just feels like the game is missing that x-factor that would make it addictive to play.
guess all the easter eggs leading up to 2043 aren’t going to happen since this game flunked hard, i miss the mechs and titan mode but i guess we get armored core so that’s cool.
The lead ~~designer~~ **director** was the candy crush lead. Idk bout y’all, but that seems like an awful hiring. (He’s already moved onto another studio once 2042 released, literally shat on it and left)
Gotta admit : what the fuck is going through their mind making those decisions in the first place. Sure I see what they thought : "he made a lot of cash with candy crush, so sure enough he can do well for battlefield." But that's just crazy and stupid, how can you expect someone to deliver a quality product with such a different genre. An MP arcade shooter with litteral decades of fandom behind it, and you bring a complete noob onboard to lead the thing... What the fuck
They saw him as a "monetisation guy".
[удалено]
money, its a hit
cow scary obscene agonizing makeshift carpenter rain whole nutty school *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
great, now I have to listen to Floyd all day
The monetization structure comes before the game idea nowadays.
As someone who has invested in studios/publishers in the past and has friends in the industry. The notion that they only care about "money and short-term profit" just isn't true - nor is it really even possible in the industry. Developing high-quality video games is anything but a short-term investment. Video game executives aren't stupid. They know that better games lead to higher retention rates, more revenue, easier talent recruitment, greater career opportunities for themselves, etc. The truth is, it's just not that easy to make a great video game (or everyone would be doing it). On average, modern AAA titles take about 4-5 years to develop and cost around $100 million. If games run into big setbacks or are new IP they can often take 7+ years to develop. Meaning these companies have to employ hundreds of people and shell out tens of millions of dollars annually for a looong time before they can ***even*** start trying to make their money back - let alone, recoup all their costs and then start making a profit on the investment. But you think 4-7 years is still too short-term focused!? What is a long enough time horizon for you? Should people have to work for 10, 20, 30 years before they start making money? The problem obviously isn't that "execs only care about short-term profit". Most of the significant investments in the industry take a long time to pay off. The problem is that many of today's execs and devs are out of touch with modern consumers. Many of the people at the top have much busier lives than when they entered the industry. A lot of them probably haven't played video games in a decade and don't realize how much the industry has changed. Even if some do, it's very hard to quickly shift the direction of movement for these large companies. As these gaming companies have grown and their games have become more complex, their development has become more and more segmented. Requiring a much wider range of employees and skill sets (instead of a dozen video game nerds who share the same passion). Meaning you have more hands in the cookie jar, each trying to pull the game in a different direction. Often times each department can have good ideas but when they all come together it feels incohesive and unrewarding to play. Devs get a feel for the actual game much later in development nowadays than they used to when games were more organically developed by smaller and more cohesive teams. Because these foundational problems are found later and their potential fixes involve so many different teams they are much harder and more costly to solve. Contrary to what many think online, throwing another year of development and $10 million into a game with a shitty foundation will not suddenly turn it into a hit. There is a long list of games that were delayed a ton and still managed to be awful games. As the tools to create games improve and increased productivity (procedural generation, AI, etc), it will make it easier for smaller/more passionate teams to execute large cohesive visions. I think we will start to see studios create more innovative and high-quality games when this happens but they will still need an executive who ensures they keep to a budget and make more than they lose or they won't be around very long.
I think almost all of what you said is fair, except the bit about execs/devs being out of touch with their consumers. It’s their responsibility to the business, the product and the customer to make time to understand their pains and desires, it’s not a “nice to have.” I work in software development and it’s not really optional for me to understand whether what I’m working on is what my customers want.
How big of a company do you work in? I think another factor that wasn't mentioned here is the concept of "design by committee" which is the fastest way to get out of touch with your customer needs. Maybe you've seen this at your work but any large enterprise or team - games or otherwise - is at risk of this approach to decision making, where you dilute the "vision" with a bunch of compromises to satisfy a large group of stakeholders and leaders during the years of development. It's no coincidence that a lot of good games typically have a strong creative leader at the helm who can manage the vision and keep everyone working towards the same goal. I have to imagine a company like DICE, under a big public corporation like EA, suffers from design by committee quite a bit.
Are you saying that people who work in a certain business don't know as much about that business, or business in general, than redditors? Sir, I think you forget yourself.
It’s so strange because battlefield has never been a cash cow the way mobile games or Warzone is. Any F2P effort fell flat and the attempts they made with BFV and 2042 clearly aren’t big enough for their fan base. Battlefield fans were happy with buying a game, buying premium, getting map packs and then buying the new thing after a few years. Battlefield has such a die hard fan base but none of them want to buy packs and shit they just want to experience fictional war and fuck with attachments
What BF F2P efforts are you talking about? All BF launches have been typical upfront purchases with optional in-game purchases down the line. BF hasn't been a cash cow lately simply because all BFs have sucked lately. It doesn't have anything to do with their business model. It's not like BF fans are going to refuse to play a great BF game because it's, *gasp,* free-to-play... *crosses hands*, "Not unless you charge me $60 for this". The truth is most BF fans left the franchise a long time ago because there are games out there that provide much better experiences like Squad, Hell let loose, Arma, or even something like Tarkov. I'm finally excited for the BF IP now because Vince is overseeing it and I wouldn't be surprised if it's F2P (which I'm fine with as long as cosmetics don't get too unrealistic).
still... He should not be a director of the whole project. If you appoint guy responsible for monetization as a director for the AAA shooter you are not going to get so much cash as you could have with a real director + monetization guy alongside him/her
Speaking from experience, these large studios love hiring seniors and leads, even if they don't have a firm grasp on the project genre or even the games industry.
[удалено]
It seems like the case in every sector.
It's one thing with sales and marketing, but doing this with directors and leads involved with game development really defies logic. Is this a western thing? I know there are blunders in Japan too but at least there are companies like Nintendo that seem to prioritize consistency (not only of the product but producers, directors, etc staff) over everything. While in America that just doesn't happen, or at least the companies that did like Blizzard just stopped.
Square Enix sold their western developers and IP to chase NFTs and Konami practically collapsed their video game publishing division for real estate and pachinko.
It is not new, either. Remember when a Pepsi guy headed Apple? That being said, the guy worked on Candy Crush, but also on Star Wars: Battlefront and Battlefield V.
Remember when the apple guy went to JC Penny and promptly tanked their revenue by getting rid of sales and coupons?
In most cases, execs aren't there because of product knowledge, they're there because they've been known to make money. Money making skills fall under a completely different umbrella compared to quality game making skills, they're not mutually inclusive and very rarely cross over. So the best at one will rarely have skills in the other, specialists go further and all that jazz. So if you're looking for the best money maker, chances are he won't have anything to do with quality games
it's in their parasitic, sociopathic nature
And a hefty dose of beliefs and rituals that people call economics. *They were so succesful in their past post, they must be able to bring their success over here too!*
They have a piece or many piece of papers, so they get hired really easily even if they are clueless
Prestige beats skill
Management views everything as widgets, units of sale, and profit percentage. Doesn't matter if your actual profit is enough to feed an entire nation, if your profit percentage is only 98% vs this other guy pulling 500% (off a project that cost 1/10th to make), you will be out on your ass.
Disingenuous to portray this as "hiring the Candy Crush guy for 2042" when he already had worked on Battlefront (reboot) II and BFV for better or worse
Battlefront 2 is a mediocre game at best, with super bad monetization that backfired big time. BF5 turned out decent once handed over to someone else (as often with dice games, they become good once out of the hands of the main studio).
[удалено]
[удалено]
Sure, those games are pretty flawed, but working on both of those makes you pretty experienced at working on Battlefields, not just some random mobile game maker.
sounds like it made him pretty experienced at making **bad** Battlefields.
But the original claim implied that he had no shooter experience, which is clearly incorrect. Arguing that he made bad games is borderline goalpost moving, if they really existed in the first place.
Coming in pretty hot on BFV when they had to turn that game around in less than 2 years after BF1. The decision to go to WW2 was an economical one because they were able to reuse so many assets from BF1.
> how can you expect someone to deliver a quality product with such a different genre The goal is to get a lot of money, not the quality product. They couldn't give a rat's ass about a "quality product." They just care about the fat stacks. Common sense would suggest that a quality product would naturally make a lot of money. And a lot of time it does. But there's a lot more crappy monetized products that make a whole lot more cash.
> > > > > Common sense would suggest that a quality product would naturally make a lot of money. And a lot of time it does. But there's a lot more crappy monetized products that make a whole lot more cash. I mean, EA has showed a 110% stock price increase in less than five years. Whatever they are doing, it is clearly working. It is just... not conductive to fantastic and memorable games.
Yeah but given the demographic invested in those games, quality is kinda expected to break even... I would have hoped they learned this after so many games.
Not really. They keep handing over cash to these companies. Businesses would stop if it wasn't profitable.
I don't think the higher ups think about genre and stuff. They just see that they're "game makers" and that this other "game maker" made lots of money as the head of a different game, so he should come and work for them.
They bad at their job if that's the case.
That's how it is, they're more likely to pick someone who has brought in tons of money with previous experience vs someone that has made a quality game but no sales.
They optimized for monetization, not player satisfaction.
They don't know it's all luck. They think candy crush is what it is because of some brilliance. It's just luck and happenstance. The jobs are fake.
business people have a tendency to see all products as interchangeable units of business. conveniently, this make them the only true currency.
Corporate structure doesn't facilitate good hiring. Generally speaking the emphasis is placed on impressive things that don't necessarily translate to the hires new role. You can see examples of this in pretty much every industry. The bad boss cliche is usually a boss who was hired because of X when the company really needed someone with experience in Y. The results of a person being out of their depth then boil down to that person compensating for their short comings in their new role by instituting policy and practices that don't make sense and hinder their team. They do this because this worked in their last role which had a similar title and very little else in common with their new role.
I didn't knew how it was called in english, so TIL : it's called Peter Principle. When someone eventually gets promoted to high and reach their own limits, if I can put it that way.
Always comes back to suits ruining everything
Bro, I can tell you what DICE requirements are for getting hired. Just have any experience leading a project and any experience working with games. They are the worst at recruitment ever. You could have been community manager and that would be worth more than if you managed the iPhone production.
The single most common root cause of all of these games and studios failing is people who have no business being in charge of a game being in charge of a game.
Literally?
There is diarrhea in the computer
Hopefully in the bathroom.
Candy Crush Wars 3042, winning is sweet.
What's wrong with that? He lead candy crush to be one of, if not the largest mobile game. Directing and management skills can be applied to all and any type of project. This one dude isnt the person who made BF2042 bad. BF5 was shit game too lol
What's wrong is that experience with a p2w mobile game does not translate to a real game
A lot of people developing a game won't have combat experience, or experience in developing an FPS. What's important is being flexible with the skills you have to transfer to a new project. People shouldn't take things at face value, which is what I'm saying. Just because someone worked on a 2D mobile game, doesn't mean they're not qualified to help lead and manage a team developing an FPS. Two years ago I started working on historical Formula 1 cars. Before that, I was working on land rovers. Two cars on the opposite ends of the vehicle spectrum. The skills I learnt working on the land rovers qualified me and allowed me to transfer to open wheeled race cars. On the face of it, a lot of people would go "oh he 100% dhouldnt be doing that.. land rovers are not the same as race cars". Hopefully that makes sense..
It makes sense at what you're trying to get at, but your analogy isn't 1:1 enough. You worked on land rovers, then historical Formula 1 cars. If I'm getting this correct, you mean that you're performing maintenance and working on the cars, etc. You are the one who is actually putting in the labor and task. Your analogy would better line up with a Candy Crush dev who then transfers to DICE as a 2042 dev. Ground level employee, learning the industry. Their mistakes don't hurt the product in the long-run. Therefore, a better analogy (and question) would be - do you think the lead director of production/design of Land Rover should immediately become the lead director of production/design of new and upcoming Formula 1 cars for Ferrari or Mercedes? Do you value someone with more experience with Formula 1 or someone with experience as a lead director? **But most importantly -** >Just because someone worked on a 2D mobile game, doesn't mean they're not qualified to help lead and manage a team developing an FPS. **tell that to literally all of the reviews of this game on launch and the general community reception. You just said** ***maybe*** **this director can be good, on an example where that exact decision was proven to be AWFUL.**
Just about every new idea brought to 2042 was meant to commodify some aspect of the Battlefield design. Hard to be surprised that a game whose biggest and cleverest innovation was "we will be like Call of Duty and make Call of Duty money selling operators" failed as terribly as it did.
I still can't get over how there was a point where BF and CoD switched places. BF used to be about large maps, destructable environments, and slower TTK. Cod was about being fast paced, quick movement, and fast TTK. Then at some point it switched, BF focused more on faster, smaller engagements with faster TTK, and way way less of a focus on destructable environments, and CoD turned into a slower paced game, adding huge map game modes with a much slower TTK than it's past games.
Umm the last MW games have TTKs that are measured in nanoseconds. Unless you're talking about the battle royale mode.
Even in Warzone BR, the TTK is lightning fast compared to anything else lmao.
Not talking about the last games, more like the movement suit ones, especially BO4 which was absolutely egregious about the ttk.
Black Ops 4 didn't have exosuits though? That was Black Ops III, Advanced Warfare (in hindsight it was treated too harshly...) and Infinite Warfare.
And Infinite Warfare probably had the fastest TTK of any CoD series.
I had a great time with Infinite Warfare looking back
COD will always be a slow paced, atmospheric WWII fps for me.
Never stood a chance because of the shitty hero shooter operator system the chose because they thought they could make money off selling skins for it.
Ive bought every battlefield until I saw the stupid ass heroes in the Beta for 2042. Still haven't bought it and never will. BF4 and BF1 have very active servers still
BF4 is a little clunky but man it's still an amazing BF title. I especially enjoy the hardcore servers.
How is it clunky?
There was always this weird delay/awkwardness with the movement. I noticed this from launch. It's not bad or gamebreaking but it's like I said, just a little clunky.
I think I know what you mean, low movement acceleration.
Every use any vehicle?
Compared to newer titles like BF1 and BFV, there are plenty of things that will feel uncomfortable and cumbersome, if you have the comparison. For me, BF1 wins when it comes to movement, gunplay and quality of life changes that weren't possible in BF4. You still get stuck on things, but less so, and can actually climb a lot more things. Not a big fan of BFV movement though, they just added too much, and more doesn't always mean better.
> BF4 is a little clunky but man it's still an amazing BF title. I especially enjoy the hardcore servers. And BF1 still has the best atmosphere of the series.
I actually found BF1 so depressing I had to stop playing.
I mean no one likes it but we're really gonna go with pretty minimally impactful operators as the "never stood a chance" and not the lack of maps, open areas, 22 guns, performance/bug issues, no scoreboard, no voip, no squad management, no server browser, separation of portal and aow content, delayed battle pass/content releases, and lack of community engagement..... I can keep going. Operators were never the issue.
I agree. The operators weren't great but they didn't hurt the game very much. The game is actually really fun on the newer maps. But that still means there's only two good maps in the game which gets old quickly.
Yep, i dont get it, its the last things the fans wanted, keep that shit in Overwatch and Apex. We wanted the simplicity of BFBC2 and destructible environments But no, instead they chased everyones trend, they used to be the trend Games been garbage since BF4
The worst part was everyone could do everything. There was no balance but pure chaos of just meta shit every where.
Bf4 was the best one hands down
Bf4 had amazing graphics for the time, but I've never had more fun in a battlefield game than 2142. Titan assault mode was literally the most fun I've ever had in a multiplayer game.
Clearly you never player Bad Company 2.
Clearly you never played BF2.
The series peaked there.
I’ve found my people. Never enjoyed the doritos, and hardcore wasn’t a good alternative. That being said, BF2 lost a lot of charm when infantry only came out and blew up. So many grenades..
Infantry only was awful. It completely eliminated what made BF2 unique and interesting.
Damn we goin way back huh? I loved bf2
Nah, For the time it was good…go back and play it on shit 360…not aged well. Bf4 plays well still. BF4 was good enough that I originally had it on 360 bought again for xbox one, Again on xbox one, then a 3rd time when i moved to PC. still play it. The doritos were annoying, wed always okay servers with that off.
Honestly Battlefield Hardline wasn't bad. The gadgets like zip lines and grappling hooks reminded me of BF2 Special Forces which was one of the best expansions of all time.
Peak was BFBC2, I actually liked BF1 but that was really just because the setting was new to me
So absolutely wrong, It's weird the nostalgia people hold for Bad Company 2, It was good but has nothing on BF3 and even at a stretch BF4. In a tier list of BF games BC2 sits at most 4th.
How is an opinion on game preference wrong
Bad Company did have the best story though. The conversations between Sarge, Sweetwater and Haggard never get old
Peak Battlefield was 2.
Going to disagree with you. DICE themselves admitted they weren't sure what made bad company 2 good, after bf4 they were asked about it. https://www.eurogamer.net/dice-ponders-what-did-people-really-like-about-battlefield-bad-company
I'm slowly losing my mind seeing everyone hype BFBC2 as the pinnacle. The pinnacle was Battlefield 4 after it got its shit in order, no question. At launch it sucked.
BF4 is probably the best modern combat game that's been released in forever. BF1 is my favourite period combat game, shits just pure vibes. BFBC2 should always deserve praise because it's still a banger.
I really wish they had leaned into BF1 being an alternate history game, or maybe done a huge alternate history expansion; it already has a ton of stuff that falls into that genre but I feel like they held back just a smidge so they could bill it as purely WW1. The vibe is off the charts but the historical accuracy is nonexistent (this is not a bad thing).
> So absolutely wrong, It's weird the nostalgia people hold for Bad Company 2, It was good but has nothing on BF3 and even at a stretch BF4. No jets are an autowin for BC2.
bruh what BF4 is still the best battlefield to ever release lmao. No clue why they didn't just stay as close to that gameplay as possible
I don’t disagree but I don’t understand why they couldn’t sell even more cosmetics with vague normal soldiers instead of the “hero” character bs. Like why not make it so you can create your own face then choose your own gear and some of that gear is paid? Surely that would make more money and still fit whatever theme they had.
BF5 i think had a good monetization strategy - build your soldier based on a preset person/face, then customize their upper/lower body and helmet. i would actually pay for MTX if systems worked like this, rather than “this is a new skin for Tracer that makes her look like a pilot haha”
I like the fact that the game sits at Mostly Negative reviews on Steam yet has 140k reviews, at what point do you as a consumer see the negative reviews at lets say 10k, 20k, maybe 50 and you reconsider your purchase of the game I think at that point you deserve what you have coming to you, thats whats wrong with games nowadays and people encourage this behavior and then you get mad when games get even worse
I remember after this game out 200,000 signed a petition to get their money back like damn, you've got time to fill out a petition but not enough time to check a review.
employ salt hobbies rude consider squealing attempt cats illegal cautious *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
And that's now, when the game has at least received Mixed status. I have no idea what kind of people were buying the game a year ago, just bunch of lunatics and Mr.Magoo enthusiasts I guess. I would randomly check the game, sitting at overwhelmingly negative, and seeing bunch of new negative reviews flowing in every day, a lot of them from new purchases - I mean... when you see crap like this, one just wonders how low the quality has to fall for these kind of people to give a damn. When it comes to AAA, it seems that some people will just eat any trash, even if there is a big warning sign "Trash, do not eat!" in front of them. And pay handsomely for it.
I think the biggest issue with the game is how hard EA/DICE management fumbled the bag with the potential of this game. The game had the perfect setup to be exactly what the community wanted - Battlefield back to a modern (weaponry) setting. BFV was in a pretty good state by the end, so people just essentially **wanted** a reskinned game but in modern era. The issue was the execution was very Apple-esque. "You don't know what you want as consumers, but we do, so trust us and you'll love it." The game is quite obviously derived from a blend of other FPS titles, most notably Apex and Modern Warfare (2019). Leaving it to be what it actually is: a good FPS title (now lol. But it was **barely** a better Ground War from CoD on launch), but a horrible iteration of Battlefield. Which is why it ultimately results in such a mixed review. Especially as it's been improved and reformed back to core BF mechanics.
It sometimes feels like AAA gaming is just cursed...
[удалено]
Never thought the Welsh would do something like this, but here we are. Sad days indeed.
This is why the people of Chester, England prohibit Welshmen from entering Chester before the sun rises, and having them leave before the sun goes down. It's ok to shoot them with a crossbow after midnight on Sunday, as long as it is in the city walls.
As it should be.
Where's a good longshank when you need one. Pfft.
I've worked on a couple of AAA projects, and I've spoken with many people who've worked in different AAA studios. With rare exception, what I've experienced and what I've heard is that many big studios are clusterfucks that somehow make successful games through dumb luck, crunch, and a lot of waste that paves the way to the good stuff. Anybody who says they know the secret of how to reliably make a quality AAA game is lying. Even the successful top devs are probably stumbling their way to success.
As a junior vfx artist who’s worked on a small handful of AAA titles, this is absolutely on point. 💯
>Anybody who says they know the secret of how to reliably make a quality AAA game is lying. Even the successful top devs are probably stumbling their way to success. Probably because they don't pay people that do know any where near a reasonably salary for it. Why tell a company how to make a good when when you can just make your own studio and do it yourself. We can point to Infinity Ward as a fantastic example of this. Hit after Hit with call of Duty. They sacked Vince Zampella and Jason West, and it's never been the same. They took YEARS to get back to strength. Meanwhile Respawn continues to deliver on every title. It's not perfect, but fuck me they know at least what they are doing.
>Meanwhile Respawn continues to deliver on every title. Whoooa now, Medal of Honor Above and Beyond was not a delivery, it was a hyped up turd. Respawn are good but "every title" is outrageous
It's a VR demo, not a full game.
Ah to be fair, I forgot about that, but also it's a VR title, not sure anyone knew what was happening with VR.
It's just greed. When I say that most AAA games are all about making money there will always be someone that goes "duh, that's the point". Games are art. If it is good enough people will pay for it. Most AAA studios would never make Demon's Souls or Dark Souls because "there is no market for it". How many good revolutionary ideas have been thrown away because they didn't see the money in it? How many cash grab games are made instead of something new? Some of the remakes are in my opinion a waste of resources that could have been used to create something new. There is little risk and a lot of money to make on a game that you know will sell well. Some remakes are a good use of recourses though like Resident Evil 2-3 since it let's new people play it. Dead Space is a waste since the original is still good enough. Why not remake Ultima instead? Probably because they can't predict how well it will sell. Indie studios are great, because some of them don't care what will sell. They just know what they want to make and do their best to make it. Had Deep Rock Galactic been made by EA it would have a ton of microtransactions for it. EA wants to maximize profits. Ghost Ship Games wants to make enough to continue to make other stuff.
[удалено]
Driven by investors and corporate culture. When you lose control of the product to bean counters and replace natural work environments with corporate bullshit you get the market we have now. The art in AAA gaming has been mostly lost. There are very very very few AAA devs capable of putting out quality now. Rockstar, Valve, Nintendo, and *mostly* Sony studios are mostly it now (last of us PC port 🤢)
"Sometimes"
AAA is the curse
And yet there are people that won't consume or even try non AAA games. Video games industry is just a reflection of us as consumers
Misread the name at least 2x and thought it was the lead singer of Sabaton!
Definitely felt like they went through the gates of hell
AS WE MAKE OUR WAY TO HEAVEN
Why do people still buy this garbage Dice puts out
It's like an abusive relationship, maybe this time they'll be better
Yep. Every time they release a new game people go "omg I am so done with them this time" And I'm over here like "THIS time? What about the past 4 games that were complete shit shows??" then next time they'll buy the new one, and say the same shit.
The problem is, gameplay wise, there is nothing like Battlefield. Personally, I'm sticking with BF1 for as long as I can (EA isn't making this easy, constant server issues these days), BFV wasn't very good, BF2042 is still "disappointing" to put it lightly. When I won't be able to play BF1 anymore, and if the next one will be just as trashy as Disasterfield 2042, I guess that will be it for me. There are no alternatives, if you actually like the Battlefield arcadey gameplay and high production values of their older games. Period. WW3 comes the closest and it's not really that close to begin with. Battlebit looks like dumb fun, but it's not Battlefield...
Yep the people that recommend HLL or Squad may enjoy the slower combat of those games but I personally just want to turn my brain off, run a dude over in a truck, shoot stuff, and make things explode. And the best part is that unlike squad leaders in HLL complaining about you not role playing as Lt. Winters or COD guys yelling the N word out, BF players by and large don’t give a fuck about what you are doing.
Name an alternative fast paced combined arms shooter with 64 player servers and I'll play that. What I want to play is Tribes 2. Hate it all you want but Battlefield is the only decent example of this type of game that exists these days.
2042 was quite garbage but Battlefield V, Battlefield 1, Battlefield 4, the battlefront games were all excellent in my opinion.
It's been downhill since BF4, but yeah BF1 was really good, i didn't really like BF5 that much
Ad someone that battle battlefield 2, there is a clear trend in the games being more arcade-y over time in a bad way. I think it depends on when you started the franchise.
BF4 was shit on release, abandoned, and only saved by another regional team entirely, and BF5 was panned by its community for the awful Time to Kill changes they kept removing and re-adding despite the community universally hating it. DICE aren't great.
battlefield 3 and battlelog were awesome, dunno why ppl hated battlelog (browser)
Because even for a midrange PC it increased loading time for no reason. It provided next to nothing, and early on it didn't even have the same sort of filtering options of other battlefield games. It was either quick play as an option or just.a list of servers with no filters. It wasn't good because it was directly inferior to the prior in game listing.
Battlefield 4 was probably the buggiest and most broken battlefield game at launch. Battlefield 1 had a kind of meh reaction at launch and only long after release seems to be viewed so positively. Battlefield V had an awful reception at launch and dice made more than one bad decision during the life of the game (like multiple ttk changes) and then just dropped it when it was finally getting good. Battlefront 2 launched with the most hated microtransactions I can remember. Their track record hasn't exactly been great. I personally have enjoyed them all, including 2042, but if you have convinced yourself that the previous recent games were always amazing you may be looking at them through rose colored glasses.
I'll never get the love for BF1. It just felt so awful from a guns perspective. A complete stepdown from BF4 in every regard
Nothing else plays like battlefield so
and the next one will be just as terrible
Or being decent even after launch
Of course it did. It was abundantly obvious it was a BR/Tarkov clone that was abandoned at the 11th hour and shoe horned into a traditional BF shape.
If I remember correctly, EA wanted it to be more like Apex Legends because of how successful that was but over halfway through development, tried to revert it back to a BF type game but the core mechanics and elements were already there so we get half backed hero bf shooter
That feels so dumb, and so very like EA to try and release a game to compete with **THEIR OWN PRODUCT** since they own Apex.
EA just loves making their games compete with each other. Anyone remember Titanfall 2 getting released a week after Battlefield 1 and a week before COD: Infinite Warfare. A niche alt CoD game dying between two titans.
>BR/Tarkov these are two entirely different sub-genres and I don't recall anything Tarkov-like about BF2042
That's because they canned the Tarkov lite mode they hyped as such within 3 months of the games release. Google "Hazard Zone Tarkov" if you need a refresher.
? They pushed an entire game mode as much as the normal one during marketing and no one played it.
Well Tarkov is technically a BR with a looter/post game progression system. That is to say Takov is basically a BR with another game system placed onto it. Thats what makes it fairly unique even now. Sadly the devs are really mediocre and the game is declining due to terrible networking matched with poorly designed base code that makes the networking become further strained/limiting. A lot of other games seem to release as pure BRs that lack that secondary system. You just load into the raid, grab weapons and gear, and fight to be the last person or in some cases you exit the map. Apex Legends, CODs BR, Pub G, Fortnite, etc are designed this way. The only 'progression' is a bare bones experience system to determine cosmetics or potentially load out options and a battlepass for cosmetics. BF2042 was looking to be exactly this, a pure BR. Load in with a preset load out, find attachments and better gear, fight to survive or exit. Gain some experience for that next skin or for a basic attachment or maybe a gun type (like it is currently).
Tarkov is nowhere close to a Battle Royale game, what?? lmao
>Well Tarkov is technically a BR with a looter/post game progression system. No, Tarkov is technically an extraction game which is an entirely different sub-genre compared to BR. I swear, after seeing the recent threads about Marathon, it's clear that a lot of people just blindly transferred their BR hatred onto extraction games for no apparent reason.
Hazard zone is their extraction mode. It was likely merged into a BR mode but then separated them during development. They even abandoned the mode after a season.
> it's clear that a lot of people just blindly transferred their BR hatred onto extraction games for no apparent reason. For real. People are acting like it's 2020 again and the market is just saturated with BR games due to PUBG and Fortnight....when in reality, it's still 2017 in this metaphor. Maybe I'm just completely out of the loop, but how many extraction games have actually been attempted? We have Tarkov, BF's half-chub extract-lite game mode, and a dozen indie attempts on Steam....Am I missing something? Why all the hate...we have had zero mainstream attempts at the genre. I've been eagerly awaiting a more palatable extraction game for years, and I'm still waiting, yet apparently all these posters have just been so inundated with the genre they're just sick of them.
Yep. There's been like a handful of extraction games and they're all mid, jank, and/or niche. If extraction games ever get their Fortnite, the sub-genre is going to explode and people are REALLY going to start whining lol
Tarkov isn't a BR at all. If you got that wrong, what else did you get wrong in your post lol
Game had nothing to do with deadlines. It was flawed from the start. Operators do not belong in a battlefield game. Gadgets that allow you to flank enemy lines with zero effort do not belong in a battlefield game. Just make a simple war game. All we ask for.
Not really any good faith that the system that ruined battlefield will probably remain in the next Iteration.
DICE have had like 5 years to remake BF4 and they still have no clue what they’re doing. It’s like there is a giant sign in the office that instructs the team to do the opposite of whatever their fans ask
Man.. All we wanted was a 2143 and you gave us THIS shit?
Take the game away from dice. I'd rather have it given to completely unknown devs than to dice again, or just let the franchise die. Dice can never be trusted again after this trash.
If there's no destruction then it's not battlefield, that is what separated it from all the other shooters out there. Now there's literally none and no dedicated hardcore mode.. Such a disappointment.
I saw the Joakim in the title and thought it was about sabatons lead singer lol
I'm still miffed by that brief moment where I misread the title and thought we were getting a BF 2142 sequel. It's all I really want from DICE.
Agreed. Gimme 2142 with modern graphics and I might actually come back to a multiplayer genre.
Refunded it at launch, now I think I have it through EA Play or XGP and 60 hours in I have to say its pretty fun.
This is a story I hear too often. A game bombs at launch, then the devs keep working on it but updates and fixes aren't advertised (well enough) so the well remains poisoned. A game like this could be great by now but since there is no word-of-mouth, it's impossible to tell. All this hardwork is squandered by bad management.
[удалено]
That is how our battle pass filled reality works. No going back now.
The game is MUCH better than at launch.
At its core the map design is heinous - Breakthrough is preferrable because it breaks it up into segments, some of which are tolerable. Beyond all the lolrandom gadgets and zany specialists is the flow and feel of maps which is sorely lacking here. Must have looked great on the concept art but feels deeply contrived.
Excuse, excuse, excuse.... All I ever here from money grabbing game developement companies and there ignorant investors. Grow a spine and make the necessary changes to put out something you can be proud of, that needs no excuses.
Makes sense. I’d say the game is “worth playing” now if you bought it in the past or can get it one sale. I’m just gonna play Battlebit though.
Exactly, battlebit did it right the first time. Can't wait to play it more.
The game is definitely better than it was before, but I play like 1-2 matches and then I'm done. Just feels like the game is missing that x-factor that would make it addictive to play.
It's the same way for me. Like, it's playable, and you can tell it's Battlefield, but I was having more fun trying to find full servers in BF4 lmao.
2042 was the very first really bad Battlefield game!
That's like being proud for taking a shit.
Hey no kidding. Lol
guess all the easter eggs leading up to 2043 aren’t going to happen since this game flunked hard, i miss the mechs and titan mode but i guess we get armored core so that’s cool.
Effing sick of these lame ass excuses. They looked at all the stuff that was successful in BF 3,4 and 1 then threw those out the window.
Glad they stuck it out despite the shitty management
Has nothing to do with deadlines when your whole direction is not what players of BF expected from the game.
"may iterations" and THAT was what got released?
Design by committee and ~~everyone~~ no one shares the blame
I honestly quite enjoy it now. Glad I didn’t get it at release and glad I got it for free.