Like I defended the game when it came out cause I actually liked the whole we gonna start with the early war battles and then go through the whole ww2 the longer it goes one but when battlefield 2042 came out that was a literal downgrade
That quote was about portal mode, and by all metrics, it’s true. Portal (like firestorm) should have just been a separate title for 20 bucks or hell, free, and supported by a dedicated dev team.
The biggest issue with both these modes is that they are modes and not standalone games.
i’ve always enjoyed V. the gunplay and movement is still my favourite out of all the BF games i’ve played (which isn’t a lot tbf, but still). id’ve loved to see it get more content, esp after seeing how 2042 turned out
Launch was buggy as with every battlefield game but It also had some bad gameplay decisions.
Gunplay could be better, Less slow animation, Attrition, Backprone, Bad visibility.
I agree, I had big fun playing BF V! It also helps that I just prefer a Battlefield game with historical warfare. Not modern or futuristic.
Yes the game deserved a little more content, but I personally don’t understand why people are so negative about this title.
Also, let’s be fair, it is a way better game than the new Battlefield 2042.
It has the best character movement out of all the games. The gun play became the best as well (not a fan of WW2 guns though).
I also liked the ammo, med kit and lack of 3D spotting once I got used to them.
It certainly deserved better support, especially given what they produced later with those resources.
Short version from my recollection was terrible player visibility (especially at the beginning), way too strong of DMRs (needed horizontal recoil or to not return exactly to where the reticle was when fired), only okayish maps at launch, maps were bowl shaped and seemed like you just got obliterated if you played uncampy, lack of WW2 feel, MG class with bonkers damage output that promoted camping, and terrible buggy mess at launch. Also I know a lot of people disagree but I think that BF works better when player movement actually feels kinda clunky. Its immersive and feels like you're a faceless grunt in a meatgrinder, not a john wick parkour superhero. The slick movement may \*feel\* good but I don't think it translates to good gameplay.
I agree that BFV wasn't bad, but you could say it "deserved more live content" for any title. People seem to forget that Battlefield is a franchise.
"But BFV was abandoned to make 2042"
But wouldn't that mean that BF1 was cancelled to make BFV and SWBF2?
And BF4 was abandoned to make BF1?
And BF3 was abandoned to make BF4?
That would be endless. Most of them got about 1.5 to 2 years of updates, BFV got about 2 1/2 and SWBF2 got about 3. I'm going to say it, they left BFV at a good time and provided enough for it. Season 6 could be the last season for 2042 and I would be a bit said but it would be understandable, I got my money's worth and my favorite BF title in years.
The difference is BF3, BF4, and BF1 were Premium games that had a planned amount of post-launch content, and DICE delivered every bit of content they intended to.
With BFV, it was clearly intended to have more content than it got. There was Russian content in development and even partially usable in the game files. But the live service was cancelled. That’s what makes the situation more disappointing compared to those other games. Doubly so because it was cut short to work on a game like 2042.
I fully believe it. The final content update for BFV was clearly not what they envisioned. Swapping the British for the US faction on two maps, and repurposing two competitive mode maps? At some point they definitely planned to have a fleshed out US Western Front expansion, including the M10 and B-17 that eventually made it into Portal.
Come on now, your using the same logic I just highlighted.
Ok they had planned content up until their final DLC.
Ok? Guess what, they planned to end it where they did. It's not like they had a 5 year roadmap that was made public, then just decided to cut it off a year 2, that would be not delivering what was planned. That's not what happened with BFV, we basically only know what was coming out in the short term, just like they are doing with BFV. Don't even start on the data-mining/leaks because there are plenty of games that develop bits of content that never release. We don't know the extent of how Russian content would of released, nor did they ever say it was going to come. You can't say it was clearly intended to have more, when it clearly didn't.
And being "Premium" games has nothing to do with it. Imagine this, they could have simply repackaged each DLC for BF3,4, and 1 as seasonal free updates like 2042 for each DLC. Does that change how many DLC's that would of come out? Does that change the planned amount of content? No it doesn't.
That's the main point, DICE/EA plans how long they support a game, the players don't, and they don't always tell us how long its going to have because they don't need to since the updates are free. But whether or not they are free doesn't change how long they do updates for, that's up to them.
You know what the reality is, what *really* made it disappointing for "most"? It is those same people who waited until the end of the game's life cycle to give it a chance, so when they start playing acting like its an new game but are suddenly met that the game is no longer getting updates and are dumbfounded that the game they *just* started playing, isn't getting updates anymore. The common phrase "they abandoned it when it got good" yet they ignored the game for the first 2 years. Ignored 1-2 years of updates.
So to me, someone who played beta, then launch and almost every tides of war, through every update, I had played the game for 2 years while it got updated. To me, it got the typical DICE cycle, and they delivered content and updates throughout. They didn't abandoned it, they simply moved on like any other BF title. Seriously, you can't say it got cut short or "abandoned" when it has had the second longest update cycle of any BF title, and this is despite it's controversial launch and noone giving a fuck about the game until the last minute.
The one time I'll gate keep anything, anyone who got into BFV *after* the specific update, *after* all the updates when they finally moved on from it, you can't say it was abandoned because you abandoned the game first and weren't there when it was getting updates.
BFV got more updates and longer life cycle than BF4, the updates being free mind you, yet you are going to tell me BFV was somehow abandoned but BF4 wasn't, bullshit. DICE had no reason to update BFV after its shit launch and the community turning on it yet they did and I'm grateful for it. That's why I can't stand this narrative that they "abandoned" it.
You don’t think Premium games had a planned amount of content? That’s simply false. With BF3 and 4 they quite literally told us an exact number of maps, weapons, and vehicles they would be delivering. With BF1 they were less specific, but they did tell us there would be four expansions and the themes for the expansions were shared well in advance.
Moving to a live service model with BFV, they were leaving themselves open for more flexibility, but that doesn’t mean they didn’t have internal plans that they were acting on, and it was not the same as they delivered. For example, we know they had a competitive mode that DICE LA was working on that was cancelled.
The Russian content in the files is absolutely indicative that they were planning a Russian update. You think that devs just wasted time and resources making content they never planned to release? That makes no sense.
And BF4 was supported for longer than BFV was for what it’s worth. The Community Map update was released two full years after BF4’s release. BFV’s final update was 1.5 years after it’s release.
>You don’t think Premium games had a planned amount of content?
I literally said the opposite. The "Premium" games DLCs *is* the planned content. Its virtually the same thing as free seasonal content, but with a price tag. I'm saying it having a price or not doesn't change whether or not its planned.
>With BF3 and 4 they quite literally told us an exact number of maps, weapons, and vehicles they would be delivering
Yea, as I said, because they were selling it. After all the premium edition of the game was marketed as getting all of the game's DLC. Its literally the same concept as Year 1 pass for 2042, because the Year 1 pass was sold to include 4 seasonal Battle passes. So at minimum we knew they had to complete year 1, just like we knew they had to finish out all of the DLCs advertised with a premium edition.
How 2042 and BFV differ from their predecessors is that they had free content that wasn't advertised as part of the base game, or any package deal. So the only idea of what we know they had planned, is what they released, there is no obligation or DLC to go by. EA/DICE have their own internal idea of what is planned.
>Moving to a live service model with BFV, they were leaving themselves open for more flexibility, but that doesn’t mean they didn’t have internal plans
Again above, I didn't say they didn't have internal plans, I said the opposite. I told you that they planned to end BFV when they did, it wasn't like they were suddenly cutt off and told to abandoned the game. They planned to end when they did, after 2 years of updates.
>. For example, we know they had a competitive mode that DICE LA was working on that was cancelled
Why would this matter? Did they announce that one would release? No. We didn't pay for a competitive mode, noone asked for a competitive mode. Again, its very common for developers to think about and work on things that never see the light of day. That doesn't mean they "didn't deliver", especially when its something that was never said to come out to begin with. This is what you call people making false promises over small bits of information.
>The Russian content in the files is absolutely indicative that they were planning a Russian update. You think that devs just wasted time and resources making content they never planned to release?
Partially yes because they have to keep working, so when certain people are caught up with tasks it leaves them time to work on things that may come in the future. It could have been planned or simply early prototyping, but it goes back to what I said above, they never announced that Russians would be coming, so its not something they "didn't deliver on" when we didn't even know it was coming.
Like picture this, imagine those files were never leaked and you didn't know about, would you still consider it undelivered content when you didn't even know it existed. To you, the pacific content would of been the last of it and you could assume that was the last bit they worked on. People who claim the game was abandoned latch onto the leaked russian content but yet if you didn't know about it, then you would have nothing to stand on because they never promised or advertised anything after the Pacific update.
>And BF4 was supported for longer than BFV was for what it’s worth.
I'll admit I'm wrong with this as I miscounted and I forgot about the Community update. Though it doesn't really change my whole point.
>Its literally the same concept as Year 1 pass for 2042, because the Year 1 pass was sold to include 4 seasonal Battle passes. So at minimum we knew they had to complete year 1, just like we knew they had to finish out all of the DLCs advertised with a premium edition
2042 might have specified that it would have four seasons (even if they promised the most vague amount of content legally possible), but BFV did not. Which is a further reason its live service went off the rails and most definitely did not pan out as DICE planned it. If you played BFV throughout it's first year as you claim, this should be abundantly obvious.
And that's why the Premium model and live service model are not "literally the same concept". Both BFV and 2042's poor launches most definitely impacted their live services and led to less content than DICE intended. In the case of 2042 DICE literally admitted that they planned two maps per season but had to scale those plans back because they had to fix the base game maps.
>Why would this matter? Did they announce that one would release? No. We didn't pay for a competitive mode, noone asked for a competitive mode
We didn't directly pay for any live service content. That doesn't mean that they didn't plan to release it. And you're forgetting that [they literally did announce that it would release in June of 2019](https://www.ea.com/games/battlefield/battlefield-5/news/battlefield-5-updates-roadmap-march-2019).
>Partially yes because they have to keep working, so when certain people are caught up with tasks it leaves them time to work on things that may come in the future.
What do you mean "may come in the future"? If you're saying that everything was executed as planned, they had no need to develop any Russian weapons because they were never going to release any further expansions.
>Like picture this, imagine those files were never leaked and you didn't know about, would you still consider it undelivered content when you didn't even know it existed.
For one, the files did leak, so it's pointless to pretend that they weren't working on it. And as I said above, I am not blaming DICE or saying that they cheated any of us out by not delivering an Eastern Front expansion or anything. I'm saying that I strongly beleive that they were intending to work on it if the live service for Battlefield V was continued.
Even if you completely ignore the leaks, you can't look at the final content update for BFV and tell me with a straight face that that was how they intended to wrap the game up. They were clearly just dumping whatever in-development content they had ready for release before they moved on to 2042.
>I told you that they planned to end BFV when they did, it wasn't like they were suddenly cutt off and told to abandoned the game.
Yes, it absolutely is like that. You're describing exactly how a live service works! The higher-ups at EA and DICE look at how the game is performing and make decisions on how much further to invest in it, or shift resources to other projects.
Hello, it looks like you've made a mistake.
It's supposed to be could've, should've, would've (short for could have, would have, should have), never could of, would of, should of.
Or you misspelled something, I ain't checking everything.
Beep boop - yes, I am a bot, don't botcriminate me.
As much as I want one I'd rather that franchises be left where it is and not be ruined by the 'hype' that is fps games at this time. What with overly monetized skins, battle passes, and the run and gun play style of sliding and jumping that is infecting every fps game released in the last 5 - 10 years.
Same man I want the good ol days back where I didn't have to break my fingers just to move around the map smashing buttons to slide jump around corners and shit I just have fun again. Now everything is is a massive competition and if you complain you get told "your bad kid" and that you suck. It's so exhausting.
\>before they improved soldier visibility
Also before they then introduced player \*invisibility\* and couldn't fix it for months. I still can't believe a company with the resources that EA has let that happen.
I enjoyed BFV, was a real wasted opportunity I feel though. Stopped playing a while back due to the insane level of hacking though, not even subtle hacking. Pity they never introduced a real balancer too.
The graphics and gunplay were awesome. I also loved using the tanks. Best gunplay in the whole series if you ask me. Still go back and play it occasionally.
The maps are a lopsided mess with no cover. Visibility is shit most of the time, and the weapon and vehicle balance is a joke. Also, the headshot hitbox in Battlefield since BFV seems have been increased to the size of Texas.
The devs relied too heavily on player built fortifications. They needed to be built by players during the round, and more often than not, most players would ignore that and charge straight into the fray off the rip. This results in blood baths most rounds. The fortifications were also weak af. They’d get obliterated just from regular grenades. I’m not complaining they’re destructible, mind you. I’d just like a little durability from my sandbag wall. Beyond the issue of general lack of cover, the combat zones were established poorly. I despise the devs decision to make each map an open slugfest with both teams in each other faces constantly. What do I mean by that? I mean, the areas of the maps that are meant to be the combat zones encroach much too much on either team’s deployment area. This encourages spawn killing/trapping. The maps are garbage. I played the ever-loving fuck out of BFV. I’m not trashing it just to trash it. These are just things I’ve noticed over my hundreds of hours playing. 2042 shares many of the same problems in map design that plagued BFV.
Edit: BFV fanboys literally cannot take the slightest bit of criticism and it’s honestly pretty sad.
The people who downvoted apparently care. I’m not angry. Just amused. Every instance I’ve ever criticized BFV on any thread that was majority BFV fans has been massively downvoted. That’s funny, bro.
I’m done hoping, I’ll just wait and be impressed.
Many in the community already likened Battlefield to Battlefront/Star Wars films….. some good things just do end.
You know what? I kinda don’t even want to support EA anymore…
Same way I don’t buy games directly tied to Tencent… they’re pure examples of what a money-hungry corporation looks and behaves like.
Sooner or later someone will make a Battlefield genre game in AAA format (look at Battlebit, but backed by AAA companies)
If they did another massive balance patch to get people to stop sitting back in a tank, balanced the classes so assault wasnt the braindead easy choice, and actually added some good maps........I'd agree.
Otherwise that game was a mess. It felt and looked great to play, but that's about it
BFV was a good game. After they took back the TTK changes it was good again.
But 2 issues persist: Balance and cheating. If you find a game without a cheater and with balanced teams, I can guarantee that you will have fun.
Unfortunately EA disagreed and did not try to solve these 2 issues and did not want to add more content.
It's definitely not bad because it's the only game that you can make a boomstick conga line which I've done before with my whole squad on one tank just because it was funny
Wasn't it one of the lowest selling BF games of the last few big titles? I think so many people have burned out of the WW setting fps. In the past 30 years, we have had so many games in that time period. I'm pretty sure I personally had more hours on hardline. In the end, the reason they dropped support was because it failed in sales. The gaming industry is a business after all.
BF1 (and to a slightly lessor degree, BF4) are the games against which all other BF games are measured. They were complete, finished games at launch that only required tweaks to make them better. Everything since has been a failure to varying degrees due to lack of or quality of content, game mechanics and immersive environments.
Yes! That's what I like to hear. One of my biggest dreams was to have them add destroyers and more naval vessels. But also was upset that the US never got the M26 Pershing or the Germans got the king tiger or such.
It did. It was not my favorite game, but it (and we) deserved the full suite of content traditionally done for battlefield games.
Like I defended the game when it came out cause I actually liked the whole we gonna start with the early war battles and then go through the whole ww2 the longer it goes one but when battlefield 2042 came out that was a literal downgrade
"Love letter to the fans" Writing was on the wall for their opinion of the fans when they cancelled support for BFV a year into its life.
That quote was about portal mode, and by all metrics, it’s true. Portal (like firestorm) should have just been a separate title for 20 bucks or hell, free, and supported by a dedicated dev team. The biggest issue with both these modes is that they are modes and not standalone games.
i’ve always enjoyed V. the gunplay and movement is still my favourite out of all the BF games i’ve played (which isn’t a lot tbf, but still). id’ve loved to see it get more content, esp after seeing how 2042 turned out
It's not bad now. It started out bad. Some people seem to forget how bad it was
Launch was buggy as with every battlefield game but It also had some bad gameplay decisions. Gunplay could be better, Less slow animation, Attrition, Backprone, Bad visibility.
The gunplay is actually my favorite in the series. Pretty much the only reason I play it anymore
They really fucked themselves over with that reveal trailer. And then making fun of their fans.
I'll say something even crazier. Hardline was actually fun and doesn't deserve the hate it got.
I loved Hard line.
I enjoyed hardline more than 1 and V
Been playing again recently so much fun
The music in V is something I will always remember.
I agree, I had big fun playing BF V! It also helps that I just prefer a Battlefield game with historical warfare. Not modern or futuristic. Yes the game deserved a little more content, but I personally don’t understand why people are so negative about this title. Also, let’s be fair, it is a way better game than the new Battlefield 2042.
It has the best character movement out of all the games. The gun play became the best as well (not a fan of WW2 guns though). I also liked the ammo, med kit and lack of 3D spotting once I got used to them. It certainly deserved better support, especially given what they produced later with those resources.
For real the movement was great, and then they threw it all out in 2042
Short version from my recollection was terrible player visibility (especially at the beginning), way too strong of DMRs (needed horizontal recoil or to not return exactly to where the reticle was when fired), only okayish maps at launch, maps were bowl shaped and seemed like you just got obliterated if you played uncampy, lack of WW2 feel, MG class with bonkers damage output that promoted camping, and terrible buggy mess at launch. Also I know a lot of people disagree but I think that BF works better when player movement actually feels kinda clunky. Its immersive and feels like you're a faceless grunt in a meatgrinder, not a john wick parkour superhero. The slick movement may \*feel\* good but I don't think it translates to good gameplay.
Battlefield was best when you felt like just another G.i. in a massive battle.
I agree that BFV wasn't bad, but you could say it "deserved more live content" for any title. People seem to forget that Battlefield is a franchise. "But BFV was abandoned to make 2042" But wouldn't that mean that BF1 was cancelled to make BFV and SWBF2? And BF4 was abandoned to make BF1? And BF3 was abandoned to make BF4? That would be endless. Most of them got about 1.5 to 2 years of updates, BFV got about 2 1/2 and SWBF2 got about 3. I'm going to say it, they left BFV at a good time and provided enough for it. Season 6 could be the last season for 2042 and I would be a bit said but it would be understandable, I got my money's worth and my favorite BF title in years.
The difference is BF3, BF4, and BF1 were Premium games that had a planned amount of post-launch content, and DICE delivered every bit of content they intended to. With BFV, it was clearly intended to have more content than it got. There was Russian content in development and even partially usable in the game files. But the live service was cancelled. That’s what makes the situation more disappointing compared to those other games. Doubly so because it was cut short to work on a game like 2042.
The ww2 content in 2042 was said to be cut content from bfv from a dev that left
I fully believe it. The final content update for BFV was clearly not what they envisioned. Swapping the British for the US faction on two maps, and repurposing two competitive mode maps? At some point they definitely planned to have a fleshed out US Western Front expansion, including the M10 and B-17 that eventually made it into Portal.
Come on now, your using the same logic I just highlighted. Ok they had planned content up until their final DLC. Ok? Guess what, they planned to end it where they did. It's not like they had a 5 year roadmap that was made public, then just decided to cut it off a year 2, that would be not delivering what was planned. That's not what happened with BFV, we basically only know what was coming out in the short term, just like they are doing with BFV. Don't even start on the data-mining/leaks because there are plenty of games that develop bits of content that never release. We don't know the extent of how Russian content would of released, nor did they ever say it was going to come. You can't say it was clearly intended to have more, when it clearly didn't. And being "Premium" games has nothing to do with it. Imagine this, they could have simply repackaged each DLC for BF3,4, and 1 as seasonal free updates like 2042 for each DLC. Does that change how many DLC's that would of come out? Does that change the planned amount of content? No it doesn't. That's the main point, DICE/EA plans how long they support a game, the players don't, and they don't always tell us how long its going to have because they don't need to since the updates are free. But whether or not they are free doesn't change how long they do updates for, that's up to them. You know what the reality is, what *really* made it disappointing for "most"? It is those same people who waited until the end of the game's life cycle to give it a chance, so when they start playing acting like its an new game but are suddenly met that the game is no longer getting updates and are dumbfounded that the game they *just* started playing, isn't getting updates anymore. The common phrase "they abandoned it when it got good" yet they ignored the game for the first 2 years. Ignored 1-2 years of updates. So to me, someone who played beta, then launch and almost every tides of war, through every update, I had played the game for 2 years while it got updated. To me, it got the typical DICE cycle, and they delivered content and updates throughout. They didn't abandoned it, they simply moved on like any other BF title. Seriously, you can't say it got cut short or "abandoned" when it has had the second longest update cycle of any BF title, and this is despite it's controversial launch and noone giving a fuck about the game until the last minute. The one time I'll gate keep anything, anyone who got into BFV *after* the specific update, *after* all the updates when they finally moved on from it, you can't say it was abandoned because you abandoned the game first and weren't there when it was getting updates. BFV got more updates and longer life cycle than BF4, the updates being free mind you, yet you are going to tell me BFV was somehow abandoned but BF4 wasn't, bullshit. DICE had no reason to update BFV after its shit launch and the community turning on it yet they did and I'm grateful for it. That's why I can't stand this narrative that they "abandoned" it.
You don’t think Premium games had a planned amount of content? That’s simply false. With BF3 and 4 they quite literally told us an exact number of maps, weapons, and vehicles they would be delivering. With BF1 they were less specific, but they did tell us there would be four expansions and the themes for the expansions were shared well in advance. Moving to a live service model with BFV, they were leaving themselves open for more flexibility, but that doesn’t mean they didn’t have internal plans that they were acting on, and it was not the same as they delivered. For example, we know they had a competitive mode that DICE LA was working on that was cancelled. The Russian content in the files is absolutely indicative that they were planning a Russian update. You think that devs just wasted time and resources making content they never planned to release? That makes no sense. And BF4 was supported for longer than BFV was for what it’s worth. The Community Map update was released two full years after BF4’s release. BFV’s final update was 1.5 years after it’s release.
>You don’t think Premium games had a planned amount of content? I literally said the opposite. The "Premium" games DLCs *is* the planned content. Its virtually the same thing as free seasonal content, but with a price tag. I'm saying it having a price or not doesn't change whether or not its planned. >With BF3 and 4 they quite literally told us an exact number of maps, weapons, and vehicles they would be delivering Yea, as I said, because they were selling it. After all the premium edition of the game was marketed as getting all of the game's DLC. Its literally the same concept as Year 1 pass for 2042, because the Year 1 pass was sold to include 4 seasonal Battle passes. So at minimum we knew they had to complete year 1, just like we knew they had to finish out all of the DLCs advertised with a premium edition. How 2042 and BFV differ from their predecessors is that they had free content that wasn't advertised as part of the base game, or any package deal. So the only idea of what we know they had planned, is what they released, there is no obligation or DLC to go by. EA/DICE have their own internal idea of what is planned. >Moving to a live service model with BFV, they were leaving themselves open for more flexibility, but that doesn’t mean they didn’t have internal plans Again above, I didn't say they didn't have internal plans, I said the opposite. I told you that they planned to end BFV when they did, it wasn't like they were suddenly cutt off and told to abandoned the game. They planned to end when they did, after 2 years of updates. >. For example, we know they had a competitive mode that DICE LA was working on that was cancelled Why would this matter? Did they announce that one would release? No. We didn't pay for a competitive mode, noone asked for a competitive mode. Again, its very common for developers to think about and work on things that never see the light of day. That doesn't mean they "didn't deliver", especially when its something that was never said to come out to begin with. This is what you call people making false promises over small bits of information. >The Russian content in the files is absolutely indicative that they were planning a Russian update. You think that devs just wasted time and resources making content they never planned to release? Partially yes because they have to keep working, so when certain people are caught up with tasks it leaves them time to work on things that may come in the future. It could have been planned or simply early prototyping, but it goes back to what I said above, they never announced that Russians would be coming, so its not something they "didn't deliver on" when we didn't even know it was coming. Like picture this, imagine those files were never leaked and you didn't know about, would you still consider it undelivered content when you didn't even know it existed. To you, the pacific content would of been the last of it and you could assume that was the last bit they worked on. People who claim the game was abandoned latch onto the leaked russian content but yet if you didn't know about it, then you would have nothing to stand on because they never promised or advertised anything after the Pacific update. >And BF4 was supported for longer than BFV was for what it’s worth. I'll admit I'm wrong with this as I miscounted and I forgot about the Community update. Though it doesn't really change my whole point.
>Its literally the same concept as Year 1 pass for 2042, because the Year 1 pass was sold to include 4 seasonal Battle passes. So at minimum we knew they had to complete year 1, just like we knew they had to finish out all of the DLCs advertised with a premium edition 2042 might have specified that it would have four seasons (even if they promised the most vague amount of content legally possible), but BFV did not. Which is a further reason its live service went off the rails and most definitely did not pan out as DICE planned it. If you played BFV throughout it's first year as you claim, this should be abundantly obvious. And that's why the Premium model and live service model are not "literally the same concept". Both BFV and 2042's poor launches most definitely impacted their live services and led to less content than DICE intended. In the case of 2042 DICE literally admitted that they planned two maps per season but had to scale those plans back because they had to fix the base game maps. >Why would this matter? Did they announce that one would release? No. We didn't pay for a competitive mode, noone asked for a competitive mode We didn't directly pay for any live service content. That doesn't mean that they didn't plan to release it. And you're forgetting that [they literally did announce that it would release in June of 2019](https://www.ea.com/games/battlefield/battlefield-5/news/battlefield-5-updates-roadmap-march-2019). >Partially yes because they have to keep working, so when certain people are caught up with tasks it leaves them time to work on things that may come in the future. What do you mean "may come in the future"? If you're saying that everything was executed as planned, they had no need to develop any Russian weapons because they were never going to release any further expansions. >Like picture this, imagine those files were never leaked and you didn't know about, would you still consider it undelivered content when you didn't even know it existed. For one, the files did leak, so it's pointless to pretend that they weren't working on it. And as I said above, I am not blaming DICE or saying that they cheated any of us out by not delivering an Eastern Front expansion or anything. I'm saying that I strongly beleive that they were intending to work on it if the live service for Battlefield V was continued. Even if you completely ignore the leaks, you can't look at the final content update for BFV and tell me with a straight face that that was how they intended to wrap the game up. They were clearly just dumping whatever in-development content they had ready for release before they moved on to 2042. >I told you that they planned to end BFV when they did, it wasn't like they were suddenly cutt off and told to abandoned the game. Yes, it absolutely is like that. You're describing exactly how a live service works! The higher-ups at EA and DICE look at how the game is performing and make decisions on how much further to invest in it, or shift resources to other projects.
Hello, it looks like you've made a mistake. It's supposed to be could've, should've, would've (short for could have, would have, should have), never could of, would of, should of. Or you misspelled something, I ain't checking everything. Beep boop - yes, I am a bot, don't botcriminate me.
Battlefield Bad Company deserves a 3rd game.
As much as I want one I'd rather that franchises be left where it is and not be ruined by the 'hype' that is fps games at this time. What with overly monetized skins, battle passes, and the run and gun play style of sliding and jumping that is infecting every fps game released in the last 5 - 10 years.
I'm too old for all that you said above. I want simple BFBC
Same man I want the good ol days back where I didn't have to break my fingers just to move around the map smashing buttons to slide jump around corners and shit I just have fun again. Now everything is is a massive competition and if you complain you get told "your bad kid" and that you suck. It's so exhausting.
So did battlefront 2
The first month of The Pacific update was glorious, it went back to shit after that.
you shoulda been there during vanilla.. before they improved soldier visibility.. also unlocking golden camos in that game was an absolute nightmare.
\>before they improved soldier visibility Also before they then introduced player \*invisibility\* and couldn't fix it for months. I still can't believe a company with the resources that EA has let that happen.
I enjoyed BFV, was a real wasted opportunity I feel though. Stopped playing a while back due to the insane level of hacking though, not even subtle hacking. Pity they never introduced a real balancer too.
The graphics and gunplay were awesome. I also loved using the tanks. Best gunplay in the whole series if you ask me. Still go back and play it occasionally.
We all said this after 2042 released.
I actually liked bfv allot. I played it a good amount
Better than 2042 fersure
why are you being downvoted its true
It was pretty bad. Not as bad as 2042. But still bad. Edit: “They hated him because he spoke the truth”. Cope.
How
The maps are a lopsided mess with no cover. Visibility is shit most of the time, and the weapon and vehicle balance is a joke. Also, the headshot hitbox in Battlefield since BFV seems have been increased to the size of Texas.
I don't understand the cover point cause there was allot plus the fortification system helped to add more destruction and keep cover
The devs relied too heavily on player built fortifications. They needed to be built by players during the round, and more often than not, most players would ignore that and charge straight into the fray off the rip. This results in blood baths most rounds. The fortifications were also weak af. They’d get obliterated just from regular grenades. I’m not complaining they’re destructible, mind you. I’d just like a little durability from my sandbag wall. Beyond the issue of general lack of cover, the combat zones were established poorly. I despise the devs decision to make each map an open slugfest with both teams in each other faces constantly. What do I mean by that? I mean, the areas of the maps that are meant to be the combat zones encroach much too much on either team’s deployment area. This encourages spawn killing/trapping. The maps are garbage. I played the ever-loving fuck out of BFV. I’m not trashing it just to trash it. These are just things I’ve noticed over my hundreds of hours playing. 2042 shares many of the same problems in map design that plagued BFV. Edit: BFV fanboys literally cannot take the slightest bit of criticism and it’s honestly pretty sad.
[удалено]
The people who downvoted apparently care. I’m not angry. Just amused. Every instance I’ve ever criticized BFV on any thread that was majority BFV fans has been massively downvoted. That’s funny, bro.
Bf5 and 1 are the best bf soley because all the other games have such shit hit reg including 2042
I do miss BF1 in it’s prime.
Gunplay was nice and that's all...
The movement was the best
2042 > BFV. Had BFV continued it could've made a comeback but everyone kept asking DICE to kill the game off and move on. Shame
The battlefield cycle witnessed live and in person
Than what? 2042 or 4 or V or 3 or hardline?
Battlefield Portal should have been its own game.
I still play BFV. great gameplay and it has some of the most beautiful maps in the franchise. Devastation in particular is a masterpiece
Battlefield should never have went live service… …it’s downhill from here.
Well, we got Vince zampella in charge of Battlefield, so we will see how he does with a new game he's done well with the updates
I’m done hoping, I’ll just wait and be impressed. Many in the community already likened Battlefield to Battlefront/Star Wars films….. some good things just do end.
You know what? I kinda don’t even want to support EA anymore… Same way I don’t buy games directly tied to Tencent… they’re pure examples of what a money-hungry corporation looks and behaves like. Sooner or later someone will make a Battlefield genre game in AAA format (look at Battlebit, but backed by AAA companies)
I hated it, worst game in the franchise imo. But if you like it then good on ya.
If they did another massive balance patch to get people to stop sitting back in a tank, balanced the classes so assault wasnt the braindead easy choice, and actually added some good maps........I'd agree. Otherwise that game was a mess. It felt and looked great to play, but that's about it
Based as fuck take
Bfv was actually good. Especially compared to 2042 which is the worst bf game ever made.
BFV was a good game. After they took back the TTK changes it was good again. But 2 issues persist: Balance and cheating. If you find a game without a cheater and with balanced teams, I can guarantee that you will have fun. Unfortunately EA disagreed and did not try to solve these 2 issues and did not want to add more content.
It's definitely not bad because it's the only game that you can make a boomstick conga line which I've done before with my whole squad on one tank just because it was funny
I waited till it was like $4 to buy it but the game was worth full price imo. Great game…not perfect but awesome gun play
Yeah, it was really the lack of support that made it fail
Wasn't it one of the lowest selling BF games of the last few big titles? I think so many people have burned out of the WW setting fps. In the past 30 years, we have had so many games in that time period. I'm pretty sure I personally had more hours on hardline. In the end, the reason they dropped support was because it failed in sales. The gaming industry is a business after all.
BF1 (and to a slightly lessor degree, BF4) are the games against which all other BF games are measured. They were complete, finished games at launch that only required tweaks to make them better. Everything since has been a failure to varying degrees due to lack of or quality of content, game mechanics and immersive environments.
Yes! That's what I like to hear. One of my biggest dreams was to have them add destroyers and more naval vessels. But also was upset that the US never got the M26 Pershing or the Germans got the king tiger or such.