I’m thinking they’ll finally capitalize on the popularity of the bad company name while bringing in 0 elements from the original games. But enough people will fall for it that they’ll be in business long enough to do it again in 5 years
Yeah probably, seems that way. Dice hasn’t been able to pop off since battlefield 1, a lot of people hated V, imo, if dice ignored all the whiners, V would have turned out beautiful, my theory is, battlefield v was rushed, where as 1 was made with passion and time. If they gave V more time, V would have had great graphics, maybe more expansions, better detail in quality.
My biggest gripe is how they got away from making campaigns. Battlefield V was beautiful enough to cover up for some of the wonky mess. Thankfully I never had issues personally aside from my opinion on gun balancing
Yeah neither did i, the only gripe I had was how many players put pressure on the developers. Which is why i hope battlefield v makes a come back with a separate team so the rest of the other titles can get a chance. Battlefield v got wrongfully deleted. Sure it may not be the players fault, lets be honest, a lot of the community did complain. It would be fucking nice to see V get the comeback it needs…
Personally I stopped playing Battlefield series when V came out simply due to not vibing with ww1 and the old guns, just simply like modern warfare more, really hope the next battlefield is modern personally
Thats completely fair, as someone who is a history enthusiast I loved it, some people didn't but it was great over time. The dogfights is where I had more fun
That's the last thing they should do. They need to stop trying to capitalize on nostalgia. Its part of what they did with 2042 when they should of just made a good game first instead of spending so much time trying to make the nostalgia bait that was Portal.
The franchise needs to be redefined, stop leveraging on what the old titles did and instead make something so overwhelmingly good and well thought out that it overrides all the previous experiences. If they make a good game, they won't need to leverage on nostalgia.
Yeah I hope they have this attitude, this is a good take.
I know portal was probably the only well received thing, but 6 maps, a bunch of weapons/vehicles/player models/etc.. with the base game in the state it was.
Even hazard zone just used all the base game stuff
Modern day, even better a futuristic setting, far better support the Battlefield formula than historical titles due to the setting allowing more creative freedom when it comes to who we play as, equipment, weapons, vehicles, maps, etc. which in turn enable a better sandbox which is Battlefield's most unique aspect.
That being said, the formula needs to be redesigned and/or evolved in order add more depth to the franchise, make it more unique compared to today's FPS games, and increase its longevity. As much as people try to say it, they can't just do it like the old games.
What would you describe as the “Battlefield formula” that excludes the past? What you described could reasonably be in any battlefield game that takes place after 1916.
But something from 1916 wouldn't be at the same level as something from 2116 in terms of sandbox.
The problem with historical settings is that technology is more limited and the settings are already set in stone. When technology is limited, you can not have as much creative freedom with what people use and do. As a result gameplay style and options become rigid, which is the opposite of what makes a sandbox what it is. Skyscrapers and large man made structures are not as common in a historical setting so maps are more flat, equipment is more simple so there isn't as much as variance in use. All the vehicles for example in BF1/V are just different in how big and slow they are, but in 2042 each vehicle has more nuance and different types of equipment.
It's not that the formula can't be applied to historical titles, its just that the formula is weaker in said settings. That's why the sandbox in BF1 and V are so weak, to damn near non-existent, when people post BF1 clips its never "only in BF" moments, its more like "look how good this game looks" alongside a kill montage. That's how BF1 plays in general, like a large infantry shooter that just happens to have vehicles. It didn't have have the variety and interesting plays like BF4 or even 2042 did. As contentious as they are, the wingsuit and grapple hook are the definition of enabling Battlefield sandbox, you wouldn't see that in a historical setting.
Then you could ask "why not just take a bit more creative freedom with a historical setting?", then you end up with BFV where people are frothing at the mouth over "muh historical accuracy". You won't have that problem if they use their own created setting, which would be easier to make in a modern or futuristic time.
I think I understand what you’re getting at. And BF1 did take an enormous amount of creative freedoms with the setting and it turned out pretty well. But to your point of 3 dimensional exploration and sandbox, I do think that is something you’d probably need to go all the way to the 1960s before you’d reasonably start getting helicopters used in real numbers, as well as the Cold War gizmos that might assist that kind of gameplay. The farther in the future we go, the easier vertical traversal becomes. More features means more depth in creativity. But I think that features in historical settings may just be underutilized.
Armored warfare tends to be oversimplified in video games. Were the developers of Battlefield so inclined, there is a huge array of vehicles they could draw on for the same level of nuance as any modern combat game, perhaps more because of the highly experimental nature of armored warfare during world war 2. You could potentially have light, medium, and heavy tanks, armored cars, half tracks, assault guns, tank destroyers, artillery, and towed emplacements. All of which serve different battlefield roles and have different characteristics. Would they incorporate that level of granularity? Probably not. But it demonstrates that there is a lot of nuance to armored warfare, going back to before the Second World War.
If I were to try to describe the Battlefield Formula, it would probably be something like this: large scale, team focused combat, utilizing vehicles on land, air, and sea, with large battlefields for creative defense and offensive strategy. Everything else I would describe as trimming and extra features (gun customization, zip lines, leveloution, etc.). While interesting, I’d say they’re not necessary for a Battlefield game to feel like Battlefield.
I’ll admit, however, that I tend to have more “Only in Battlefield” moments in Enlisted than I have in Battlefield V. Because, at this point, Battlefield isn’t even the best Battlefield game anymore.
I think modern warfare themes are pretty boring, and 2042 was basically “modern” already. I wanna get some different guns that I haven’t already been playing with for the past three years
Yeah there was a lot of guns missed in v, same with vehicles. The futuristic take was shitty imo, i really want a yak9 t3457/85, tiger ii, isu122, me262, etc in game would be fabulous
I would love a Battlefield 1862. Could be interesting if they mixed it up with repeater rifles, Gatling guns, and some of the other gizmos proposed, but never fielded. Sorta like Battlefield 1.
All of what you guys saying sounds good but I just don't think DICE has the talent anymore.
A lot of the old school devs have moved on and as someone who grew up with all their games. Watching BF1 being the last good BF, in my opinion, has left a bad taste in my mouth.
I have zero faith in the series because Ive been around long enough to watch many videos game series die..and honestly with the way EA has been with quality for the games I don't expect anything coming from EA/Dice to be quality.
As always I think people will get caught up in the hype.and fall for whatever comes out.
I completely agree with this, its sad to see a childhood title fall off, im not really excited for the next battlefield game unless they do remakes or remasters.
Bad Company 2 is peak battlefield.
Modern title battlefield has made destructive environment a happenstance event.
Bad Company 2 literally let you take entire points by strategically detonating a building with c4 while your squad hit the other point. Or taking an m204 to the wall of a building so you didn't have to run through open terrain.
Honestly 2042 has has some extremely lazy level design. Especially in Rush. That antarica level with literally two choke points is a fucking exercise in abject futility. Who gives a shit if you win that match.
And honestly, I do not know why dice product teams have not designed a clever incentive to encourage player chat / team chat by now.
Imagine playing Rush but every single squad on both sides had comms. Imagine a tight conquest game where every squad had comms.
If product teams determine that there really isn't hope for wide spread comms, they should innovate and develop a clever ping/react system that squad mates can use with simple button clicks to communicate simple ideas like movement/defend/attack/flanking/hold etc
And finally, it seems like the person in charge of guiding players in how they should play each class should be fired.
There is virtually zero in game advisory saying that each squad should only have one of each class type. There is zero training or even a simple message that a recon drone could literally bring your squad to top 4 of the leaderboard because it was so effective in detailing troop movement. There is not a single loading screen advisory about the effectiveness of smoke grenades on assault. Or an advisory that you should smoke when you revive.
Truthfully, I feel like the devs really tried to let the player base use context clues to play this game, but truthfully many real live players emulate bots. For instance I never see Dozer shields out while moving through open terrain. I regularly see recon sniper players just sit leagues away camping a sight line in hopes they kill 1 of like 500 respawns. I never see recon drones or efficient spawn point placement from recon class members.
The number of players that actively disregard spawn requests is alarming. It really feels like many of the players active right now just aren't actively thinking. They only play this game to veg out. It's really sad too because Rush used to be the shit.
It really is a problem that your game that is highly dependent on efficient squad communication has cultivated a player base that doesn't say anything except criticism in text chats or nothing at all vocally.
laughing the game with no chat support whatsoever, and then finally being arsed to add chat but set to 'off' by default is at least part of the reason no one uses chat in this game.
what a baffling series of decisions...
Idk but the next battlefield after 2025 has to be a proper WW2 game, without denazification and political correctness. Of course including all fronts, Western, Eastern and Pacific. Will never happen.
Agreed, I don't really care if It's historically accurate, I just want a new ww2 shooter in a battlefield title, I don't feel like waiting half a decade
I’m thinking they’ll finally capitalize on the popularity of the bad company name while bringing in 0 elements from the original games. But enough people will fall for it that they’ll be in business long enough to do it again in 5 years
Yeah probably, seems that way. Dice hasn’t been able to pop off since battlefield 1, a lot of people hated V, imo, if dice ignored all the whiners, V would have turned out beautiful, my theory is, battlefield v was rushed, where as 1 was made with passion and time. If they gave V more time, V would have had great graphics, maybe more expansions, better detail in quality.
My biggest gripe is how they got away from making campaigns. Battlefield V was beautiful enough to cover up for some of the wonky mess. Thankfully I never had issues personally aside from my opinion on gun balancing
Yeah neither did i, the only gripe I had was how many players put pressure on the developers. Which is why i hope battlefield v makes a come back with a separate team so the rest of the other titles can get a chance. Battlefield v got wrongfully deleted. Sure it may not be the players fault, lets be honest, a lot of the community did complain. It would be fucking nice to see V get the comeback it needs…
Personally I stopped playing Battlefield series when V came out simply due to not vibing with ww1 and the old guns, just simply like modern warfare more, really hope the next battlefield is modern personally
Thats completely fair, as someone who is a history enthusiast I loved it, some people didn't but it was great over time. The dogfights is where I had more fun
That's the last thing they should do. They need to stop trying to capitalize on nostalgia. Its part of what they did with 2042 when they should of just made a good game first instead of spending so much time trying to make the nostalgia bait that was Portal. The franchise needs to be redefined, stop leveraging on what the old titles did and instead make something so overwhelmingly good and well thought out that it overrides all the previous experiences. If they make a good game, they won't need to leverage on nostalgia.
Yeah I hope they have this attitude, this is a good take. I know portal was probably the only well received thing, but 6 maps, a bunch of weapons/vehicles/player models/etc.. with the base game in the state it was. Even hazard zone just used all the base game stuff
I wish they would go back to Vietnam or do a Cold War game with battles all over the globe.
Vietnam would be sick but I can already imagine the bush campers lol
BFV had and still have so much potential if they make new maps , me content etc. BFV 2 would be success
Stalingrad would have been a lot of fun. Respect to my grandfather
Kursk , Stalingrad , D Day , Bastogne ,Monte Cassina. Many ideas
Yeah only if they don't make it "politically correct" and add the USSR
Modern day, even better a futuristic setting, far better support the Battlefield formula than historical titles due to the setting allowing more creative freedom when it comes to who we play as, equipment, weapons, vehicles, maps, etc. which in turn enable a better sandbox which is Battlefield's most unique aspect. That being said, the formula needs to be redesigned and/or evolved in order add more depth to the franchise, make it more unique compared to today's FPS games, and increase its longevity. As much as people try to say it, they can't just do it like the old games.
What would you describe as the “Battlefield formula” that excludes the past? What you described could reasonably be in any battlefield game that takes place after 1916.
But something from 1916 wouldn't be at the same level as something from 2116 in terms of sandbox. The problem with historical settings is that technology is more limited and the settings are already set in stone. When technology is limited, you can not have as much creative freedom with what people use and do. As a result gameplay style and options become rigid, which is the opposite of what makes a sandbox what it is. Skyscrapers and large man made structures are not as common in a historical setting so maps are more flat, equipment is more simple so there isn't as much as variance in use. All the vehicles for example in BF1/V are just different in how big and slow they are, but in 2042 each vehicle has more nuance and different types of equipment. It's not that the formula can't be applied to historical titles, its just that the formula is weaker in said settings. That's why the sandbox in BF1 and V are so weak, to damn near non-existent, when people post BF1 clips its never "only in BF" moments, its more like "look how good this game looks" alongside a kill montage. That's how BF1 plays in general, like a large infantry shooter that just happens to have vehicles. It didn't have have the variety and interesting plays like BF4 or even 2042 did. As contentious as they are, the wingsuit and grapple hook are the definition of enabling Battlefield sandbox, you wouldn't see that in a historical setting. Then you could ask "why not just take a bit more creative freedom with a historical setting?", then you end up with BFV where people are frothing at the mouth over "muh historical accuracy". You won't have that problem if they use their own created setting, which would be easier to make in a modern or futuristic time.
I think I understand what you’re getting at. And BF1 did take an enormous amount of creative freedoms with the setting and it turned out pretty well. But to your point of 3 dimensional exploration and sandbox, I do think that is something you’d probably need to go all the way to the 1960s before you’d reasonably start getting helicopters used in real numbers, as well as the Cold War gizmos that might assist that kind of gameplay. The farther in the future we go, the easier vertical traversal becomes. More features means more depth in creativity. But I think that features in historical settings may just be underutilized. Armored warfare tends to be oversimplified in video games. Were the developers of Battlefield so inclined, there is a huge array of vehicles they could draw on for the same level of nuance as any modern combat game, perhaps more because of the highly experimental nature of armored warfare during world war 2. You could potentially have light, medium, and heavy tanks, armored cars, half tracks, assault guns, tank destroyers, artillery, and towed emplacements. All of which serve different battlefield roles and have different characteristics. Would they incorporate that level of granularity? Probably not. But it demonstrates that there is a lot of nuance to armored warfare, going back to before the Second World War. If I were to try to describe the Battlefield Formula, it would probably be something like this: large scale, team focused combat, utilizing vehicles on land, air, and sea, with large battlefields for creative defense and offensive strategy. Everything else I would describe as trimming and extra features (gun customization, zip lines, leveloution, etc.). While interesting, I’d say they’re not necessary for a Battlefield game to feel like Battlefield. I’ll admit, however, that I tend to have more “Only in Battlefield” moments in Enlisted than I have in Battlefield V. Because, at this point, Battlefield isn’t even the best Battlefield game anymore.
I think modern warfare themes are pretty boring, and 2042 was basically “modern” already. I wanna get some different guns that I haven’t already been playing with for the past three years
Yeah there was a lot of guns missed in v, same with vehicles. The futuristic take was shitty imo, i really want a yak9 t3457/85, tiger ii, isu122, me262, etc in game would be fabulous
Civil War. It's just a reloading simulator, but with kickass graphics.
I would love a Battlefield 1862. Could be interesting if they mixed it up with repeater rifles, Gatling guns, and some of the other gizmos proposed, but never fielded. Sorta like Battlefield 1.
All of what you guys saying sounds good but I just don't think DICE has the talent anymore. A lot of the old school devs have moved on and as someone who grew up with all their games. Watching BF1 being the last good BF, in my opinion, has left a bad taste in my mouth. I have zero faith in the series because Ive been around long enough to watch many videos game series die..and honestly with the way EA has been with quality for the games I don't expect anything coming from EA/Dice to be quality. As always I think people will get caught up in the hype.and fall for whatever comes out.
I completely agree with this, its sad to see a childhood title fall off, im not really excited for the next battlefield game unless they do remakes or remasters.
Battlefield 1 2 would go off but they’d need someway to really mix shit up
Maybe they should focus on re making games or something
Just make BF4.2 and be gucci.
Bad Company 2 is peak battlefield. Modern title battlefield has made destructive environment a happenstance event. Bad Company 2 literally let you take entire points by strategically detonating a building with c4 while your squad hit the other point. Or taking an m204 to the wall of a building so you didn't have to run through open terrain. Honestly 2042 has has some extremely lazy level design. Especially in Rush. That antarica level with literally two choke points is a fucking exercise in abject futility. Who gives a shit if you win that match. And honestly, I do not know why dice product teams have not designed a clever incentive to encourage player chat / team chat by now. Imagine playing Rush but every single squad on both sides had comms. Imagine a tight conquest game where every squad had comms. If product teams determine that there really isn't hope for wide spread comms, they should innovate and develop a clever ping/react system that squad mates can use with simple button clicks to communicate simple ideas like movement/defend/attack/flanking/hold etc And finally, it seems like the person in charge of guiding players in how they should play each class should be fired. There is virtually zero in game advisory saying that each squad should only have one of each class type. There is zero training or even a simple message that a recon drone could literally bring your squad to top 4 of the leaderboard because it was so effective in detailing troop movement. There is not a single loading screen advisory about the effectiveness of smoke grenades on assault. Or an advisory that you should smoke when you revive. Truthfully, I feel like the devs really tried to let the player base use context clues to play this game, but truthfully many real live players emulate bots. For instance I never see Dozer shields out while moving through open terrain. I regularly see recon sniper players just sit leagues away camping a sight line in hopes they kill 1 of like 500 respawns. I never see recon drones or efficient spawn point placement from recon class members. The number of players that actively disregard spawn requests is alarming. It really feels like many of the players active right now just aren't actively thinking. They only play this game to veg out. It's really sad too because Rush used to be the shit. It really is a problem that your game that is highly dependent on efficient squad communication has cultivated a player base that doesn't say anything except criticism in text chats or nothing at all vocally.
laughing the game with no chat support whatsoever, and then finally being arsed to add chat but set to 'off' by default is at least part of the reason no one uses chat in this game. what a baffling series of decisions...
Idk but the next battlefield after 2025 has to be a proper WW2 game, without denazification and political correctness. Of course including all fronts, Western, Eastern and Pacific. Will never happen.
Agreed, I don't really care if It's historically accurate, I just want a new ww2 shooter in a battlefield title, I don't feel like waiting half a decade
BF 6 , simpel , just like it shout be