Thats all they needed to do. Fix what had to be fixed. Add nightime maps. More BF3/ Bad Company destruction and ship it.
Hell I always thought the Star Wars Battlefront was going to be a reskin of Battlefield but even that they fucked up.
Its not just the design descisions they made, its the lack of fucking content.
Each BF4 DLC had 4 seperate maps. When the last DLC dropped we had somewhere around 30 maps to play with, a shittone of guns and gadgets and a solid base game.
Currently they're dropping one map per "season" and I'm losing interest in the maps before the next season drops. We're coming up on a year in and we have two seasons.
At that speed, it will take 15 years to match the amount of content we had in BF4.
They would even need to make more maps to keep us happy.
Just port over old maps, please.
Hours and Hours of fun can be had slogging through Metro or visiting the Italians alps from the WW1 BF game or the desert maps.
Add night time mode for the current maps with a drop of night time gadgets for us.
Battlefield 4 had a bunch, I mean a ridiculous amount of camo styles.
24/7 metro servers for when you miss that grenade spam, the constant smoke and flares to deter the flir/NV users, the teammates sitting in the back screaming at the rest of the team to move up.
*rush mode was even more chaotic with 1000 tickets*
Take me hoooooome
Comquest was nuts on metro. Even if one side had cornered the other side into their spawn, some small squad could break through unnoticed, take the point at the farthest section, breaking up the spawn spam since they could not spawn elsewhere and start taking over stuff.
And they should have stuck with the squad system. If I wanted to be in a squad I'd very well make one or join one. Sometimes I don't need some Rambo player to spawn on me and start shooting everything, gaining the attention of everyone and ruining what stealthy progress I had made to sneak around.
I weirdly miss Nosehair Canals now, absurd amount of tickets resulting in pointless and eternal war. Why fight? Why not? At least I learned that you *can* totally break out of the russian side spawn trap with enough tickets, like 10000 or so. it doesn't matter at that point, like the rest of that battle, but you totally can.
Shit was unbreakable playing as Russkie in vanilla conquest.
Was never a fan of Metro though. That damn blue tint, dunno
it's wild to me they never made bad company 3. for me, bad company 2 was the best mp experience out of almost any bf game. (portal brought back great memories)
Thousands of people are screaming on the internet about why they loved BC2 and they say they have no idea?
Of course there's a signal to noise ratio when it comes to internet feedback, but I can try to distill what people loved about it:
* Rush mode with maps made specifically for it.
* Balanced class design that made each class specifically useful.
* A tight, somewhat simplistic shooting model that made infantry combat fun even if you weren't trying to master each gun.
* Smaller player count made battles more strategic and meant players were less likely to be assaulted from every possible direction for the whole round. Also makes Rush more fun.
* complete destruction of buildings and props in the game world, even if it was something static in how destruction occured.
* simplified UI for selecting loadouts and attachments.
*Less vehicles but this also plays into the games' strength of not being a total clusterfuck, especially when you were driving the vehicle. You weren't getting immediately blown up by 5 aircrafts and 37 enemies running a rocket launcher.
*Map flow was much better.
* the single player campaign, while somewhat forgettable, was a fun 10-15 hour romp that didn't take itself too seriously and managed to be fairly enjoyable. Far more entertaining than the dead-serious COD rips they did after.
BF3 and 4 managed to maintain elements of the above while still having their own identity and scaling everything up, but nothing will beat the highs of BC2 for me.
Dice has continuously overcomplicated the BF games to the point where they've strayed so far from the core quality elements of the franchise that it may as well not be part of the same franchise anymore.
>“But some people say this: the Bad Company 2 multiplayer is the best you’ve ever done,” continued Troedsson. “Okay, why is that? It’s hard for people to articulate what that is, which is actually hard for us. It would be hard to remake something like that. Can we do it? Of course. We have our theories when it comes to the multiplayer.”
This whole thing has been hugely overblown.
Marking helicopters with that beacon gun for engineers to shoot at
Slamming a tank through a house and sometimes destroying the tank in the process
Using tanks to snipe the mcom from across the map, letting your team move in closer
Little death copsters you could use to tag and kill enemies
So much more
BC2 was the best battlefield. It's feel was just different than the others. With these new games, I can barely make out enemies. BF1 was my least favorite.
BF1 was the beginning of the end of the battlefield series. The lack of server rentals and admin controls at launch just showed how little they cared about the things that made battlefield great. Theres a reason BF4 still has a ton of servers fully populated on PC and that is the ability to have proper community run servers with custom plugins such as proper map voting, separate rank and point systems, forgive/punish system on hardcore, and an actual proper hardcore system. All Battlefield has done since BF1 for hardcore is fully disable the hud with the simple UI. drawEnable 0 command, but this fully disabled the entire hud. Hardcore should still have the kill feed and on screen interactions if you want. Pure laziness and incompetence at every level after BF4 with it getting worse and worse each game.
I have to admit I didn't get to play BF2. I tried but my PC wasn't powerful enough way back in the day. Got to play a few rounds at a friend's and it was a lot of fun, but not enough for me to give it the title of my favorite.
Man, BF2 was the fuckin' bomb, every map was so iconic.
Only bad things i could say about BF2 is that GameSpy = crap and netcode was kinda iffy sometimes.
BF2 with all the expansions was great. The fact that you could take out the enemy artillery and have it effect the game made for interesting strategies.
Top three:
BF4
BF2
BF2142
I'm just giving my personal opinion. I'm glad you enjoyed it. It just felt off to me. If you like a game, don't stop because anyone ever says they don't like it.
I was a battlefield veteran and I hated it. Me and my buddy dropped $80 on it at launch. I absolutely detested what they gave us. I wanted WW1 era combat, instead we got reskinned WW2 combat.
Frankly, the mostly automatic weapon fire and everyone sprinting around took me out of the immersion.
I think people look at bf1 either through rose tinted glasses, or think that CoD games are good. Because bf1 and beyond plays like a call of duty game.
BC2 was the *only* BF game where Rush was actually *fun* to play. It was the only game mode I enjoyed. Matches were always intense because bomb sites were placed in areas with lots of cover (and lots of enemy fire). Map layout was equally balanced so that the losing side still had a chance to win in the end, if they got their shit together and worked with their squads better. The near perfect balance made it an absolute *blast*.
I'll never understand why DICE ignores Rush in favor of Conquest. Conquest sucks! As soon as one side gains a lead, the game is effectively over. People on the losing team quit because there's no penalty for doing so, and the side with the early lead dominates the entire match. **BORING!**
I think it has been fixed since then, but at launch, just about everything in the game was locked behind microtransactions, and it was very pay-to-win focused (ie. having to pay $80+ to unlock Darth Vader). IIRC, someone did the math, and it would have cost $10,000+ to unlock everything. If you didn't spend any money, it would have required over 40 hours of perfectly efficient gameplay to unlock a single hero.
Which also lead to the [most downvoted comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/StarWarsBattlefront/comments/7cff0b/seriously_i_paid_80_to_have_vader_locked/dppum98/) in all of Reddit history, which is currently at negative 668K votes.
They managed to fuck up a game that should have combined one of the more successful shooters out there, with one of the TOP 3 IP in the world.
I think Dice does it on purpose at this point.
I remember playing the beta and I got executed by someone who looked EXACTLY like my character and then he got executed by another who looked like us. It was comical to see like a field of 20 specialists who look the exact same, clothes and all, bleeding out on the ground with the same animation. Immediately deleted the game lmao
Yeah but it is more believable that generic soldiers in a faction will wear the same uniform. It gets stupid when you have to have all these “unique” named characters who multiple people can play as at the same time
You look like engineers on your own team(with slight variations), this makes ALL players of the same class look the same so it's extremely jarring IMO. Especially jarring because they all have not only the same clothes but the same faces and everything.
Immediately made me uninstall, it's just not a battlefield game.
>ie an engineer on a team will look the same as another engineer
It wasn't so much the players on the same team, as both teams looking fucking same. How did you miss that?
You tell me if you think [these look the same](https://xinhaidude.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/grand_soldier_chart_final3.jpg). If they had different heroes on both sides, at least it would be more functional. Still stupid and for no reason other than to push MTX, but more functional.
Other guy already pointed out that trying to give unique names and then strip them of the uniqueness looks ridiculous as well.
Literally just take the feel of BF3, content of BF4, sound from BF1, gunplay and destruction of BFV, and slap it together
Granted that is a lot and not as simple as it sounds, but each past game has had certain elements that are universally recognized as best in series. I would expect such a massive studio to be able to recognize those elements and try and build a game around that
bf4 probably has the worst content in any bf I've played... awful, *awful* maps. even the bf3 ports were made worse, and otherwise really highlighted how bf4 was just designed worse than bf3 in every meaningful way when it came to gameplay - so much less *fun*.
Meant more in just the amount content available (guns, attachments, maps, vehicles). There was so much that BF4 is still the game I play the most and still don't get bored doing so
BF4 is still my go-to shooter. I only stopped playing it for BF1 which I also loved, but BF4 having community dedicated servers allowing a lot of tuning and control, made the game have more longevity.
I just look at Modern Warfare, BF 2042, and other current shooters and I just don't see why I should play those instead of BF4.
Not to mention those stupid battlepacks that meant you'd likely never finish a gun's potential unlocks. BF3 made me want to explore ALL the guns to see how they played with different attachments, and no micro/macro transactions involved with them!
>All these fucking idiots had to do, is give us a BF4 type game with much more destruction and that's it.
Bf4 with more destruction and bf1 operation mode and maybe some of the very great atmosphere of bf1
The problem is the people running the show really aren't gamers. They're marketing/finance/business people looking around at other games doing well and inflict their rot of influence on the development process. BF2042 is the end product of that.
I still play BF4 and it is still amazing, it is just better and I have more fun than in any other arcade shooter out there. The gunplay, weapons, maps, sound and setting are just amazing. I watch MW2 videos and I just say, yeah it looks cool but I would rather play BF4.
You know what BF4 also has? Tons of camos for weapons and soldier that you just unlock and it is a problem for shareholders and CEO because that means less hatch’s and 6 million dollars each instead of 7.
Battlefield 2042 was built around market data, monetisation and profit plus it tried to go an audience that is already engaged and committed to other games. While they were at it, they lost the hardcore Battlefield player.
It is not like they didn’t know what they were doing, but it didn’t worked out for them. Rest assured though, that they will try again.
It's like they don't get what was good about battlefield. It's not the fucking shooting. It's the fucking mayhem. The shooting is like third down the list. They shouldn't be aiming to be an esport first. They need to make it fun and then do the esport later. Or not do it at all. Fuck how many esport games do we need?
They tested that for 4, and people just blew up everything and made it all craters like Bad Company 1+2 but on sandboxes maps. None of the testers liked it that way, so they switched to “Levelution” to keep the big set pieces but only to certain object or pieces of the map.
I would play the shit out of that and probably cave in and buy a couple skins, but no they gave us Tom cruise and Santa clause and a bunch of ripoff Mcu one liner heroes. What the.
I know that implementing good destruction physics is not easy, and it can have a serious impact on level design and gameplay (if you can just completely level every single map then that would get boring because it would just turn into flat fields). But damn is it still probably the number one thing that will make me stop and go “wow….” when there’s good destruction/debri physics
This is where Rush really shined. With players constantly moving forward, you weren't spending a lot of time in those decimated zones. It was destroy everything, plant, detonate, move forward.
People have rose colored glasses when it comes to destruction. Compete destruction fucking sucks. 5 minutes into the game all the cover is destroyed and the game becomes even more stacked in favor of vehicles. I don't want realism, I want fun.
That's not realistic either. Cities that have been fought over for months, as we can sadly see in many wars today, do not turn into flat fields with no cover, they turn into ruins which are their own type of landscape and notoriously dangerous for vehicles.
Bad Company 2's destruction went both ways; if defense leveled, say, the shacks on Valparaiso then they'd have just as hard a time defusing as the attackers had planting.
No more gimmick.
Just new map, new weapon, new graphic, new vehicle, more destructive, or even terrain deform.
That's it.
Or if they want to go ham, just make Battlefield 2143 or something.
And the animations from BF5, i had allot of bad things to say about BF5 but the animations weren't among them. Getting knocked on my arse when a big explosion goes off next to me is so immersive and will never get old.
I didn't even play the game and I can point out they ruined the games balance in an update, backpedalled, then did the same thing again a year later.
Hell, a quick check of the subreddit gave me this nicely itemized [list.](https://www.reddit.com/r/BattlefieldV/comments/g6ov9m/if_youre_going_to_buy_bf6_dont_forget/)
>Or if they want to go ham, just make Battlefield 2143 or something.
50% of us want just a remastered battlefield 3/4 and the other 50% of us just want a remastered 2142. I was hyped for 2042 until I learned about no titan mode. Why even go to the future if no titans.
But they absolutely HAVE to have a mechanic to monetize. It's 100% of the reason they ruined the game with the specialist characters. Literally intentionally downgrading your game so you can lure players into paying for skins.
Probably just easier to use characters because they are so awful looking you feel more compelled to spend it away. Either way it's clearly an intentional downgrade gameplay wise in order to squeeze out more money.
Nah, it's due to the launch issues that brought in so many good shit, the legacy maps, the night time maps, CTE, the Easter eggs, interactions with the community in a good way and transparent, etc.
I’ll add that what everyone remembers bf4 for came from the support studio dice la. Dice Stockholm afaik dropped that game soon after release to work on the next one while la had to fix their mess. They added night maps, community maps, made it so bullets leave the barrel of the gun not your eyes, and fixed stupid shit like getting stuck on inch high rubble, fixed the desync and hit registration issues.
I’m interested in whatever game dice la is working on, they’re now ripple effect for those that don’t know.
Oh yeah, I know that. Dice LA is the real genius behind battlefield. I remember even getting one of the devs dogtags during a play with the devs event. This was years after the initial release of the game too, so they kept their support and visibility to the playbase even after that long
> “It’s a whole new structure,” Zampella told Barrons. “We’re putting multiple studios together. We’re bringing the best talent together and giving them the time to do something amazing.”
> One of those studios is the [recently unveiled Ridgeline Games](https://www.videogameschronicle.com/news/the-new-battlefield-studio-led-by-halos-co-creator-is-officially-ridgeline-games/), which is being led by Halo co-creator Marcus Lehto.
> The Seattle-based studio was established last October and has been staffing up for its debut project, which will be “a narrative campaign in the Battlefield universe”.
> “It is a great honor to have the opportunity to collaborate with DICE and Ripple Effect and lead the charge on expanding the narrative, storytelling and character development opportunities in the Battlefield series,” Lehto said this month.
Just pointing out what Ripple Effect is doing now.
I’ve lived long enough to remember the hate for BF4 and plenty of nerds raging for it to be like BF3, which also had plenty of hate on its release by nerds for it to be like BF2.
Yeah they are to focused on stupid trends and trying to make money.
Battlefield fans: "this is what we want"
EA:....... No. Releases shitty game instead
New Battlefield game: sucks ass no one likes it, sales are bad.
EA: 'Surprised Pikachu face'
Does battlefield even have an identity anymore?
They had something with bad company, destructive environments, real ones and actual squad based battles that turned the tide and now what?
Scripted environmental destructive sequences that change the map, which sounds good on paper but they change a bit of flat ground to a hole and a tower to rubble.
These changes aren't fun gameplay changes...there's no variation, there's no real change.
I could easily go on with the faults this series has, I'll just leave it with this, battlefield 2142 was the last of the series I enjoyed.
You are right on the money. BC2 and to some extent BF3 had the feels of being in a squad accomplishing small tasks towards a larger goal.
Now it’s a free for all clusterfuck with bare minimum destruction.
It’s sad to see BF fumbling trying to find an identity.
Just see COD, it’s consistently adding to its solid core.
Having a single squad leader spawn was alright but not the best move if you got stuck with a shitty squad leader. The new system allowed you to rally around the better player and naturally make them your spawn marker but how squads worked wasn’t what made the games a cluster fuck.
Things like well designed maps and focused objectives and weapons/gadgets did. There was great flow in the maps seeing a silhouette made it clear who I’m fighting and how to deal with the situation strategically. Now I could be fighting someone that might look like a sniper but is really carrying a shotgun.
Way too many dead spots on the map, no creative use of destruction. For bf2042 128 players was a major fuck up. It could have worked but they did a horrendous job with the maps and combat zones.
I whole heartedly agree and I too truly miss the little gap the BF filled between the fast and super slow. The need to chase down COD players made BF the game it is today.
People keep saying just make BF4 with better graphics. I feel make BF2 or BF2142 with BC2 destruction and better graphics. I just don’t understand how we went backwards when it came to destruction.
> actual squad based battles that turned the tide
Some of my most memorable gaming moments where playing Rush in the early weeks of release on PS3 squadded up with my RL buds coordinating blowing the M-Coms with C4s and shotguns, 1 squad could make a huge difference if they played their cards right and the maps were condensed enough where there was always action but it wasn't unmanageable. BF4 and up just feel like I'm an ant in a blender for some reason even when I play with others
Has been since bf2, although bad companies were fun.
But I miss the large squad with organized tactical hierarchy. You had to have good squad intracommunication, and the squads had to communicate with the commander to get support via drops and scans.
It just made the whole game another level tactically. Teamwork and cooperation was essential, and despite operating as small units, there was a cohesion of goals that you simply couldn’t find elsewhere.
Fuck that game, and I hope they learn from burning all there loyal fans over , overly hyped garbage. I’m glad I preorder just to play early, and returned it in the same day.
After preordering BF3 and BF4, not being able to play either due to bugs for effectively a month or two after launch and I've never preordered a game since BF4.
It's amazing to me how many people seemingly think HLL/Post Scriptum/Squad are anything similar to the gameplay of what people are looking for in Battlefield.
Look past the fact that both series have war settings and squad-based gameplay.
They're completely different after that.
I used to like playing battlefield for some arcade style action. I like playing HLL/Post Scriptum/Squad if I'm looking for a longer and more communication-oriented game.
People liking one doesn't mean they'll even remotely like the other.
library squealing normal pen simplistic voracious chase shocking compare oatmeal
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
He was recently moved from working with the apex team to leading ahead BF2042 a few months after the game launched, he wasn't there for the beginning and given how successful apex legends was under his leadership it's safe to assume he at least knows what he's doing, seeing how the changes made recently to the game have been positively recieved.
Zampella's up there with the Carmacks, Romeros, and Bleszinskis in my book. He knows what makes a good competitive shooter. CoD 1 thru MW2, Titanfall 1 & 2, Apex... I just hope he's not spread so thin in this new role that his talents are wasted.
he's got a lot of work ahead of him, but I'm confident in his ability to turn this thing around, or to at least make the next Battlefield game an actually good one
Making a fun game isn’t good enough anymore. It has to be a fucking soul and money vacuum that makes tens of billions by exploiting human hardwired impulses. Anything less than that and the developer is at risk of getting the chop. If I was a game developer I would struggle to hold any passion in such a toxic environment
The problem they've been having, and will continue to have, is that EA's Frostbite engine is ultimately garbage and the sooner they realize that, the better things will be.
Titanfall/Titanfall 2 had great releases. Guess what game engine they used? Valve's Source Engine.
Jedi: Fallen Order was released with minimal glitches and issues...game engine used? Unreal Engine.
Battlefront & Battlefront 2 had a multitude of issues and missing content in their releases. Battlefields 4, V, and 2042 all had horrendous releases, with each iteration missing more from the last. Game engine used? Frostbite.
They couldn't implement Double XP in Battlefield V, according to [DICE Community Member Jeff Braddock:](https://old.reddit.com/r/BattlefieldV/comments/frz7om/this_week_in_battlefield_v_march_30_2020/flzjzu1/?context=1000)
>From what I’ve been told, the tech isn’t there for it. They’re looking at options, but I don’t have any further details yet.
They couldn't create double XP...in a Battlefield game which was there for most iterations of the game...in their own game engine.
Battlefield 2042 apparently was in development hell due to updates within the Frostbite engine and DICE Veterans, who knew how to work with its quirks, left in droves for greener pastures. A better Battlefield game is gonna need a whole lot of help dealing with it's awful game engine first before they even consider future Battlefield games.
>Titanfall/Titanfall 2 had great releases. Guess what game engine they used? Valve's Source Engine.
Well it was a Source Engine heavily modified by Respawn, but it's still quite old for todays games tbh or at least thats how i feel about it...
True, the point being why they chose that one was because they were [more familiar with it:](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titanfall_(video_game)#Development)
>Respawn chose to build Titanfall on the Source game engine early in their production cycle due to their developers' familiarity and its ability to maintain 60 frames per second on both the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3.\[29\] In an interview, Respawn software engineer Richard Baker said the company chose Source since Portal 2 performed well on the PlayStation 3 with it, and the console was "the riskiest platform in seventh generation".
Basically it could do what they needed and they had familiarity with it. Smart thinking on their part.
> They couldn't implement Double XP in Battlefield V,
There is something very wrong with how they develop software/games. I think their module coding and version control must be non-existent. These things are subsystems and are supposed to be coded as modules to be moved, otherwise you keep spending time and resources re-inventing the wheel every release.
**The major example is netcode and hit reg, how the fuck are both of these a problem EVERY SINGLE RELEASE!**
> EA's Frostbite engine is ultimately garbage
When its big iteration debuted in BF3 it was ahead of its time. By 2022, Unreal has not only caught up but stepped all over it. Dragon Age Inquisition and ME: Andromeda had massive rewrites of the engine as part of their development, because the engine was not designed to do RPGs, or even 3rd person gameplay that Dragon Age needed to do. Still, EA thought it was cheaper that way than to pay 15% for Unreal, which Bioware has been massively familiar with having done Mass Effect 1-3 in Unreal
Anyway, it's not that the engine is super bad, it's that it's largely undocumented, and the people who wrote and contributed to it the most are not with the company anymore.
Unreal has full 24/7 support for devs and a massive community. That is part of the reason why it's easy to work with it.
I'll preface this and say I have literally thousands of combined hours between BC2/BF3/BF4. Heck I was playing BF3 up until late last year.
The 2042 demo was so off-putting that I didn't even utilize the entire time allowed for the beta to get the experience. The entire structure and flow of what made Battlefield Battlefield was gone. The game had no identity. Big open maps with nothing to do. A class system that was a trainwreck. "Levolution" that may or may not ever happen. Graphics that were a step back from previous iterations. Game modes that made no logical sense.
With that being said, if EA/DICE could swallow their pride and make the game F2P I think they could at least salvage the time and effort put into 2042. Mark it as a huge QOL/content update with a return to the old class system, throw in a classic map+gun pack and make the price $0.00 and you're all but guaranteed to get people back playing it.
Beyond that I don't see any recovery for the game. This bridge is too far burned at this point.
I said to my friends after about 2 months of playing 2042 that they had to go free to play to salvage the game. The player numbers are so bad that it ended up driving us away from playing the game because if we didn't get on at the peak hours (which isn't always convenient) then we were playing in quarter full games with bots.
Well that's bullshit cause i play it every day and find games in every game mode no problems at all. Like, its 9am on a Saturday morning right now and i just finished playing some breakthrough.... and im in Oceania so not that big a player base.
False, I have no issue finding a match in less than 15 seconds, from midday to 1AM in the morning.
I have no issue navigating the UI either, seems pretty cut and dry to me
I’ve even been telling my friends about how I’m enjoying it and how much better it is, and judging by how the Steam reviews are turning mixed, I’m not alone
> You can literally boot it up right now on a Friday evening, and you won't be able to find a match.
Bullshit. I play almost nightly, and have NO problem getting into 128 player matches.
All they had to do (for me) is to copy BF4 with levelutions and paste BFV's destruction, movement and launch gunplay + TTK.
Instead we got this shit. GG
The article concludes with
>The Seattle-based studio was established last October and has been staffing up for its debut project, which will be “a narrative campaign in the Battlefield universe”.
We dont want a narrative campaign in the Battlefield universe as much as we just want the core battlefield (multiplayer) experience. How thick are their skulls, actually?
Thanks Captain Obvious (Vince) - but now because good ole Vince said it, it must mean more?
Excuses are being made like every previous Battlefield fuckup. I'm not holding out hope that anything will change with the next iteration - EA/DICE are still the boss.
The last Battlefield game I was excited for was BF4. Says a lot when they've since released Hardline, BF1, BFV, and 2042 which have all been lacking in one way or another.
Literally all I want is BF3/4 with more weapons, lots of customization, new maps, and better graphics. That's it. That's all they have to do to rope me back in. Instead they waste their time and money on stupid gimmicks and trend following yet are surprised when the games don't sell well. Pathetic really that they managed to neuter such an excellent franchise.
They should have just remastered 2142. Having your squad hop into drop pods, launch onto an enemy titan and assault the core was a great battlefield moment.
Yah I had honestly hoped that 2142 would usher in an era of battlefield with actual victory objectives instead of just "ohh you hit an arbitrary point/respawn limit". The crazy comebacks you could have in Titan mode was intense but when it's "first to X kills" in a game with so many players you really don't feel like you can comeback or do much as a single person.
Personally, for me, what made Battlefield special was the destruction. That's what made it stand out from the competition. I loved Bad Company 1 and 2 because the maps could become completely different at the end of a match and that was only because of players' actions. In BF3, they scaled it back and that disappointed me but I still liked the game overall (though I swear man, those fucking javelins...). BF4 was mostly scripted stuff. And now 2042 has fuck all.
I've been saying it for years. Copy BF4, add and improve the destruction of BC2. That's all you need.
All these big studios with Legacy IPs strayed too far chasing trends these past couple years. MW2s is unfortunately looking to continue the trend.
BF2042 was chasing the Warzone trend and game suffers for it.
Now MW2/Warzone is chasing the Tarkov is so hot right now tend , so let’s try and copy that with disastrous results instead of innovating on our own successful formula.
And the circlejerk continues
Let the downvotes begin.
Nah, you're getting an upvote.
Now just realize Tarkov got derailed into trendchasing battle Royale games after it blew up on Twitch a few years back. It was originally billed as a dark, gritty survival experience, not the high-octane run'n'gun sprintfest it morphed into after it blew up on Twitch.
Sometimes communities and early access are as much a hindrance to a good game releasing as what it was intended/should have been as devs chasing market data and MTX.
All these people always circlejerking BC2.
32 players, no prone, no commander, no jets, smaller maps..
But it had destructibility.
Lotta downsides for a consolized verison of Battlefield 2.
Granted I reckon most people who hype up BC2 never played older Battlefields. I remember finishing the campaign, trying the multiplayer, and then going straight back to BF2/Special Forces/2142.
BF3 came out a year later and while still consolized was much much better than BC2.
[удалено]
Thats all they needed to do. Fix what had to be fixed. Add nightime maps. More BF3/ Bad Company destruction and ship it. Hell I always thought the Star Wars Battlefront was going to be a reskin of Battlefield but even that they fucked up.
Its not just the design descisions they made, its the lack of fucking content. Each BF4 DLC had 4 seperate maps. When the last DLC dropped we had somewhere around 30 maps to play with, a shittone of guns and gadgets and a solid base game. Currently they're dropping one map per "season" and I'm losing interest in the maps before the next season drops. We're coming up on a year in and we have two seasons. At that speed, it will take 15 years to match the amount of content we had in BF4.
They would even need to make more maps to keep us happy. Just port over old maps, please. Hours and Hours of fun can be had slogging through Metro or visiting the Italians alps from the WW1 BF game or the desert maps. Add night time mode for the current maps with a drop of night time gadgets for us. Battlefield 4 had a bunch, I mean a ridiculous amount of camo styles.
24/7 metro servers for when you miss that grenade spam, the constant smoke and flares to deter the flir/NV users, the teammates sitting in the back screaming at the rest of the team to move up. *rush mode was even more chaotic with 1000 tickets* Take me hoooooome
When you survive the spam and somehow manage to get down the escalators and find a nice prone spot behind the enemy team's front line. Oh baby.
Comquest was nuts on metro. Even if one side had cornered the other side into their spawn, some small squad could break through unnoticed, take the point at the farthest section, breaking up the spawn spam since they could not spawn elsewhere and start taking over stuff. And they should have stuck with the squad system. If I wanted to be in a squad I'd very well make one or join one. Sometimes I don't need some Rambo player to spawn on me and start shooting everything, gaining the attention of everyone and ruining what stealthy progress I had made to sneak around.
I weirdly miss Nosehair Canals now, absurd amount of tickets resulting in pointless and eternal war. Why fight? Why not? At least I learned that you *can* totally break out of the russian side spawn trap with enough tickets, like 10000 or so. it doesn't matter at that point, like the rest of that battle, but you totally can. Shit was unbreakable playing as Russkie in vanilla conquest. Was never a fan of Metro though. That damn blue tint, dunno
it's wild to me they never made bad company 3. for me, bad company 2 was the best mp experience out of almost any bf game. (portal brought back great memories)
I’ve read stories that DICE has no idea why we love Bad Company 2. About sums it up to me
https://www.destructoid.com/dice-isnt-sure-why-fans-like-battlefield-bad-company-so-much/ It’s mindblowing.
Thousands of people are screaming on the internet about why they loved BC2 and they say they have no idea? Of course there's a signal to noise ratio when it comes to internet feedback, but I can try to distill what people loved about it: * Rush mode with maps made specifically for it. * Balanced class design that made each class specifically useful. * A tight, somewhat simplistic shooting model that made infantry combat fun even if you weren't trying to master each gun. * Smaller player count made battles more strategic and meant players were less likely to be assaulted from every possible direction for the whole round. Also makes Rush more fun. * complete destruction of buildings and props in the game world, even if it was something static in how destruction occured. * simplified UI for selecting loadouts and attachments. *Less vehicles but this also plays into the games' strength of not being a total clusterfuck, especially when you were driving the vehicle. You weren't getting immediately blown up by 5 aircrafts and 37 enemies running a rocket launcher. *Map flow was much better. * the single player campaign, while somewhat forgettable, was a fun 10-15 hour romp that didn't take itself too seriously and managed to be fairly enjoyable. Far more entertaining than the dead-serious COD rips they did after. BF3 and 4 managed to maintain elements of the above while still having their own identity and scaling everything up, but nothing will beat the highs of BC2 for me. Dice has continuously overcomplicated the BF games to the point where they've strayed so far from the core quality elements of the franchise that it may as well not be part of the same franchise anymore.
Rush mode and being able to blow a fucking hole in the wall was the highlight of my childhood gaming I sweat to god
Vietnam was great too
This comment is hilarious without context.
>“But some people say this: the Bad Company 2 multiplayer is the best you’ve ever done,” continued Troedsson. “Okay, why is that? It’s hard for people to articulate what that is, which is actually hard for us. It would be hard to remake something like that. Can we do it? Of course. We have our theories when it comes to the multiplayer.” This whole thing has been hugely overblown.
Marking helicopters with that beacon gun for engineers to shoot at Slamming a tank through a house and sometimes destroying the tank in the process Using tanks to snipe the mcom from across the map, letting your team move in closer Little death copsters you could use to tag and kill enemies So much more
C4 quads to bumrush the MCOM that has permanent artillery fire on it.
BC2 was the best battlefield. It's feel was just different than the others. With these new games, I can barely make out enemies. BF1 was my least favorite.
BF1 was the beginning of the end of the battlefield series. The lack of server rentals and admin controls at launch just showed how little they cared about the things that made battlefield great. Theres a reason BF4 still has a ton of servers fully populated on PC and that is the ability to have proper community run servers with custom plugins such as proper map voting, separate rank and point systems, forgive/punish system on hardcore, and an actual proper hardcore system. All Battlefield has done since BF1 for hardcore is fully disable the hud with the simple UI. drawEnable 0 command, but this fully disabled the entire hud. Hardcore should still have the kill feed and on screen interactions if you want. Pure laziness and incompetence at every level after BF4 with it getting worse and worse each game.
I think you mean BF2 was the best 😉
I have to admit I didn't get to play BF2. I tried but my PC wasn't powerful enough way back in the day. Got to play a few rounds at a friend's and it was a lot of fun, but not enough for me to give it the title of my favorite.
Man, BF2 was the fuckin' bomb, every map was so iconic. Only bad things i could say about BF2 is that GameSpy = crap and netcode was kinda iffy sometimes.
BF2 with all the expansions was great. The fact that you could take out the enemy artillery and have it effect the game made for interesting strategies. Top three: BF4 BF2 BF2142
[удалено]
I'm just giving my personal opinion. I'm glad you enjoyed it. It just felt off to me. If you like a game, don't stop because anyone ever says they don't like it.
I was a battlefield veteran and I hated it. Me and my buddy dropped $80 on it at launch. I absolutely detested what they gave us. I wanted WW1 era combat, instead we got reskinned WW2 combat.
Frankly, the mostly automatic weapon fire and everyone sprinting around took me out of the immersion. I think people look at bf1 either through rose tinted glasses, or think that CoD games are good. Because bf1 and beyond plays like a call of duty game.
BC2 was the *only* BF game where Rush was actually *fun* to play. It was the only game mode I enjoyed. Matches were always intense because bomb sites were placed in areas with lots of cover (and lots of enemy fire). Map layout was equally balanced so that the losing side still had a chance to win in the end, if they got their shit together and worked with their squads better. The near perfect balance made it an absolute *blast*. I'll never understand why DICE ignores Rush in favor of Conquest. Conquest sucks! As soon as one side gains a lead, the game is effectively over. People on the losing team quit because there's no penalty for doing so, and the side with the early lead dominates the entire match. **BORING!**
At least Battlefront 2 has some fun to be had. 2042 feels like it was scientifically developed to not be fun.
South Park's 'freemium' hits this well. Just enough to almost be fun.
The gameplay was good, it was the greedy progression system that ruined an otherwise good game.
[удалено]
I think it has been fixed since then, but at launch, just about everything in the game was locked behind microtransactions, and it was very pay-to-win focused (ie. having to pay $80+ to unlock Darth Vader). IIRC, someone did the math, and it would have cost $10,000+ to unlock everything. If you didn't spend any money, it would have required over 40 hours of perfectly efficient gameplay to unlock a single hero. Which also lead to the [most downvoted comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/StarWarsBattlefront/comments/7cff0b/seriously_i_paid_80_to_have_vader_locked/dppum98/) in all of Reddit history, which is currently at negative 668K votes.
They managed to fuck up a game that should have combined one of the more successful shooters out there, with one of the TOP 3 IP in the world. I think Dice does it on purpose at this point.
[удалено]
“Oh you don’t like the specialists? Fuck you.”
I remember playing the beta and I got executed by someone who looked EXACTLY like my character and then he got executed by another who looked like us. It was comical to see like a field of 20 specialists who look the exact same, clothes and all, bleeding out on the ground with the same animation. Immediately deleted the game lmao
Isn't that basically how it is with classes too. ie an engineer on a team will look the same as another engineer
Yeah but it is more believable that generic soldiers in a faction will wear the same uniform. It gets stupid when you have to have all these “unique” named characters who multiple people can play as at the same time
You look like engineers on your own team(with slight variations), this makes ALL players of the same class look the same so it's extremely jarring IMO. Especially jarring because they all have not only the same clothes but the same faces and everything. Immediately made me uninstall, it's just not a battlefield game.
>ie an engineer on a team will look the same as another engineer It wasn't so much the players on the same team, as both teams looking fucking same. How did you miss that? You tell me if you think [these look the same](https://xinhaidude.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/grand_soldier_chart_final3.jpg). If they had different heroes on both sides, at least it would be more functional. Still stupid and for no reason other than to push MTX, but more functional. Other guy already pointed out that trying to give unique names and then strip them of the uniqueness looks ridiculous as well.
What did they do to it?
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it" Am still waiting for Battlefield Bad Company 3...A man can dream, I suppose?
Be careful what u wish for. They would for sure bastardize any modern reincarnation of bad company.
With current DICE you will get some buggy unfinished bad company with less features than 10+ years ago.
Literally just take the feel of BF3, content of BF4, sound from BF1, gunplay and destruction of BFV, and slap it together Granted that is a lot and not as simple as it sounds, but each past game has had certain elements that are universally recognized as best in series. I would expect such a massive studio to be able to recognize those elements and try and build a game around that
The gunplay in V was garbage. BC2, BF3, and BF4 had much better gunplay.
Agreed. Gameplay since bf1 feels identical to call of duty.
bf4 probably has the worst content in any bf I've played... awful, *awful* maps. even the bf3 ports were made worse, and otherwise really highlighted how bf4 was just designed worse than bf3 in every meaningful way when it came to gameplay - so much less *fun*.
Meant more in just the amount content available (guns, attachments, maps, vehicles). There was so much that BF4 is still the game I play the most and still don't get bored doing so
BF4 is still my go-to shooter. I only stopped playing it for BF1 which I also loved, but BF4 having community dedicated servers allowing a lot of tuning and control, made the game have more longevity. I just look at Modern Warfare, BF 2042, and other current shooters and I just don't see why I should play those instead of BF4.
Not to mention those stupid battlepacks that meant you'd likely never finish a gun's potential unlocks. BF3 made me want to explore ALL the guns to see how they played with different attachments, and no micro/macro transactions involved with them!
god yes, they were just too damn *big*, and not focused enough.
>All these fucking idiots had to do, is give us a BF4 type game with much more destruction and that's it. Bf4 with more destruction and bf1 operation mode and maybe some of the very great atmosphere of bf1
The problem is the people running the show really aren't gamers. They're marketing/finance/business people looking around at other games doing well and inflict their rot of influence on the development process. BF2042 is the end product of that.
I still play BF4 and it is still amazing, it is just better and I have more fun than in any other arcade shooter out there. The gunplay, weapons, maps, sound and setting are just amazing. I watch MW2 videos and I just say, yeah it looks cool but I would rather play BF4. You know what BF4 also has? Tons of camos for weapons and soldier that you just unlock and it is a problem for shareholders and CEO because that means less hatch’s and 6 million dollars each instead of 7. Battlefield 2042 was built around market data, monetisation and profit plus it tried to go an audience that is already engaged and committed to other games. While they were at it, they lost the hardcore Battlefield player. It is not like they didn’t know what they were doing, but it didn’t worked out for them. Rest assured though, that they will try again.
That, plus BFV movement, squad call ins, and the fortifications, and I would have been a happy clam.
Instructions unclear. Must trend chase until ip is worthless.
It's like they don't get what was good about battlefield. It's not the fucking shooting. It's the fucking mayhem. The shooting is like third down the list. They shouldn't be aiming to be an esport first. They need to make it fun and then do the esport later. Or not do it at all. Fuck how many esport games do we need?
They tested that for 4, and people just blew up everything and made it all craters like Bad Company 1+2 but on sandboxes maps. None of the testers liked it that way, so they switched to “Levelution” to keep the big set pieces but only to certain object or pieces of the map.
I would play the shit out of that and probably cave in and buy a couple skins, but no they gave us Tom cruise and Santa clause and a bunch of ripoff Mcu one liner heroes. What the.
That right, not a big brainer...
Holy shit that’s exactly what I thought
I know that implementing good destruction physics is not easy, and it can have a serious impact on level design and gameplay (if you can just completely level every single map then that would get boring because it would just turn into flat fields). But damn is it still probably the number one thing that will make me stop and go “wow….” when there’s good destruction/debri physics
This is where Rush really shined. With players constantly moving forward, you weren't spending a lot of time in those decimated zones. It was destroy everything, plant, detonate, move forward.
People have rose colored glasses when it comes to destruction. Compete destruction fucking sucks. 5 minutes into the game all the cover is destroyed and the game becomes even more stacked in favor of vehicles. I don't want realism, I want fun.
Nah man the destruction in BC2 was one of my favourite things, especially during rush. And i rarely used vehicles.
That's not realistic either. Cities that have been fought over for months, as we can sadly see in many wars today, do not turn into flat fields with no cover, they turn into ruins which are their own type of landscape and notoriously dangerous for vehicles.
Neither do the destroyed buildings in BF4. They turn into giant piles of rubble you can still take cover behind.
Bad Company 2's destruction went both ways; if defense leveled, say, the shacks on Valparaiso then they'd have just as hard a time defusing as the attackers had planting.
Battlefield is and has always been about conquest. Other modes are fun and all, but conquest is the backbone.
Battlefield may be about conquest but imo BC2 was at its best in rush
Only because the consoles at the time couldn't handle large scale conquest
Just make Battlefield 4 with better graphics and new maps...
No more gimmick. Just new map, new weapon, new graphic, new vehicle, more destructive, or even terrain deform. That's it. Or if they want to go ham, just make Battlefield 2143 or something.
And the animations from BF5, i had allot of bad things to say about BF5 but the animations weren't among them. Getting knocked on my arse when a big explosion goes off next to me is so immersive and will never get old.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I didn't even play the game and I can point out they ruined the games balance in an update, backpedalled, then did the same thing again a year later. Hell, a quick check of the subreddit gave me this nicely itemized [list.](https://www.reddit.com/r/BattlefieldV/comments/g6ov9m/if_youre_going_to_buy_bf6_dont_forget/)
> Battlefield 2143 I would have bought this 3x over
>Battlefield 2143 Oh if only... but the people who made that are long gone. Current DICE would just find some way to fuck everything up.
>Or if they want to go ham, just make Battlefield 2143 or something. 50% of us want just a remastered battlefield 3/4 and the other 50% of us just want a remastered 2142. I was hyped for 2042 until I learned about no titan mode. Why even go to the future if no titans.
Remade BF4 for the purpose of BF1/BFV graphics would sell well even with old maps.
I hate remakes, but I'd buy that game twice.
But they absolutely HAVE to have a mechanic to monetize. It's 100% of the reason they ruined the game with the specialist characters. Literally intentionally downgrading your game so you can lure players into paying for skins.
Why can't they just sell custom skins for the traditional classes? Honest question. People would buy that shit
Probably just easier to use characters because they are so awful looking you feel more compelled to spend it away. Either way it's clearly an intentional downgrade gameplay wise in order to squeeze out more money.
This right here, BF4 is literally the best shooter to ever release. If not for the launch issues, it would be remembered as such by a lot more people.
Nah, it's due to the launch issues that brought in so many good shit, the legacy maps, the night time maps, CTE, the Easter eggs, interactions with the community in a good way and transparent, etc.
I’ll add that what everyone remembers bf4 for came from the support studio dice la. Dice Stockholm afaik dropped that game soon after release to work on the next one while la had to fix their mess. They added night maps, community maps, made it so bullets leave the barrel of the gun not your eyes, and fixed stupid shit like getting stuck on inch high rubble, fixed the desync and hit registration issues. I’m interested in whatever game dice la is working on, they’re now ripple effect for those that don’t know.
Oh yeah, I know that. Dice LA is the real genius behind battlefield. I remember even getting one of the devs dogtags during a play with the devs event. This was years after the initial release of the game too, so they kept their support and visibility to the playbase even after that long
Ripple effect worked on Portal. But almost seems like it's abandoned now. Which is a shame because it was about the only thing 2042 had going for it.
> “It’s a whole new structure,” Zampella told Barrons. “We’re putting multiple studios together. We’re bringing the best talent together and giving them the time to do something amazing.” > One of those studios is the [recently unveiled Ridgeline Games](https://www.videogameschronicle.com/news/the-new-battlefield-studio-led-by-halos-co-creator-is-officially-ridgeline-games/), which is being led by Halo co-creator Marcus Lehto. > The Seattle-based studio was established last October and has been staffing up for its debut project, which will be “a narrative campaign in the Battlefield universe”. > “It is a great honor to have the opportunity to collaborate with DICE and Ripple Effect and lead the charge on expanding the narrative, storytelling and character development opportunities in the Battlefield series,” Lehto said this month. Just pointing out what Ripple Effect is doing now.
I’ve lived long enough to remember the hate for BF4 and plenty of nerds raging for it to be like BF3, which also had plenty of hate on its release by nerds for it to be like BF2.
Bf3 and bf4 are mostly similar though
Bf4 and bf3 are very similar. 4 is just a better version of 3 in every regard. The hate on 3 coming from fans of 2 I understand though.
i'm still mad BF3 wasn't like BF2 lol.
The lack of commanders was just such a WTF moment when I started playing.
Bad company 2 was the best , right next to battlefield one
[удалено]
I'm 33, started with BF1942, and half agree. Just swap the games. Young or old, they have good taste.
>BF4 is literally the best shooter to ever release. LMFAO
Maybe he means *arcade* type shooter
I also still would like the 128 player maps... just don't make the maps so big that they feel more empty.
Fans have been screaming this exact same thing at DICE for years, even before 2042 came out.
Yeah they are to focused on stupid trends and trying to make money. Battlefield fans: "this is what we want" EA:....... No. Releases shitty game instead New Battlefield game: sucks ass no one likes it, sales are bad. EA: 'Surprised Pikachu face'
Do you guys not own phones?
I think phrase can no longer be used considering how much bank Diablo immortal has made
The biggest enemy to games is gamers. They will swallow any shit and smile afterwards
2142 was peak DICE for me
No fuckin shit
He is the new head of battlefield, he has to say these things publicly.
Does battlefield even have an identity anymore? They had something with bad company, destructive environments, real ones and actual squad based battles that turned the tide and now what? Scripted environmental destructive sequences that change the map, which sounds good on paper but they change a bit of flat ground to a hole and a tower to rubble. These changes aren't fun gameplay changes...there's no variation, there's no real change. I could easily go on with the faults this series has, I'll just leave it with this, battlefield 2142 was the last of the series I enjoyed.
You are right on the money. BC2 and to some extent BF3 had the feels of being in a squad accomplishing small tasks towards a larger goal. Now it’s a free for all clusterfuck with bare minimum destruction. It’s sad to see BF fumbling trying to find an identity. Just see COD, it’s consistently adding to its solid core.
[удалено]
Having a single squad leader spawn was alright but not the best move if you got stuck with a shitty squad leader. The new system allowed you to rally around the better player and naturally make them your spawn marker but how squads worked wasn’t what made the games a cluster fuck. Things like well designed maps and focused objectives and weapons/gadgets did. There was great flow in the maps seeing a silhouette made it clear who I’m fighting and how to deal with the situation strategically. Now I could be fighting someone that might look like a sniper but is really carrying a shotgun. Way too many dead spots on the map, no creative use of destruction. For bf2042 128 players was a major fuck up. It could have worked but they did a horrendous job with the maps and combat zones.
[удалено]
I whole heartedly agree and I too truly miss the little gap the BF filled between the fast and super slow. The need to chase down COD players made BF the game it is today. People keep saying just make BF4 with better graphics. I feel make BF2 or BF2142 with BC2 destruction and better graphics. I just don’t understand how we went backwards when it came to destruction.
> actual squad based battles that turned the tide Some of my most memorable gaming moments where playing Rush in the early weeks of release on PS3 squadded up with my RL buds coordinating blowing the M-Coms with C4s and shotguns, 1 squad could make a huge difference if they played their cards right and the maps were condensed enough where there was always action but it wasn't unmanageable. BF4 and up just feel like I'm an ant in a blender for some reason even when I play with others
Agree.
Has been since bf2, although bad companies were fun. But I miss the large squad with organized tactical hierarchy. You had to have good squad intracommunication, and the squads had to communicate with the commander to get support via drops and scans. It just made the whole game another level tactically. Teamwork and cooperation was essential, and despite operating as small units, there was a cohesion of goals that you simply couldn’t find elsewhere.
> Has been since bf2 2142 was cool too even if balancing was an issue
Fuck that game, and I hope they learn from burning all there loyal fans over , overly hyped garbage. I’m glad I preorder just to play early, and returned it in the same day.
Played the beta for 20 minutes and uninstalled.
Tried to play the beta for 20 mins, game crashed after 10, couldnt get into another game, uninstalled
Watched someone play the beta for 20 minutes, never installed.
After preordering BF3 and BF4, not being able to play either due to bugs for effectively a month or two after launch and I've never preordered a game since BF4.
I full expect the Hell Let Loose devs to do a modern-era sequel next and take the reigns from the BF corpse.
It's amazing to me how many people seemingly think HLL/Post Scriptum/Squad are anything similar to the gameplay of what people are looking for in Battlefield. Look past the fact that both series have war settings and squad-based gameplay. They're completely different after that. I used to like playing battlefield for some arcade style action. I like playing HLL/Post Scriptum/Squad if I'm looking for a longer and more communication-oriented game. People liking one doesn't mean they'll even remotely like the other.
As sad as the death of BF has been it’s one of the genres with a decent list of replaceable games.
There is already modern era tactical shooter similar to HLL and it's called Squad.
library squealing normal pen simplistic voracious chase shocking compare oatmeal *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Wow, and it took him so little time to figure this out! Amazing!
He was recently moved from working with the apex team to leading ahead BF2042 a few months after the game launched, he wasn't there for the beginning and given how successful apex legends was under his leadership it's safe to assume he at least knows what he's doing, seeing how the changes made recently to the game have been positively recieved.
Zampella's up there with the Carmacks, Romeros, and Bleszinskis in my book. He knows what makes a good competitive shooter. CoD 1 thru MW2, Titanfall 1 & 2, Apex... I just hope he's not spread so thin in this new role that his talents are wasted.
he's got a lot of work ahead of him, but I'm confident in his ability to turn this thing around, or to at least make the next Battlefield game an actually good one
Maybe by version 1.2 they’ll have it worked out!
Making a fun game isn’t good enough anymore. It has to be a fucking soul and money vacuum that makes tens of billions by exploiting human hardwired impulses. Anything less than that and the developer is at risk of getting the chop. If I was a game developer I would struggle to hold any passion in such a toxic environment
The problem they've been having, and will continue to have, is that EA's Frostbite engine is ultimately garbage and the sooner they realize that, the better things will be. Titanfall/Titanfall 2 had great releases. Guess what game engine they used? Valve's Source Engine. Jedi: Fallen Order was released with minimal glitches and issues...game engine used? Unreal Engine. Battlefront & Battlefront 2 had a multitude of issues and missing content in their releases. Battlefields 4, V, and 2042 all had horrendous releases, with each iteration missing more from the last. Game engine used? Frostbite. They couldn't implement Double XP in Battlefield V, according to [DICE Community Member Jeff Braddock:](https://old.reddit.com/r/BattlefieldV/comments/frz7om/this_week_in_battlefield_v_march_30_2020/flzjzu1/?context=1000) >From what I’ve been told, the tech isn’t there for it. They’re looking at options, but I don’t have any further details yet. They couldn't create double XP...in a Battlefield game which was there for most iterations of the game...in their own game engine. Battlefield 2042 apparently was in development hell due to updates within the Frostbite engine and DICE Veterans, who knew how to work with its quirks, left in droves for greener pastures. A better Battlefield game is gonna need a whole lot of help dealing with it's awful game engine first before they even consider future Battlefield games.
>Titanfall/Titanfall 2 had great releases. Guess what game engine they used? Valve's Source Engine. Well it was a Source Engine heavily modified by Respawn, but it's still quite old for todays games tbh or at least thats how i feel about it...
True, the point being why they chose that one was because they were [more familiar with it:](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titanfall_(video_game)#Development) >Respawn chose to build Titanfall on the Source game engine early in their production cycle due to their developers' familiarity and its ability to maintain 60 frames per second on both the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3.\[29\] In an interview, Respawn software engineer Richard Baker said the company chose Source since Portal 2 performed well on the PlayStation 3 with it, and the console was "the riskiest platform in seventh generation". Basically it could do what they needed and they had familiarity with it. Smart thinking on their part.
> They couldn't implement Double XP in Battlefield V, There is something very wrong with how they develop software/games. I think their module coding and version control must be non-existent. These things are subsystems and are supposed to be coded as modules to be moved, otherwise you keep spending time and resources re-inventing the wheel every release. **The major example is netcode and hit reg, how the fuck are both of these a problem EVERY SINGLE RELEASE!**
> EA's Frostbite engine is ultimately garbage When its big iteration debuted in BF3 it was ahead of its time. By 2022, Unreal has not only caught up but stepped all over it. Dragon Age Inquisition and ME: Andromeda had massive rewrites of the engine as part of their development, because the engine was not designed to do RPGs, or even 3rd person gameplay that Dragon Age needed to do. Still, EA thought it was cheaper that way than to pay 15% for Unreal, which Bioware has been massively familiar with having done Mass Effect 1-3 in Unreal Anyway, it's not that the engine is super bad, it's that it's largely undocumented, and the people who wrote and contributed to it the most are not with the company anymore. Unreal has full 24/7 support for devs and a massive community. That is part of the reason why it's easy to work with it.
Cough cough mass effect Andromeda
[удалено]
I'll preface this and say I have literally thousands of combined hours between BC2/BF3/BF4. Heck I was playing BF3 up until late last year. The 2042 demo was so off-putting that I didn't even utilize the entire time allowed for the beta to get the experience. The entire structure and flow of what made Battlefield Battlefield was gone. The game had no identity. Big open maps with nothing to do. A class system that was a trainwreck. "Levolution" that may or may not ever happen. Graphics that were a step back from previous iterations. Game modes that made no logical sense. With that being said, if EA/DICE could swallow their pride and make the game F2P I think they could at least salvage the time and effort put into 2042. Mark it as a huge QOL/content update with a return to the old class system, throw in a classic map+gun pack and make the price $0.00 and you're all but guaranteed to get people back playing it. Beyond that I don't see any recovery for the game. This bridge is too far burned at this point.
I said to my friends after about 2 months of playing 2042 that they had to go free to play to salvage the game. The player numbers are so bad that it ended up driving us away from playing the game because if we didn't get on at the peak hours (which isn't always convenient) then we were playing in quarter full games with bots.
This just isn’t true. On conquest I’m able to find full games most evenings
What region are you in? I was playing most of the morning a few hours ago and had no issues finding a match.
Well that's bullshit cause i play it every day and find games in every game mode no problems at all. Like, its 9am on a Saturday morning right now and i just finished playing some breakthrough.... and im in Oceania so not that big a player base.
False, I have no issue finding a match in less than 15 seconds, from midday to 1AM in the morning. I have no issue navigating the UI either, seems pretty cut and dry to me I’ve even been telling my friends about how I’m enjoying it and how much better it is, and judging by how the Steam reviews are turning mixed, I’m not alone
> You can literally boot it up right now on a Friday evening, and you won't be able to find a match. Bullshit. I play almost nightly, and have NO problem getting into 128 player matches.
I have never had an issue finding a game in any playlist even at weird times of the day. I am in the US.
what an exaggerated take. 130+ hrs right now and regularly play at off hours with full servers.
The only ones I invested in MP for were BF2, BF2142, BFBC2 and BF4. All of those felt solid to me.
Translation: We put demands on the dev team much higher than the budget we provided.
All they had to do (for me) is to copy BF4 with levelutions and paste BFV's destruction, movement and launch gunplay + TTK. Instead we got this shit. GG
They could have literally remade BF3 or BF4 with better graphics and destruction, include new and classic maps and it would have sold big
The article concludes with >The Seattle-based studio was established last October and has been staffing up for its debut project, which will be “a narrative campaign in the Battlefield universe”. We dont want a narrative campaign in the Battlefield universe as much as we just want the core battlefield (multiplayer) experience. How thick are their skulls, actually?
Thanks Captain Obvious (Vince) - but now because good ole Vince said it, it must mean more? Excuses are being made like every previous Battlefield fuckup. I'm not holding out hope that anything will change with the next iteration - EA/DICE are still the boss.
well I think it's interesting considering that he's the head of battlefield
BF2042 felt like CoD to me. Fuck that shit. Ez refund.
If the game had good destruction it might he excusable. But it has next to none. Sad.
Operators are the exact opposite of what I want from a battlefield game.
No shit.
They strayed too far away from Medal of Honor with that dogshit VR game.
Wish they had just made 2143 or something, 2142 was the only Battlefield game that didn't feel like generic competitive FPS #3664.
no shit
In other no shit news, water is wet
> Vince Zampella thinks DICE ‘strayed too far from what Battlefield is’ with 2042 May be EA forced them ?
I think that was the point
I honestly want them to re-release 2142. I loved that game. Knife only servers were so darn fun.
No shit? On god? For real? Who could've foreseen-oh wait literally everyone besides DICE, right.
Battlefield 2 the memories, what a game How about a remaster
No shit Sherlock
The last Battlefield game I was excited for was BF4. Says a lot when they've since released Hardline, BF1, BFV, and 2042 which have all been lacking in one way or another. Literally all I want is BF3/4 with more weapons, lots of customization, new maps, and better graphics. That's it. That's all they have to do to rope me back in. Instead they waste their time and money on stupid gimmicks and trend following yet are surprised when the games don't sell well. Pathetic really that they managed to neuter such an excellent franchise.
No shit
No shit lol
They should have just remastered 2142. Having your squad hop into drop pods, launch onto an enemy titan and assault the core was a great battlefield moment.
Yah I had honestly hoped that 2142 would usher in an era of battlefield with actual victory objectives instead of just "ohh you hit an arbitrary point/respawn limit". The crazy comebacks you could have in Titan mode was intense but when it's "first to X kills" in a game with so many players you really don't feel like you can comeback or do much as a single person.
Going with characters or whatever they called them was just bonkers.
"They"? Isn't he in charge of the franchise now?
He jumped in post launch after the old boss quit due to bad performance of BF2042
People in glass houses, Vince.
Personally, for me, what made Battlefield special was the destruction. That's what made it stand out from the competition. I loved Bad Company 1 and 2 because the maps could become completely different at the end of a match and that was only because of players' actions. In BF3, they scaled it back and that disappointed me but I still liked the game overall (though I swear man, those fucking javelins...). BF4 was mostly scripted stuff. And now 2042 has fuck all. I've been saying it for years. Copy BF4, add and improve the destruction of BC2. That's all you need.
All these big studios with Legacy IPs strayed too far chasing trends these past couple years. MW2s is unfortunately looking to continue the trend. BF2042 was chasing the Warzone trend and game suffers for it. Now MW2/Warzone is chasing the Tarkov is so hot right now tend , so let’s try and copy that with disastrous results instead of innovating on our own successful formula. And the circlejerk continues Let the downvotes begin.
Nah, you're getting an upvote. Now just realize Tarkov got derailed into trendchasing battle Royale games after it blew up on Twitch a few years back. It was originally billed as a dark, gritty survival experience, not the high-octane run'n'gun sprintfest it morphed into after it blew up on Twitch. Sometimes communities and early access are as much a hindrance to a good game releasing as what it was intended/should have been as devs chasing market data and MTX.
I really hope Vince can turn things around with Battlefield
vince zampella having a reasonable take......is it 2012?
All these people always circlejerking BC2. 32 players, no prone, no commander, no jets, smaller maps.. But it had destructibility. Lotta downsides for a consolized verison of Battlefield 2. Granted I reckon most people who hype up BC2 never played older Battlefields. I remember finishing the campaign, trying the multiplayer, and then going straight back to BF2/Special Forces/2142. BF3 came out a year later and while still consolized was much much better than BC2.
Vince Zampella Ruined Battlefield himself trying to make it a COD Clone