Battlefield V

MadYaker

If they make a hash of the next game as well the series will die. Live service games are crap anyway. Fortnite was great around season 3 or 4 but then it went to sh!t, that model doesn't work with a much deeper and more detailed game like BF. They had to half arse it becuase they felt the need to constantly churn out content, quantity over quality. Devs just looked at fortnite raking in cash and said thats a good idea lets do that. The level of incompetence on show by dice in the release and subsequent updating of this game was mind boggling. I fired it up the first time in ages last week and it was still full of cheaters.

Varik

MadYaker wrote: »

If they make a hash of the next game as well the series will die. Live service games are crap anyway. Fortnite was great around season 3 or 4 but then it went to sh!t, that model doesn't work with a much deeper and more detailed game like BF. They had to half arse it becuase they felt the need to constantly churn out content, quantity over quality. Devs just looked at fortnite raking in cash and said thats a good idea lets do that. The level of incompetence on show by dice in the release and subsequent updating of this game was mind boggling. I fired it up the first time in ages last week and it was still full of cheaters.

That BF or Fortnite you're talking about there?

Would say BF did have quantity either for most of the chapters.

Spear

They've just also ended Battlefront 2 support, though this is the end after 2 planned years of content. This leaves Dice completely free to focus on BF6. I'd like to think that they know what they're doing and are playing the long game, but I'm skeptical given what a mess BFV turned out to be.

Calhoun

Spear wrote: »

They've just also ended Battlefront 2 support, though this is the end after 2 planned years of content. This leaves Dice completely free to focus on BF6. I'd like to think that they know what they're doing and are playing the long game, but I'm skeptical given what a mess BFV turned out to be.

If I was EA I would have all the devs on a social media lease and ban them from saying anything.

It wasn't just the technical problems and balancing with the game they pretty much sunk themselves with negative PR.

Allot of the folks I played past BF games are now playing post scriptum or hell let loose.

Homelander

I tried Post Scriptum and HLL but to be honest they are totally different types of games than Battlefield. Still good, but not a replacement for the average BF player, who would more likely migrate to Apex Legends, COD/COD Warzone type games.

I played a good bit of BFV recently, it turned out as an OK game in the end, particularly with the pacific maps which were genuinely great. The game just had no idea what it wanted to be before and during launch - they clearly initially wanted to blend in elements of Fortnite with a WW2 shooter, and then they acted shocked when there was a backlash.

It should have been the definitive WW2 MP experience but ended up being a competent but completely forgettable game.

BF1 was twice as good a game as BFV was and much more comfortable knowing what it wanted to be, and achieve. I'm not sure it is the only time, but it's the first time I noticed that Battlefield took a major step backwards with a new release.

I know some people would argue BF4 to BF1 was 'backwards' but I wouldn't think so, it was more just the complete departure from modern combat that some people didn't like. And I don't count Hardline because that wasn't DICE (though I kinda liked it)

Blaze420

Homelander wrote: »

I tried Post Scriptum and HLL but to be honest they are totally different types of games than Battlefield. Still good, but not a replacement for the average BF player, who would more likely migrate to Apex Legends, COD/COD Warzone type games.

I played a good bit of BFV recently, it turned out as an OK game in the end, particularly with the pacific maps which were genuinely great. The game just had no idea what it wanted to be before and during launch - they clearly initially wanted to blend in elements of Fortnite with a WW2 shooter, and then they acted shocked when there was a backlash.

It should have been the definitive WW2 MP experience but ended up being a competent but completely forgettable game.

BF1 was twice as good a game as BFV was and much more comfortable knowing what it wanted to be, and achieve. I'm not sure it is the only time, but it's the first time I noticed that Battlefield took a major step backwards with a new release.

I know some people would argue BF4 to BF1 was 'backwards' but I wouldn't think so, it was more just the complete departure from modern combat that some people didn't like. And I don't count Hardline because that wasn't DICE (though I kinda liked it)

I'm a long time BF fan but the last 2 entries have left me completely cold. Think I have 500+ hours logged in BF 4 but BF1 & V didn't even get half of that out of me combined.

BF1 was too far back - boring weapons and vehicles and the maps sucked as well. Half the joy of the modern battlefields is the air combat with choppers and jets etc - when that's removed it just feels like an inferior copy.

BFV was a disaster from the start - Soderlund coming out and insulting the fanbase while also trying to justify his wokeness was an instant bad move. I didn't buy it for months after, and even getting it a sale I felt dirty paying for it. Played it for a couple of days and never went back. Final nail in the coffin was realising that one of the war stories had whitewashed a real team of men and their mission in favour of shoehorning a single female character in their place. Don't get me wrong I have nothing against female representation in games but not when it completely fabricates and distorts an event that actually happened.

Hopefully they learn some lessons from V and avoid them for the next release. Realistically it needs to go back to modern or a slightly future setting, and the soapboxing PR needs to be left completely out of it.

fergus1001

I'm jumping back into BF 4 in a major way on PC

BFV is dead to me now

Damien360

fergus1001 wrote: »

I'm jumping back into BF 4 in a major way on PC

BFV is dead to me now

Not sure what it’s like on PC but on the PS4 the BF4 servers went all to rented type (or at least the ones with people on them) with a tonne of stupid rules. Principal among the rules seemed to be not to kill the server owner or you got kicked. It ruined BF4 for me, I hated the weapons on BF1 but BFV is still holding me.

Calhoun

Homelander wrote: »

I tried Post Scriptum and HLL but to be honest they are totally different types of games than Battlefield. Still good, but not a replacement for the average BF player, who would more likely migrate to Apex Legends, COD/COD Warzone type games.

I played a good bit of BFV recently, it turned out as an OK game in the end, particularly with the pacific maps which were genuinely great. The game just had no idea what it wanted to be before and during launch - they clearly initially wanted to blend in elements of Fortnite with a WW2 shooter, and then they acted shocked when there was a backlash.

It should have been the definitive WW2 MP experience but ended up being a competent but completely forgettable game.

BF1 was twice as good a game as BFV was and much more comfortable knowing what it wanted to be, and achieve. I'm not sure it is the only time, but it's the first time I noticed that Battlefield took a major step backwards with a new release.

I know some people would argue BF4 to BF1 was 'backwards' but I wouldn't think so, it was more just the complete departure from modern combat that some people didn't like. And I don't count Hardline because that wasn't DICE (though I kinda liked it)

Post scriptum is a more hard core military sim, HLL is a little bit in between a sim and arcade type of game. More so now with the recent updates.

Some decent concept in them as games, the team work element ect that really sell them.

There is a need for a definitive WW2 MP experience as you talk about that you wont get from the small devs like HLL/PS.

We shall see how things going with BF6.

Dcully

So apparently BF1 numbers have soared lately.
Fun game apart from easy sniper mode and elite units.

BlitzKrieg

Calhoun wrote: »

There is a need for a definitive WW2 MP experience as you talk about that you wont get from the small devs like HLL/PS.

The demand for a definitive WW2 experience is a bit muddled imho especially with the misleading reputation that BF1942 left and I dont think any Battlefield game going forward will ever be in the right place and right time like BF1942 was.

Put simply a lot of the elements people want from a definitive WW2 game either as something realistic or arcadey fun is already provided for over a spread of free to play or substantially cheaper titles. For the price being asked for BF5 alone one could buy 2-3 mid level titles that give better gameplay focused on infantry/tank/aircraft and mixed up with some of the better free to play games. You'd cover pretty much all the bases BF5 offered with way more content and variety.

you just got to look at the world war 2 tag on Steam's top selling list, none of the games in the top 10 cost as much as BF5 and a chunk of them are free to play.

https://store.steampowered.com/tags/en/World+War+II#p=0&tab=TopSellers



BF1942 had serious balancing issues, but when it was released those options didnt exist, you could pay the same price as you'd pay for bf1942 and get 1 game focused on infantry or aircraft (and aircraft would likely be full on sim only).

BFV had way too much competition and it feels like EA or Dice knew this because I get the feeling someone was told that they either had to make BFV standout and be unique among all these ww2 titles or be so incredibly polished that it justified the price. Since option 2 cost money I'd guess EA insisted on option 1 which is where the piling car crash of it's launch comes in.


It's funny, I actually enjoyed BF5 enough, I put more time into it then I did BF1, I really enjoyed the LMGs early on and I thought elements like the base building had potential that was wasted, I think my biggest issue with it was how much harder it was to play without a suadmate you were actively working with compared to earlier BF games and a lot of people I knew playing it quit after a few months. It actually wasnt BF5 itself that made me stop playing, my gfx card broke and by the time I had my replacement sent out my origin Premier subscription had ended and it was frankly how **** of a line up overall that year (in particularly Anthem) that just didnt make me want to renew that for another year. Especially since Microsoft got their **** together and knocked out a solid subscription service of their own that is waaay better then what EA were offering (and cheaper), I doubt I wasnt the only one that opted not to renew judging by EA moving back to Steam shortly after.

Calhoun

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

The demand for a definitive WW2 experience is a bit muddled imho especially with the misleading reputation that BF1942 left and I dont think any Battlefield game going forward will ever be in the right place and right time like BF1942 was.

Put simply a lot of the elements people want from a definitive WW2 game either as something realistic or arcadey fun is already provided for over a spread of free to play or substantially cheaper titles. For the price being asked for BF5 alone one could buy 2-3 mid level titles that give better gameplay focused on infantry/tank/aircraft and mixed up with some of the better free to play games. You'd cover pretty much all the bases BF5 offered with way more content and variety.

you just got to look at the world war 2 tag on Steam's top selling list, none of the games in the top 10 cost as much as BF5 and a chunk of them are free to play.

https://store.steampowered.com/tags/en/World+War+II#p=0&tab=TopSellers



BF1942 had serious balancing issues, but when it was released those options didnt exist, you could pay the same price as you'd pay for bf1942 and get 1 game focused on infantry or aircraft (and aircraft would likely be full on sim only).

BFV had way too much competition and it feels like EA or Dice knew this because I get the feeling someone was told that they either had to make BFV standout and be unique among all these ww2 titles or be so incredibly polished that it justified the price. Since option 2 cost money I'd guess EA insisted on option 1 which is where the piling car crash of it's launch comes in.


It's funny, I actually enjoyed BF5 enough, I put more time into it then I did BF1, I really enjoyed the LMGs early on and I thought elements like the base building had potential that was wasted, I think my biggest issue with it was how much harder it was to play without a suadmate you were actively working with compared to earlier BF games and a lot of people I knew playing it quit after a few months. It actually wasnt BF5 itself that made me stop playing, my gfx card broke and by the time I had my replacement sent out my origin Premier subscription had ended and it was frankly how **** of a line up overall that year (in particularly Anthem) that just didnt make me want to renew that for another year. Especially since Microsoft got their **** together and knocked out a solid subscription service of their own that is waaay better then what EA were offering (and cheaper), I doubt I wasnt the only one that opted not to renew judging by EA moving back to Steam shortly after.

What i meant by definitive was a game with allot more polish than the middle of the road titles. Nothing will ever have the same impact for older players as the likes of 1942, the reason it was so good was because we had seen nothing like it before.

HLL is my shooter of choice right now, i moved on to it from BF1. The game is buggy as hell and is still early access as are allot of them. The community has allot more time for the bugs ect because they understand the situation with the dev.

If there was a dev out there that could capture allot of what these smaller devs are doing with allot more triple A polish it could be a good seller.

Its funny i was the opposite i put way to many hours into BF1 but hardly touched BF5 as my community migrated away from it. Its not just the fact that there are issues with the game but the removal of dedicated servers or moving them to a central EA control did allot of damage and killed off allot of the older communities i would have played with. You went from knowing who the community around you to essentially matchmaking (depending on the mode).

I like you didn't renew origin either, Its doesnt hold a candle to microsofts offering and battlefield would have been one of the main draws for me (i used to buy the 150 euro premium version when it was out).

Edit: i missed the point on BF1942 and BFV, i think back then for 1942 as it was so new we just put up with it. As for BFV they sure did make it stand out with their community bashing early on that soured people against them.

Smiles35

Calhoun wrote: »

Its funny i was the opposite i put way to many hours into BF1 but hardly touched BF5 as my community migrated away from it. Its not just the fact that there are issues with the game but the removal of dedicated servers or moving them to a central EA control did allot of damage and killed off allot of the older communities i would have played with. You went from knowing who the community around you to essentially matchmaking (depending on the mode).

I had that with Battlefield 1942. I had a pirated version of Battlefild 1942 (I did buy a retail version later). You could only play my pirated version on dedicated servers put up for the hacked version. That was the pro that came from that. I would see the same people on everytime I played.

BlitzKrieg

Its funny i was the opposite i put way to many hours into BF1 but hardly touched BF5 as my community migrated away from it. Its not just the fact that there are issues with the game but the removal of dedicated servers or moving them to a central EA control did allot of damage and killed off allot of the older communities i would have played with. You went from knowing who the community around you to essentially matchmaking (depending on the mode).

Maybe a big factor, I played a lot of battlefield, but I never built a sense of community during any of the games, I never really went to any specific server in any of the games beyond maybe a reliable 24/7 karkan server on BF2. So BF5 was not a big departure in that sense for me. Though I can kinda relate, the original counter strike had like 2 irish servers and one kept track of players kills with weapons so as a teenager I was very much involved with that server just because I was the top player with the mp5 so felt I had a part there.

But Matchmakers are kinda what all the big titles are doing these days. I think it's some combination of it being cheaper but also more efficient for competitive titles with large player bases where you want to get players playing straight away with a guaranteed rule set and not have them stuck wasting time on a server screen or something. Any title I've seen aiming for a large multiplayer presence go for almost exclusively matchmaking.

It does create an easy tell what sort of experience you're going to get game wise if it's primarily matchmaking or it's still uses server system. Games with niche audience or with an extensive modding community will go server (see: Arma, IL2 Great Battles, Post Scriptum, Minecraft) while games with a multiplayer unlock grind or some sort of competitive angle that needs to make some effort of balancing player skill will go for a matchmaker (call of duty, counter strike, overwatch, dota, destiny etc etc)

Should be something that should be flagged more in advance, its not necessarily a bad thing, I see problems with both methods, Servers are great for fostering a community and tend to be titles where the multiplayer is more varied but you'll find yourself at the whim of server admins, the community at large might move on from some content that you'll never get to try again or the servers you want to play in are full and going to a new one might feel like going back to square 1 with some titles. These are titles were you put more time into the server itself

Matchmaking though offers a much more reliable stab at balance since all the matches stick to the same rules and map rotations, it's better for getting quicker games, it's easy to drop a bad match and get a whole new lineup, it's overall a more reliable setup in meeting a specific standard, but at a huge cost of community (its prob why these same games make such a big effort at in game clan and squadron systems) and less sense of achievement or ownership in individual battles. These are titles were you put more time into your own personal progress more. I can see why it's the system of choice with "live service" games that live off those sort of progression systems.

Calhoun

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Maybe a big factor, I played a lot of battlefield, but I never built a sense of community during any of the games, I never really went to any specific server in any of the games beyond maybe a reliable 24/7 karkan server on BF2. So BF5 was not a big departure in that sense for me. Though I can kinda relate, the original counter strike had like 2 irish servers and one kept track of players kills with weapons so as a teenager I was very much involved with that server just because I was the top player with the mp5 so felt I had a part there.

But Matchmakers are kinda what all the big titles are doing these days. I think it's some combination of it being cheaper but also more efficient for competitive titles with large player bases where you want to get players playing straight away with a guaranteed rule set and not have them stuck wasting time on a server screen or something. Any title I've seen aiming for a large multiplayer presence go for almost exclusively matchmaking.

It does create an easy tell what sort of experience you're going to get game wise if it's primarily matchmaking or it's still uses server system. Games with niche audience or with an extensive modding community will go server (see: Arma, IL2 Great Battles, Post Scriptum, Minecraft) while games with a multiplayer unlock grind or some sort of competitive angle that needs to make some effort of balancing player skill will go for a matchmaker (call of duty, counter strike, overwatch, dota, destiny etc etc)

Should be something that should be flagged more in advance, its not necessarily a bad thing, I see problems with both methods, Servers are great for fostering a community and tend to be titles where the multiplayer is more varied but you'll find yourself at the whim of server admins, the community at large might move on from some content that you'll never get to try again or the servers you want to play in are full and going to a new one might feel like going back to square 1 with some titles. These are titles were you put more time into the server itself

Matchmaking though offers a much more reliable stab at balance since all the matches stick to the same rules and map rotations, it's better for getting quicker games, it's easy to drop a bad match and get a whole new lineup, it's overall a more reliable setup in meeting a specific standard, but at a huge cost of community (its prob why these same games make such a big effort at in game clan and squadron systems) and less sense of achievement or ownership in individual battles. These are titles were you put more time into your own personal progress more. I can see why it's the system of choice with "live service" games that live off those sort of progression systems.

I think that is a huge factor, for as long as they have had dedicated servers they have driven communities and for a certain generation it is hugely important. Its why clans build up, sure if you still play BF3 & 4 there are still community run servers that are active all the time.

Match making is done because its cheaper but also its a way to control the overall experience so they can shill **** to their customers if they need to. I don't think it was ever a hassle to find servers but then again the youth of today play most of their games on phones and like playing in walled gardens with **** marketed at them so i understand.

I don't agree on the negative of being at the whim of server admins, as for the most part if they run their community badly it will die so they are held to account.

Match making only offers balance if its a small team game like overwatch where you play as individuals and not in squads. Look at BF1 when it came to the operations, all you had to do was change team. Your last statement really drives home the kind of player that the newer battlefields are developed for solo players who are looking for a personal progression system and dont really care about those they play around. Nothing wrong with that but a different market to those who would look for a more fuller experience where community was king.

Its almost like a contagion from consoles, the casualization of online FPS games as they turn into yearly money sinks like FIFA. Not that there is an issue with this btw, its just i still feel there is a market for people who want a community based game and it also being AAA.

dreamers75

Matchmaking ensures equal amounts of possible future monies from players, season passes killed DLC as is it fragmented the buyers.

Highly unlikely to get a community on an AAA game now, communites tend to want to play a game as they see fit (good and bad) and yeah nope thats not happening with AAA games anymore.

Same with mods etc fragments the payer base (not a typo).

I find I dip into AAA and spend most of my gaming time in a community playing AA A and sometimes a games. how we see fit.

Smiles35

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

the original counter strike had like 2 irish servers and one kept track of players kills with weapons so as a teenager I was very much involved with that server just because I was the top player with the mp5 so felt I had a part there.

Heh. That exactly what I was doing in Battlefield 1942. Checking my scores constanly against the regulars on the cliquish pirated copy server. Dice were very good back then for keeping and releasing stats publicly.

Calhoun

Smiles35 wrote: »

Heh. That exactly what I was doing in Battlefield 1942. Checking my scores constanly against the regulars on the cliquish pirated copy server. Dice were very good back then for keeping and releasing stats publicly.

I thought it is what most people do, playing and getting better with a group of mates is what makes allot of those games fun.

_Kaiser_

Calhoun wrote: »

I thought it is what most people do, playing and getting better with a group of mates is what makes allot of those games fun.

Yep. I play with a few others and we're all on Discord while we play. It makes getting our asses handed to us repeatedly more bearable

Haven't played BFV in months though (and I personally quit it earlier than they did - just never liked it) so Warzone is the current favorite, although we play some RTS as well to mix things up too.

Dcully

Huge final update today, has to be worth a look.

Homelander

Dcully wrote: »

Huge final update today, has to be worth a look.

Anyone play it yet? Curious to hear thoughts. Got a bit back into BFV when the Pacific update rolled out but haven't gone back in a while.

Banana Republic.

Homelander wrote: »

Anyone play it yet? Curious to hear thoughts. Got a bit back into BFV when the Pacific update rolled out but haven't gone back in a while.

Few new maps, they are close and intense. El Marq I think and Provence. Going to take a while to get used to these and the positioning as it’s a lot of building’s to get used to navigate in close proximity. The value for money of this game is crazy good, the amount of updates and Maps for 70ish euro is great. I still personally love it.

Nijmegen

What's DICE moving on to next, have they announced?

Spear

Nijmegen wrote: »

What's DICE moving on to next, have they announced?

There's a new BF title under development, but it's a ways off, with no other details right now.

Shlippery

Yea, seems like they're throwing all their weight behind it with Battlefront and BFV support finished...all hands on deck for an Oct 21 BF6, rumoured modern setting.

Hopefully some news or confirmation on it at EA play next week?

Dcully

Homelander wrote: »

Anyone play it yet? Curious to hear thoughts. Got a bit back into BFV when the Pacific update rolled out but haven't gone back in a while.

Provence is actually one of the best maps from Dice ever.
The other one is just a cod style grindfest not my cup of tea.

Homelander

Dcully wrote: »

Provence is actually one of the best maps from Dice ever.
The other one is just a cod style grindfest not my cup of tea.

Yeah played them both yesterday. The encampment one is fairly weak, just a horrible meatgrinder....I like these sort of maps sometimes, but not a fan of this one, too many narrow chokes and mindless spam.

You're right about Provence though. It's amazing - in Breakthrough, probably the best map in the game. Starts off in the open plains before slowly working its way into the urban town with skirmishes on the outskirts. The balance is just excellent.

BFV is a funny one. One of the most disappointing BF games for me personally but equally it's still a decent game and really compelling at times.

I checked last night and I have 120 hours in the game. Not nearly as much as BF1 or BF4 but I can hardly argue I didn't get my moneys worth considering it cost me something like €35.

Looking forward to BF6 but sad that they made a bit of a mess with what should've been the definitive WW2 Battlefield experience and we probably won't see it again for quite some time.

Dcully

Im really enjoying BF1 these days, the gunplay is just so sharp.

stuff.hunter

tbh, didnt touch BFV for over a year... and cant push myself to install it again
all what I've got atm is HLL and really enjoin it