ProAssassin2003 wrote: »
It’s honestly a breath of fresh air. After getting PTSD from Battlefield 1 with non stop explosive spam it’s nice taking it slow with gun on gun fights for a change.
woll3 wrote: »
IMO the issue lies with the presented maps, they assume too much from people(as in attack/hold flags where it makes sense) and the combination of hiding spots, verticality and excessive flanking routes slows the game down by a lot / makes teams soemtimes miss each other.
p0pcornMuncher wrote: »
Bf5 is for grown ups who want a more tactical, realistic and challenging game.
No one is forcing you to like the latter, boys.
lessthanjake123 wrote: »
BFV is definitely a lot slower. And, in a sense, you could say that it’s more “tactical” than BF1. I can buy that, but Battlefield doesn’t really have the tools to truly give you deep tactical gameplay. It’s not Rainbow Six: Siege. Yes, you can run with a squad and use your different kits in an intelligent way in order to maximize your effectiveness. So there is some tactical element. But the tactical options are limited and rather straightforward. Just as importantly, it’s basically impossible to make a 64-person game be deeply tactical. None of this is an inherent flaw with Battlefield games. It’s just the basic design philosophy of Battlefield isn’t to provide a deeply tactical experience. It is to provide an intense spectacle. And BFV feels so slow right now that it’s really not providing that spectacle. Yes, it may be more tactical as a result, but Battlefield games will just never be top of the heap for tactical shooters so that’s not really a niche it should be going for.
USP_Bauer_24 wrote: »
No matter which class, map, game mode or gun, there is something just off about this game. It is dull. It's lifeless. There's no excitement or sense of spectacle: its just boring.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!