Yep. BF1 is still better... (BF combat veteran here)

«1
EV4DE
22 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
Dice, BFV so far is fun. But coming back to BF1, there is just no comparison. Explosions are bigger and are everywhere, since there is no respawn delay, the action happens instantly and there are people just about everywhere. I literally just came off a conquest match from BF1 and I was appalled at the difference. BF1 SURPASSES BFV open beta by A LOT. I think its because of how fast respawns occur and the amount of AMMO you're allowed to have. Im going to be honest, BFV feels like RAINBOW SIX SEIGE only reskined for world war 2 battlefield. Guys, all you have to do is re-skin BF1 and slap on ww2 guns and uniforms. I feel like Im going to stick with BF1 even after BFV releases which sounds like a darn shame. I was so hyped about a LEGIT ww2 sequel, but that beta really changed my mind.

Now, I got used to the gameplay mechanics which i think are interesting, and I had a 4.0+ kd every match, but this battlefield seems like its going to be massively boring. i mean, seriously. are you playing your own games? Trust me. Go play beta for an hour. Then play a quickmatch conquest on Battlefield 1 on the recent playlists and you're going to see a substantial difference in gameplay. BF1 is intense ASF, and BFV just feels like some kind of slow paced tactical game. Slow paced in the sense that intensity is lacking all around. Go play a match of fort de veus, or the russian winter maps from bf1 and you're gonna be blown away with all the chaos that ensues. From the beginning of the map, you have people screaming and epic battle music playing that just fuels you up then to find a wall of bombs and incoming fire and people dying left and right and you're supressed by 10,000 rifles and planes are going over you, mortars being fired, snipers shooting down on you, smoke fills the air, incediery grenades and poison everywhere...Its just CHAOS... I didn't find ANY of that intensity in rotterdam, nor in the norway map. Where's the feeling of battle in battlefield? Where's the grit?? Where's the blood and sweat that makes battlefield tick like in BF1?

Something is very clearly wrong and i dont understand how you could take 3 steps backwards. You're essentially taking away the crux of battlefield which is its classic reviving system, ammo and health boxes, and ammo supply. Those served the purpose of speeding up the gameplay and getting the player back in to the fight quicker. Limiting a player to 3 clips wont allow he or she to play how he/she wants. what ever happend to player choice?

Also, i recall dice saying that tides of war would be the historically accurate version of multiplayer but again, the immersion is broken when you have women soldiers in multiplayer. Now, I am not a racist or a sexist, but the game feels like im playing SOCOM (which was a great game for its time). Seriously, it just doesnt feel like world war 2. BF1 feels just right with the number of african and white soldiers randomized and you barely even notice it. But BFV makes it extremely noticeable that immersion breaks instantly. Even though i was doing great and owning other players, something just felt very very off.

Also, the UI in the main menu is COMPLETE TRASH. How did you guys go from the BF1 menu to this?? Who is working for you guys???? Are you hiring the right people??? Where is the talent that DICE used to once have two years ago??? Is this really all of EA's doing??

And omg... the progression system... again...

Can we go back to BF3 AND BF4 PROGRESSION??? Have me level up a class to unlock a gun, NOT GET POINTS TO UNLOCK WHATEVER I WANT.

Where is the challenge in that??? In BF4, it takes FOREVER to unlock stuff and it just makes the game more rewarding!! Can we please GET THAT BACK??????? I hope im not the ONLY ONE asking for this!!!

Also, graphics on Xbox.. Trash. sorry, im just being brutally honest. i hope this is only a beta specific issue.

Other than that, PLEASE NO WACKY CUSTOMIZATIONS. I promise you, it will end so bad for EA and DICE if we see the robotic arms and katana swords. Yea, you'll be selling for kids who are new to this franchise, but for the diehards, nope. You're gonna get busted. Learn your lessons and dont bring fortnite-esque elements to the game. You want to keep growing as a studio? You want to keep your jobs? Listen to the damn fanbase and conduct proper market research.

When people think WW2, we're not thinking...scarlet johanson with a cyborg arm. We're thinking saving private ryan, dunkirk, inglorius ****. I swear ill pass if i hear a peep that the game ended up including stuff like that. It's complete nonsense.

From the countless videos ive seen on this poor marketing strategy and from the controversy, not to mention this weird gameplay, im really ashamed that my favorite franchise is just burning out. Whoever was in charge of BF3 (From start to finish, programmers, designers, markters), bring those talented **** people back to fix this franchise. 'cause this needs a lot of help right now.

Dice, I love you. But Im disappointed from the beta, the slow paced action, and everything else i mentioned. I honestly think this should be released next year or canceled. Im not even trolling. You need a lot more time to work on this. I dont care if EA loses their ****. You NEED more TIME. DELAY THE HELL OUT OF THIS NOW. Because I love you, I am trying to save your studio for even more damage.

I was considering investing into EA this year, but after such bad reveal and lackluster gameplay, i passed. If EA is willing to delay til next year, maybe I'll consider investing cause i know you'll have a more polished game (and better than bf1).

Too bad this rant will probably never be read by dice or ea officials though lol. I really hope Im wrong in saying that BF1 is THE LAST GREAT BATTLEFIELD GAME WE'LL EVER HAVE.

Thanks for reading..



Comments

  • smokintom214
    783 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    It's the beta. You do know that sound does play a part in server stability right? The beta was a large game off the frostbite engine for being just 11 gb on Xbox. It was pretty good despite the bugs. On a platform that wasn't tested by the public. And as far as the sound, I've seen finished games literally crash because it couldn't handle the audio waves properly.. you also can't compare a beta to a polished game like Battlefield 1. It's leagues ahead. Dice has learned alot and has made many progressively advancements with frostbite that is a network heavy engine and to see a game like Battlefield 1 handle everything it dishes is incredible. BFV will undoubtedly be the same way.
  • Ech0SixReaper
    2 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    So I would have to disagree with most of your post. I do like something similar to the Battlefield 4 system for unlocking weapons and attachments. I actually think that the UI is decent, although obviously it is heavily influenced by Battlefront 2, it isn't the worst.

    I have enjoyed Battlefield 1 and I really did enjoy the beta for Battlefield V, and I think in the end it will be a good game. I did find some very intense firefights in Rotterdam.

    Also, marketing is for those who are not familiar with the franchise, or those who are casually connected to the franchise. I have been casually connected since Battlefield 2 and I have loved the games that I have played and while some things like classes and progression change, you still generally know what you are getting with a Battlefield game.

  • Serkaii
    816 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    edited September 12
    I agree with a majority of what you said. After playing BF1 again, I remember why I fell in love with the Battlefield series, and BFV just doesn't provide that same feeling. To the point I am debating cancelling my pre-order, which is sad. First battlefield game I've ever had this happen with.

    If they took BF1, reskinned it for WW2, took away the behemoths, added in the fortifications, and gave us more attachments / customization, we would be looking at a damn near perfect battlefield game.
  • EV4DE
    22 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    Serkaii wrote: »
    I agree with a majority of what you said. After playing BF1 again, I remember why I fell in love with the Battlefield series, and BFV just doesn't provide that same feeling. To the point I am debating cancelling my pre-order, which is sad. First battlefield game I've ever had this happen with.

    If they took BF1, reskinned it for WW2, took away the behemoths, added in the fortifications, and gave us more attachments / customization, we would be looking at a damn near perfect battlefield game.

    Exactly!!!!!! Just imagine!!
  • loudringphone
    1 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    The pace in bf1 is much faster and more intense. I hope dice could just reskin bf1 to ww2 theme
  • chippee82
    42 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Bf1 was to fast just like cod that was not bf back in the day it was tactical
  • ZombieP1ow
    576 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    BF1 is warm slop, in my opinion. Call of Duty with vehicles. I like the changes in BFV, limited ammo, health and no spamming for Doritos really made me change my playstyle compared to the past 13 years of BF games. I understand lots of campers, do-nothing snipers and kill farming tankers are mad, because now they need to rely on tactics or team mates, since the unlimited ammo went away. I don't understand the salty tankers, now it takes two or more assaults to take them out, another smart move by DICE. This game is designed around squads playing together and rewards those players accordingly. Ammo and health can be found at any owned objective, so maybe, cap those objectives? I'm buying a new headset, too, just to communicate with my squad. Since spotting has been fixed, we'll need to rely on actual comms to alert squad mates.
  • smokintom214
    783 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    ZombieP1ow wrote: »
    BF1 is warm slop, in my opinion. Call of Duty with vehicles. I like the changes in BFV, limited ammo, health and no spamming for Doritos really made me change my playstyle compared to the past 13 years of BF games. I understand lots of campers, do-nothing snipers and kill farming tankers are mad, because now they need to rely on tactics or team mates, since the unlimited ammo went away. I don't understand the salty tankers, now it takes two or more assaults to take them out, another smart move by DICE. This game is designed around squads playing together and rewards those players accordingly. Ammo and health can be found at any owned objective, so maybe, cap those objectives? I'm buying a new headset, too, just to communicate with my squad. Since spotting has been fixed, we'll need to rely on actual comms to alert squad mates.

    I agree, while I was going 38-2 on average in tanks sometimes worse it was still required tactical tank play you blast through ammo relatively quick and alot of times I was either destroying the supply depot's and defending my own forward Depot so I didn't have to travel all the way back on Rotterdam. Assault classes could easily ambush my tank at anytime using the waterside hell one time I got locked between B and D while I was camping B. I was a easy target. Lol you quickly learn to stay on the move because a tank can die very fast reguardless of how good you are.
  • BradleyG90
    1 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Totally agree. Delay it by a year for all I care as this needs a lot of work. I was so hyped for this and I feel so frustrated, dissapointed and very shocked that this is even a BF game.
    There’s no atmosphere or thrill, it’s empty & boring!
    Sound affects from explosions, gun firing, making kills, voice narrator, & even battle music are all very dull.
    Low ammo & health & slow revive is making it a much slower game.
    Will not buy this and stick to BF1 which is a shame because I was looking so forward to this.
  • 187Bear
    577 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    When the "veterans" chip in... I find that somewhat amusing: I consider myself a "veteran" because I've played for the past 8 years since BFBC2. Others say BF2 was the best ever (didn't play it). Some go as far back as 1942 and consider themselves more "veteran" than the rest. And because of that they throw out the words "strategic play" and "roots" vs "casual play", "hand holding", "crutches" etc. Blah blah blah look at me I'm such a vetleet.

    For me, when I learned the game, my buddies that got me into it, emphasized spotting as the number 1 item that sets battlefield apart. That and squad play and vehicles. So removing spotting makes me feel kinda sad, like this isn't battlefield. Maybe it is the battlefield that some experienced way back when, when graphic fidelity sucked and enemies didn't blend seamlessly into the environment, when there were far less enemy players on the map to keep track of and when the player base was more hardcore, wanting to play together and learn to do it right vs now when spotting is about the only thing that can make some random team mates somewhat good. Yeah, I play solo but that doesn't mean I lonewolf it - I've always desired to be great squad and team player be it as random with randoms.

    This game feels more 3/4 hardcore than it does a standard BF game. No spotting, nerfed kill cam, reduced ammo, reduced health, lowered TTK, campers everywhere. All we need is team kill and we're there. More strategic? Maybe, but we were doing fine as a franchise without it and no, we were nowhere near a COD level. I think they're going to be missing out on sales big time because they wanted to cater to the strategic players and not the casual players. If they put better thought into it they could have allowed for casual players to enter the franchise and still catered for the strategic player in various ways.
  • Serkaii
    816 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    chippee82 wrote: »
    Bf1 was to fast just like cod that was not bf back in the day it was tactical

    You think BF1 was fast paced? More so than BFV? Have you played it recently after playing BFV? You can actually get shot in BF1 without instantly dying (unless it's headshots). Squads getting into firefights that last longer than 15 seconds, and objectives take multiple minutes to attack or defend. I can't even begin to think of BF1 as being fast paced compared to BFV. Is it more chaotic? Hell yes, which is something I feel battlefield needs to be. But I don't equate chaos with fast pace.

    The entire time playing BFV my squad and I would basically bounce between 3 objectives on every map, constantly moving from position to position attacking / defending / killing / dying. Rarely did we ever need to actually post up to defend and hold a position because rarely were you attacked by more than 1 squad at a time, sometimes 2 squads. Now playing BF1, you've got 12+ people fighting at once over an objective leading to that feeling that you're actually fighting a war.

    Playing the two games back to back leaves no comparison between the two. One is war, and one is squad battles.
  • EV4DE
    22 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    Serkaii wrote: »
    chippee82 wrote: »
    Bf1 was to fast just like cod that was not bf back in the day it was tactical

    You think BF1 was fast paced? More so than BFV? Have you played it recently after playing BFV? You can actually get shot in BF1 without instantly dying (unless it's headshots). Squads getting into firefights that last longer than 15 seconds, and objectives take multiple minutes to attack or defend. I can't even begin to think of BF1 as being fast paced compared to BFV. Is it more chaotic? Hell yes, which is something I feel battlefield needs to be. But I don't equate chaos with fast pace.

    The entire time playing BFV my squad and I would basically bounce between 3 objectives on every map, constantly moving from position to position attacking / defending / killing / dying. Rarely did we ever need to actually post up to defend and hold a position because rarely were you attacked by more than 1 squad at a time, sometimes 2 squads. Now playing BF1, you've got 12+ people fighting at once over an objective leading to that feeling that you're actually fighting a war.

    Playing the two games back to back leaves no comparison between the two. One is war, and one is squad battles.

    I agree with this yet again mate!
  • chippee82
    42 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Serkaii wrote: »
    chippee82 wrote: »
    Bf1 was to fast just like cod that was not bf back in the day it was tactical

    You think BF1 was fast paced? More so than BFV? Have you played it recently after playing BFV? You can actually get shot in BF1 without instantly dying (unless it's headshots). Squads getting into firefights that last longer than 15 seconds, and objectives take multiple minutes to attack or defend. I can't even begin to think of BF1 as being fast paced compared to BFV. Is it more chaotic? Hell yes, which is something I feel battlefield needs to be. But I don't equate chaos with fast pace.

    The entire time playing BFV my squad and I would basically bounce between 3 objectives on every map, constantly moving from position to position attacking / defending / killing / dying. Rarely did we ever need to actually post up to defend and hold a position because rarely were you attacked by more than 1 squad at a time, sometimes 2 squads. Now playing BF1, you've got 12+ people fighting at once over an objective leading to that feeling that you're actually fighting a war.

    Playing the two games back to back leaves no comparison between the two. One is war, and one is squad battles.

    I did play it bfv and bf1 and i found bf1 was to fast paced and bfv little slower and more fun because that is the bf i used to no bf1 was to cater for cod players that was the reason why it was fast paced
  • chippee82
    42 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Serkaii wrote: »
    chippee82 wrote: »
    Bf1 was to fast just like cod that was not bf back in the day it was tactical

    You think BF1 was fast paced? More so than BFV? Have you played it recently after playing BFV? You can actually get shot in BF1 without instantly dying (unless it's headshots). Squads getting into firefights that last longer than 15 seconds, and objectives take multiple minutes to attack or defend. I can't even begin to think of BF1 as being fast paced compared to BFV. Is it more chaotic? Hell yes, which is something I feel battlefield needs to be. But I don't equate chaos with fast pace.

    The entire time playing BFV my squad and I would basically bounce between 3 objectives on every map, constantly moving from position to position attacking / defending / killing / dying. Rarely did we ever need to actually post up to defend and hold a position because rarely were you attacked by more than 1 squad at a time, sometimes 2 squads. Now playing BF1, you've got 12+ people fighting at once over an objective leading to that feeling that you're actually fighting a war.

    Playing the two games back to back leaves no comparison between the two. One is war, and one is squad battles.

    O one more thing i dont want to be on a fire fight every two seconds and the other thing in bf1 there was all was 15 players or more running to one point then the next so were is the delay no were so not slow at all so now you need ammo. medic pouches so it is slowed and there you have it
  • StingX71
    328 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    Ironically, BF1 is the best CoD game I ever played. I'm having a blast on BF1 TDM and I shouldn't be. I should still be playing CQ and immersing myself in large scale maps with half dozen vehicles roaming around striking fear in infantry when they show up at a flag. At the sametime, working as a squad to get rid of a pesky tank **** was a blast. They're barely a nuisance now.

    In previous BF's, infantry was 50% of the equation, now their 85% with vehicles/planes taking a backseat. That's not BF! BFV maps are so small, I can cover 3/4 of the map on foot without issue. CoD on steroids. In BF2, I typically would only work 2-3 flags, and try to control a sector of the map. In 42, you sometimes stayed at one flag fighting wave after wave of enemy troops. In 1 & V, everyone runs around like a swarm. We're really a bunch of idiots for accepting this. I'm glad some are bringing it to light, but I'm afraid it will go nowhere.

    The debates on weapon balance, TTK, vehicle strength are valid. But there's not enough debate about map size and game pace both of which are not right in 1 & V.

    BF has gone off its axis with 1 and V. It's sad, with the tech in Frostbite, you could do some really cool stuff with BF42/BF2 gameplay/map design.
  • Serkaii
    816 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    chippee82 wrote: »

    I did play it bfv and bf1 and i found bf1 was to fast paced and bfv little slower and more fun because that is the bf i used to no bf1 was to cater for cod players that was the reason why it was fast paced

    O one more thing i dont want to be on a fire fight every two seconds and the other thing in bf1 there was all was 15 players or more running to one point then the next so were is the delay no were so not slow at all so now you need ammo. medic pouches so it is slowed and there you have it

    I think you're confusing hectic/chaos/war for being fast paced. BFV can certainly be slower than BF1, you just have to camp a location, because usually you're not going to get attacked by more than a squad or two at a time. So I can see how you feel BFV is "slower." To me, it's borderline boring to have tiny engagements of squads lasting 15-30 seconds / rinse / repeat. I want two teams to struggle over a single objective and wage war to control it. The best games are those where the tie-breaker objective is basically a stalemate, with neither team able to advance. That is when Battlefield really comes alive, and you're able to send squads on flanking runs and try to back cap their objectives etc.

    Battlefield to me has always been about strategy, outsmarting and out shooting your opponent. BFV is just lacking that for me.
    StingX71 wrote: »
    Ironically, BF1 is the best CoD game I ever played. I'm having a blast on BF1 TDM and I shouldn't be. I should still be playing CQ and immersing myself in large scale maps with half dozen vehicles roaming around striking fear in infantry when they show up at a flag. At the sametime, working as a squad to get rid of a pesky tank **** was a blast. They're barely a nuisance now.

    In previous BF's, infantry was 50% of the equation, now their 85% with vehicles/planes taking a backseat. That's not BF! BFV maps are so small, I can cover 3/4 of the map on foot without issue. CoD on steroids. In BF2, I typically would only work 2-3 flags, and try to control a sector of the map. In 42, you sometimes stayed at one flag fighting wave after wave of enemy troops. In 1 & V, everyone runs around like a swarm. We're really a bunch of idiots for accepting this. I'm glad some are bringing it to light, but I'm afraid it will go nowhere.

    The debates on weapon balance, TTK, vehicle strength are valid. But there's not enough debate about map size and game pace both of which are not right in 1 & V.

    BF has gone off its axis with 1 and V. It's sad, with the tech in Frostbite, you could do some really cool stuff with BF42/BF2 gameplay/map design.

    I agree. Although we've only seen a couple maps so far, the position of objectives being so close to one another, and both beta maps being heavily infantry based doesn't make me feel like the rest of the game is going to be much different. Who knows, maybe it will be, but they should have definitely showcased a large map with large vehicle warfare. Look at the BF1 beta, that was a large map with large vehicle warfare, and it felt like battlefield. I had experiences in BF1 similar to what you're saying about the swarms of teams, but I also had experiences similar to BF3/4 where pockets of enemies would hold positions with a bulk of the team pushing particular objectives. BFV just feels off to me, and it's a shame because I was so looking forward to it.
  • StingX71
    328 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    Serkaii wrote: »

    but I also had experiences similar to BF3/4 where pockets of enemies would hold positions with a bulk of the team pushing particular objectives. BFV just feels off to me, and it's a shame because I was so looking forward to it.

    No doubt infantry should still be a part, but even in BF3/4, more often than not there was a tank or apc just around the corner. This plays more like BFBC XL. Had/have low expectations for V having seen the direction of SWBF and BF1. I'm hoping TDM/DOM will still be fun, actually not that bad on BF1. I'm still buying.

    Send me an invite on Xbox, I play there as well.


  • JDOGMcFUZZL
    37 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    edited September 14
    Wow this comment thread is long. So I'll make mine short. BFV doesn't have the same chaos feel of BF1. And I wish it did. Faster respawn, more planes and tanks, bigger explosions, and louder guns, bombs, shouts, and music would help make it feel like war.

    Also please keep history in it. Like in operations of BF1. Keep that exact formula but just do it for WWII and BFV.
  • EV4DE
    22 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    Wow this comment thread is long. So I'll make mine short. BFV doesn't have the same chaos feel of BF1. And I wish it did. Faster respawn, more planes and tanks, bigger explosions, and louder guns, bombs, shouts, and music would help make it feel like war.

    Also please keep history in it. Like in operations of BF1. Keep that exact formula but just do it for WWII and BFV.

    COMPLETELY AGREE. WHERE IS THE BATTLEFIELD GRIT???? DICE, RESPOND!!!
  • EV4DE
    22 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    StingX71 wrote: »
    Serkaii wrote: »

    but I also had experiences similar to BF3/4 where pockets of enemies would hold positions with a bulk of the team pushing particular objectives. BFV just feels off to me, and it's a shame because I was so looking forward to it.

    No doubt infantry should still be a part, but even in BF3/4, more often than not there was a tank or apc just around the corner. This plays more like BFBC XL. Had/have low expectations for V having seen the direction of SWBF and BF1. I'm hoping TDM/DOM will still be fun, actually not that bad on BF1. I'm still buying.

    Send me an invite on Xbox, I play there as well.


    Add me: DoubleSH4ME
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!