This game is a sinking ship. The deluxe content is utterly embarrassing.

Comments

  • Red_Label_Scotch
    1404 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I've supported it as long as I can but it's seriously boring me now. Even if I get MVP and have a really outstanding game i'm just bored. The new weapons are always underwhelming. Bored of the maps. All the custom stuff is borin hahah. I don't think tomorrows patch will make any difference. Needs some new decent content ASAP. I might even jump over to Anthem an see how that's working out when it's released.

    Jumping over to a different EA product...I wouldn't.
  • Loqtrall
    12277 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited January 2019
    Khronikos wrote: »
    It is definitely NOT the same market of players. They might be targeting the same market, but the markets are completely different overall. It's obvious as the day BF just can't sustain COD numbers, and it is for very good reason. BF games are in general too long, and COD is simply a more arcadey upgrade fest.

    BF definitely slants more toward realism, even though it is not a sim. BF1 was more a sim than BFV clearly. Anyway, the idea that you just classify these as arcade shooters is a redundant and inane idea. Arcade shooters don't even exist. Arcades barely exist. It's a completely obscure genre you are trying to pin to these games. And COD fits that outdated line a lot more than BF ever will.

    Objectively, COD's main modes take much less time to complete than most BF modes, they have faster TTK and arena-like atmosphere, and score streaks will always heavily define the game along with some absurdly small maps.

    BF has more accurate weapon details, realistic maps, tanks, airplanes, et cetera. It definitely seeks the sim side of warfare a lot more than COD. This is not even arguable so don't waste your time. You are trying to convince people that COD and BF are the same shooter, when in reality the people buying the games are buying them for entirely different reasons because they are... wait for it... different games with different concepts at play that do not neatly just fit into arcade shooter lol.

    Arcade shooters usually refer to shumps. You can honestly stop using that term, because nobody uses that term for the genre of shooters on the market. They are called FPS games. COD is an arena shooter for the most part. Arcades almost never had games like this, and if they did they were like COD.

    Describing it as arcadey is entirely up to you to decide. BF has a lot more sim details: longer games with tons of players, realistic weapon details and maps beyond most other games, warfare that depends on team tactical behavior not in an arena atmosphere for the most part, et cetera.

    COD is a lot more arcadey as you say, so stop trying to pin these games into one hole. The COD crowd clearly buys COD for different reasons than BF because wait for it... they are different games with different concepts at play that make the games feel entirely opposed to each other in various ways.

    Of course the act of shooting a gun and upgrading something is similar. That is NOT enough to justify the nominal value of arcade shooter lol.

    I just combined your responses because you pointlessly made two of them.

    Lol so what, you think there aren't thousands upon thousands of people who play both CoD and BF? If not, you should know you're talking to one of them.

    The games appeal to the same type of gamer - shooter fans, speficially casual shooter fans. I know countless people who play both franchises regularly. Hell, I just had a friend whom I met on these forums ask me if I wanted to play Blackout last night. The fact BF doesn't maintain "CoD numbers" means absolutely nothing in that context.

    Lmao, and BF does not slant more toward realism at all. There is almost zero realism in BF games, since the dawn of the franchise. Are we going to go through the entire discussion about the differences between realism and authenticity?

    As a huge fan of milsims who sunk hundreds of hours into games like Arma, Red Orchestra, project reality, etc - BF can not be any further from a Sim. It is as far as it can possibly be from representing realistic Warfare and small arms combat.

    LMMFAO did you just insist bf1 was even remotely like a Sim? That is probably one of THE least realistic and Sim-like BF games ever released. It is through and through unrealistic and inaccurate.

    Sorry, bucko, but the size of maps, presence of vehicles, and the length of matches does not dictate whether or not something is a military simulator. BF is still a ridiculously unrealistic game, inaccurate to the realities of Warfare regardless of the setting being used, that has ridiculously arcadey features like a glaring hud with 3d spotting, minimap, squad list, death icons, etc. They have vehicles with 3rd person cameras, self repair mechanics for tanks, automatic health regeneration, a near instantaneous revive system nearly no matter which way you died, flares that spot people on the map and in 3d space TROUGH WALLS, rifles that do a maximum like 60-70 damage, the ability to jump out of a jet and hop back into it in mid air, guns with insanely low recoil, some BF games started soldiers with over 300 rounds in reserve ammo for a friggin smg with 20 round magazines, they have gadgets like the UAV, eod bot, etc being used in large firefights, they have C4 that can blow up a damn Abrams with just 3 bricks.

    The list goes on, and on, and on, and on, and on. I can essentially sit here ALL DAY listing the ridiciously unrealistic and inaccurate features of every BF game into the longest post in the history of the BF forums. Your sentiment that it's "unarguable" is absolute bologna.

    Secondly, I'm DEFINITELY not trying to convince anyone that CoD and BF are the same game. I'm stating that they're both unrealistic arcade shooters that appeal to the same audience. I'm stating that BF is not in the market that appeals to tactical shooter or milsim fans, it's in the market that appeals to arcadey, unrealistic shooter fans.

    Lastly, you seem to not be the authority to talk to on things that did or did not happen. We just had an entire page of people disproving your claim that called in airstrikes have never been a thing in BF.

    So I'm not going to sit here and take you seriously when you claim NOBODY uses the term "arcade shooters" to describe many fps games. Because that's absolute BS. You can look the term up and see just how many people actually DO use that term.

    So just as your lack of experience with past BF games does not negate the fact they DID have called in missile strikes before CoD, your lack of experience with people using "arcade shooter" to describe various fps games does not negate the fact it is, indeed, a used term.

    "Shooter" is the overall genre of game, but you can't sit there an act like subgenres don't exist. There are Sims, tactical shooters, arcade shooters, arena shooters, shooting gallery, shoot-em-up, the list goes on and on. Sorry, but cramming every fps game into one genre is like cramming every type of rock or metal music into one genre and called it "loud music".

    Lol, and CoD is not an arena shooter. Unreal Tournament, Quake, Doom, etc, THOSE are arena shooters. CoD is absolutely nothing like those games. You look up arena shooter and CoD is nowhere to be found. That's outside the fact that many CoD games have had plenty of larger, sprawling maps, and Cod 3 and ww2 even have game modes with insanely large maps (for CoD) AND VEHICLES. The first CoD game on PC had pretty damn large maps.

    Lmao, and now BF gameplay has a "dependence on team tactical behavior"? That's strange considering I and most people who play BF do so solo and don't work as a team at all, so much so that it's incessantly complained about on these forums. So much so that people advocate for changes that ENFORCE teamwork and a competitive environment.

    Your views on Sim games are weak. Have you ever even played one, or are you just blindly sitting here insisting BF is something it absolutely isn't? Sorry, but I played the hell out of Project Reality, which was a total conversion mod that turned BF2 and all its assets into a legitimate milsim, and the two games aren't even comparable. Nearly every facet of BF2 had to be changed to accommodate the milsim style and setting of Project Reality. Why? Because BF2 was an arcadey, unrealistic game. No other BF game is different.
  • Jedi76
    828 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited January 2019
    Just to get back on the deluxe topic a little bit.

    I was interested in maybe upgrading and noticed at the moment on the U.S. playstation store they can have deluxe upgrade for $7.99

    That is about £6, which, from what I have heard it may be worth.

    On the U.K. playstation store it is £20, which equates to about $26

    Anyone have any idea what gives here? why do we Europeans always seem to get shafted with this kind of thing?
    Post edited by Jedi76 on
  • Khronikos
    2236 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited January 2019
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    Khronikos wrote: »
    It is definitely NOT the same market of players. They might be targeting the same market, but the markets are completely different overall. It's obvious as the day BF just can't sustain COD numbers, and it is for very good reason. BF games are in general too long, and COD is simply a more arcadey upgrade fest.

    BF definitely slants more toward realism, even though it is not a sim. BF1 was more a sim than BFV clearly. Anyway, the idea that you just classify these as arcade shooters is a redundant and inane idea. Arcade shooters don't even exist. Arcades barely exist. It's a completely obscure genre you are trying to pin to these games. And COD fits that outdated line a lot more than BF ever will.

    Objectively, COD's main modes take much less time to complete than most BF modes, they have faster TTK and arena-like atmosphere, and score streaks will always heavily define the game along with some absurdly small maps.

    BF has more accurate weapon details, realistic maps, tanks, airplanes, et cetera. It definitely seeks the sim side of warfare a lot more than COD. This is not even arguable so don't waste your time. You are trying to convince people that COD and BF are the same shooter, when in reality the people buying the games are buying them for entirely different reasons because they are... wait for it... different games with different concepts at play that do not neatly just fit into arcade shooter lol.

    Arcade shooters usually refer to shumps. You can honestly stop using that term, because nobody uses that term for the genre of shooters on the market. They are called FPS games. COD is an arena shooter for the most part. Arcades almost never had games like this, and if they did they were like COD.

    Describing it as arcadey is entirely up to you to decide. BF has a lot more sim details: longer games with tons of players, realistic weapon details and maps beyond most other games, warfare that depends on team tactical behavior not in an arena atmosphere for the most part, et cetera.

    COD is a lot more arcadey as you say, so stop trying to pin these games into one hole. The COD crowd clearly buys COD for different reasons than BF because wait for it... they are different games with different concepts at play that make the games feel entirely opposed to each other in various ways.

    Of course the act of shooting a gun and upgrading something is similar. That is NOT enough to justify the nominal value of arcade shooter lol.

    I just combined your responses because you pointlessly made two of them.

    Lol so what, you think there aren't thousands upon thousands of people who play both CoD and BF? If not, you should know you're talking to one of them.

    The games appeal to the same type of gamer - shooter fans, speficially casual shooter fans. I know countless people who play both franchises regularly. Hell, I just had a friend whom I met on these forums ask me if I wanted to play Blackout last night. The fact BF doesn't maintain "CoD numbers" means absolutely nothing in that context.

    Lmao, and BF does not slant more toward realism at all. There is almost zero realism in BF games, since the dawn of the franchise. Are we going to go through the entire discussion about the differences between realism and authenticity?

    As a huge fan of milsims who sunk hundreds of hours into games like Arma, Red Orchestra, project reality, etc - BF can not be any further from a Sim. It is as far as it can possibly be from representing realistic Warfare and small arms combat.

    LMMFAO did you just insist bf1 was even remotely like a Sim? That is probably one of THE least realistic and Sim-like BF games ever released. It is through and through unrealistic and inaccurate.

    Sorry, bucko, but the size of maps, presence of vehicles, and the length of matches does not dictate whether or not something is a military simulator. BF is still a ridiculously unrealistic game, inaccurate to the realities of Warfare regardless of the setting being used, that has ridiculously arcadey features like a glaring hud with 3d spotting, minimap, squad list, death icons, etc. They have vehicles with 3rd person cameras, self repair mechanics for tanks, automatic health regeneration, a near instantaneous revive system nearly no matter which way you died, flares that spot people on the map and in 3d space TROUGH WALLS, rifles that do a maximum like 60-70 damage, the ability to jump out of a jet and hop back into it in mid air, guns with insanely low recoil, some BF games started soldiers with over 300 rounds in reserve ammo for a friggin smg with 20 round magazines, they have gadgets like the UAV, eod bot, etc being used in large firefights, they have C4 that can blow up a damn Abrams with just 3 bricks.

    The list goes on, and on, and on, and on, and on. I can essentially sit here ALL DAY listing the ridiciously unrealistic and inaccurate features of every BF game into the longest post in the history of the BF forums. Your sentiment that it's "unarguable" is absolute bologna.

    Secondly, I'm DEFINITELY not trying to convince anyone that CoD and BF are the same game. I'm stating that they're both unrealistic arcade shooters that appeal to the same audience. I'm stating that BF is not in the market that appeals to tactical shooter or milsim fans, it's in the market that appeals to arcadey, unrealistic shooter fans.

    Lastly, you seem to not be the authority to talk to on things that did or did not happen. We just had an entire page of people disproving your claim that called in airstrikes have never been a thing in BF.

    So I'm not going to sit here and take you seriously when you claim NOBODY uses the term "arcade shooters" to describe many fps games. Because that's absolute BS. You can look the term up and see just how many people actually DO use that term.

    So just as your lack of experience with past BF games does not negate the fact they DID have called in missile strikes before CoD, your lack of experience with people using "arcade shooter" to describe various fps games does not negate the fact it is, indeed, a used term.

    "Shooter" is the overall genre of game, but you can't sit there an act like subgenres don't exist. There are Sims, tactical shooters, arcade shooters, arena shooters, shooting gallery, shoot-em-up, the list goes on and on. Sorry, but cramming every fps game into one genre is like cramming every type of rock or metal music into one genre and called it "loud music".

    Lol, and CoD is not an arena shooter. Unreal Tournament, Quake, Doom, etc, THOSE are arena shooters. CoD is absolutely nothing like those games. You look up arena shooter and CoD is nowhere to be found. That's outside the fact that many CoD games have had plenty of larger, sprawling maps, and Cod 3 and ww2 even have game modes with insanely large maps (for CoD) AND VEHICLES. The first CoD game on PC had pretty damn large maps.

    Lmao, and now BF gameplay has a "dependence on team tactical behavior"? That's strange considering I and most people who play BF do so solo and don't work as a team at all, so much so that it's incessantly complained about on these forums. So much so that people advocate for changes that ENFORCE teamwork and a competitive environment.

    Your views on Sim games are weak. Have you ever even played one, or are you just blindly sitting here insisting BF is something it absolutely isn't? Sorry, but I played the hell out of Project Reality, which was a total conversion mod that turned BF2 and all its assets into a legitimate milsim, and the two games aren't even comparable. Nearly every facet of BF2 had to be changed to accommodate the milsim style and setting of Project Reality. Why? Because BF2 was an arcadey, unrealistic game. No other BF game is different.

    I am sorry to tell you but no one is reading all that. I said it is much more in line with simulation when it comes to gun details, maps, et cetera. Way more than COD. This is not arguable. For open warfare the BF4-BFV games look amazingly realistic in a lot of scenarios with graphics and sound, hence the idea that yes they have sim elements. So does COD, but only a bit in the visual design for the most part. It doesn't recreate maps in painstaking detail like BF does. And neither do some of the games you mentioned measure up the sim elements in graphics and sound that BF has either.
  • NoQuart3r
    105 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I think the simple answer to this now overblown thread is as follows:

    Yes the deluxe content is embarrassing - but then again you would be a twerp to purchase the deluxe addition of any game as it almost always turns out to be an unworthwhile cash grab.

    No it's not a sinking ship. Last few patches are making progress just like in previous well regarded BF games.

    Case closed.
  • NoQuart3r
    105 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    NoQuart3r wrote: »
    I think the simple answer to this now overblown thread is as follows:

    Yes the deluxe content is embarrassing - but then again you would be a twerp to purchase the deluxe addition of any game as it almost always turns out to be an unworthwhile cash grab.

    No it's not a sinking ship. Last few patches are making progress just like in previous well regarded BF games.

    Case closed.

    i literally just posted 2 black screens in an hour. lol what progress? go away, atleast most complaints are validated via video in the feedback section so whats your goal besides to argue? and the issues DIRECTLY correlate to sales and player counts, one number is drastically lower than the other btw. so they did a succesful marketing job i guess. glad i didnt pay for bf5 lmao

    Yes, Mr Facts we have all seen your validating "assumptions" in previous posts. Of course the fact that a select few are having black screens invalidates all the work from the last few patches. . Perhaps read back your posts before pressing post then you won't be so easily shut down ?
  • NoQuart3r
    105 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    https://1drv.ms/v/s!AmjSl2amw1Q0ggXeXIQU7ScbZWA2

    guess this is just a local problem to me too? ROFL literally line by line per patch notes and its clear this was a scheduled roll out for ToW junk and minimal effort on actual issues. DICE couldnt revive itself if it wanted to, it would be bugged and they would just swap weapons.

    Bonvoyage!!

    Ah the world in accordance to Mr Facts:

    “Guessing not a single coder/developer plays this game.” WRONG GUESS
    “First game of the patch, spawn beacons invisible lol. what a cluster DICE is, game clip to prove how inept they are.” THIS REALLY IS THE END OF THE WORLD..
    “You cant find a post that i directed anything negative toward another either. you are lonesome. stick to the topic or dont post, its a ToS requirement.”
    WHATS THIS THEN?:
    “Its funny you even misquoted me to fit your diaper, enjoy the forums.”
    “its the reason BF 1 died pretty quickly compared to previous titles and why BF 5 has done worse than it in retaining players.” NEWFLASH, BF1 IS APPARENTLY DEAD?
    “the evidence is clear for me to make an assumption, i dont need official data or "sales" numbers” CLASSIC, JUST A CLASSIC.
    “the current population is less than the current (and still playing) bf4 populations” PROOF?
    “I hope they are forced to find new jobs as EA will eventually toss them out once sales continue to slip, and they will.” KEEPING IT CLASSY AS ALWAYS.

    Unfortunately for you your extreme, emotionally charged meandering "thoughts" are so easy to counter that I just cannot resist it. You really do seem to have a very blunt axe to grind against the developers and anyone who offers a counter view to these utterly one sided pearls of wisdom. Cya later again bud. I am off to actually play the game but look forward to reading your responses tomorrow.
  • Khronikos
    2236 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited January 2019
    IDK the patch notes look okay. My main problem is forever going to be maps. I just cannot see myself playing a game where you get one map every 4 months or whatever. They did this with Uncharted and I hated it too. And then half the time the one new map comes and you don't even like it. Tough. Another 4 or 5 months to hit at something else lol.

    I bet Greece will be pretty, but if it is literally only one map or two at most I just have no idea how you keep numbers up for this game. At least in COD there is the cool HQ and tons of prestige stuff along with all the maps love them or hate them. Gun games get boring to me, and the only thing that keeps me going past 100h is maps. It is what it is.

    I guess check back in 3 or 4 months. Haven't even started this Tides second chapter. Not sure I want to. I looked at all the gear and mostly I just don't care about it. This game doesn't really send me in a fit to collect anything. The skins in COD are cooler. The Skins in BF1 are cooler. I still miss Cavalry.
  • Khronikos
    2236 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Explicitly, this thread remains because EA is a bad company. It's that simple. When they do this to customers they deserve everything they get. Try completing a game once.
  • PrezMtDewCamacho
    43 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Bf3 so much better. Thank god it’s on XBone, which seeems to solve a long of lag/feeezing/hit marker/shading and texture issues, and that there are 3 servers running the later map packs, which I’ve hardly played comparatively.

    If all I cared about was graphics and not gameplay #1, I would just go outside and play with guns. Lol BF1 and 5. Only a new, true to the core Bad Company can save the Franchise now.
  • NoQuart3r
    105 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Bf3 so much better. Thank god it’s on XBone, which seeems to solve a long of lag/feeezing/hit marker/shading and texture issues, and that there are 3 servers running the later map packs, which I’ve hardly played comparatively.

    If all I cared about was graphics and not gameplay #1, I would just go outside and play with guns. Lol BF1 and 5. Only a new, true to the core Bad Company can save the Franchise now.

    Yeah love BF3. Just out of interest how populated is it on Xbone which I gather is running the old 360 version?
This discussion has been closed.