If Dice wants their next game to be successful they must listen to hardcore players

Comments

  • trip1ex
    5232 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Loqtrall said:
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    Is this literal objective fact or legitimate subjective opinion.?

    When compared to the last 3 titles at least, it is not difficult to see why BFV is often referred to as 'Hardcore lite' by many.

    And yes, this is an opinion,a meandering ramble about why BFV is just like BF2 is not required.

    And in what ways is it more "Hardcore lite" than past games? Because it doesn't include a spammable 3d spotting mechanic that is solely utilized in BF3 through BF1 and nowhere else in the franchise or in any other FPS game known to man? Because it doesn't have a suppression mechanic that actively rewards *not* hitting your target (which, again, is only present in 4 total BF titles)?

    I fail to see how it's more that BF5 has moved into "Hardcore-lite", and less that the past 4 titles in the franchise moved significantly further into the territory of hand-holding game mechanics and features and away from the gameplay BF was known for - before a "Hardcore mode" even existed.

    Thats not to mention we're talking about Hardcore modes in this franchise, to which BF5 isn't even remotely similar outside of having no spammable 3d spotting. It is still filled to the brim with arcadey, casual mechanics and differs, functionally, from Hardcore modes in any given FPS game out there in so many ways, its not even funny.

    So again, I fail to see how having no spammable spotting/etc qualifies this game as Hardcore lite. If anything it qualifies it as closer to what BF was before its rise to popularity on consoles and attempts to make it as accessible to as many players as possible - and closer to how the majority of other shooters are designed. Now we have people literally insisting they can't see enemies with their own eyes, despite rim lighting making them glow like light bulbs, because they can't spam a button and mark them with a bright red dot over their heads. We have people complaining that an enemy with a rifle can still accurately shoot them while they spray 120 MMG rounds 150m away and miss 99% of their shots. We have people that they have to find a friendly Medic or resupply when they're hurt because they can't just hide in a bush and regain all of their health. Ffs, Bf4 had a mechanic that spotted every player on the minimap every time they fired their gun, IN A SHOOTER GAME, and the only way to counter it was to attach a suppressor that make your weapon perform considerably worse in a game where most weapons had the muzzle velocity of airsoft guns. It had a weapon attachment that automatically spammed 3d spotting on any enemy you even aimed at.

    I'd say desire for that type of gameplay is less indicative of BF5 being too hardcore-oriented, and moreso that the community desires systems that hold your hand and gently walk you through every facet of gameplay from start to finish.

    It's not approaching being a Hardcore FPS game at all merely because it lacks blatantly hand-holding and heavily casualized mechanics that a handful of games in this franchise featured. Those games had some of the most player-assisting mechanics in all of AAA FPS gaming. Hell, the 3d spotting mechanics in BF3, BF4, BFH, and BF1 are essentially unprecedented in comparison to other shooters, including most of the games in the same franchise.

    You might have a point if BF games were always like those games in terms of those types of mechanics. But they weren't. What actually happened is BF3s release marked a period in time where DICE took BF games with already arcadey mechanics and features, and made BF games progressively more cheesy in terms of mechanics and how the game relays information to players.
    I womder what the average age of a bf player is. I say this because bf3 was released 9 yrs ago and bf4 7, so I'm betting a huge number of players-not just forum members, have only known the console friendly versions of battlefield so any deviation from the more hand holding mechanics seen since bf3/4 is not what they signed up for. If that makes sense. Anyone under what, 23, if not older would probably not have played the 'original' games and they would have needed a PC to do so. I hark back to the bf1942 playing on my mates LAN and then Buying  bfvietnam, which I love to this day-through rose tinted specs no doubt ( can't beat blaring out ride of the Valkyrie as you ride in a Huey) and I dislike  lot of the more hand holding and 'making life easier' mechanics the series has introduced, but many people have only known health regen, infinite ammo and 3D spotting and so any deviation from this is wrong in their eyes
     

    Yeah but the environments in BF42 were simple.  So while there wasn't 3d spotting and 2d spotting like today, there wasn't nearly the need to have those either.      It was fairly easy to distinguish enemy from environment.  There weren't 1000 hiding spots in  and around every flag zone.  The fighting was much more straight up.  There are enemies on the hill.  The enemies are coming from that flag.   You didn't have blinding sun either.   You didn't have bleached over heat effects. 

    To me the 3d spotting came about because the environments were getting so much more detailed and without it, the gameplay was going to change much more into Where's Waldo gameplay.  And it has in BFV.   

    So to me make the environments simpler with less clutter and no over the top lighting effects and dump  2d and 3d spotting.

    But if they are going to keep the same clutter filled maps with lighting that assaults your eyeballs in the name of photo-realism, then 3d spotting etc has  to be in there to keep the game moving.  Otherwise you get the lameness of BFV.  





  • llPhantom_Limbll
    6310 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    trip1ex said:
    OskooI_007 wrote: »
    I like spotting. It makes for faster and less campy gameplay. About the only games that don't have spotting is BF1942 and BFV. When you spot players in BF2 it follows them around in the minimap.

    More anti-spot perks are needed in Battlefield though. Maybe have an anti-3D spot perk where you only show up on the minimap when spotted. And another one where you lose your spot 50% faster. The perk in BF1 where moving slowly prevents spotting flares from spotting you is a good one.

    Personally, I think the spotting radius of flares (BF1 BFV) and motion sensors (BC1 BC2) is too large and too spammable. So there needs to be stealth perks to counter them. Maybe a sensor jamming perk where you still show up on the minimal, but it only updates your location once every 5 seconds. Similar to how the Commander UAV Scan worked in BF2.

    There's all kinds of stealth perks DICE could come up with if they put their imagination to it.
    Actual BF1942 had spotting but was voice.

    Vietnam had binoculars with tags and minimal.

    People forgot that in BF2 you could scan and see player names without actual spotting the player, worked just as well as 3d spotting. Fun fact the commander could also spot without using the UAV by zooming from the satellite map.

    BF2142 had NetBat helmet which had 3d spotting and minimap.

    Really there has been no BF without spotting, how easy or achieved has been different.

    BFV tried to give players a single squad spot but then made it difficult to achieve and not spot vehicles.
    it was also  much easier to see enemies in  BF42 in the first place because the  environments were  sparse.  There wasn't one thousand hiding spots that you could camp in without being seen.    
    And that's why spotting is necessary when you have visually clustered maps like in BFV.
  • NN_Buzz12
    235 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    trip1ex wrote: »
    (Quote)
     

    Yeah but the environments in BF42 were simple.  So while there wasn't 3d spotting and 2d spotting like today, there wasn't nearly the need to have those either.      It was fairly easy to distinguish enemy from environment.  There weren't 1000 hiding spots in  and around every flag zone.  The fighting was much more straight up.  There are enemies on the hill.  The enemies are coming from that flag.   You didn't have blinding sun either.   You didn't have bleached over heat effects. 

    To me the 3d spotting came about because the environments were getting so much more detailed and without it, the gameplay was going to change much more into Where's Waldo gameplay.  And it has in BFV.   

    So to me make the environments simpler with less clutter and no over the top lighting effects and dump  2d and 3d spotting.

    But if they are going to keep the same clutter filled maps with lighting that assaults your eyeballs in the name of photo-realism, then 3d spotting etc has  to be in there to keep the game moving.  Otherwise you get the lameness of BFV.  

    I think you’re right. I call it sensory overload. It has definitely gotten harder to pick out targets when you have to scan all the clutter. In hardcore you would have to slow down. In hardcore lite it takes a more bullets so closing the gap isn’t as daunting.
  • Trokey66
    9160 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    NN_Buzz12 wrote: »
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    NN_Buzz12 wrote: »
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    NN_Buzz12 wrote: »
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    I highly doubt addition of HC mode can automatically make the game successful. It's not that simple.

    That said, a hardcore mode would give the masochists somewhere to go and us normal people can play without a hardcore lite approach.

    In that sense, I hope BF6 does have a separate hardcore mode.



    Why'd you turn this into a bashing thread? It doesn't even mention the normal game mode in a bad light?

    I haven't, you have simply been over sensitive to what I said.

    Having dabbled in hardcore, I genuinely rhink that people who enjoy that mode are masochists with no insult intended.

    You may also want to look up the definition of 'masochist' before responding further.

    I looked up the definition and you are wrong. You may want to look up the word yourself.

    You dabbled in HC so you’re qualified to label people that like the game play? Then tell people they’re being sensitive because your reply lacks depth? I don’t think I would even post something if I dabbled in the subject being discussed.

    I have an opinion of people that don’t play HC mode and you’re helping to confirm my thought. How’s that?

    If, after having to look up the definition, you can't grasp why I have used the term WITH NO INSULT INTENDED, then perhaps that says more about HC players.......

    Given its literal definition, the term 'masochist' is often used to describe someone who likes to do things 'the hard way'.

    But hey.......

    What’s so hard about playing a video game. The physical act is the same in both modes.

    Once you wrap your mind around the fact that you can’t take more bullets in HC mode, the game is pretty much the same. Is that the hard part you think I missed? Thinking while you play is harder?

    I’m also a hardcore writer. Think before I write. The challenge is real.

    There’s room enough for EA to allow the player base to choose between hardcore and regular mode. EA knows we want to have the choice but they write the code and are willing to alienate and give up customers.

    Oh dear......

    You don't get it do you?

    I think you'll find I support the inclusion of Hardcore if only so that you masochists can go and self flagellate yourselves to your hearts content but reading doesn't seem to be your strong point.

    Thinking before you write doesn't help if you don't think after you read.

    Thank you for your support. Comprehension is not an issue on this end. You seem to be pretty sensitive when your embellished explanation or description of what others go through to play a game are rejected.

    I don’t find playing a video game hard but others like yourself may. In either mode (hardcore or normal) there is a learning curve. I guess you view hardcore mode hard because it’s easier to die?

    I hope life always provides you with an easy button. BFV in any mode isn’t hard. You should stop digging.

    I'm calling 'Mark Twain' on this one.
  • ninjapenquinuk
    2247 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    trip1ex said:
    Loqtrall said:
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    Is this literal objective fact or legitimate subjective opinion.?

    When compared to the last 3 titles at least, it is not difficult to see why BFV is often referred to as 'Hardcore lite' by many.

    And yes, this is an opinion,a meandering ramble about why BFV is just like BF2 is not required.

    And in what ways is it more "Hardcore lite" than past games? Because it doesn't include a spammable 3d spotting mechanic that is solely utilized in BF3 through BF1 and nowhere else in the franchise or in any other FPS game known to man? Because it doesn't have a suppression mechanic that actively rewards *not* hitting your target (which, again, is only present in 4 total BF titles)?

    I fail to see how it's more that BF5 has moved into "Hardcore-lite", and less that the past 4 titles in the franchise moved significantly further into the territory of hand-holding game mechanics and features and away from the gameplay BF was known for - before a "Hardcore mode" even existed.

    Thats not to mention we're talking about Hardcore modes in this franchise, to which BF5 isn't even remotely similar outside of having no spammable 3d spotting. It is still filled to the brim with arcadey, casual mechanics and differs, functionally, from Hardcore modes in any given FPS game out there in so many ways, its not even funny.

    So again, I fail to see how having no spammable spotting/etc qualifies this game as Hardcore lite. If anything it qualifies it as closer to what BF was before its rise to popularity on consoles and attempts to make it as accessible to as many players as possible - and closer to how the majority of other shooters are designed. Now we have people literally insisting they can't see enemies with their own eyes, despite rim lighting making them glow like light bulbs, because they can't spam a button and mark them with a bright red dot over their heads. We have people complaining that an enemy with a rifle can still accurately shoot them while they spray 120 MMG rounds 150m away and miss 99% of their shots. We have people that they have to find a friendly Medic or resupply when they're hurt because they can't just hide in a bush and regain all of their health. Ffs, Bf4 had a mechanic that spotted every player on the minimap every time they fired their gun, IN A SHOOTER GAME, and the only way to counter it was to attach a suppressor that make your weapon perform considerably worse in a game where most weapons had the muzzle velocity of airsoft guns. It had a weapon attachment that automatically spammed 3d spotting on any enemy you even aimed at.

    I'd say desire for that type of gameplay is less indicative of BF5 being too hardcore-oriented, and moreso that the community desires systems that hold your hand and gently walk you through every facet of gameplay from start to finish.

    It's not approaching being a Hardcore FPS game at all merely because it lacks blatantly hand-holding and heavily casualized mechanics that a handful of games in this franchise featured. Those games had some of the most player-assisting mechanics in all of AAA FPS gaming. Hell, the 3d spotting mechanics in BF3, BF4, BFH, and BF1 are essentially unprecedented in comparison to other shooters, including most of the games in the same franchise.

    You might have a point if BF games were always like those games in terms of those types of mechanics. But they weren't. What actually happened is BF3s release marked a period in time where DICE took BF games with already arcadey mechanics and features, and made BF games progressively more cheesy in terms of mechanics and how the game relays information to players.
    I womder what the average age of a bf player is. I say this because bf3 was released 9 yrs ago and bf4 7, so I'm betting a huge number of players-not just forum members, have only known the console friendly versions of battlefield so any deviation from the more hand holding mechanics seen since bf3/4 is not what they signed up for. If that makes sense. Anyone under what, 23, if not older would probably not have played the 'original' games and they would have needed a PC to do so. I hark back to the bf1942 playing on my mates LAN and then Buying  bfvietnam, which I love to this day-through rose tinted specs no doubt ( can't beat blaring out ride of the Valkyrie as you ride in a Huey) and I dislike  lot of the more hand holding and 'making life easier' mechanics the series has introduced, but many people have only known health regen, infinite ammo and 3D spotting and so any deviation from this is wrong in their eyes
     

    Yeah but the environments in BF42 were simple.  So while there wasn't 3d spotting and 2d spotting like today, there wasn't nearly the need to have those either.      It was fairly easy to distinguish enemy from environment.  There weren't 1000 hiding spots in  and around every flag zone.  The fighting was much more straight up.  There are enemies on the hill.  The enemies are coming from that flag.   You didn't have blinding sun either.   You didn't have bleached over heat effects. 

    To me the 3d spotting came about because the environments were getting so much more detailed and without it, the gameplay was going to change much more into Where's Waldo gameplay.  And it has in BFV.   

    So to me make the environments simpler with less clutter and no over the top lighting effects and dump  2d and 3d spotting.

    But if they are going to keep the same clutter filled maps with lighting that assaults your eyeballs in the name of photo-realism, then 3d spotting etc has  to be in there to keep the game moving.  Otherwise you get the lameness of BFV.  




    The clutter and awful lighting needs to go. Why oh why do we need debris flying around maps like a ticker tape parade as it dos nothing for the map. I'd much rather simpler maps than full 3D spotting back

  • trip1ex
    5232 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited May 6
    NN_Buzz12 said:
    trip1ex wrote: »
    (Quote)
     

    Yeah but the environments in BF42 were simple.  So while there wasn't 3d spotting and 2d spotting like today, there wasn't nearly the need to have those either.      It was fairly easy to distinguish enemy from environment.  There weren't 1000 hiding spots in  and around every flag zone.  The fighting was much more straight up.  There are enemies on the hill.  The enemies are coming from that flag.   You didn't have blinding sun either.   You didn't have bleached over heat effects. 

    To me the 3d spotting came about because the environments were getting so much more detailed and without it, the gameplay was going to change much more into Where's Waldo gameplay.  And it has in BFV.   

    So to me make the environments simpler with less clutter and no over the top lighting effects and dump  2d and 3d spotting.

    But if they are going to keep the same clutter filled maps with lighting that assaults your eyeballs in the name of photo-realism, then 3d spotting etc has  to be in there to keep the game moving.  Otherwise you get the lameness of BFV.  

    I think you’re right. I call it sensory overload. It has definitely gotten harder to pick out targets when you have to scan all the clutter. In hardcore you would have to slow down. In hardcore lite it takes a more bullets so closing the gap isn’t as daunting.
    Yeah sensory overload.  BF42 also had fog of war.  You could only see ~400m out.  Probably for technical reasons.  But it did make it so planes, for example,  couldn't see where everything was on the entire map at once.    It made it a little more difficult to find targets but when they were within that ~400m then you could see them.     so there was some guesswork as to where enemies might be in that regard.  And you couldn't automatically see other planes either from across the map.   There was some fun about flying around and then suddenly coming across an enemy plane or column of tanks.  
  • X_Sunslayer_X
    1493 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    DICE really doesn't need to listen to anyone in this community that couldn't agree on anything ever.
    have a solid game, good performance, functioning RPS and the HC-preset implemented and then we can sort the rest out. listening to a small part of the community because of reasons is a bad idea.
  • Loqtrall
    12468 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited May 7
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    Did I not say"when compared to the last 3 titles at least"?

    As ninjapenquinuk above says, it is not impossible that a significant amount of players, if not the majority, have only played since Bad Company. Indeed, those that have played longer may prefer the later titles.

    By the God's, read man. It could save you an awful lot of typing.

    Yes, you did. And I said "when the last 3 titles are compared not only to the rest of the franchise, but to other shooter franchises as well."

    I couldn't care less when someone started to play these games - that doesn't change anything I said and it doesn't change the objective history of this franchise and its games. It still doesn't make BF5 "hardcore lite" - it makes those specific and FEW BF game significantly more casualized and aimed at mass-appeal than most other titles in the franchise and most other shooter franchises out there. When the features BF5 lacks that you claim make the game "more hardcore" are unprecedented in past BF games as well as essentially all other major shooter franchises - its not that those other games are "more hardcore", it's that those specific, small handful of BF titles went overboard with hand-holding and overly casualized mechanics and features.

    When the rest of the franchise outside of those 3 games are more akin to BF5 and other shooters, it is not BF5 that got the "hardcore lite" treatment. It's BF3, BF4, BFH, and BF1 that got the "here, let the game do the work for you" treatment.

    What it seems you're doing from my pov is essentially attempting to base what normal BF "should be" on 3-4 games out of 14 total games, and are saying the other 10 games in the franchise are "Hardcore lite".
    DingoKillr wrote: »
    OskooI_007 wrote: »
    I like spotting. It makes for faster and less campy gameplay. About the only games that don't have spotting is BF1942 and BFV. When you spot players in BF2 it follows them around in the minimap.

    More anti-spot perks are needed in Battlefield though. Maybe have an anti-3D spot perk where you only show up on the minimap when spotted. And another one where you lose your spot 50% faster. The perk in BF1 where moving slowly prevents spotting flares from spotting you is a good one.

    Personally, I think the spotting radius of flares (BF1 BFV) and motion sensors (BC1 BC2) is too large and too spammable. So there needs to be stealth perks to counter them. Maybe a sensor jamming perk where you still show up on the minimal, but it only updates your location once every 5 seconds. Similar to how the Commander UAV Scan worked in BF2.

    There's all kinds of stealth perks DICE could come up with if they put their imagination to it.
    Actual BF1942 had spotting but was voice.

    Vietnam had binoculars with tags and minimal.

    People forgot that in BF2 you could scan and see player names without actual spotting the player, worked just as well as 3d spotting. Fun fact the commander could also spot without using the UAV by zooming from the satellite map.

    BF2142 had NetBat helmet which had 3d spotting and minimap.

    Really there has been no BF without spotting, how easy or achieved has been different.

    BFV tried to give players a single squad spot but then made it difficult to achieve and not spot vehicles.

    All BF games did have some sort of spotting - but they did not all have the spammable and universally usable spotting mechanic that actively spotted people in 3d space for the entire team as long as they're in a player's FoV, which was featured from BF3 through BF1, and there have been no spotting mechanics as effective and widespread in use as that mechanic.

    There's a reason that when BF3 released, those games got the nickname "Doritofield" and why a countless myriad of people throughout the past decade have complained about said mechanics.

    Also, 2142 didn't have 3d spotting as we had in those games. It had a crude iteration of a similar system, wherein spotted players are marked with a generic, small icon for extremely short periods of time regardless of whether or not you maintain lines of sight on enemies. We had the same spotting system in BC2. In BC1 it was for an even shorter amount of time and wasn't spammable, it was achieved by aiming at or shooting at an enemy for a specific amount of time.

    There's a huge difference, imo, between pinging an enemy's last known location or seeing someone spotted by a commander on the minimap within range of you in past games - and seeing a red dot actively tracking an enemy in 3d space 150m away through solid cover for extended periods of time because somebody on my team looked at them and pressed a button - and having that happen ALL THE TIME, IN EVERY GAME because it can literally be spammed by all 32 players on a team regardless of how they're playing - and being able to do that without even requiring that your sights actually be on top of the player being spotted - they just have to be generally near where you're aiming.

    One is a more tactics-based approach or requires the eyes of a dedicated commander player - the other is a system that allows any given player to run around and spam a button that reveals the exact position of enemies in real time that the player in question potentially didn't or couldn't even see. Hell, BF4 even had a gun attachment that allowed players to do so without even needing to press a button.
    Post edited by Loqtrall on
  • Trokey66
    9160 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    So you are just going to completely ignore, nevermind refute the hypothesis that most players today quite possibly started their Battlefield journey on console to validate your argument?

    This is despite the fact that you yourself have essentially agreed with me and have supplied evidence that relative to the last 3-4 iterations, BFV has had a 'Hardcore lite' approach, an approach that many players don't like.
  • ninjapenquinuk
    2247 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    In thin the next game DICE also need to start balancing weapons/vehicles differently on PC and console. We are mostly talking tweaking a few values here, not redesigning guns and mechanics. Too often an OP gun on PC is useless on console or vice versa, though I guess that may be trickier if the next gen come with keyboard and mouse as standard inputs. I for one would ditch my controller in a heartbeat 
  • NLBartmaN
    4484 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    In thin the next game DICE also need to start balancing weapons/vehicles differently on PC and console. We are mostly talking tweaking a few values here, not redesigning guns and mechanics. Too often an OP gun on PC is useless on console or vice versa, though I guess that may be trickier if the next gen come with keyboard and mouse as standard inputs. I for one would ditch my controller in a heartbeat 
    I would prefer crossplay with an option for standard consoles with default controllers in 1 lobby and the rest (also console with Cronusmax, M+K, etc) in another lobby.
    And adding a hardware ID lock for those controllers, that is very hard/expensive to fake.

    Also 1 of the things that is requested the most by Warzone players: a lobby option for consoles with default controller only.
    Most console players opt out on playing with PC and only matchmake with crossplay disabled to avoid playing against PC players.

    And only default controllers (not Cronusmax and other "cheating devices) get "aim assists" and console tweaks to balance things out.

    In Warzone, when you watch the killcam and after that spec the guy that killed you, you can instantly see if it is a PC player and if the player uses a default controller, movement, aiming and shooting are so different, but overall it feels balanced the way they designed and built it.
  • GRAW2ROBZ
    2639 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    trip1ex said:
    NN_Buzz12 said:
    trip1ex wrote: »
    (Quote)
     

    Yeah but the environments in BF42 were simple.  So while there wasn't 3d spotting and 2d spotting like today, there wasn't nearly the need to have those either.      It was fairly easy to distinguish enemy from environment.  There weren't 1000 hiding spots in  and around every flag zone.  The fighting was much more straight up.  There are enemies on the hill.  The enemies are coming from that flag.   You didn't have blinding sun either.   You didn't have bleached over heat effects. 

    To me the 3d spotting came about because the environments were getting so much more detailed and without it, the gameplay was going to change much more into Where's Waldo gameplay.  And it has in BFV.   

    So to me make the environments simpler with less clutter and no over the top lighting effects and dump  2d and 3d spotting.

    But if they are going to keep the same clutter filled maps with lighting that assaults your eyeballs in the name of photo-realism, then 3d spotting etc has  to be in there to keep the game moving.  Otherwise you get the lameness of BFV.  

    I think you’re right. I call it sensory overload. It has definitely gotten harder to pick out targets when you have to scan all the clutter. In hardcore you would have to slow down. In hardcore lite it takes a more bullets so closing the gap isn’t as daunting.
    Yeah sensory overload.  BF42 also had fog of war.  You could only see ~400m out.  Probably for technical reasons.  But it did make it so planes, for example,  couldn't see where everything was on the entire map at once.    It made it a little more difficult to find targets but when they were within that ~400m then you could see them.     so there was some guesswork as to where enemies might be in that regard.  And you couldn't automatically see other planes either from across the map.   There was some fun about flying around and then suddenly coming across an enemy plane or column of tanks.  

    Socom Navy Seals for PS2 had fog of war.  But I had a buddy hit a terrorist across the map with a quick random burst of his M60.  I thought it was cool.
  • Loqtrall
    12468 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    So you are just going to completely ignore, nevermind refute the hypothesis that most players today quite possibly started their Battlefield journey on console to validate your argument?

    This is despite the fact that you yourself have essentially agreed with me and have supplied evidence that relative to the last 3-4 iterations, BFV has had a 'Hardcore lite' approach, an approach that many players don't like.

    Yes, I'm going to ignore it, because where various and random people started playing games in this franchise doesn't negate the history of said franchise. If someone didn't start playing until BF4, it doesn't magically nullify the existence of games released beforehand or the way they were designed in comparison.

    The point in which little Johnny down the block started playing his first BF title has no bearing on what I'm discussing. He and anyone else can feel about BF any way they want, but those feelings don't invalidate what BF was and had been for a longer period of time. If you're going to sit there and compare BF5 specifically to BF3, BF4, and BF1 to point out how "hardcore" its become - then I'm going to sit there and point out how it's returned to the BF norm of olde by comparing BF5 to 1942, BFV, BF2, BF2MC, 2142, BC1, BC2, BFP4F, BF Heroes, and BF1943. Otherwise known as the rest of the BF franchise.

    And no, I haven't essentially agreed with you. I've done the opposite by pointing out its not BF5 that is "hardcore lite", it's those specific iterations of BF that are exceedingly more hand-holding and universally casualized than any other title in the franchise and even more than most shooter franchises out there. Whereas BF5 is closer to the "norm" when it comes to other BF titles and other shooters in general - BF3-BF1 sent hand-holding mechanics into overdrive, to an extent which hadn't been seen in BF before. To the point people were relying solely on the HUD for moment to moment information rather than using their eyes and ears. To the point where the gameplay shifted from gritty infantry and vehicle play to using the cheesiest gadget or attachment. Where the focus shifted from gameplay to mass appeal and accessibility.

    It's nonsense to, for instance, claim something like the lack of a spammable 3d spotting mechanic/overbearing suppression mechanic contributes to a BF game being "hardcore lite" when that specific mechanic is found in less BF games than it's featured in, and is otherwise unprecedented to see in other AAA fps games. That would be essentially insisting any game without such a mechanic is taking a "hardcore" approach, despite most fps games in existence and most BF games in existence not featuring such a mechanic.

    And that's aside the fact that, for the second time, in comparison to actual hardcore shooters that are designed to be whollistically hardcore and in comparison to hardcore mode in past games, BF5 isn't even remotely similar. In comparison BF5 is as casual and arcadey as games come. It's gunplay is hyper-straightforward, it's still filled with spotting gadgets, it's movement speed is quick and traversal is easier than ever before. There's no friendly fire. There's still a HUD with a minimap, ammo counter, health bar, objective locations, teammate and enemy name tags, and a kill feed. The minimap shows and tracks the location of spotted players as well as shows the location friendly players died. Vehicles still have 3rd person cameras. You can still spawn on any of your squadmates (a big no-no in hardcore shooters). Vehicles have quick and self repair. The ttk is statistically similar to several other BF titles before it. There's no mag dump, no decreased health, no lack of crosshairs, no lack of health regen, etc.

    So what exactly makes BF5 "hardcore-lite" both in comparison to older games in this franchise, to other fps games out there, and to ACTUAL hardcore shooters and hardcore modes in past games? Because I'm not seeing it, unless your argument solely pertains to 3d spotting or spawning with less ammo, which are two weak arguments to use in attempts to liken BF5 to hardcore shooters or even hardcore mode in past BF games.
  • Trokey66
    9160 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Well, I stopped reading at "Yes, I'm going to ignore it" so that is another meandering ramble wasted.

    If you don't want to account for, or even acknowlege the impact of cinsoles in this discussion and how it may affect a significant number of peoples perceptions, then there is no point in continuing.

    I also find it quite alarming that you of all people, would discount such views off hand.

    But then you are a self proclaimed sentient BF2 disc which apparantly makes you an authority on all things Battlefield.
  • RealAshWilliams
    419 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    This isn't a bashing thread for Normal core players, it's strictly talking about the addition of Hardcore.

    Hardcore really isn't a demanding option. We just want more damage, no map, and no aim assist. If we can get those things the game would be fine. Sure things like flares may not work correctly, but it's Hardcore.

    Battlefield Bad Company 3, BF3, and BF4 are good examples
    yea but on bf4, bf3, bbc2, there were private community servers, the admins could choose to put their server in hardcore.
  • DingoKillr
    4352 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    So you are just going to completely ignore, nevermind refute the hypothesis that most players today quite possibly started their Battlefield journey on console to validate your argument?

    This is despite the fact that you yourself have essentially agreed with me and have supplied evidence that relative to the last 3-4 iterations, BFV has had a 'Hardcore lite' approach, an approach that many players don't like.

    Yes, I'm going to ignore it, because where various and random people started playing games in this franchise doesn't negate the history of said franchise. If someone didn't start playing until BF4, it doesn't magically nullify the existence of games released beforehand or the way they were designed in comparison.

    The point in which little Johnny down the block started playing his first BF title has no bearing on what I'm discussing. He and anyone else can feel about BF any way they want, but those feelings don't invalidate what BF was and had been for a longer period of time. If you're going to sit there and compare BF5 specifically to BF3, BF4, and BF1 to point out how "hardcore" its become - then I'm going to sit there and point out how it's returned to the BF norm of olde by comparing BF5 to 1942, BFV, BF2, BF2MC, 2142, BC1, BC2, BFP4F, BF Heroes, and BF1943. Otherwise known as the rest of the BF franchise.

    And no, I haven't essentially agreed with you. I've done the opposite by pointing out its not BF5 that is "hardcore lite", it's those specific iterations of BF that are exceedingly more hand-holding and universally casualized than any other title in the franchise and even more than most shooter franchises out there. Whereas BF5 is closer to the "norm" when it comes to other BF titles and other shooters in general - BF3-BF1 sent hand-holding mechanics into overdrive, to an extent which hadn't been seen in BF before. To the point people were relying solely on the HUD for moment to moment information rather than using their eyes and ears. To the point where the gameplay shifted from gritty infantry and vehicle play to using the cheesiest gadget or attachment. Where the focus shifted from gameplay to mass appeal and accessibility.

    It's nonsense to, for instance, claim something like the lack of a spammable 3d spotting mechanic/overbearing suppression mechanic contributes to a BF game being "hardcore lite" when that specific mechanic is found in less BF games than it's featured in, and is otherwise unprecedented to see in other AAA fps games. That would be essentially insisting any game without such a mechanic is taking a "hardcore" approach, despite most fps games in existence and most BF games in existence not featuring such a mechanic.

    And that's aside the fact that, for the second time, in comparison to actual hardcore shooters that are designed to be whollistically hardcore and in comparison to hardcore mode in past games, BF5 isn't even remotely similar. In comparison BF5 is as casual and arcadey as games come. It's gunplay is hyper-straightforward, it's still filled with spotting gadgets, it's movement speed is quick and traversal is easier than ever before. There's no friendly fire. There's still a HUD with a minimap, ammo counter, health bar, objective locations, teammate and enemy name tags, and a kill feed. The minimap shows and tracks the location of spotted players as well as shows the location friendly players died. Vehicles still have 3rd person cameras. You can still spawn on any of your squadmates (a big no-no in hardcore shooters). Vehicles have quick and self repair. The ttk is statistically similar to several other BF titles before it. There's no mag dump, no decreased health, no lack of crosshairs, no lack of health regen, etc.

    So what exactly makes BF5 "hardcore-lite" both in comparison to older games in this franchise, to other fps games out there, and to ACTUAL hardcore shooters and hardcore modes in past games? Because I'm not seeing it, unless your argument solely pertains to 3d spotting or spawning with less ammo, which are two weak arguments to use in attempts to liken BF5 to hardcore shooters or even hardcore mode in past BF games.

    So BF3/4 are not hardcore shooters. They had the same spawn system as normal and friendly players had blue tags. You could play with a hud to track ammo count.
    What other hardcore shooter has vehicles?
  • ninjapenquinuk
    2247 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Loqtrall said:
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    So you are just going to completely ignore, nevermind refute the hypothesis that most players today quite possibly started their Battlefield journey on console to validate your argument?

    This is despite the fact that you yourself have essentially agreed with me and have supplied evidence that relative to the last 3-4 iterations, BFV has had a 'Hardcore lite' approach, an approach that many players don't like.

    Yes, I'm going to ignore it, because where various and random people started playing games in this franchise doesn't negate the history of said franchise. If someone didn't start playing until BF4, it doesn't magically nullify the existence of games released beforehand or the way they were designed in comparison.

    The point in which little Johnny down the block started playing his first BF title has no bearing on what I'm discussing. He and anyone else can feel about BF any way they want, but those feelings don't invalidate what BF was and had been for a longer period of time. If you're going to sit there and compare BF5 specifically to BF3, BF4, and BF1 to point out how "hardcore" its become - then I'm going to sit there and point out how it's returned to the BF norm of olde by comparing BF5 to 1942, BFV, BF2, BF2MC, 2142, BC1, BC2, BFP4F, BF Heroes, and BF1943. Otherwise known as the rest of the BF franchise.

    And no, I haven't essentially agreed with you. I've done the opposite by pointing out its not BF5 that is "hardcore lite", it's those specific iterations of BF that are exceedingly more hand-holding and universally casualized than any other title in the franchise and even more than most shooter franchises out there. Whereas BF5 is closer to the "norm" when it comes to other BF titles and other shooters in general - BF3-BF1 sent hand-holding mechanics into overdrive, to an extent which hadn't been seen in BF before. To the point people were relying solely on the HUD for moment to moment information rather than using their eyes and ears. To the point where the gameplay shifted from gritty infantry and vehicle play to using the cheesiest gadget or attachment. Where the focus shifted from gameplay to mass appeal and accessibility.

    It's nonsense to, for instance, claim something like the lack of a spammable 3d spotting mechanic/overbearing suppression mechanic contributes to a BF game being "hardcore lite" when that specific mechanic is found in less BF games than it's featured in, and is otherwise unprecedented to see in other AAA fps games. That would be essentially insisting any game without such a mechanic is taking a "hardcore" approach, despite most fps games in existence and most BF games in existence not featuring such a mechanic.

    And that's aside the fact that, for the second time, in comparison to actual hardcore shooters that are designed to be whollistically hardcore and in comparison to hardcore mode in past games, BF5 isn't even remotely similar. In comparison BF5 is as casual and arcadey as games come. It's gunplay is hyper-straightforward, it's still filled with spotting gadgets, it's movement speed is quick and traversal is easier than ever before. There's no friendly fire. There's still a HUD with a minimap, ammo counter, health bar, objective locations, teammate and enemy name tags, and a kill feed. The minimap shows and tracks the location of spotted players as well as shows the location friendly players died. Vehicles still have 3rd person cameras. You can still spawn on any of your squadmates (a big no-no in hardcore shooters). Vehicles have quick and self repair. The ttk is statistically similar to several other BF titles before it. There's no mag dump, no decreased health, no lack of crosshairs, no lack of health regen, etc.

    So what exactly makes BF5 "hardcore-lite" both in comparison to older games in this franchise, to other fps games out there, and to ACTUAL hardcore shooters and hardcore modes in past games? Because I'm not seeing it, unless your argument solely pertains to 3d spotting or spawning with less ammo, which are two weak arguments to use in attempts to liken BF5 to hardcore shooters or even hardcore mode in past BF games.
    The played history of the franchise for some people is totally different to the played history of others. Some non UK people may not get this analogy but it's like when some football fans and pundits seem to forget that football existed before the premier league.  To younger people theyve only ever known football post 1992 and forget or not know about all the great teams and player before then. They know no difference. SAme with battlefield. Many, if not most players have never played pre console so have no knowledge of bf1942-bf2, and these games may have well not existed for all they a care. They have only played 'console friendly' versions not the original pc games so have different expectations
  • Trokey66
    9160 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited May 7
    (Quote)
    The played history of the franchise for some people is totally different to the played history of others. Some non UK people may not get this analogy but it's like when some football fans and pundits seem to forget that football existed before the premier league.  To younger people theyve only ever known football post 1992 and forget or not know about all the great teams and player before then. They know no difference. SAme with battlefield. Many, if not most players have never played pre console so have no knowledge of bf1942-bf2, and these games may have well not existed for all they a care. They have only played 'console friendly' versions not the original pc games so have different expectations

    You mean when footballers were real men who could take a tackle and not over paid wimpy premadonas who go down if a defender gets within 2 feet of them?
  • TyroneLoyd
    1783 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited May 7
    DingoKillr wrote: »
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    So you are just going to completely ignore, nevermind refute the hypothesis that most players today quite possibly started their Battlefield journey on console to validate your argument?

    This is despite the fact that you yourself have essentially agreed with me and have supplied evidence that relative to the last 3-4 iterations, BFV has had a 'Hardcore lite' approach, an approach that many players don't like.

    Yes, I'm going to ignore it, because where various and random people started playing games in this franchise doesn't negate the history of said franchise. If someone didn't start playing until BF4, it doesn't magically nullify the existence of games released beforehand or the way they were designed in comparison.

    The point in which little Johnny down the block started playing his first BF title has no bearing on what I'm discussing. He and anyone else can feel about BF any way they want, but those feelings don't invalidate what BF was and had been for a longer period of time. If you're going to sit there and compare BF5 specifically to BF3, BF4, and BF1 to point out how "hardcore" its become - then I'm going to sit there and point out how it's returned to the BF norm of olde by comparing BF5 to 1942, BFV, BF2, BF2MC, 2142, BC1, BC2, BFP4F, BF Heroes, and BF1943. Otherwise known as the rest of the BF franchise.

    And no, I haven't essentially agreed with you. I've done the opposite by pointing out its not BF5 that is "hardcore lite", it's those specific iterations of BF that are exceedingly more hand-holding and universally casualized than any other title in the franchise and even more than most shooter franchises out there. Whereas BF5 is closer to the "norm" when it comes to other BF titles and other shooters in general - BF3-BF1 sent hand-holding mechanics into overdrive, to an extent which hadn't been seen in BF before. To the point people were relying solely on the HUD for moment to moment information rather than using their eyes and ears. To the point where the gameplay shifted from gritty infantry and vehicle play to using the cheesiest gadget or attachment. Where the focus shifted from gameplay to mass appeal and accessibility.

    It's nonsense to, for instance, claim something like the lack of a spammable 3d spotting mechanic/overbearing suppression mechanic contributes to a BF game being "hardcore lite" when that specific mechanic is found in less BF games than it's featured in, and is otherwise unprecedented to see in other AAA fps games. That would be essentially insisting any game without such a mechanic is taking a "hardcore" approach, despite most fps games in existence and most BF games in existence not featuring such a mechanic.

    And that's aside the fact that, for the second time, in comparison to actual hardcore shooters that are designed to be whollistically hardcore and in comparison to hardcore mode in past games, BF5 isn't even remotely similar. In comparison BF5 is as casual and arcadey as games come. It's gunplay is hyper-straightforward, it's still filled with spotting gadgets, it's movement speed is quick and traversal is easier than ever before. There's no friendly fire. There's still a HUD with a minimap, ammo counter, health bar, objective locations, teammate and enemy name tags, and a kill feed. The minimap shows and tracks the location of spotted players as well as shows the location friendly players died. Vehicles still have 3rd person cameras. You can still spawn on any of your squadmates (a big no-no in hardcore shooters). Vehicles have quick and self repair. The ttk is statistically similar to several other BF titles before it. There's no mag dump, no decreased health, no lack of crosshairs, no lack of health regen, etc.

    So what exactly makes BF5 "hardcore-lite" both in comparison to older games in this franchise, to other fps games out there, and to ACTUAL hardcore shooters and hardcore modes in past games? Because I'm not seeing it, unless your argument solely pertains to 3d spotting or spawning with less ammo, which are two weak arguments to use in attempts to liken BF5 to hardcore shooters or even hardcore mode in past BF games.

    So BF3/4 are not hardcore shooters. They had the same spawn system as normal and friendly players had blue tags. You could play with a hud to track ammo count.
    What other hardcore shooter has vehicles?

    Mil sims.
    Thats pretty self explanatory.
  • ProAssassin2003
    3868 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Still needs to show friendly Name tags though. The Hardcore they had without friendly Name tags was a disaster.
Sign In or Register to comment.