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

Comments

  • Forkbeard84
    1854 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited May 8
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    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.

    Meandering ramble is a good description of it. Many of them seem bent on trolling. I know everything, you know nothing type stuff.
  • DingoKillr
    4352 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    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.
    Do mil sims also have auto ammo re-gen for vehicles or even vehicle respawn like the BF3/4 mode?

    Did BF3/4 have actual hardcore mode or not? If it did then looking at BFV
    - Ammo all manual
    - Health limited re-gen for infantry but still need manual.
    - spotting limited.
    Sounds close to hardcore.

    So what needs to be changed to make BFV hardcore?
    - remove minimap.
    - 60% health not required if no re-gen health.
    - remove 3pv, yet was there for BF1 vehicles and cavalry.

    Pre BF2142 games was more hardcore than BF3/4 hardcore modes even with minimap.

  • Loqtrall
    12468 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited May 8
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    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.

    It's cool that you think the opinions of random people nullifies the history of this franchise and dictates "what normal BF is", but I still don't agree with you. My response wasn't wasted because you choose not to read it. I still made my point.

    People not playing these games until BF3 doesn't change the fact that BF5 is not "Hardcore lite". It doesn't change the fact that it's actually the other way around - BF5 is more akin to past BF titles and even other shooters, whereas BF3 through BF1 took hand holding mechanics to the next level, to unprecedented levels.

    Some dude not playing BF until BF4 doesn't somehow make BF5 akin to a Hardcore shooter just because the guy started playing BF with arguably the most casual, hand-holding entry in the franchise. History isn't erased just because people in the Playerbase want to ignore it, which is ironic considering the whole "historical inaccuracy" debacle surrounding this game.

    People can "perceive" BF any way they like - it doesn't change what BF was before BF3. My roommate is color blind and perceives red/yellow/green as the same colors - that doesn't make it so, and he knows there is a difference between what he perceives and what's actually there. When he's not sure what color something is, he asks for help. With the logic you're using, I and everyone else around him should just accept what he perceives as factual reality, and accept that red, green, and yellow are all the same color because he knows no different.

    And yes, please, point out how a joke in a forum signature is a self-proclamation of something as well as an indication that I am an authority on something. Very great argument there, bud.
    Post edited by Loqtrall on
  • Loqtrall
    12468 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    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?

    No, BF3 and 4 are not Hardcore shooters. They have a Hardcore mode that strips down features in attempts to make the game more "hardcore" but that's about it.

    And what other hardcore games have vehicles? ARMA, ARMA2, ARMA3, Red Orchestra, Red Orchestra RS and RS2, SQUAD, Project Reality, Hell Let Loose, Post Scriptum....
  • Loqtrall
    12468 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited May 8
    (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

    Of course, that's obvious. My point is that the subjective experience of someone doesn't dictate the reality of the situation nor the history of these games and how they were designed. Not playing BF until BF3 doesn't magically and universally nullify everything that happened before that game.

    When more BF games are akin to BF5s design philosophy than BF3/4/H/1 and those few games have mechanics that are unprecedented in other titles, then to insist its BF5 getting "more hardcore" is asinine. The case is those few, handful of games got over simplified, over casualized. It may be all some random people know BF to be, but it's not factually what BF has always been just because that's what they perceive and because they don't care about BF games they never played.

    Not every BF title that comes into existence has to be akin to BF4, mechanically and in terms of design, because there are people who didn't start playing until BF4. That logic is ridiculous, and it's a mindset that insists that even though it's HUGE CHANGES that made BF3/4/1 what the were in comparison to the rest of the franchise, huge changes that upset PLENTY of BF players who played BEFORE those games - BF5 is somehow, in some way, in the wrong for making even further changes to the franchise and reverting some aspects of gameplay to the way they were before those HUGE changes to gameplay were made.

    Now what was considered "Normal" and the ONLY way to play in 8-9 different BF titles is now considered "hardcore lite" because of 4 titles in the franchise that shifted away from what BF had been doing. Despite being more "normal" than those other games in comparison to other casual AAA shooters, and not being even remotely akin to actual hardcore shooters.

    That's why I say I couldn't give one measely fart what other people care about or when other people started playing. That's all a matter of opinion. I'm not sitting here saying BF5 is an amazing game because it's closer to my favorite BF title of old or something. I'm merely pointing out the fact that between BF5 and BF3/4/H/1 - BF5 is mechanically more akin to all other BF titles as well as most other AAA shooters out there, whereas those other games pushed casualization and accessibility to unprecedented levels, unseen beforehand in the franchise.

    My point is its not BF5 that's different or "more hardcore" when it matches how the majority of the franchise was designed. BF games, inherently, are not hardcore titles. They've always been casual and arcadey - BF3-BF1 just took that to the next level. BF5 brought things back down.

    At the end of the day BF5 still isn't even remotely hardcore. It doesn't compare to even half-baked HC modes in past games, let alone games that are actually designed from the ground up to be a hardcore or realistic experience.
    Post edited by Loqtrall on
  • Loqtrall
    12468 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited May 8
    DingoKillr wrote: »
    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.
    Do mil sims also have auto ammo re-gen for vehicles or even vehicle respawn like the BF3/4 mode?

    Did BF3/4 have actual hardcore mode or not? If it did then looking at BFV
    - Ammo all manual
    - Health limited re-gen for infantry but still need manual.
    - spotting limited.
    Sounds close to hardcore.

    So what needs to be changed to make BFV hardcore?
    - remove minimap.
    - 60% health not required if no re-gen health.
    - remove 3pv, yet was there for BF1 vehicles and cavalry.

    Pre BF2142 games was more hardcore than BF3/4 hardcore modes even with minimap.

    No, in order for BF5 to become hardcore mode from past games, it'd have to lose 40% of player health (thus increasing the TTK of all weapons, gadgets, and vehicles by 40% and making all rifles guaranteed OHKs at all ranges), you'd need friendly fire, you'd have to lose the minimap, the ammo counter, the gadget counter, enemy name tags in cqb, 3rd person view on vehicles, the ability to spawn on any squadmate, completely remove health regeneration, enable mag dumping on non-empty reloads, and completely remove the ability for any spotting to happen in 3d space - including the squad ping system, The Sniper combat role spotting ability, the entire purpose of the spotting scope, getting the hollow diamond spot through cover by suppressing someone, someone out in the open marked by a flare, etc.

    The game would play substantially differently to how it does now. For starters, gunplay would be a horrendous mess of unbalance, with essentially all weapon types insta-killint with an average ttk that doesn't surpass 200ms. All rifles would OHK. Both revolvers would OHK in cqb. The Jungle Carbine would OHK up to something like 75m. Tank and plane splash damage would be significantly more effective, but both types of vehicles would be substantially harder to use and their situational awareness capabilities will be neutered without a 3rd person camera. You'd only be able to spawn on your squad leader, and if he's dead you're spawning on objectives unless you wait for him to respawn. Every time you reload, you'd lose all remaining rounds in your magazine. Remember all those times you rushed into an OBJ or building and your friendly teammate shot his STG at you? Well now it'd kill you, and there's nothing you'd be able to do about it. You think visibility was bad before? Well tough luck, because now all spotting gadgets are essentially nullified and your squad can't even ping where they know an enemy is.

    There's so much about BF5 that isn't similar to HC mode in those games, it's not even funny. You'd have to fundamentally change the entire game and how it plays to make it identical to HC mode in those games.

    You listed 3 reasons, two of which aren't even identical to HC mode in past games (3d spotting which still exists, and health regen which still exists), and that makes BF5 "close to hardcore"? Seriously? One of those mechanics you're insisting makes BF5 "close to hardcore" for lacking (the 3d spotting from BF3/4/etc) is something unseen and unprecedented in nearly ALL other shooter games. How can a game not having a spammable mechanic that marks enemies with red dots for your entire team through solid objects just because you pressed a button indicate a game is "approaching hardcore"? How is that the case when such a mechanic is not seen utilized in other BF titles as well as essentially every other major fps title out there?
  • SirBobdk
    5318 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Loqtrall said:
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    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.

    It's cool that you think the opinions of random people nullifies the history of this franchise and dictates "what normal BF is", but I still don't agree with you. My response wasn't wasted because you choose not to read it. I still made my point.

    People not playing these games until BF3 doesn't change the fact that BF5 is not "Hardcore lite". It doesn't change the fact that it's actually the other way around - BF5 is more akin to past BF titles and even other shooters, whereas BF3 through BF1 took hand holding mechanics to the next level, to unprecedented levels.

    Some dude not playing BF until BF4 doesn't somehow make BF5 akin to a Hardcore shooter just because the guy started playing BF with arguably the most casual, hand-holding entry in the franchise. History isn't erased just because people in the Playerbase want to ignore it, which is ironic considering the whole "historical inaccuracy" debacle surrounding this game.

    People can "perceive" BF any way they like - it doesn't change what BF was before BF3. My roommate is color blind and perceives red/yellow/green as the same colors - that doesn't make it so, and he knows there is a difference between what he perceives and what's actually there.

    And yes, please, point out how a joke in a forum signature is a self-proclamation as well as an indication that I am an authority on something. Very great argument there, bud.
    It is hardcore lite in the perception of a lot of people and thats all that counts to be honest. Most players that still play these games never played pre-frostbite bf games (including myself). 
    After all "Battlefield" is nothing but a name. You decide what can be called "hardcore lite" based on everything (so to say) that has ever had that same name (BF), which is ridiculous. Such game series can redefine themselves in a few years and so did bf. What used to be before that isn't important anymore, cause thats simply not what the franchise is anymore. All that matters is how the franchise is seen today and if it takes an approach that is radically different to the current perception of it then its perfectly fine for people to call that out. For example by calling it "hardcore-lite" in this case. Whether or not there was some game some time ago which had a vanilla mode that was way more hardcore than bfv is not relevant to that.
    Or do you think its illegitimate to call RB6 siege a rather strategic game just because the older rb6 titles (pre vegas) were ways more strategic?


    Agree. BFV may or may not be more like BF before BF3, but it becomes irrelevant in the discussion if most of the current base has only played BF games after BF2.
    BFV is different from BF3>BF1 and that's what many people respond to imo. 

  • Trokey66
    9160 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    SirBobdk wrote: »
    (Quote)
    Agree. BFV may or may not be more like BF before BF3, but it becomes irrelevant in the discussion if most of the current base has only played BF games after BF2.
    BFV is different from BF3>BF1 and that's what many people respond to imo. 

    And @The_BERG_366 exactly!

    This is not about the entire history of Battlefield, it is a comparison of BFV against the last 3-4 titles or to put it another way, the 'console era'!
  • Loqtrall
    12468 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited May 8
    (Quote)
    It is hardcore lite in the perception of a lot of people and thats all that counts to be honest. Most players that still play these games never played pre-frostbite bf games (including myself). 
    After all "Battlefield" is nothing but a name. You decide what can be called "hardcore lite" based on everything (so to say) that has ever had that same name (BF), which is ridiculous. Such game series can redefine themselves in a few years and so did bf. What used to be before that isn't important anymore, cause thats simply not what the franchise is anymore. All that matters is how the franchise is seen today and if it takes an approach that is radically different to the current perception of it then its perfectly fine for people to call that out. For example by calling it "hardcore-lite" in this case. Whether or not there was some game some time ago which had a vanilla mode that was way more hardcore than bfv is not relevant to that.
    Or do you think its illegitimate to call RB6 siege a rather strategic game just because the older rb6 titles (pre vegas) were ways more strategic?

    Well you can feel that's all that counts, but feelings don't dictate or nullify reality and true history. Other BF games dont magically fade from existence and being compared to current BF games merely because there are people who didn't start playing until recently.

    People only playing since BF3 doesn't make BF5 similar to legitimate hardcore shooters. And no, I was no solely comparing to older BF titles. I compared to actual hardcore shooters and milsims, I compared to the vast majority of other shooter franchises out there. I even compared to hardcore mode in those few specific BF games.

    What used to be before BF3 is, indeed important - because it makes up the bulk of the entire franchise, and we're discussing how BF5 compares to other BF games, and other games that may or may not be designed to be Hardcore, intentionally. What you're doing is essentially insisting its ridiculous to compare BF5 to anything beyond BF3 because it's what random people expect out of a BF title after it being the first title they ever experienced. That's asinine. Personal experience doesn't dictate what these games were or are - what those games actually were/are dictates what those games were/are. More players having started playing BF games during BF3 or BF4 doesn't suddenly nullify the fact that they were huge departures from the several BF games prior to that point in the franchise's history, and that BF5 is a return to that direction.

    More people experiencing BF for the first time in a game with spammable 3d spotting doesn't nullify the fact that such a mechanic is unprecedented and unseen in other BF games and other shooters, it's not "the norm" for fps games in general, and not featuring such a mechanic does not make a game more "hardcore lite".

    There's a difference between the game being merely different to how you personally and subjectivley "perceive" BF games are supposed to be - and insisting a BF game is leaning toward being "hardcore" because it doesn't include mechanics that reached a level of hand-holding that is unseen in the majority of BF titles before it as well as essentially every other shooter franchise in existence.

    There might actually be a point to be made if BF5 actually had some semblance of hardcore gameplay, but it's essentially the exact opposite. It has incredibly straightforward gunplay. Ffs, the gunplay in those recent games was less approachable and "more hardcore" in terms of recoil, spread, and rbd, and they included a suppression mechanic which functioned almost identically to suppression mechanics in hardcore milsim games. Those recent games also had limited means of traversal and slower average movement speed - whereas movement speed and momentum in BF5 is on-a-dime fast and you have so many terrain traversal mechanics it's not even funny. You can carry around a spare med pack, you can revive teammates even if you're not a Medic, there are forms of spotting all over the place, they even made player models glow with rim lighting and have player name tags appear in cqb. The ttk isn't faster (definitely now), vehicles still have 3rd person cameras and now have quick repair as well as self repair, there are still cheap OHK pickup weapons like the katana and flamethrower, planes now have a THIRD PERSON AIMING RETICLE for dropping ordinance, rifle muzzle velocity is amongst the highest its ever been in the franchise, headshot hit boxes are huge again, you can slide around on your knees like they're greased up and the ground is ice. We still have a HUD with a health bar, objs, minimap, ammo count, etc. Suppression now spots people through solid objects. Consoles still have aim assist and they even RE-ADDED auto rotation snap assist. I can go on all day long.

    So what, I ask for the 3rd or 4th time, makes BF5 more akin to a hardcore game, rather than BF3-BF1 merely pushing the casualization and accessibility of these games to new heights? Because as someone who has put thousands of hours into Refractor-era BF games as well as nearly every milsim out there - BF5 does nothing to make its gameplay more hardcore than any given casual shooter out there. Rather, those few recent BF games took their arcadey and cheesy mechanics and pushed their utility to players into hyper-drive.

    People can prefer that style of BF all they want, and the reason behind that is probably because it's when they started playing BF - but it doesn't make BF5 a "hardcore lite" game outright more than it makes that select group of BF games significantly more casualized and emphasized on the game systems holding players' hands than games before it and most other FPS games in existence.

    I could also easily pick and choose mechanics and design decisions from those few games that are harder to approach than they are in BF5 and insist it makes those games "hardcore lite" - it'd still be a nonsensical argument. Because those games definitely are not hardcore games.

    BF5 being less casualized and accessible than literally 4 games out of the entire franchise does not make BF5 akin to hardcore fps games.
  • Trokey66
    9160 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited May 8
    You are totally misunderstanding the term 'Hardcore lite' and how it is applied to BFV.

    You are talking in 'absolutes' ignoring perception in you Battlefield history crusade.

    The entire history of Battlefield is irrelevant when a significant number of players have not experienced it.

    Why is this such a difficult concept for you to grasp?
  • ninjapenquinuk
    2247 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    SirBobdk said:
    Loqtrall said:
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    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.

    It's cool that you think the opinions of random people nullifies the history of this franchise and dictates "what normal BF is", but I still don't agree with you. My response wasn't wasted because you choose not to read it. I still made my point.

    People not playing these games until BF3 doesn't change the fact that BF5 is not "Hardcore lite". It doesn't change the fact that it's actually the other way around - BF5 is more akin to past BF titles and even other shooters, whereas BF3 through BF1 took hand holding mechanics to the next level, to unprecedented levels.

    Some dude not playing BF until BF4 doesn't somehow make BF5 akin to a Hardcore shooter just because the guy started playing BF with arguably the most casual, hand-holding entry in the franchise. History isn't erased just because people in the Playerbase want to ignore it, which is ironic considering the whole "historical inaccuracy" debacle surrounding this game.

    People can "perceive" BF any way they like - it doesn't change what BF was before BF3. My roommate is color blind and perceives red/yellow/green as the same colors - that doesn't make it so, and he knows there is a difference between what he perceives and what's actually there.

    And yes, please, point out how a joke in a forum signature is a self-proclamation as well as an indication that I am an authority on something. Very great argument there, bud.
    It is hardcore lite in the perception of a lot of people and thats all that counts to be honest. Most players that still play these games never played pre-frostbite bf games (including myself). 
    After all "Battlefield" is nothing but a name. You decide what can be called "hardcore lite" based on everything (so to say) that has ever had that same name (BF), which is ridiculous. Such game series can redefine themselves in a few years and so did bf. What used to be before that isn't important anymore, cause thats simply not what the franchise is anymore. All that matters is how the franchise is seen today and if it takes an approach that is radically different to the current perception of it then its perfectly fine for people to call that out. For example by calling it "hardcore-lite" in this case. Whether or not there was some game some time ago which had a vanilla mode that was way more hardcore than bfv is not relevant to that.
    Or do you think its illegitimate to call RB6 siege a rather strategic game just because the older rb6 titles (pre vegas) were ways more strategic?


    Agree. BFV may or may not be more like BF before BF3, but it becomes irrelevant in the discussion if most of the current base has only played BF games after BF2.
    BFV is different from BF3>BF1 and that's what many people respond to imo. 

    You summed up in 3 lines. 
  • Loqtrall
    12468 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    You are totally misunderstanding the term 'Hardcore lite' and how it is applied to BFV.

    You are talking in 'absolutes' ignoring perception in you Battlefield history crusade.

    The entire history of Battlefield is irrelevant when a significant number of players have not experienced it.

    Why is this such a difficult concept for you to grasp?

    No, you're merely misusing the term hardcore and how it applies to shooter video games. You're essentially insisting that, in comparison to BF3/4/1, any mechanic that not as easy to approach or doesn't relay as much information as mechanics in those games is indicative of an overall more "hardcore experience", when in reality BF5s use of said mechanics is more akin to your average shooter game, whereas those other games pushed them to lengths rarely if ever seen in other fps games, let alone other BF titles.

    It's ridiculous to insist anything that is even marginally more difficult or less accessible than what's in your/others' preferred or first ever BF title is likened to "hardcore". That's the point I'm making - BF5 is not "hardcore lite" merely because it's not exactly as easy to grasp and hand-holding as your first/preferred BF title.

    Lmmfao, and history is suddenly meaningless and irrelevant because most people didn't start playing these games untik BF3? Tell that to those of us who started playing with refractor engine titles. Tell that to the myriad of people STILL PLAYING those titles. Tell that to the countless droves of people who wanted or expected BF5 to be a remake of 1942. Tell that the to countless droves of people who over the years have repeatedly requested remakes of refractor engine titles and a return to how BF was. Tell that to the horde of people who, since BF3s release, have incessantly spoken out against the over casualized mechanics added to those games. Tell that to essentially my entire clan of friends who stopped playing after 2142 because of the shift in gameplay.

    Tell that to the people who had BF5 as their first BF title and love the game.

    Whats next? Everything that happened before 1960 is meaningless and irrelevant because most of the world's population was born afterward?

    I fully grasp the concept you're putting forth - I'm arguing that is a BS concept based on subjective and ever changing perspective.
  • Trokey66
    9160 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    By the God's, you're obstinate!

    Many people use the term "hardcore lite' in relation to BFV but they are all wrong because you say so because of YOUR literal definition?

    Not everything is black and white or has to be dealt with in absolutes.
  • TyroneLoyd
    1783 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited May 8
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    By the God's, you're obstinate!

    Many people use the term "hardcore lite' in relation to BFV but they are all wrong because you say so because of YOUR literal definition?

    Not everything is black and white or has to be dealt with in absolutes.

    Why are you all so insistent of giving this game a label other than a team based shooter like previous games?

    What is hardcore or hardcore lite about this game compared to other titles in this franchise?

    I'm not understanding this argument because there were no features removed.

    You still have 3d spotting it was just moved to a different gadget/specialization and can be abused easily.
    Attrition? Not a thing
    Added animations......dont tell me thats hardcore either.
    Slower ttk? Thats not something from hardcore mode.
    Visual indicators everywhere. Thats not in hardcore mode(technically)
    Automatic health regen. Not in hardcore
    Should I go on?

    So again what is "hardcore lite" compared to other "recent" battlefields


    The conversation about what gerne battlefield is.......its just a team based shooter nothing more nothing less.


  • SirBobdk
    5318 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    The hard core light is a feeling more than facts and I would guess it comes from dying faster and many times from out of no where due to visiual cluster and many places to hide. It makes it feel like hard core without being it. Thereby the term hard core light
  • Trokey66
    9160 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited May 8
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    By the God's, you're obstinate!

    Many people use the term "hardcore lite' in relation to BFV but they are all wrong because you say so because of YOUR literal definition?

    Not everything is black and white or has to be dealt with in absolutes.

    Why are you all so insistent of giving this game a label other than a team based shooter like previous games?

    What is hardcore or hardcore lite about this game compared to other titles in this franchise?

    I'm not understanding this argument because there were no features removed.

    You still have 3d spotting it was just moved to a different gadget/specialization and can be abused easily.
    Attrition? Not a thing
    Added animations......dont tell me thats hardcore either.
    Slower ttk? Thats not something from hardcore mode.
    Visual indicators everywhere. Thats not in hardcore mode(technically)
    Automatic health regen. Not in hardcore
    Should I go on?

    So again what is "hardcore lite" compared to other "recent" battlefields


    The conversation about what gerne battlefield is.......its just a team based shooter nothing more nothing less.


    It is not strictly speaking down to a specific list of mechanic additions/removals/changes per se and different ent people may have slightly different reasons for why they use the term in relation to BF V.

    @SirBobdk sums it up quite succinctly when he says it is more of a 'feeling' than a consolidated, agreed upon list of mechanics.
  • TyroneLoyd
    1783 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited May 8
    SirBobdk wrote: »
    The hard core light is a feeling more than facts and I would guess it comes from dying faster and many times from out of no where due to visiual cluster and many places to hide. It makes it feel like hard core without being it. Thereby the term hard core light

    So essentially it's a term populalized by youtubers (because that's literally the only place I see it spammed by) used wrong to express there feeling of the game even though it has no hardcore elements and highlights this by pointing out a latency / netcode induced issue. Noted.


    Sounds like a pretty dumb consensus masking the real issue here. Ofcourse I'm saying this if someone were to look at this from the outside looking in.
  • Trokey66
    9160 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    I've only heard it mentioned on here and it struck a chord (I don’t follow youtubers).
  • NLBartmaN
    4484 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited May 8
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    By the God's, you're obstinate!

    Many people use the term "hardcore lite' in relation to BFV but they are all wrong because you say so because of YOUR literal definition?

    Not everything is black and white or has to be dealt with in absolutes.

    Why are you all so insistent of giving this game a label other than a team based shooter like previous games?

    What is hardcore or hardcore lite about this game compared to other titles in this franchise?

    I'm not understanding this argument because there were no features removed.

    You still have 3d spotting it was just moved to a different gadget/specialization and can be abused easily.
    Attrition? Not a thing
    Added animations......dont tell me thats hardcore either.
    Slower ttk? Thats not something from hardcore mode.
    Visual indicators everywhere. Thats not in hardcore mode(technically)
    Automatic health regen. Not in hardcore
    Should I go on?

    So again what is "hardcore lite" compared to other "recent" battlefields


    The conversation about what gerne battlefield is.......its just a team based shooter nothing more nothing less.
    To me as "new" BF player on console (started at BF1 and so comparing to BF1):

    3D spotting is limited by how many ammo a gadget from a certain class has and IF those players even spot, just point and cllick (like in BF1) is not there.

    Attrition is a huge thing regarding health.
    Edit: forgot vehicle attrition which is the worst part of attrition and makes vehicle weak and make them camp and makes the game hardcore lite.

    Animations (for me has nothing to do with Hardcore, they are just annoying and far too long and kill the fun)

    It is FASTER ttk, because of the TTD bug, feels VERY hardcore.

    Visual indicators (I assume you mean the GUI/HUD, hit indicator, messages, etc?) are not available in hardcore indeed, but I do see the poor visibility as hardcore lite ...

    There is no FULL helath regen, just partly, so hardcore lite for me.

    Add to my list: insane accurate easy to control recoil weapons even at mid range: hardcore lite

    Yeah for me BF V feels, compared to BF1, like hardcore lite, and I DON'T like it and I guess with me lots of other players that started with BF1 don't like it ...
    Post edited by NLBartmaN on
Sign In or Register to comment.