What i like, dislike and hope changes about bf5 so far

aidanw30
33 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
All are my opinions and i do not demand everyone agrees, my criticisms are attempts at being constructive because i want this to be the best game it can be.

Liked- The core game, movement looked great, very fluid and smooth.
weapon mechanics looked satisfying, the STG 44 looked very fun to use
it looked a bit like it played like BC2 which is always fantastic as BC2 was one of the best battlefields.
choice of vehicles, particularly happy about the British spitfire and the German tanks, choice of modes (yes, even BR, you don't have to play it, it's just one mode), so excited for co op and to have bots back, no more excessive spotting (thank god, now snipers can actually be snipers and other classes can push objectives while sneaking past),
asymmetric vehicles that actually behave differently between factions (echoes of BF1942); the depiction of German tanks having superior armour and main cannons with allied tanks presumably having other advantages is cool and one of the few authentic things I've seen in BF5. I hope planes behave differently between factions too.

Disliked- What they've done with the setting:
Like BF1, I don't think they've embraced the setting. BF1 was a modern shooter that played dress up and threw a WW1 themed party; BF5 looks to do exactly the same for WW2. The map from EA play is another such example; the real battle of Narvik featured no D-day style para-drop and had minimal air forces. Yet in BF5 it is portrayed like a huge, late war allied offensive like operation market garden. It seems like the excuse for choosing a unique battle is "we want to tell the untold stories of WW2 " Well, it's untold....because it never happened like that; the battles of Narvik were mostly naval battles irl, the land battles involving the British were them retreating due to the German advance at the start of the war. Why would Narvik come to mind when you want to put a large combined arms battle in a game? Why are the British on the offensive anyway? I thought the first chapter in tides of war was the fall of Europe, early in the war? There are so many massive combined arms battles from ww2 that haven't been explored in games that you could have chosen, but instead it seems, you're more focused on making a modern shooter that feels good, but doesn't capture the essence of it's setting. It's almost like they just chose what kind of setting they wanted and then decided to find some way to justify it "hey let's make a snowy map with northern lights!!! Hmmmm now how can WW2 fit into our desire? Oh i know, let's just choose the first battle that pops up when we search Norwegian theatre WW2 on google and portray it however the hell we want! twisted to fit our chosen game mode to the point where it's not even recognisable from the real thing with the British doing a large scale assault even though they should be retreating at this stage in the war with the Germans advancing!!!" It would be so much easier if they just depicted the Germans as the attacking team; or made it the objective to safely evacuate. There are so many things that ruin the feel of the setting, from the flags, (what even is the German flag in this game, i understand the hakenruz couldn't be used, but wouldn't an iron cross suffice?) to the absurd customisation options (come on, Katanas? RAF pilot oxygen masks on infantry?) All in all, bf1942 felt like it was set in ww2, bfVietnam felt like it was set in Vietnam, bf2, bad company series, 3, 4 all felt like they were set in the modern era.... BF1 and from what i've seen, 5 will just feel like they are "themed" to fit their chosen era, with little to no authenticity. I feel like DICE and EA are bending history to suit their games atm, rather than bending their games to suit the setting... Which is not necessarily bad for gameplay, but as seen in BF1 will cause it to get boring fast; as there's not much that's unique about a game that feels exactly like the last.

What i hope changes
- An option to turn player cosmetic customisation off and just see default soldiers in accurate uniforms, to boost immersion
-a slightly less jarring to look at German flag
-some maps that actually suit the chosen game modes
-DICE to start twisting their games to suit the setting rather than twist the setting to suit their game.
-A less bright, more minimalist HUD, maybe even slightly transparent UI; or options to achieve this through settings.

Comments

  • YourLocalPlumber
    3224 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    aidanw30 wrote: »
    I feel like DICE and EA are bending history to suit their games atm, rather than bending their games to suit the setting... Which is not necessarily bad for gameplay

    That just sums up your entire post. You understand BF was never a war sim game? Battlefield has always been a perfect mix between realistic games like Arma and super arcade games like CoD.

    The soldier customization is the answer to countless threads about the lack of it in BF1.


  • evhgear
    98 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    I'm in the same boat, mecanics wise, it's a Battlefield, it shoud be nice. The few things we saw about recoil looks like there's almost no recoil, wich I don't like, but it's hard to tell just like that. Other than that, I share the same interrests/fears for BFV. I would have liked if Dice didn't put Tigers/STG44/SKS/Piershing on 1939 maps but they really simply uses all everything flagged as 'was in WWII' at the same time, no matter what. Telling untold WWII stories would be more interresting if they were correctly told, it's not Dice way.
  • aidanw30
    33 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    aidanw30 wrote: »
    I feel like DICE and EA are bending history to suit their games atm, rather than bending their games to suit the setting... Which is not necessarily bad for gameplay

    That just sums up your entire post. You understand BF was never a war sim game? Battlefield has always been a perfect mix between realistic games like Arma and super arcade games like CoD.

    The soldier customization is the answer to countless threads about the lack of it in BF1.


    It doesn't have to be a simulator to be authentic. A simulator implies the guns, planes, tanks, damage etc all handle realistically. A game can still be set in an authentic depiction of WW2 without having realistic mechanics. (Look at BF1942 and 1943!!!) What frustrates me is that there are so many real battles out there that would have fit their chosen game mode perfectly; even Narvik would have been passable if they swapped attackers and defenders (Germans and British) and made it a land assault rather than a para-drop. But they chose to invent a fictionalised event when it would have been SO EASY to just use a real one.
  • aidanw30
    33 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    evhgear wrote: »
    I'm in the same boat, mecanics wise, it's a Battlefield, it shoud be nice. The few things we saw about recoil looks like there's almost no recoil, wich I don't like, but it's hard to tell just like that. Other than that, I share the same interrests/fears for BFV. I would have liked if Dice didn't put Tigers/STG44/SKS/Piershing on 1939 maps but they really simply uses all everything flagged as 'was in WWII' at the same time, no matter what. Telling untold WWII stories would be more interresting if they were correctly told, it's not Dice way.

    Oh don't worry about the recoil, there's PLENTY of it in game; it's just more subtle since there's no random deviation and bullets go where the gun recoils. Watch Jackfrags' new video, gun recoil is much more realistic than BF1.
    But yeah, 100% agreed on the setting. If they were going to tell untold stories, why would they transform them to be like every other battle in ww2? Instead of actually tell the untold story? honestly, if they wanted allied airborne offensives they should have just forgotten about tides of war and included late war maps.
  • aidanw30
    33 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited June 2018
    Also, i wish that we'd see some consistent uniforms. it looks like a bunch of mercenaries fighting eachother atm when it should be the British and German armies
  • NeighborKid1
    14 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    edited June 2018
    Why does everything get an aimdot sight? Why are allied soldiers spawning with Stg's?
    Wheres the simple enfield or the k98? Oh.. Snipers... Whoopie do....

    Great innovations...terrible execution.

    Having these modern style attachments are ok.... IN A MODERN DAY SHOOTER...
    Not ww2..
  • Dogwoggle11
    2669 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Why does everything get an aimdot sight? Why are allied soldiers spawning with Stg's?

    They never said that weapons would be different for each faction.
  • NeighborKid1
    14 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Why does everything get an aimdot sight? Why are allied soldiers spawning with Stg's?

    They never said that weapons would be different for each faction.

    You might as well give everyone Ak47's
  • LiuzhouMtBrotha
    129 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited June 2018
    evhgear wrote: »
    I'm in the same boat, mecanics wise, it's a Battlefield, it shoud be nice. The few things we saw about recoil looks like there's almost no recoil, wich I don't like, but it's hard to tell just like that. Other than that, I share the same interrests/fears for BFV. I would have liked if Dice didn't put Tigers/STG44/SKS/Piershing on 1939 maps but they really simply uses all everything flagged as 'was in WWII' at the same time, no matter what. Telling untold WWII stories would be more interresting if they were correctly told, it's not Dice way.

    Why on earth you think there is recoil in laser gun?!
  • Dogwoggle11
    2669 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Why does everything get an aimdot sight? Why are allied soldiers spawning with Stg's?

    They never said that weapons would be different for each faction.

    You might as well give everyone Ak47's

    I don't see why they would limit weapons for each faction.

    If I have a favourite weapon, let's say MP40, and I'm working on being better at it, learning how to manage its recoil, and trying to unlock stuff for it, I would want to play with that weapon.
    And imagine that I can't do that because I'm getting placed in the British team all the time and the other is full, or my squad is doing great and I don't want to change.

    I say let people play with whatever weapon they choose. I'm pretty sure you won't even think about it when you are playing.
  • oof14346
    954 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Why does everything get an aimdot sight? Why are allied soldiers spawning with Stg's?
    Wheres the simple enfield or the k98? Oh.. Snipers... Whoopie do....

    Great innovations...terrible execution.

    Having these modern style attachments are ok.... IN A MODERN DAY SHOOTER...
    Not ww2..

    There were only 8 total guns in the e3 pre-alpha build.
  • Solid_SkG
    1134 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Why does everything get an aimdot sight? Why are allied soldiers spawning with Stg's?
    Wheres the simple enfield or the k98? Oh.. Snipers... Whoopie do....

    Great innovations...terrible execution.

    Having these modern style attachments are ok.... IN A MODERN DAY SHOOTER...
    Not ww2..

    Why does a bolt action rifle and a pistol has silencers in a WW1 setting?

    Why do we play with so many weapons in Battlefield 1 that never got used in WW1?

    Why do we fight in maps that people never fought in WW1?

    Fun needs to be over historical accuracy and i dont understand why we've come to an age that visuals matter more than the actual gameplay.
  • Zviko0
    1718 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Why does everything get an aimdot sight? Why are allied soldiers spawning with Stg's?

    They never said that weapons would be different for each faction.

    You might as well give everyone Ak47's

    I don't see why they would limit weapons for each faction.

    If I have a favourite weapon, let's say MP40, and I'm working on being better at it, learning how to manage its recoil, and trying to unlock stuff for it, I would want to play with that weapon.
    And imagine that I can't do that because I'm getting placed in the British team all the time and the other is full, or my squad is doing great and I don't want to change.

    I say let people play with whatever weapon they choose. I'm pretty sure you won't even think about it when you are playing.

    Simple filter where you choose what you prefer to play as before the matchmaking would be nice. It would also fix it for that Russian guy who doesn't want to play against Russians.
  • Dogwoggle11
    2669 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Zviko0 wrote: »
    Why does everything get an aimdot sight? Why are allied soldiers spawning with Stg's?

    They never said that weapons would be different for each faction.

    You might as well give everyone Ak47's

    I don't see why they would limit weapons for each faction.

    If I have a favourite weapon, let's say MP40, and I'm working on being better at it, learning how to manage its recoil, and trying to unlock stuff for it, I would want to play with that weapon.
    And imagine that I can't do that because I'm getting placed in the British team all the time and the other is full, or my squad is doing great and I don't want to change.

    I say let people play with whatever weapon they choose. I'm pretty sure you won't even think about it when you are playing.

    Simple filter where you choose what you prefer to play as before the matchmaking would be nice. It would also fix it for that Russian guy who doesn't want to play against Russians.

    I think that would lead to unbalance. Team balance was already awful in BF1, and I doubt they have found a solution for that yet.
Sign In or Register to comment.