Why does this game feel more like CoD or Rainbow 6: Siege than Battlefield?

2

Comments

  • realMartiniHenry
    152 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Stahlmach wrote: »
    Skitelz7 wrote: »
    It feels nothing like Call of Duty or Rainbow Six: Siege.
    Nice try though.

    But didnt you listen to Banhammer72 ? It has throwing knives and you can run fast, so it simply must be like call of duty. Because no other game where you have weapons to throw and can run fast and have a low TTK is anything else then call of duty.

    Every game is its own beast. I never understood the stupid tendency to compare every game you dont like to call of duty, just to make it look bad. And what have Rainbow 6: Siege and Call of Duty to do with each other? They are not even alike. The only simularity between those 2 games is the low amount of players per team and the smaller maps. And BF5 has a large amount of players and also a lot of larger maps (Hamada, Twisted Steel, Arras, Navik, Aerodrome and soon the panzerstorm map).

    Arras and Aerodrome areent big maps if you take a close look. On Arras every Flags switches sides every minute because every Flag is just one short sprint away from the next. And Aerodrome: the prefect example of a small meatgrinder map with corridors because left and right of C is sniper territory. Same with Narvik. The typical two corridors are from A over to C and E or the second route from B to F. Thats its.

    Arras is not a bad map to cruise around on with a vehicle. Its actually a lot of fun to drive around on Arras with the Staghound tank-buggy. And Aerodrome may be not as large as BF 4 maps like Golmud Railway, but it is definitely not call of duty sized small.You also have to see that not a lot of people want to play maps which are as large and empty as Golmud Railway. They cant make 8 maps of that type orelse more then 3/4 of the community would stop playing the game.Most of the players run around as infantry and for infantry its not fun to run several minutes to get from one point to the other. Beside good luck dodging all the sniper bullets, from snipers camping half a mile away, headglitched behind some random level geometry, while you run around on this large open maps. You could see that in the custom map rotations on rented servers in BF3,4. Not much of them had those extrem large, wide open maps in their playlists in BF3,4.

    Unfortunately this is probably the truth, they will gladly leave us BF traditionalists behind for the COD, Fortnite, RB6, and Minecraft market share. But losing the core BF audience could be costly - what if the new audience doesn't like it, and the loyalists give up?

    As far as maps, agreed - people would grind Metro and Locker to unlock gun attachments. Also, there was only one infantry only map on the initially released maps - BF3 Metro, BF4 Locker, and BF1 Argonne, but I liked the change-up. Not so much now...

    Wasnt Grand Basar out of BF3 also infantry only?

    Am i not one of the BF traditionalists ? I played the game since Battlefield 2. Not every BF traditionalists is your opinion. I know many BF players who played since at least BF3 and many of them do not like the ultra large and open maps. And with ultra large and open i do not mean Caspian Border, because that was a good combined arms map, not to big but also not to small. But maps like Goldmud Railway or Dragon Pass where just to big, if you do not want to play helicopter, jet or tank.
  • LeonnOrigin
    21 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited December 2018
    I just recorded this 15 minutes ago. This is some straight up Call of Duty tier stuff.
    (I think I was killed by the animation of landing to boot, something only BFV offers its playerbase.)


    This article is something I bumped into too, a core developer playing Black Ops 4 got banned by doing his thing.

    https://comicbook.com/gaming/2018/10/24/battlefield-v-developer-banned-from-call-of-duty-black-ops-4/

    Eerie how this lead dev excels so much in that game and the game he's intimately involved with changes its identity to more of the game it's not even in direct competition with.
    Small scale deathmatch vs Large scale warfare, yet I don't know if I can classify Battlefield V as large scale so much anymore.
  • UglyNoah
    1244 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Simply put.. the ttk
  • Stahlmach
    1156 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Stahlmach wrote: »
    Arras is not a bad map to cruise around on with a vehicle. Its actually a lot of fun to drive around on Arras with the Staghound tank-buggy. And Aerodrome may be not as large as BF 4 maps like Golmud Railway, but it is definitely not call of duty sized small.You also have to see that not a lot of people want to play maps which are as large and empty as Golmud Railway. They cant make 8 maps of that type orelse more then 3/4 of the community would stop playing the game.Most of the players run around as infantry and for infantry its not fun to run several minutes to get from one point to the other. Beside good luck dodging all the sniper bullets, from snipers camping half a mile away, headglitched behind some random level geometry, while you run around on this large open maps. You could see that in the custom map rotations on rented servers in BF3,4. Not much of them had those extrem large, wide open maps in their playlists in BF3,4.

    Oh please i played BF 3 & 4 long enough, especially on rented servers and Maps like Caspian Border, Bandar Desert, Goldmud Railway or Dragon Pass were liked because they were big but had certain areas were you could have a tense infantry fight and other places where Vehicles battled it out. And others where it all came together. Like the Village in Bandar Desert.
    It all worked even with Snipers etc.
    Here its mostly just one big fast paced, Infantry meatgrinding. And making the Assault class being the " Super Class " makes total sense in hindsight.

    They where liked by you and other tank players. And there is nothing wrong about liking them. But they where not liked by the majority of other players , who play 80%, or something simular to that number, of their gametime infantry. I also dont like meatgrinder maps like Operation Locker. But Arras, Twisted Steel, or most of the other Battlefield 5 maps are nothing like Operation Locker or Argone Forest. The only Argone Forest like map in this game is Fjell. Even Devastation has not many chockepoints.

    The thing where i would agree with you on is that the map borders could be a bit larger in some areas. To often you find yourself running into restricted spawn areas where the 10 second timer starts.Especially in some of the game modes where enemy player camp in their protected spawn areas and shooting at you but you cant really get to them. Thats not good and should be changed.

    I played as everything with everything in every Role. Because it all made sense and was possible. You are way too fixed trying to push me in a sole Tank player role. Here i am forced towards typical fast paced Infantry Gameplay and therefore the Assault Class.
  • crabman169
    12848 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Lmao why is every bf a "cod clone"?

    The only thing they share are that they are arcade shooters with guns that go PEW PEW!

    Have you guys even played a cod in the past decade?

    No idea why Siege is being compared either; it shares the same guns that go pew pew and that's it.
    CoD Check List
    Knee sliding? Check!
    Throwing Knives? Check!
    Quick Scoping? Check!

    Looks like we are playing Call of Duty Boys!

    So any game with knee sliding is a cod clone? What kind of logic is that? Damn that must mean the Division is a "cod clone" because you can knee slide into cover.

    Throwing knives were a thing back in 1942; well before mw2 (2002 vs 2009)

    You have been able to "quickscope" with scoped weapons since 1942 (and basically nearly every other fps with scopes) again well before mw2 really rambed up it's prevalence in shooters.

    I guess the fact that both games are arcade shooters must make them carbon copies of it each; case closed.

    RNGesus this logic...
  • thamac15
    312 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    In what ways does it feel like CoD? Bullets around corners? If that’s what you mean then I concur! Hahaha
  • realMartiniHenry
    152 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Stahlmach wrote: »
    Stahlmach wrote: »
    Arras is not a bad map to cruise around on with a vehicle. Its actually a lot of fun to drive around on Arras with the Staghound tank-buggy. And Aerodrome may be not as large as BF 4 maps like Golmud Railway, but it is definitely not call of duty sized small.You also have to see that not a lot of people want to play maps which are as large and empty as Golmud Railway. They cant make 8 maps of that type orelse more then 3/4 of the community would stop playing the game.Most of the players run around as infantry and for infantry its not fun to run several minutes to get from one point to the other. Beside good luck dodging all the sniper bullets, from snipers camping half a mile away, headglitched behind some random level geometry, while you run around on this large open maps. You could see that in the custom map rotations on rented servers in BF3,4. Not much of them had those extrem large, wide open maps in their playlists in BF3,4.

    Oh please i played BF 3 & 4 long enough, especially on rented servers and Maps like Caspian Border, Bandar Desert, Goldmud Railway or Dragon Pass were liked because they were big but had certain areas were you could have a tense infantry fight and other places where Vehicles battled it out. And others where it all came together. Like the Village in Bandar Desert.
    It all worked even with Snipers etc.
    Here its mostly just one big fast paced, Infantry meatgrinding. And making the Assault class being the " Super Class " makes total sense in hindsight.

    They where liked by you and other tank players. And there is nothing wrong about liking them. But they where not liked by the majority of other players , who play 80%, or something simular to that number, of their gametime infantry. I also dont like meatgrinder maps like Operation Locker. But Arras, Twisted Steel, or most of the other Battlefield 5 maps are nothing like Operation Locker or Argone Forest. The only Argone Forest like map in this game is Fjell. Even Devastation has not many chockepoints.

    The thing where i would agree with you on is that the map borders could be a bit larger in some areas. To often you find yourself running into restricted spawn areas where the 10 second timer starts.Especially in some of the game modes where enemy player camp in their protected spawn areas and shooting at you but you cant really get to them. Thats not good and should be changed.

    I played as everything with everything in every Role. Because it all made sense and was possible. You are way too fixed trying to push me in a sole Tank player role. Here i am forced towards typical fast paced Infantry Gameplay and therefore the Assault Class.

    I agree that they messed up the design of the medic. A medic with smg only is not really fun to play, so most peopel play one of the other 3 classes. But the assault of battlefield 3 and 4 had also a lot of very strong long range assault rifles. So i dont understand why people thinking that it is something new that the assault class has those options, because the class had already those options in BF3 and 4. If anything the assaults anti tank weapons are even weaker then in BF 3.As said in BF 3 your assault had 4 rockets and hitting a tank in the backside with a rocket did over 60 damage and one C4 on the tank did 50 damage. So i dont know why people are flat out lieing about the assault doing more anti tank damage then in BF 3. Either they only played BF1 before or those people play mostly tank and care more about farming people with the tank then about balance between infantry and tanks. I dont think that you are one of those people, but i also cant fully understand your point. Why do you want to have maps like Goldmud Railway, when you play all classes? This map has literaly almost no cover for infantry at all between the points.




    I just recorded this 15 minutes ago. This is some straight up Call of Duty tier stuff.
    (I think I was killed by the animation of landing to boot, something only BFV offers its playerbase.)


    This article is something I bumped into too, a core developer playing Black Ops 4 got banned by doing his thing.

    https://comicbook.com/gaming/2018/10/24/battlefield-v-developer-banned-from-call-of-duty-black-ops-4/

    Eerie how this lead dev excels so much in that game and the game he's intimately involved with changes its identity to more of the game it's not even in direct competition with.
    Small scale deathmatch vs Large scale warfare, yet I don't know if I can classify Battlefield V as large scale so much anymore.

    Did you never play BF 3 or 4. Did you never get a killstreak where you killed multiple people in under one minute in Battlefield 4 ? Have you never played teh game mode TDM in BF 3? I dont understand what this video should proof?

    And why is that a bad thing that developer play games of other studios ? So COD devs play Battlefield in their freetime and Dice devs play COD, why is that a bad thing? Sure Battlefield 5 has to many bugs and not enough content, most of us can agree to that, but everything else is very subjective to the own personal liking.
  • Stahlmach
    1156 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited December 2018
    I agree that they messed up the design of the medic. A medic with smg only is not really fun to play, so most peopel play one of the other 3 classes. But the assault of battlefield 3 and 4 had also a lot of very strong long range assault rifles. So i dont understand why people thinking that it is something new that the assault class has those options, because the class had already those options in BF3 and 4. If anything the assaults anti tank weapons are even weaker then in BF 3.As said in BF 3 your assault had 4 rockets and hitting a tank in the backside with a rocket did over 60 damage and one C4 on the tank did 50 damage. So i dont know why people are flat out lieing about the assault doing more anti tank damage then in BF 3. Either they only played BF1 before or those people play mostly tank and care more about farming people with the tank then about balance between infantry and tanks. I dont think that you are one of those people, but i also cant fully understand your point. Why do you want to have maps like Goldmud Railway, when you play all classes? This map has literaly almost no cover for infantry at all between the points.

    I am sorry but the Assault in Bf 3 having four Rockets ? The Assault had no Anti Tank weapons, that was the Engineer. In BF 5 the Assault has the best Weapons AND all Anti Vehicle abilities.
    An the Tanks in BF 3 & 4 werent as defenseless as they were here so the higher damage made sense. Their Board Machine Guns were at least usefull and not the fast overheating Pea Shooters from BF 5. Splash damage worked. In BF 5 its nonexistent.
    The reactive or extra Armor in Bf 3&4 had a purpose and worked, in BF 5 taking the better armor from the perks hasnt any effect at all, same with the upgraded Guns.
    Or at least you get no hint at all that it makes any difference. Especially since Rate of Fire always overpowers Rate of Damage. And therefore mostly Heavy Tanks get obliterated by Medium and even light tanks.

    Golmund was one example where it made sense ( and fun ) taking your whole squad into a Jeep and taking for example F. And after that holding it, no matter if against Infantry or Vehicles. And yes especially with all classes because you needed a Supporter and Medic/Assault to dug in and defend it. Or at least it raised your chances. On Maps like for example Caspian Border this happened all the time without being that meatgrind we see here in BF 5.

    I see nothing of that former tactical gameplay here but a constant Nascar race like hunt for Flags that are switching sides every minute, just interrupted by the regular Bomber ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ working on his 82-3 Score....

  • Stahlmach
    1156 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited December 2018
    I agree that they messed up the design of the medic. A medic with smg only is not really fun to play, so most peopel play one of the other 3 classes. But the assault of battlefield 3 and 4 had also a lot of very strong long range assault rifles. So i dont understand why people thinking that it is something new that the assault class has those options, because the class had already those options in BF3 and 4. If anything the assaults anti tank weapons are even weaker then in BF 3.As said in BF 3 your assault had 4 rockets and hitting a tank in the backside with a rocket did over 60 damage and one C4 on the tank did 50 damage. So i dont know why people are flat out lieing about the assault doing more anti tank damage then in BF 3. Either they only played BF1 before or those people play mostly tank and care more about farming people with the tank then about balance between infantry and tanks. I dont think that you are one of those people, but i also cant fully understand your point. Why do you want to have maps like Goldmud Railway, when you play all classes? This map has literaly almost no cover for infantry at all between the points.

    Sorry but what are you talking about ? The Assault in Bf 3 had no Anti Tank Weapons , he did the Medics Job. The Engineer was the one with the RPGs etc.

    And the higher damage against Tanks made sense in comparison. The Tanks had far more Options to defend and survive. Being it reactive Armor that actually worked or a Board machine gun that wasnt a overheating pea Shooter.
    Same with Splash damage, it existed and worked.
    In BF 5 its the Opposite: Splash damage isnt either existing or bugged as so many other things in this Game. Getting the extra armor form the perks or the upgraded cannons against other Tanks make no difference at all.
    Or at least you get no feedback at all if it makes a difference. Rate of Fire overpowers rate of damage anyway, so a Tiger facing a Valentine is mostly a death sentence...for the Tiger.

    Golmund was one example of several. It made fun and sense getting your Squad into a Jeep or Chooper, driving to F, conquering and defending it. And with a mix of classes because it increased the possibility of success being it it against a counter attack of Infantry or Vehicles. same on a Map like Caspian Border where Infantry and Vehicles a like had sweet and weak spots, never favouring one side or a typical playstyle.
    Just look at spawn midfight, plenty of Transport Vehicles staying around because nobody uses them. Simply because you dont need it. Especially not for twoing a AA or Pak because you get seasick after the first ten meters with your vehicle twiching around like two fighting cats.

    None of what i mentioned about getting vehicles and capturing a Flag can be found in BF 5 with the small exception of Hamada but even there its easier to spawn at the next Flag.
    Its Nascar like running in circles for the next Flag while the one captured before changes its Owner every Minute. Lead by meatgrinding corridors favouring the Assault Class above everyone else.


  • JUJAMAKILL
    331 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    The only comparison i can find with CoD are the numerous immature whingers complaining about how hard life is. O sorry i meant, how hard this game is...
  • Beat_Mangler80
    549 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Because they keep messing around with the mechanics of an already working game! The game that we keep coming back for!

    If it ain't broke, don't fix it!!!! Unless you trying to be a COD clone! >:(
  • realMartiniHenry
    152 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Stahlmach wrote: »
    I agree that they messed up the design of the medic. A medic with smg only is not really fun to play, so most peopel play one of the other 3 classes. But the assault of battlefield 3 and 4 had also a lot of very strong long range assault rifles. So i dont understand why people thinking that it is something new that the assault class has those options, because the class had already those options in BF3 and 4. If anything the assaults anti tank weapons are even weaker then in BF 3.As said in BF 3 your assault had 4 rockets and hitting a tank in the backside with a rocket did over 60 damage and one C4 on the tank did 50 damage. So i dont know why people are flat out lieing about the assault doing more anti tank damage then in BF 3. Either they only played BF1 before or those people play mostly tank and care more about farming people with the tank then about balance between infantry and tanks. I dont think that you are one of those people, but i also cant fully understand your point. Why do you want to have maps like Goldmud Railway, when you play all classes? This map has literaly almost no cover for infantry at all between the points.

    Sorry but what are you talking about ? The Assault in Bf 3 had no Anti Tank Weapons , he did the Medics Job. The Engineer was the one with the RPGs etc.

    And the higher damage against Tanks made sense in comparison. The Tanks had far more Options to defend and survive. Being it reactive Armor that actually worked or a Board machine gun that wasnt a overheating pea Shooter.
    Same with Splash damage, it existed and worked.
    In BF 5 its the Opposite: Splash damage isnt either existing or bugged as so many other things in this Game. Getting the extra armor form the perks or the upgraded cannons against other Tanks make no difference at all.
    Or at least you get no feedback at all if it makes a difference. Rate of Fire overpowers rate of damage anyway, so a Tiger facing a Valentine is mostly a death sentence...for the Tiger.

    Golmund was one example of several. It made fun and sense getting your Squad into a Jeep or Chooper, driving to F, conquering and defending it. And with a mix of classes because it increased the possibility of success being it it against a counter attack of Infantry or Vehicles. same on a Map like Caspian Border where Infantry and Vehicles a like had sweet and weak spots, never favouring one side or a typical playstyle.
    Just look at spawn midfight, plenty of Transport Vehicles staying around because nobody uses them. Simply because you dont need it. Especially not for twoing a AA or Pak because you get seasick after the first ten meters with your vehicle twiching around like two fighting cats.

    None of what i mentioned about getting vehicles and capturing a Flag can be found in BF 5 with the small exception of Hamada but even there its easier to spawn at the next Flag.
    Its Nascar like running in circles for the next Flag while the one captured before changes its Owner every Minute. Lead by meatgrinding corridors favouring the Assault Class above everyone else.


    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ you are right, the engineer had the rockets in BF 3. Man its so long ago that i played this game the last time, that i was talking here stupid things. Sorry my bad. But the role which was the tank killer in BF 3 did do a lot more damage then the assault does now in BF 5 with his 2 rockets and 2 dynamite. I would be happy to have the old BF 3 system back where the tanks where stronger but the anti tank weapons where also stronger and you had more rockets with your rpg. Its time that Battlefield gets a modern setting again.

    Caspian Border is a good map, because you have enough cover as infantry most of the time. The Zavod-Forest map out of BF 4 is also a good example for a large map with enough cover. If they make more maps like that then im all for it. But i still dont think that Twisted Steel or Arras are bad maps for combined arms and Fjell is airplain heaven.
  • Beat_Mangler80
    549 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I see they put a big emphasis on marking and capturing objectives. I thought this was great because I spend a lot of time leading my squad and I very carefully work out where is the best objective to send my team to next. Over time I came to learn many things about directing my squad, one thing that Battlefield 5 wants me to stop doing is calling out the next objective before the current one is completed.
    So everyone stands there capturing the objective and when it's captured everyone just stands there having no clue what's next, then the leader calls the command. I would call this command when the current flag is almost captured, then the squad will race off to the next objective, not stand there twiddling their thumbs.
  • Skitelz7
    980 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    I see they put a big emphasis on marking and capturing objectives. I thought this was great because I spend a lot of time leading my squad and I very carefully work out where is the best objective to send my team to next. Over time I came to learn many things about directing my squad, one thing that Battlefield 5 wants me to stop doing is calling out the next objective before the current one is completed.
    So everyone stands there capturing the objective and when it's captured everyone just stands there having no clue what's next, then the leader calls the command. I would call this command when the current flag is almost captured, then the squad will race off to the next objective, not stand there twiddling their thumbs.

    Why would you do that?
    If you mark another objective before the one you're at gets captured, you don't get the capture points.
    The correct and obvious way to do it is to wait until the point is captured and the n mark the next objective, which is something that takes two seconds but you made it sound like it take two days.
    You people are weird...
  • ItsMeJamige
    90 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    This game plays completely different than Siege.
  • SumwhatKrazy
    557 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited December 2018
    Personally i find some similarities to this game and COD. I have not played COD in a long time (not since BO1) but there are moments where the game has felt a bit like COD to me. Probably the fact that the game is so infantry based and the TTK?
    It also reminded me of PUBG or i guess a Rainbow 6 game in some ways as well. The having to stick together (which is how it should be in Battlefield anyway), having to stay in cover and crouch and crawl and creep and flank and at times hide and camp and just feeling a bit more realistic as far as your approach and how easily you can die.
    EDIT: what i mentioned above has applied to all BF games but more so in BFV, IMO.
  • Skitelz7
    980 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Stahlmach wrote: »
    Skitelz7 wrote: »
    It feels nothing like Call of Duty or Rainbow Six: Siege.
    Nice try though.

    But didnt you listen to Banhammer72 ? It has throwing knives and you can run fast, so it simply must be like call of duty. Because no other game where you have weapons to throw and can run fast and have a low TTK is anything else then call of duty.

    Every game is its own beast. I never understood the stupid tendency to compare every game you dont like to call of duty, just to make it look bad. And what have Rainbow 6: Siege and Call of Duty to do with each other? They are not even alike. The only simularity between those 2 games is the low amount of players per team and the smaller maps. And BF5 has a large amount of players and also a lot of larger maps (Hamada, Twisted Steel, Arras, Navik, Aerodrome and soon the panzerstorm map).

    Arras and Aerodrome areent big maps if you take a close look. On Arras every Flags switches sides every minute because every Flag is just one short sprint away from the next. And Aerodrome: the prefect example of a small meatgrinder map with corridors because left and right of C is sniper territory. Same with Narvik. The typical two corridors are from A over to C and E or the second route from B to F. Thats its.

    Arras is not a bad map to cruise around on with a vehicle. Its actually a lot of fun to drive around on Arras with the Staghound tank-buggy. And Aerodrome may be not as large as BF 4 maps like Golmud Railway, but it is definitely not call of duty sized small.You also have to see that not a lot of people want to play maps which are as large and empty as Golmud Railway. They cant make 8 maps of that type orelse more then 3/4 of the community would stop playing the game.Most of the players run around as infantry and for infantry its not fun to run several minutes to get from one point to the other. Beside good luck dodging all the sniper bullets, from snipers camping half a mile away, headglitched behind some random level geometry, while you run around on this large open maps. You could see that in the custom map rotations on rented servers in BF3,4. Not much of them had those extrem large, wide open maps in their playlists in BF3,4.

    Unfortunately this is probably the truth, they will gladly leave us BF traditionalists behind for the COD, Fortnite, RB6, and Minecraft market share. But losing the core BF audience could be costly - what if the new audience doesn't like it, and the loyalists give up?

    As far as maps, agreed - people would grind Metro and Locker to unlock gun attachments. Also, there was only one infantry only map on the initially released maps - BF3 Metro, BF4 Locker, and BF1 Argonne, but I liked the change-up. Not so much now...

    Wasnt Grand Basar out of BF3 also infantry only?

    Am i not one of the BF traditionalists ? I played the game since Battlefield 2. Not every BF traditionalists is your opinion. I know many BF players who played since at least BF3 and many of them do not like the ultra large and open maps. And with ultra large and open i do not mean Caspian Border, because that was a good combined arms map, not to big but also not to small. But maps like Goldmud Railway or Dragon Pass where just to big, if you do not want to play helicopter, jet or tank.

    Battlefield had ALWAYS been about ultra wide open maps with lots of vehicles.
    Sure there are some infantry focused maps but those are not what the games are about.
  • Popa2caps
    584 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    I haven't played in a long time but I remember buying a GeForce4 Ti 4800 to play 1942 and wanting to upgrade to a 8800GT to play Battlefield 2 and have fond memories of spending potentially thousands of hours of my teenage years both at home and at internet cafe's enjoying these games and their expansions or other sequels.

    Battlefield offered huge, climactic battles that at the time was unheard of, revolutionary and even today non-Battlefield titles try and sometimes do recreate.
    These maps feel claustrophobic and these mechanics like hitmarkers and lean-peeking around doors is just so cheap compared to other games.

    Some things can be fine tuned like the AA vs Air or Medic guns underperforming, perhaps even the animation deaths cleaned up but more than half of the maps are so packed in that everything takes place within a city block of each other.

    I own RS6:S and Blackops 4 and can really excel in both of them, but when I feel like I want to excel in Battlefield I need to opt in to Assault and just play CoD at the objectives.

    I think BFV is more Medal of Honor than anything else.
    Missile


    Aerodrome


    I can't compare BFV to Rainbow, That feels like a competitive shooter, also BO4, i can't compare them to Battlefield.
  • Banhammer72
    416 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    crabman169 wrote: »

    So any game with knee sliding is a cod clone? What kind of logic is that? Damn that must mean the Division is a "cod clone" because you can knee slide into cover.

    Throwing knives were a thing back in 1942; well before mw2 (2002 vs 2009)

    You have been able to "quickscope" with scoped weapons since 1942 (and basically nearly every other fps with scopes) again well before mw2 really rambed up it's prevalence in shooters.

    I guess the fact that both games are arcade shooters must make them carbon copies of it each; case closed.

    RNGesus this logic...

    You must have played a different Battlefield selection of games I had access too (Since BF1942) as there was nothing like what you describe in any version I played!

    As for "What kind of logic is that? Well that would be your logic, BF3 was distinct different game to anything COD had to offer, one being a Twitch Shooter, the other being a more tactical multi-squad shooter. Since BF 3 each Battlefield game have slipped closer and closer to being a very similar game with the introduction of arcade like mechanics.

    Live in denial all you like, the evidence is on the screen in front of you, Battlefield is still the better game but game by game the "gimmicks" are becoming similar.



  • warslag
    1606 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    Battlecod 6
Sign In or Register to comment.