Anybody feeling burned out on Battle Royale games?

Comments

  • SlowOldWarrior
    461 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    One more, for character customization (more goggles!!!):

    https://www.giantbomb.com/my-dress-up/3030-24068/

    I love ForumField, so much more fun than BFV - all in jest my man, all in jest!
  • TEKNOCODE
    11592 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    I want to play dress up. I need that prosthetic. I’ll pay $100 for it. The tears would be amazing.
  • full951
    2468 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Lexen wrote: »
    full951 wrote: »
    no. I never played fortnite for more than a few rounds and I played pubg to death and stopped playing it last year.

    so this is prefect

    *any others never played because it wasn't available to me or I was playing pubg when it came out

    I'm curious to know what attracts you to BR?

    I probably won't be the only person you hear this from but I swear I had this exact same idea in the early 2000's.

    I always wanted to play a 1 life high player count game. like a super mega match of old school counterstrike from the early 2000's.

    I like what pubg had going but it runs like crap. got tired of the BS. I like the intense sqaud battles. this is also why I really miss sqaud death match. it's basically a mini continuous battle royal of 5v20.. or was rather. good gunplay is what I like too. BFV has it. just the armor system really throws off the normal feel.
  • Kayback
    367 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Kayback wrote: »
    Kayback wrote: »
    Battlefield has been around forever too, BF1942 was ground breaking IMHO as being one of the first to have 64 players.

    But since then what? MAG had 128v128 didn't it? BFV has 64. And now another BR game. Wooot. So much innovation.

    Why does BR need to innovate when it’s still relatively fresh? Lol. Each BR game is an innovation. They are all unique in their own ways, fortnite and apex legends being at the front of the line there. And since we are talking about innovation, your beloved battlefield, where is it? Where has it been? What games do you play with current ground breaking innovation? I’ll answer for you, it hasn’t been innovative and you don’t play innovative games because gaming has gone down the tube over several years and the best innovation has been BR, so ill take that over the bfv base game.

    That's.... That's the point I'm trying to make. BR is NOT an innovation it is grabbing the tail end of a 2017 innovation.

    MAG built on the Battlefield innovation by increasing the player count 3 fold.

    Battlefield V is just a slightly better looking BF1942, with some improved mechanics but at the expense of Carriers, Landing Craft, Destroyers, Submarines, artillery trucks....

    It lacks any innovations. 64 player maps, medics, support, AT, tanks and planes. SSDG. Nothing new there. Firestorm is innovative in so far that it is new to the Battlefield franchise but not really innovate to the BR realm. Vehicles? Yeah OK I guess. I've seen one Tiger used to semi decent effect. Woot.

    Do I want innovative yet the same? Hell yes. Look at BF1942 vs BF2 vs BFBC2 vsBF3/4. There is plenty of scope to make the game the same, but different.

    I felt the same about BF1. It was Steampunk BF4. BFV is slightly less Steampunk and a semi decent WWII shooter, but it is just BF1942 2.0, with nothing really ground breaking, except the OP Assault kit.

    I’ve seen bc2 recently and it looked horrible so now you’re telling me an even more dated game looks only slightly less good than bfv? Okay now that you said that I will not have a discussion with you at all cause we just won’t agree. I love BR, bring em all on. I’ll try them all.

    Yeah I played 1942, BF2 and BFBC2 recently to try them out to see how much was rose tinted glasses. Admittedly two of those were against bots so doesn't really count. Yeah they had issues. The movement in BFBC2 is ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. The "physics" are a tad off. That doesn't stop it being fun as heck.

    But read what I'm saying. The development of the BF franchise has shown improvement and refining on the core concept from 1942 till BF4. Introducing improvements along the way which increased the gun factor. From Conquest only through the development of Rush, the development of gun play and the kitting out of your gear, defining and redefining roles of the combat squad, from the only-spawn-on-leader, integrated squad coms and the introduction of destructible environments and game enhancing events like dog tags and the like. It has all been a step forwards. Mostly. There have been one or two stumbles but I was RPG7ing UH1Z in tunnels the other day when did you have anything as fun as that in BFV?

    Now we have single kits (Assault) who can do everything. Heal team mates and themselves, resupply themselves, snipe, take down vehicles, build fortifications. What can't they do? Repair vehicles? Spot quite as well?

    MAG had 128v128 a decade ago. BFV has the same team size from close to two decades ago.

    Bfv only looks slightly better than 1942 smfh 🤦‍♀️



    Watch that and say bfv only looks slightly better, I just can’t even...
    Yeah, 64 player Conquest. Soooooo different from BFV 64 player Conquest.

    Seriously, what is meant to be different between what you showed in the video and what happens in BFV? Like the other guy said I saw a player not getting stuck on every little tiny stone, not having his jeep flip out constantly from ruts in the map, not having people get stuck in the little ledge he wanted to jump over, surviving an AA gun to the face. Besides that the game play looked pretty much like BFV, without the super dense foliage or rubble. Please, and I'm being serious here, what improvement does BFV offer over that game play except improved graphics and forced choke points.

    Why is the innovation to *move away* from that core game play? With alternate game modes like Rush, or a variation on that (Breakthrough, Frontlines) sure. Maybe. Especially the smaller game modes like TDM and Gunmaster if you're looking for a quick pickup. But BR? Really? Taking the concept of a semi open world team based game and turning it into an artificially small squad based last man standing, with loot. Yeah, that's innovation. Totally building on the core core concept.

    I played just over an hour of Firestorm last night for the TOW assignment. I spent an easy 45 minutes either in the load screen, the jumping screen or the loot stage. I spent around 10 minutes in the bleed out, death or spectator screen. If I got more than 5 minutes of combat I'll be surprised. Even the people I was watching didn't last longer than say 3 minutes in each firefight. So around 1/6 of my time was spent what.... Not playing Battlefield? For something like 5 kills. Most of which were 1:1 ing. Now my own lack of skill isn't the game's fault. But when you've spent 20 minutes getting to top 3 squads and then you zig when you should have zagged and it was all a waste.... Yeah I've got better things to do with my time. And if I desperately want the BR mode there are other, better games I can play.

    If you like it then carry on. The topic was are you burned out on BR, which I am because BFV offers nothing substantial over other BR games, and it seems everyone in on the same bandwagon.



  • Ypsilon-Oh
    249 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Kayback wrote: »
    Battlefield has been around forever too, BF1942 was ground breaking IMHO as being one of the first to have 64 players.

    But since then what? MAG had 128v128 didn't it? BFV has 64. And now another BR game. Wooot. So much innovation.

    Why does BR need to innovate when it’s still relatively fresh? Lol. Each BR game is an innovation. They are all unique in their own ways, fortnite and apex legends being at the front of the line there. And since we are talking about innovation, your beloved battlefield, where is it? Where has it been? What games do you play with current ground breaking innovation? I’ll answer for you, it hasn’t been innovative and you don’t play innovative games because gaming has gone down the tube over several years and the best innovation has been BR, so ill take that over the bfv base game.

    Sorry but...
    yea BR is relativly fresh but there is no innovation in BR at all... every BR is the same:

    1. be lucky with loot (get the best gun)
    2. drop to hotspots for fast action (and usually a fast dead)
    3. to win just avoid other players and wait till they come to the last zone...

    its so boring for most ppl in my fl and also for me. but hey if someone is enjoying the luck factor and lack of action or whatever they like at BR it's okay as long as i don't have to play it.
  • SirTerrible
    1713 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    TEKNOCODE wrote: »
    Lexen wrote: »
    PoppaPappo wrote: »
    So, people want BF to innovate instead of copying others with things like Battle Royale and they want them to do it by continuing to regurgitate the same types of maps and modes from BF1942, BF2, BF3, and BF4. Did I get that right?

    I’m going to bite my tongue now.

    I think Conquest is without a doubt the best thing BF has had going for it. I would much rather see more effort put into more content for conquest. BR is just honestly boring.
    Conquest is just zerging and more zerging.

    Tdm is where it’s at. Say no to zerging.

    TDM is nothing but a campfest w/ the occasional zerging when the campers gang up and gain enough confidence to move more than 20m away from where they spawned. Only Hardline's 32v32 chokepointfest was a worse Battlefield TDM experience.
  • TEKNOCODE
    11592 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    TEKNOCODE wrote: »
    Lexen wrote: »
    PoppaPappo wrote: »
    So, people want BF to innovate instead of copying others with things like Battle Royale and they want them to do it by continuing to regurgitate the same types of maps and modes from BF1942, BF2, BF3, and BF4. Did I get that right?

    I’m going to bite my tongue now.

    I think Conquest is without a doubt the best thing BF has had going for it. I would much rather see more effort put into more content for conquest. BR is just honestly boring.
    Conquest is just zerging and more zerging.

    Tdm is where it’s at. Say no to zerging.

    TDM is nothing but a campfest w/ the occasional zerging when the campers gang up and gain enough confidence to move more than 20m away from where they spawned. Only Hardline's 32v32 chokepointfest was a worse Battlefield TDM experience.

    Maybe.

    As a skrub, I can only carry so many people when I play solo. It’s harder to do said carrying in objective based modes, especially when everyone is zerging.
  • kohagan1942
    54 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited March 2019
    Lexen wrote: »
    PoppaPappo wrote: »
    So, people want BF to innovate instead of copying others with things like Battle Royale and they want them to do it by continuing to regurgitate the same types of maps and modes from BF1942, BF2, BF3, and BF4. Did I get that right?

    I’m going to bite my tongue now.

    I think Conquest is without a doubt the best thing BF has had going for it. I would much rather see more effort put into more content for conquest. BR is just honestly boring.

    Well here's the thing, it's subjective.

    I've played since bf vietnam and I think conquest is feeling its age, dare I say even boring? but yes. Trapsing backwards and forwards to recapture the same points isn't as fun for me anymore.

    Not to say it is for everyone, but I think the newer operations and breakthrough modes gave the series a shot in the arm the franchise needed.

    If bfv was a conquest only game, I flat out wouldn't of bought it. Right now firestorm gets a play over conquest, it's fresh, it's different.
  • von_Campenstein
    6621 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    You better not be, it might be the future of the franchise given how they can't seem to get the basegame right.
  • DeadAgain210
    207 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    I could feel your pain on coming in 3rd place. So close no matter how far, couldn’t mean much more from the heart....oh, sorry. Burned out? I wouldn’t go that far, on being burned out. A little frustrated maybe. No fault to the game. At myself, for not being more careful. As far for people not knowing what to do. Practice is key. And it’s the person that makes the game worth playing. One more thing, I play all game modes to battlefield. I like the different challenges it brings to the table. This is my opinion, as a fellow brother in arms.
  • Trokey66
    9109 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Firestorm will never be my go to mode but a win in that mode is epic!

    It has been a long time since I felt that 'epicness' in core modes.
  • Choongangchong
    70 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    BR mode has always been meh for me. Glorified death match. However I do play it sometimes to change things up a bit. But Conquest has always been the go to mode for me since BF 1942. But I do understand why its so popular. More and more people seems to be unable to play anything that have other more important objectives than killing other players. For the last 4 years it has felt like half the player base even in Conquest have just been playing BR so maybe now the conquest player can play conquest and the death match players can play BR and TDM.
  • Ploodovic
    1642 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Burned out? Another thread told Firestorm to go to hell. What is it with all the fire puns lately? :D
  • tempo_rarity
    1365 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    So far , each time I've leaped out of the plane and landed I've learned something new down there .
    This will continue for quite some time so the chances of a 'burnout' seems far off at the moment .
    . . .
    Here's why I feel Conquest is the best :
    At ANY moment during ANY Conquest round , ANY of the other game Modes can suddenly appear .
    Doubling back in Conquest because you've run out of bullets? Welcome to your temporary BR moment .
    Ten guys on a Flag , with ten Enemy moving in? Welcome to another mode . . .

    At Radio BFV it seems they have programming for ALL of their listeners , from speedy death metal to soothing classical :smile:
    It's as simple as choosing a program that you like listening to , to hear what you want to hear .
    During its Conquest program though it seems it randomly 'shuffles' the musical genres that'll play .
    It'll be like 30 seconds of 'Electric Funeral' followed by several minutes of 'Moonlight Sonata' suddenly interrupted by 10 seconds of 'Damage Inc.' .

    Of course in BR it's totally the opposite :
    Long minutes of soothing Rachmaninoff , then a few seconds of Slayer :sunglasses:
  • Ferdinand_J_Foch
    3417 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    BF has been broken since BF4 and is still broken to this day. So I’ll take firestorm, a portion of the game dice didn’t touch and it’s issues over the bland gameplay and the issues the base game has. 👍

    It's too bad that Firestorm has been made by Criterion Games, a studio that was not only forced to kill off it's most successful franchise (by EA, of course) in a desperate bid to develop games for another, even more successful franchise, only to mess that one up for the last ten years. I haven't trusted those morons since 2010.

    Yes, I'm still salty about the death of Burnout and Need for Speed, even after all of these years.

    I tried playing Firestorm today ... I don't see the appeal of Battle Royale, so BFV's iteration didn't impress me one bit.
  • Lexen
    62 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Kayback wrote: »

    I played just over an hour of Firestorm last night for the TOW assignment. I spent an easy 45 minutes either in the load screen, the jumping screen or the loot stage. I spent around 10 minutes in the bleed out, death or spectator screen. If I got more than 5 minutes of combat I'll be surprised. Even the people I was watching didn't last longer than say 3 minutes in each firefight. So around 1/6 of my time was spent what.... Not playing Battlefield? For something like 5 kills. Most of which were 1:1 ing. Now my own lack of skill isn't the game's fault. But when you've spent 20 minutes getting to top 3 squads and then you zig when you should have zagged and it was all a waste.... Yeah I've got better things to do with my time. And if I desperately want the BR mode there are other, better games I can play.


    This is exactly how I feel. I get there's a bit of thrill because there's more risk with one life, but more often than not it ends in frustration and a lot of time doing nothing. I'd rather be in conquest and get some real gameplay in.
  • Lexen
    62 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    TEKNOCODE wrote: »
    Lexen wrote: »
    PoppaPappo wrote: »
    So, people want BF to innovate instead of copying others with things like Battle Royale and they want them to do it by continuing to regurgitate the same types of maps and modes from BF1942, BF2, BF3, and BF4. Did I get that right?

    I’m going to bite my tongue now.

    I think Conquest is without a doubt the best thing BF has had going for it. I would much rather see more effort put into more content for conquest. BR is just honestly boring.
    Conquest is just zerging and more zerging.

    Tdm is where it’s at. Say no to zerging.

    Forgive my noob self but what do you mean by zerging? I get its a starcraft reference but what does it look like it BFV?
  • von_Campenstein
    6621 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    edited March 2019
    Lexen wrote: »
    TEKNOCODE wrote: »
    Lexen wrote: »
    PoppaPappo wrote: »
    So, people want BF to innovate instead of copying others with things like Battle Royale and they want them to do it by continuing to regurgitate the same types of maps and modes from BF1942, BF2, BF3, and BF4. Did I get that right?

    I’m going to bite my tongue now.

    I think Conquest is without a doubt the best thing BF has had going for it. I would much rather see more effort put into more content for conquest. BR is just honestly boring.
    Conquest is just zerging and more zerging.

    Tdm is where it’s at. Say no to zerging.

    Forgive my noob self but what do you mean by zerging? I get its a starcraft reference but what does it look like it BFV?

    Everyone running around in one big pile, noone daring to leave the herd in fear of being caught out by the enemy herd.

    Something diminished returns would help fix, the more people you are on an objective the less points you get for capping it but the vision just doesn't seem to be there anymore.
  • TEKNOCODE
    11592 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    @crabman169 have you posted your win yet? Talk about win.
  • Kayback
    367 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    BR mode has always been meh for me. Glorified death match. However I do play it sometimes to change things up a bit. But Conquest has always been the go to mode for me since BF 1942. But I do understand why its so popular. More and more people seems to be unable to play anything that have other more important objectives than killing other players. For the last 4 years it has felt like half the player base even in Conquest have just been playing BR so maybe now the conquest player can play conquest and the death match players can play BR and TDM.
    I know I'm showing my age but I got my one life thrills backs in CS beta 7.1. Then again in COD MW Seek and Destroy.

    I've never really liked free for all games, I prefer team based games. I know Firestorm has squads, which is helpful for that feeling but it still seems a little too free for all. That being said I enjoyed the crap out of Gunmaster. *shrug*

    The one thing I dislike about squad BR games is so long as you can keep your squad intact you'll probably win. I think most of my wins in APEX have been if not full squad then 3 guys till the final ring. If you go one down you're in trouble and if you go two down you're screwed. (maybe add one to those for Firestorm?). At least in APEX you can revive a killed team mate.

    I can also agree that the Conquest formula has been worked hard since 2002. Keeping it fresh is hard. This is where good map design comes in, IMHO. BR is the new kid on the block. It just isn't my flavor.
Sign In or Register to comment.