"BFV is lacking content"

Comments

  • HuwJarz
    3868 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    lol op is trying to defend a dying game :D

    Actually it isnt dying on Xbox but instead growing the amount of new players coming to the game. With the level cap being low and I still run into a great mix of level 0-50 it shows that this game at least on xbox in America is still having some growth and when future content comes out and the game is running in a better shape it may make this game a fairly popular title.
    What's that, you have player count number for this game? Share your source please.
    He is probably 'in the industry' too. Either that or relying on 'feelings'
  • YourLocalPlumber
    2790 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    there is a lie ,  big lie and then statistics, just to quote famous statesman.
     OP you can throw any numbers you want, but the  fact remain obvious- bfv lacks quality content. yes, quality is a key word here.
     
    Maps are designed badly, vehicles  physics is atrocious compared to previous games, gunplay is complitely off in class-balance aspect.
    In order to actually enjoy game players have severely limited option compared to bf1- too few good maps, too few good guns.

    Aerodome on Breakthrough is the worst map I might have seen in any BF game^^

    I actually quite like that map. I play recon mostly so it's hard for me not to.
    Yeah because some low recon wouldn't even know what map he is playing while sitting miles behind any objective and getting 2-3 kills a game. How can you even judge a quality of the map if you never play on them properly.
    Who's to judge "properly"? Who's even to judge how I play a game based off what class I choose? Who are you to judge someone else based off how they play?
    I'm one of those few sweatlords on each team who charges in guns blazing while wiping my butt with with enemy team. I'm the one who always stays top of the board while being accused of cheating by scrubs like yourself. I'm the one who actually puts a crap ton of  effort into capturing flags and carrying your team to victory while you camp under a bush eating sandwiches.
  • Stahlmach
    1156 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited April 14
    Useless Doublepost because the Forum acts like a drunken Klingon who had too much bad Blood wine while trying to eat Gagh...
    Post edited by Stahlmach on
  • SirBobdk
    4011 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited April 13
    Filter ate my post :)
    Can you approve


    Post edited by SirBobdk on
  • aRrAyStArTaT0
    786 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Stahlmach said:
    there is a lie ,  big lie and then statistics, just to quote famous statesman.
     OP you can throw any numbers you want, but the  fact remain obvious- bfv lacks quality content. yes, quality is a key word here.
     
    Maps are designed badly, vehicles  physics is atrocious compared to previous games, gunplay is complitely off in class-balance aspect.
    In order to actually enjoy game players have severely limited option compared to bf1- too few good maps, too few good guns.

    Aerodome on Breakthrough is the worst map I might have seen in any BF game^^

    I actually quite like that map. I play recon mostly so it's hard for me not to.
    Yeah because some low recon wouldn't even know what map he is playing while sitting miles behind any objective and getting 2-3 kills a game. How can you even judge a quality of the map if you never play on them properly.
    Who's to judge "properly"? Who's even to judge how I play a game based off what class I choose? Who are you to judge someone else based off how they play?
    Well he has a point, you wouldnt give the opinion of someone who never uses Planes much consideration when he talks about the balance of Planes and their Gameplay etc.
    And about the maps: The BF V maps are in general boring and uninspired. Not only are they also mostly too small, they also lack any difference in the landscape unlike in previous titles. Every map has almost just one theme in the map and thats all.
    And Dice also seem do forgot that there are things like basements, cellars, forests and buildings/objects that are higher than just three stories. The only poor attempt against that direction is Hamada.
    If we only take the opinions of those who are doing well/don't go against them (because they're always in them), how can we take the "fun to play against" argument into account? Both sides matter. We shouldn't 100% of the time take into account ONLY those who use it. 300 hours on planes means nothing if you don't know how it feels to play against them.
  • YourLocalPlumber
    2790 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Stahlmach said:
    there is a lie ,  big lie and then statistics, just to quote famous statesman.
     OP you can throw any numbers you want, but the  fact remain obvious- bfv lacks quality content. yes, quality is a key word here.
     
    Maps are designed badly, vehicles  physics is atrocious compared to previous games, gunplay is complitely off in class-balance aspect.
    In order to actually enjoy game players have severely limited option compared to bf1- too few good maps, too few good guns.

    Aerodome on Breakthrough is the worst map I might have seen in any BF game^^

    I actually quite like that map. I play recon mostly so it's hard for me not to.
    Yeah because some low recon wouldn't even know what map he is playing while sitting miles behind any objective and getting 2-3 kills a game. How can you even judge a quality of the map if you never play on them properly.
    Who's to judge "properly"? Who's even to judge how I play a game based off what class I choose? Who are you to judge someone else based off how they play?
    Well he has a point, you wouldnt give the opinion of someone who never uses Planes much consideration when he talks about the balance of Planes and their Gameplay etc.
    And about the maps: The BF V maps are in general boring and uninspired. Not only are they also mostly too small, they also lack any difference in the landscape unlike in previous titles. Every map has almost just one theme in the map and thats all.
    And Dice also seem do forgot that there are things like basements, cellars, forests and buildings/objects that are higher than just three stories. The only poor attempt against that direction is Hamada.
    If we only take the opinions of those who are doing well/don't go against them (because they're always in them), how can we take the "fun to play against" argument into account? Both sides matter. We shouldn't 100% of the time take into account ONLY those who use it. 300 hours on planes means nothing if you don't know how it feels to play against them.
    Because when someone i using a plane, he is fighting as someone against others. As a sniper you're not fighting as or against anyone. You're just sitting somewhere completely still while not doing anything meaningful.

    A good pilot who is constantly wiping enemy squads will get instantly noticed by the enemy team in order to take action. You on the other hand stay completely meaningless to your and enemy teams. I highly doubt that anyone ever was like "OMG aRrAyStArTaT0 is screwing our team over so badly that we have to do something against him."
  • AduaneroKill
    95 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Finally somebody who thinks as me.

    I am really happy with Battlefield V. Best FPS ever.
  • Stahlmach
    1156 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    If we only take the opinions of those who are doing well/don't go against them (because they're always in them), how can we take the "fun to play against" argument into account? Both sides matter. We shouldn't 100% of the time take into account ONLY those who use it. 300 hours on planes means nothing if you don't know how it feels to play against them.
    There is a big difference between someone who just uses some Vehicles rarely and someone he never uses them at all.Same with Guns and certain gameplay aspects in combination with the maps. Remember Firestorm in BF 3 ?
    You sometimes had at least one or two Sniper " specialists " on both sides who were just sitting the entire time either on that hill near the US Base or at hill top next to the Russian base. Never moving forward.
    Their opinion about general outlay of the map in relation to the general classes and weapons would be as useful as the opinion of Deep sea fishes about flying.
    And if BF V lacks something, its really the fun aspect.
  • trip1ex
    4688 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited April 14
    SirBobdk said:
    Stahlmach said:
     The BF V maps are in general boring and uninspired. Not only are they also mostly too small, they also lack any difference in the landscape unlike in previous titles. Every map has almost just one theme in the map and thats all.
    And Dice also seem do forgot that there are things like basements, cellars, forests and buildings/objects that are higher than just three stories. The only poor attempt against that direction is Hamada.
    100% agree
    My main problem with BFV is the quality of the maps and not the number of maps. I can alomost live with everything else.
    The maps in BFV have been made with very little imagination and ambitions, and it have an impact on the gameplay.
    -
    If you compare similar map types from previous BF then they are far better imo.
    -
    Twiested steel <> Giants of Karelia, Caspian Border,
    Rotterdam, Devastation <> Dawnbreaker, Back to karland, Siege of Shanghai, Seine Crosing, Sharqi peninsula
    Hamada, Aerodrome <> Bander Desert, Operation Firestorm, Gulf of Oman, Arica Harbor, Silk Road
    Fjeld, Narvik <> Alborz Mountains, Sabalan Pipeline, Port Valdez, Nelson Bay
    And we have no maps with ships like paracel Storm, Lost Island.
    -
    The maps are primarily made for infantry gameplay and vehicle play are almost not existing
    The gameplay lack content and becomes extremely boring very fast.


    Yeah go all the way back to BF42 and Wake Island - the map that showed off the game. 

    It was way more spectacular than anything in BFV.  

    IT's like today's BF game has gone backwards.  BF42 was ~17 years ago.  


    It feels like wasted opportunity to make what we had on WAke Island 17 years ago more fun, more interesting and more polished than ever.  


    instead we get Aerodome.  




  • haftrabbit
    16 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    VOLBANKER said:
    Firestorm doesn't count as a map for those of us who only play Battlefield as it's BR only, which you know very well I'm sure.

    Fact is DLC1 for BF1 contained 4 quality maps while here in BF5 we got 1 map: Panzersturm, which as a map causes a lot of folks to leave whenever it pops up as next map.

    It seems to me you've made it your life mission to defend DICE here in this forum. Bias is never a good thing. There are good and bad things about most things in life, DICE and BF5 included.


    This is your personal problem. Firestorm counts as content and is atleast worth alone a whole DLC of previous Battlefields.
    Also it got announced way before release that there will be a BR mode.

    Bias is going the other way since you've made it your life mission to cry about a game months after its release in this forum.
  • aRrAyStArTaT0
    786 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    VOLBANKER said:
    VOLBANKER said:
    Firestorm doesn't count as a map for those of us who only play Battlefield as it's BR only, which you know very well I'm sure.

    Fact is DLC1 for BF1 contained 4 quality maps while here in BF5 we got 1 map: Panzersturm, which as a map causes a lot of folks to leave whenever it pops up as next map.

    It seems to me you've made it your life mission to defend DICE here in this forum. Bias is never a good thing. There are good and bad things about most things in life, DICE and BF5 included.


    This is your personal problem. Firestorm counts as content and is atleast worth alone a whole DLC of previous Battlefields.
    Also it got announced way before release that there will be a BR mode.

    Bias is going the other way since you've made it your life mission to cry about a game months after its release in this forum.
    It's fair enough you think so, however to me and many others Firestorm has no value whatsoever, in fact you can argue it has negative value as it removes people who would otherwise have been available to squad with you in regular BF5. My own friend list is a good example of this.

    As for your last paragraph, I flat out love the game and have defended and spoken highly about it several times. But I will also speak about problems with it.
    It's a little short sighted to say that content isn't there if it doesn't apply to you. That argument could be said for literally anything. "If they didn't spend time making this sniper, they could have been doing a shotgun instead" or even "If they spent more time on these skins, they'd have more sales and we'd get more content." That argument doesn't really hold much merit with me. It's too flexible and doesn't hold weight when pressured.
  • SirBobdk
    4011 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    It's a little short sighted to say that content isn't there if it doesn't apply to you. That argument could be said for literally anything. "If they didn't spend time making this sniper, they could have been doing a shotgun instead" or even "If they spent more time on these skins, they'd have more sales and we'd get more content." That argument doesn't really hold much merit with me. It's too flexible and doesn't hold weight when pressured.
    If you compare BFV with the BF games beginning from BF1942 then BFV has less content of them all. It has become a shadow of it self.
  • aRrAyStArTaT0
    786 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    SirBobdk said:
    It's a little short sighted to say that content isn't there if it doesn't apply to you. That argument could be said for literally anything. "If they didn't spend time making this sniper, they could have been doing a shotgun instead" or even "If they spent more time on these skins, they'd have more sales and we'd get more content." That argument doesn't really hold much merit with me. It's too flexible and doesn't hold weight when pressured.
    If you compare BFV with the BF games beginning from BF1942 then BFV has less content of them all. It has become a shadow of it self.

    Who's to say that's not from hype dying down? Who's to say that's not just from it being an older franchise? Same thing happened to COD. And literally every game franchise that comes out with a game every 2 or less years. Assassins Creed. COD. Literally any sports game. Overwatch even has this issue as well as other arena shooters. Halo. Star Wars. All of these games were once great. Yet either through corporate changing hands or the system going on for long enough, they've fallen significantly off where they once were.
    .
    In addition, what even defines content? I've put up a number of content that was on release from BF1 to BFV. Yet nobody else has done anything similar for the other games they feel has more content than BFV. How much content does BF 1942 have at launch? What about 5 months after launch? I've already made a case for BF1 to have less content than BFV, yet people pull the "a tank is not a map" argument (which makes sense) as an excuse to why BFV doesn't have enough "content." So, if numerics don't matter anymore, then what defines "more" right? Quantitative systems aren't enough to justify "more" so what is?
  • Stahlmach
    1156 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    SirBobdk said:
    It's a little short sighted to say that content isn't there if it doesn't apply to you. That argument could be said for literally anything. "If they didn't spend time making this sniper, they could have been doing a shotgun instead" or even "If they spent more time on these skins, they'd have more sales and we'd get more content." That argument doesn't really hold much merit with me. It's too flexible and doesn't hold weight when pressured.
    If you compare BFV with the BF games beginning from BF1942 then BFV has less content of them all. It has become a shadow of it self.

    Who's to say that's not from hype dying down? Who's to say that's not just from it being an older franchise? Same thing happened to COD. And literally every game franchise that comes out with a game every 2 or less years. Assassins Creed. COD. Literally any sports game. Overwatch even has this issue as well as other arena shooters. Halo. Star Wars. All of these games were once great. Yet either through corporate changing hands or the system going on for long enough, they've fallen significantly off where they once were.
    .
    In addition, what even defines content? I've put up a number of content that was on release from BF1 to BFV. Yet nobody else has done anything similar for the other games they feel has more content than BFV. How much content does BF 1942 have at launch? What about 5 months after launch? I've already made a case for BF1 to have less content than BFV, yet people pull the "a tank is not a map" argument (which makes sense) as an excuse to why BFV doesn't have enough "content." So, if numerics don't matter anymore, then what defines "more" right? Quantitative systems aren't enough to justify "more" so what is?
    You know what defines more content ?
    Guns with a wide amount of setups that not only visually change the appearance of the Gun but also have a difference in its performance. Unlike in BF V.
    Tanks ( and Planes ) that arent just Exp Pinatas and where you also have different traits no chose from and not just sad excuse of a so called techtree that is just " left " or right " where you even lose some specs when going that route without mentioning that before in any way.
    Countless of Vehicles scattered across big maps that take you fast from to A to B like Motorcycles, Quads, Armored Vehicles, Boats etc. And in BF V ? Not even Motorcycles like the BMW R75. Even simple Bycycles would fit in that era.
    Maps that arent just designed by someone who has no clue at all how to create a map but by people who know what they are doing. Big maps with different areas in the map itself and not these small, run and gun Abominations we got in BF V.
    Flying in Arras for example is like flying in a Gold fish Bowl.
    Content is also Uniforms that are not only in some way historical but also vary in camo automatically on different surroundings which was totally common in previous titles.
    Factions that in such a historical setting should be there right from the start like the French!

    And regarding to your mentioned games series that went down. Tell me how many of them took three steps back when it comes to gameplay ? How many of them totally forgot what made its predecessor gameplay wise so good ?
    Also why dont you mention the various titles where the Developers listened to any critique or themselves wanted to make things better ?

  • IDirtY_SeCreT
    529 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    SirBobdk said:
    It's a little short sighted to say that content isn't there if it doesn't apply to you. That argument could be said for literally anything. "If they didn't spend time making this sniper, they could have been doing a shotgun instead" or even "If they spent more time on these skins, they'd have more sales and we'd get more content." That argument doesn't really hold much merit with me. It's too flexible and doesn't hold weight when pressured.
    If you compare BFV with the BF games beginning from BF1942 then BFV has less content of them all. It has become a shadow of it self.
    A steaming pile of ... I think you get what I mean^^
Sign In or Register to comment.