When playing BFV, do you feel like you're playing a Battlefield game?

Comments

  • Hawxxeye
    4355 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Yup the underpowered sniper rifles vs overpowered assault rifles has always been there since bf3.
    Only the vehicle balance and the map design are worse
  • Rex_Holez
    102 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    BFV is absolutely a battlefield game.

    To those of you missing some kind of feeling from previous games; it's called getting old. That special magic from the games of your youth is never coming back, no matter what you play.
    Yeah that must be why the game was half off a few months after it was released. 
  • ElliotLH
    6136 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    For the most part, but I often find it not quite as fun. 
  • Agente_Silva
    157 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Member
    edited May 14
    If it did no one would ask... BFV is crap just like BF1 was...
  • trip1ex
    4305 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    edited May 14
    It's BF without the fun factor.  

    They might as well just turn Conquest into BR too.    Put 64 players  in squads of 4 on the Conquest maps and then last squad standing.    No looting.  You immediately start in random locations.  Go.  Respawn as long as one squad mate is alive.  BF BR.  That would be fun actually.   They got rid of tanks and planes anyway as far as I'm concerned.  And everyone just runs around in circles anyway.  Why not.  It would be more interesting.  And it requires the amount of work that EA loves.  Next to nothing. 
    Post edited by trip1ex on
  • xKusagamix
    673 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    It is a Battlefield game, but not a fun one. They tried too hard to shove up players throat with realistic element and totally killed the fun in the game, some silly things in previous game are what make them feel fun.
  • ragnarok013
    2155 postsMember, Moderator, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Moderator
    superteds said:
    yeah i do. and starting your argument with BF1 was a skinned SWBF is disingenuous to say the least...
    BF1\5 is definitely not a simple reskin of SWBF however many people see the heavy SWBF influences in BF1\5 from things like the UI, the vehicle spawning system, in BF1 the elite classes, and now the BF5 server system, etc.
  • Billydoc1
    489 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    sometimes BFV looks like MoH or CoD
  • DogRoyal
    87 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Rex_Holez said:
    To me BF2 set the standard of what a BF game should be. 6 man squads, commander giving orders, dropping supplies, using the UAV and artillery to help flush out flags for the squads. Large maps, and lots of them allowing multiple strategies to attack/defend. 7 classes which led to even more strategies on those big maps. 

    BF5 everything has been dumbed down. 9 tiny maps, flags 150m apart, no commander, 4 man squads, 4 classes, no helis on conquest. 

    Literally a downgrade over a 15 year old game in every area except graphics. 

    BFV feels like a Battlefield game to me, but I totally agree with above post.
  • TheNoobPolice
    1469 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    The magic you're referring to certainly wasn't there at BF3 launch so logically if you're going to use it as a comparison you'd also wait 8 months after launch for BF V to be a good game.
    Indeed. Hell, a lot of the people who talk about the 'magic of BF3' were the ones who were whining about it constantly when it was out. People like Luetin, LevelCap, Matimio, XFactor complained about pretty much every decision DICE made during BF3's lifecycle, though plenty of those decisions deserved the criticism they received.

    Remember how this community lost it's goddamned mind over a bunch of wallpapers as a part of some August Content Drop?

    Remember the 'blackout' every major YouTuber organised?

    Remember the list of bloody 40 ... 40 ... different things the 'community' wanted? 

    Remember how people called DICE 'greedy', and all sorts of other words I can't say on this forum, because they didn't release mod tools?

    Remember Zh1nto ... the community manager who pretty much everyone hated back in the day?

    Remember the meltdown that happened when they introduced Premium?

    Remember how everyone was complaining about the Close Quarters DLC being some sort of 'CoD DLC'?

    I loved BF3, but I won't deny that DICE made serious mistakes when that game was the current Battlefield game. It seems that many are willing to look at that game's life with rose tinted glasses. Sure, you could argue the game had a sort of 'magic' to it, but you can't pretend that the DICE of yesteryear wasn't as tone-deaf as it is today.
    All I know is, I loved that game from the moment I got it until now, and the amount of fun I have had in the game dwarfs anything they have made with a Battlefield name on it since.

    Not rose tinted for me, if there was a way to get full servers in all the game modes for that game right now, especially the amazing DLC maps like aftermath, I wouldn't be trying to play the abortion of a game that is BFV.
  • Ferdinand_J_Foch
    2883 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    All I know is, I loved that game from the moment I got it until now, and the amount of fun I have had in the game dwarfs anything they have made with a Battlefield name on it since.

    Not rose tinted for me, if there was a way to get full servers in all the game modes for that game right now, especially the amazing DLC maps like aftermath, I wouldn't be trying to play the abortion of a game that is BFV.
    The problem is that the servers for BF3 are extremely dated ... hell, even back then, they weren't great. If I could find a way to play on 60HZ servers without Venice Unleashed, I might give the PC version of BF3 a proper go ... although, I might used Venice Unleashed anyways, just to get rid of that absurd blue filter.
  • GrumbleSG9
    206 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Feels like Battlefield to me but there's something not quite right about it. Like some vital ingredient is missing ... or maybe it's more like Dice have over-egged the BFV pudding. Added too many ingredients. Or maybe SirSpectacle is on point and I need to stop expecting to get the Battlefeels of days gone past.
  • OskooI_007
    326 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited May 15
    I had to quit playing BF3 on Xbox 360 due to it's poor netcode. It's the title DICE made the transition from server-side hit detection to client-side hit detection in Frostbite. Everything was out-of-sync in BF3, especially player movement.

    Other than the netcode, I like BF3.
    Post edited by OskooI_007 on
  • RichardSinerface
    64 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Not really. It's a sad reflection of one. I find myself occasionally finding fun, but so so often being incredibly underwhelmed by this game.
    You can say that Dice listened to the fans too much and that's what made the game bad. But Dice still had to pick those bad ideas as the ones to listen to. And I think that is giving the opinion of the masses too much weight with Dice and decision making.

  • ArchAngeL_777
    27 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Member
    The magic you're referring to certainly wasn't there at BF3 launch so logically if you're going to use it as a comparison you'd also wait 8 months after launch for BF V to be a good game.
    Indeed. Hell, a lot of the people who talk about the 'magic of BF3' were the ones who were whining about it constantly when it was out. People like Luetin, LevelCap, Matimio, XFactor complained about pretty much every decision DICE made during BF3's lifecycle, though plenty of those decisions deserved the criticism they received.

    Remember how this community lost it's goddamned mind over a bunch of wallpapers as a part of some August Content Drop?

    Remember the 'blackout' every major YouTuber organised?

    Remember the list of bloody 40 ... 40 ... different things the 'community' wanted? 

    Remember how people called DICE 'greedy', and all sorts of other words I can't say on this forum, because they didn't release mod tools?

    Remember Zh1nto ... the community manager who pretty much everyone hated back in the day?

    Remember the meltdown that happened when they introduced Premium?

    Remember how everyone was complaining about the Close Quarters DLC being some sort of 'CoD DLC'?

    I loved BF3, but I won't deny that DICE made serious mistakes when that game was the current Battlefield game. It seems that many are willing to look at that game's life with rose tinted glasses. Sure, you could argue the game had a sort of 'magic' to it, but you can't pretend that the DICE of yesteryear wasn't as tone-deaf as it is today.
    I remember Operation Metro was the beta map for BF3.   It almost turned me off the game as I was ready for a return to large scale vehicles warfare of BF2 and BF2142.   But then we got the Back to Karkand DLC free for pre-ordering and I was all in at that point.  I played those 4 maps exclusively for a couple of months.

    Close Quarters DLC was indeed awful imo.   I couldn't believe it at the time.   They made up for it after that with Armored Kill though.   That was a great DLC.   Overall, Battlefield 3 seemed to never be able to decide what kind of game it wanted to be.   They were either designing maps for Rush/CQ or large open battles like Caspian Border.

    Battlefield 4 is to me the pinnacle of the new "Battlefield" formula.   With BF4 DICE was able to find the right mix of infantry and vehicle combat.   Maps were designed for large scale vehicle warfare, vehicles were all over the place, but the maps usually included areas for CQ combat.   It stays true to the large chaos of past games while also satisfying fans of the more infantry oriented games.

    Sure BF4 had maps like Operation Locker and Flood Zone, but BF2 had it's share of those with Strike at Karkand, Road to Jalalabad, and the Special Operations expansion with Warlord, Iron Gator, Ghost Town, etc.   Battlefield 2142 had some smaller maps like Camp Gibraltar and Berlin.   It's ok to have some of those when most of the maps are larger scale.   Battlefield 3 had way too many smaller maps at launch and in the Close Quarters DLC...over half the game.   Battlefield V only has a few large maps.
  • Ferdinand_J_Foch
    2883 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited May 16
    I never in all my time on BF3, or 4, or 1943, 2142, BC1/2 +Vietnam or even BF2 asked the kinda questions I do in my head as I do in BFV or did in BF1. Questions like, why is this so little fun, why is this so frustrating, why have they made this so horrible? 
    I suppose for different people, it's different things that annoy them.

    I ask myself all sorts of questions about DICE's design choices whenever I played any BF game, but it was BF4 that made me question everything the most, with the following being some of my most frequent queries:

    Why did they put the UCAV in the game?
    Why are mortars not single-fire?
    Why did they put a 40x scope in the game?
    Why did they make the Deagle/AWS/insertDLCweaponhere so bloody overpowered?
    Why did my RPG do no damage ... again?
    Why do people like Operation Lockers so much?
    Why did they put the defensive perk tree in the game?
    Why did they put the staff shell in the game?

    Like I said, I did this with every BF game, but BF4 made me rage the most ... but at the current pace for this game, that dubious honour might end up going to BFV in the near future.

    ArchAngeL_777 said:
    Close Quarters DLC was indeed awful imo.   I couldn't believe it at the time.   They made up for it after that with Armored Kill though.   That was a great DLC.   Overall, Battlefield 3 seemed to never be able to decide what kind of game it wanted to be.   They were either designing maps for Rush/CQ or large open battles like Caspian Border.

    You see ... this is the problem. I actually liked Armoured Kill as well, and thought it was better than Close Quarters, though I also thought that CQ was decent.

    However, the Armoured Kill maps died in a matter of weeks, whereas you can still find servers running the CQ maps ... that goes to show that with BF3, despite having good vehicle gameplay (even if some of them were overpowered, like that damn Little Bird), the community's priority was almost exclusively on infantry gameplay.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!