This Week in Battlefield V

What BFI has right and how to improve BFV

Comments

  • BFB-LeCharybdis
    814 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    M_Rat13 said:
    I never really liked either game. Though BF1 was better. I miss games like 1943, bf3, Vietnam. 2142. Bf1 to me was a sign of how it was all going, and here we are now with this mess. 

    BF1 is the best battlefield of this decade. I'd forgotten what a real battlefield felt like until I played BF1. It was a return to form where weapon class each had a role, eventually (LMGs needed some tweaks), where soldiers/vehicles moved like they had weight, and weren't just UFOs, and where everything was just so immersive and atmospheric. And then Dice dropped the ball, hard.... BFV is like taking that perfectly made cheese and tomato pizza that has all the right textures and tastes from BF1, and then slapping on the pineapple from BF4 on top of it. If BC3 is just a BF4 clone, battlefield is dead to me, and that's a shame. Becuase for one glorious moment, we had BF1. We had, perfection.

    I have to disagree here.  I really wanted to like BF1 but it was so freaking bland and boring and never felt like a real Battlefield title to me. To me BF5 is a step in the right direction and actually feels more like a Battlefield title than BF1 although for the next one I wish they'd ignore everything after BF4 (and SWBF) and take what made the series great from BF1942-BF4 and build upon it instead of repeatedly shaking up the etcha-sketch and starting over from scratch. My perfect Battlefield would be to use BF3 as the basis minus suppression, then add BF2's commander, BF4's assist counts as kill and counter knife, BF4's UI and weapon customization system and a robust RSP that replicates all of the abilities that we had with procon\r-con. We'd have a normal hard core and core setting as well.  I'd leave all of the animations and attrition on the cutting room floor as if my soldiers ever crossed LD with less than their full combat load I'd have had more than strong words with them. All of the animations severely limit all of the "only in Battlefield" moments that we used to have until BF1.
    Interesting. I found BF4 to be good but quite dull in comparison with 1.

    While you may not like BF1, you can't deny it's the runaway hit of the Battlefield series in terms of sales and player base. Mainly because the console market on the whole absolutely loved it.

    I'm wondering if this desire for a return to things past would work in terms of a modern player base?
    For me that's the biggest problem Dice has at the moment. It can design games around the wants of the older Battlefield crowd, as V was mean't to be a return to Battlefields roots, but in terms of what a modern market wants people just aren't as interested. I might be wrong but I believe V only sold as well as BF4?

    In terms of current interest in the gaming community even the YouTubers are switching back to BF1 as it doubles their viewers. The 'Only in Battlefield' moments mean different things to different generations.

    I'm quite fortunate that I loved 1 but I'm enjoying V also, I think there's a lot of potential still to come. 

    In terms of a Battlefield future I'd quite like it if EA/Dice developed two separate lines of the Battlefield franchise.
    Say 'Bad Company' which would harken back to the older titles in game design. I think it would be smaller in terms of sales/player base but I imagine the games would play at a higher level and standard of player.
    And the 'Battlefield' which would have BF1's grandeur and mayhem. Designed more around having fun, it would probably have a far larger player base tapping into the more 'casual' crowd.

    For me, I'd play both.


  • ArchAngeL_777
    44 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Member
    M_Rat13 said:
    I never really liked either game. Though BF1 was better. I miss games like 1943, bf3, Vietnam. 2142. Bf1 to me was a sign of how it was all going, and here we are now with this mess. 

    BF1 is the best battlefield of this decade. I'd forgotten what a real battlefield felt like until I played BF1. It was a return to form where weapon class each had a role, eventually (LMGs needed some tweaks), where soldiers/vehicles moved like they had weight, and weren't just UFOs, and where everything was just so immersive and atmospheric. And then Dice dropped the ball, hard.... BFV is like taking that perfectly made cheese and tomato pizza that has all the right textures and tastes from BF1, and then slapping on the pineapple from BF4 on top of it. If BC3 is just a BF4 clone, battlefield is dead to me, and that's a shame. Becuase for one glorious moment, we had BF1. We had, perfection.

    I have to disagree here.  I really wanted to like BF1 but it was so freaking bland and boring and never felt like a real Battlefield title to me. To me BF5 is a step in the right direction and actually feels more like a Battlefield title than BF1 although for the next one I wish they'd ignore everything after BF4 (and SWBF) and take what made the series great from BF1942-BF4 and build upon it instead of repeatedly shaking up the etcha-sketch and starting over from scratch. My perfect Battlefield would be to use BF3 as the basis minus suppression, then add BF2's commander, BF4's assist counts as kill and counter knife, BF4's UI and weapon customization system and a robust RSP that replicates all of the abilities that we had with procon\r-con. We'd have a normal hard core and core setting as well.  I'd leave all of the animations and attrition on the cutting room floor as if my soldiers ever crossed LD with less than their full combat load I'd have had more than strong words with them. All of the animations severely limit all of the "only in Battlefield" moments that we used to have until BF1.
    Interesting. I found BF4 to be good but quite dull in comparison with 1.

    While you may not like BF1, you can't deny it's the runaway hit of the Battlefield series in terms of sales and player base. Mainly because the console market on the whole absolutely loved it.

    I'm wondering if this desire for a return to things past would work in terms of a modern player base?
    For me that's the biggest problem Dice has at the moment. It can design games around the wants of the older Battlefield crowd, as V was mean't to be a return to Battlefields roots, but in terms of what a modern market wants people just aren't as interested. I might be wrong but I believe V only sold as well as BF4?

    In terms of current interest in the gaming community even the YouTubers are switching back to BF1 as it doubles their viewers. The 'Only in Battlefield' moments mean different things to different generations.

    I'm quite fortunate that I loved 1 but I'm enjoying V also, I think there's a lot of potential still to come. 

    In terms of a Battlefield future I'd quite like it if EA/Dice developed two separate lines of the Battlefield franchise.
    Say 'Bad Company' which would harken back to the older titles in game design. I think it would be smaller in terms of sales/player base but I imagine the games would play at a higher level and standard of player.
    And the 'Battlefield' which would have BF1's grandeur and mayhem. Designed more around having fun, it would probably have a far larger player base tapping into the more 'casual' crowd.

    For me, I'd play both.


    Remember Battlefield 4 was a launch PS4/Xbox One title that also had a reduced version on PS3/360.   It was also EA's first big title on current consoles, and had launch server issues like many games did that first year.   BF1 launched into a much bigger install base on PS4 and Xbox One.   I don't know that BF1 outperforms BF4 given equal circumstances.

    Your comments about the split player base are spot on.  There are those that have been playing since the old PC games, and those that got their start with say Bad Company 2 and Battlefield 3.   Newer players don't have any clue about the older PC games.

    So we get Battlefield V which seems to be trying to satisfy both and doing neither.   It's attention is actually split 3 ways as it tried to rope in the Battle Royale crowd too.

    I think your solution is brilliant and what DICE really needs to look at doing.   Bring back Bad Company and alternate releases between that and the main line BF titles.   Let Bad Company return to the smaller scale infantry focus with more single player story of the first two.   For instance, Bad Company 3 launches with PS5 and the next Xbox (which is a strong rumor).   Then Battlefield VI would launch two years later and be all about large scale warfare with lots of vehicles as in the past games.   Maybe return to modern setting or possibly Battlefield 2143?
  • mf_shro0m
    1459 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited May 19
    M_Rat13 said:

    ragnarok013 said:

    M_Rat13 said:

    MBT_Layzan said:
    I never really liked either game. Though BF1 was better. I miss games like 1943, bf3, Vietnam. 2142. Bf1 to me was a sign of how it was all going, and here we are now with this mess. 




    BF1 is the best battlefield of this decade. I'd forgotten what a real battlefield felt like until I played BF1. It was a return to form where weapon class each had a role, eventually (LMGs needed some tweaks), where soldiers/vehicles moved like they had weight, and weren't just UFOs, and where everything was just so immersive and atmospheric.

    And then Dice dropped the ball, hard....

    BFV is like taking that perfectly made cheese and tomato pizza that has all the right textures and tastes from BF1, and then slapping on the pineapple from BF4 on top of it. If BC3 is just a BF4 clone, battlefield is dead to me, and that's a shame.

    Becuase for one glorious moment, we had BF1. We had, perfection.


    I have to disagree here.  I really wanted to like BF1 but it was so freaking bland and boring and never felt like a real Battlefield title to me. To me BF5 is a step in the right direction and actually feels more like a Battlefield title than BF1 although for the next one I wish they'd ignore everything after BF4 (and SWBF) and take what made the series great from BF1942-BF4 and build upon it instead of repeatedly shaking up the etcha-sketch and starting over from scratch. My perfect Battlefield would be to use BF3 as the basis minus suppression, then add BF2's commander, BF4's assist counts as kill and counter knife, BF4's UI and weapon customization system and a robust RSP that replicates all of the abilities that we had with procon\r-con. We'd have a normal hard core and core setting as well.  I'd leave all of the animations and attrition on the cutting room floor as if my soldiers ever crossed LD with less than their full combat load I'd have had more than strong words with them. All of the animations severely limit all of the "only in Battlefield" moments that we used to have until BF1.




    Battlefields in modern settings are so focused on making you this run and gun machine, they forget that battlefield is, first and foremost, a strategic game. You shouldn't win a gunfight becuase you have the better twitch reflexes (mainly talking ADAD spam) or the better gun, it should be who gets the jump on their opponent first, and it's what BF1, and the original battlefields, did. Oh, and getting the jump doesn't mean camping, that's a different thing.
    I started at Battlefield 2.  I can't remember a single Battlefield game where some sort of twitch reflex was not involved.   That's online shooters, and that's Conquest.   You will consistently be put in a situation where you will have to quickly react to outgun an opponent.  The gunplay really isn't the issue.   I basically only used one gun the entire time on BF4 (AK-5C).   I didn't care.  I just wanted something reliable.   Same with BF3 where I often used the DAO-12.   To me Battlefield V has solid gunplay.

    I have to agree with @ragnarok013, BF1 was missing a lot of what makes Battlefield unique.  The beta turned me off because it was that desert map with very little cover.  It was a total sniper fest.   There weren't many vehicles.   Then the game launched and a lot of the maps were not much different...bland blown out towns or mostly flat fields, etc.  So I went with Titanfall 2 instead.

    I also agree with his "ideal Battlefield".  In particular, leave the animations out.   My one criticism of BF4 is having to sit there for 10 seconds and watch the guy who killed me.   Get rid of that.   Get rid of the rolling around on the ground screaming.   Window dressing...all of it that no one asked for.

    I should point out too that this series was T rated before Bad Company 2.   That includes Battlefield 2 and Battlefield 2142.   Most consider those superior games.   They didn't need blood effects, executions, or cursing.  It was all about the straight up Conquest gameplay and over the top maps.   Maps like Kubra Dam, Strike at Karkand, Gulf of Oman, Warlord, Iron Gator, Ghost Town, Mass Destruction, FuShe Pass, Operation Clean Sweep, Surge, Leviathan, etc.   Maps in Battlefield 2 had great features, design, and varied terrain.   Battlefield 4 is the last Battlefield to truly encompass much of the map design and features of the older games.

    I think a big mistake they made with BFV’s maps was that they tried to make them really open for vehicles and left them too open with inadequate cover. The BF4 maps I’ve played are all urban and so whilst there’s plenty of room for vehicles, darting from cover to cover to very much viable for infantry as they traverse the map. I think Dice gave in to the people screaming for big, open vehicle dominated maps like Panzerstorm, claiming that that’s the ‘classic battlefield’ feeling and what battlefield’s meant to be like. When you go too far in that direction, you don’t sufficiently cater to infantry, i.e. about 56 out of every 64 players in each big round, so ~87.5% of the players. This is inevitably going to leave that 85% with a bad experience

    Big open maps just encourage infantry to camp but traversing large expanses I’d open ground is always going to be dangerous
    Post edited by mf_shro0m on
  • ArchAngeL_777
    44 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Member
    y_j_es_i said:
    I think a big mistake they made with BFV’s maps was that they tried to make them really open for vehicles and left them too open with inadequate cover. The BF4 maps I’ve played are all urban and so whilst there’s plenty of room for infantry, darting from cover to cover to very much viable for infantry as they traverse the map. I think Dice gave in to the people screaming for big, open vehicle dominated maps like Panzerstorm, claiming that that’s the ‘classic battlefield’ feeling and what battlefield’s meant to be like. When you go too far in that direction, you don’t sufficiently cater to infantry, i.e. about 58 out of every 64 players in each big round, so 85% of the players. This is inevitably going to leave that 85% with a bad experience

    Big open maps just encourage infantry to camp but traversing large expanses I’d open ground is always going to be dangerous
    I agree.   The maps in BF4 had plenty of cover and ways to move around the map.   There are also a LOT more vehicles in BF4 which makes traversal of the map easier.  Even in maps that aren't urban like Paracel Storm and Golmud Railway.   There are hills, buildings, trees and various other forms of cover too many to name.   Despite its heavy vehicle presence, infantry could easily move around BF4 maps.

    BF4 China Rising DLC included  Altai Range, Silk Road, and Dragon Pass...all vehicle heavy maps with mountains, hills, dunes, various buildings and structures.

    BF4 Second Assault DLC included Gulf of Oman...and instant classic from BF2 and BF3.  It had Caspian Border and Operation Firestorm with that huge oil complex.

    BF4 Navel Strike DLC was all tropical island maps with tons of naval vehicles.  Wavebreaker had the submarine base inside the center island and surrounding islands had outposts and cover.  Operation Mortar was a huge island with a castle at the top.  Lost Island had the downed aircraft in the middle and islands spread out around.

    BF4 Dragon's Teeth DLC was more urban medium sized maps with trains, Sunken Dragon with the temple in the middle, etc.

    BF4 Final Stand DLC went back to large scale maps and heavy vehicle combat.   These maps were in snowy mountain terrain with bases inside mountains and spread out through hill terrain.   Hangar 21 had a large hanger in a mountain that had flags A and B.   Giants of Karellia had bases in various hills and a couple in mountains.   Whiteout was on an arctic landscape littered with walls of ice, hills, and a snowstorm would blow up limiting visibility.

    Battlefield 4 maps were an experience in themselves.
  • ragnarok013
    3214 postsMember, Moderator, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Moderator
    y_j_es_i said:
    I think a big mistake they made with BFV’s maps was that they tried to make them really open for vehicles and left them too open with inadequate cover. The BF4 maps I’ve played are all urban and so whilst there’s plenty of room for infantry, darting from cover to cover to very much viable for infantry as they traverse the map. I think Dice gave in to the people screaming for big, open vehicle dominated maps like Panzerstorm, claiming that that’s the ‘classic battlefield’ feeling and what battlefield’s meant to be like. When you go too far in that direction, you don’t sufficiently cater to infantry, i.e. about 58 out of every 64 players in each big round, so 85% of the players. This is inevitably going to leave that 85% with a bad experience

    Big open maps just encourage infantry to camp but traversing large expanses I’d open ground is always going to be dangerous
    I agree.   The maps in BF4 had plenty of cover and ways to move around the map.   There are also a LOT more vehicles in BF4 which makes traversal of the map easier.  Even in maps that aren't urban like Paracel Storm and Golmud Railway.   There are hills, buildings, trees and various other forms of cover too many to name.   Despite its heavy vehicle presence, infantry could easily move around BF4 maps.

    BF4 China Rising DLC included  Altai Range, Silk Road, and Dragon Pass...all vehicle heavy maps with mountains, hills, dunes, various buildings and structures.

    BF4 Second Assault DLC included Gulf of Oman...and instant classic from BF2 and BF3.  It had Caspian Border and Operation Firestorm with that huge oil complex.

    BF4 Navel Strike DLC was all tropical island maps with tons of naval vehicles.  Wavebreaker had the submarine base inside the center island and surrounding islands had outposts and cover.  Operation Mortar was a huge island with a castle at the top.  Lost Island had the downed aircraft in the middle and islands spread out around.

    BF4 Dragon's Teeth DLC was more urban medium sized maps with trains, Sunken Dragon with the temple in the middle, etc.

    BF4 Final Stand DLC went back to large scale maps and heavy vehicle combat.   These maps were in snowy mountain terrain with bases inside mountains and spread out through hill terrain.   Hangar 21 had a large hanger in a mountain that had flags A and B.   Giants of Karellia had bases in various hills and a couple in mountains.   Whiteout was on an arctic landscape littered with walls of ice, hills, and a snowstorm would blow up limiting visibility.

    Battlefield 4 maps were an experience in themselves.
    I have to agree here. I've always really liked Panzerstorm and like it more after the infantry friendly rework but there are simply just not enough vehicles in Panzerstorm (or BF5's maps in general). Take that fact and pair it with the inadequate SWBF style vehicle spawn system and you've got a recipe for frustration for vehicle players.  We need to go back to the old set number of each type of vehicles (for example: 3 Heavy tanks, two light tanks, 5 half tracks, 5 staff cars, 2 fighters 1 bomber, 1 MAA per side etc.) being permanently spawned in the faction spawn as well as on each flag system. This is important because you can balance a map by limiting the number and types of vehicles available per map so we don't get three MAAs per side like I've seen several times on Panzerstorm.
  • superteds
    1182 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    agreed on pre-set vehicle spawns 100%. 
  • ragnarok013
    3214 postsMember, Moderator, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Moderator
    edited May 19
    M_Rat13 said:
    I never really liked either game. Though BF1 was better. I miss games like 1943, bf3, Vietnam. 2142. Bf1 to me was a sign of how it was all going, and here we are now with this mess. 

    BF1 is the best battlefield of this decade. I'd forgotten what a real battlefield felt like until I played BF1. It was a return to form where weapon class each had a role, eventually (LMGs needed some tweaks), where soldiers/vehicles moved like they had weight, and weren't just UFOs, and where everything was just so immersive and atmospheric. And then Dice dropped the ball, hard.... BFV is like taking that perfectly made cheese and tomato pizza that has all the right textures and tastes from BF1, and then slapping on the pineapple from BF4 on top of it. If BC3 is just a BF4 clone, battlefield is dead to me, and that's a shame. Becuase for one glorious moment, we had BF1. We had, perfection.

    I have to disagree here.  I really wanted to like BF1 but it was so freaking bland and boring and never felt like a real Battlefield title to me. To me BF5 is a step in the right direction and actually feels more like a Battlefield title than BF1 although for the next one I wish they'd ignore everything after BF4 (and SWBF) and take what made the series great from BF1942-BF4 and build upon it instead of repeatedly shaking up the etcha-sketch and starting over from scratch. My perfect Battlefield would be to use BF3 as the basis minus suppression, then add BF2's commander, BF4's assist counts as kill and counter knife, BF4's UI and weapon customization system and a robust RSP that replicates all of the abilities that we had with procon\r-con. We'd have a normal hard core and core setting as well.  I'd leave all of the animations and attrition on the cutting room floor as if my soldiers ever crossed LD with less than their full combat load I'd have had more than strong words with them. All of the animations severely limit all of the "only in Battlefield" moments that we used to have until BF1.
    Interesting. I found BF4 to be good but quite dull in comparison with 1.

    While you may not like BF1, you can't deny it's the runaway hit of the Battlefield series in terms of sales and player base. Mainly because the console market on the whole absolutely loved it.

    I'm wondering if this desire for a return to things past would work in terms of a modern player base?
    For me that's the biggest problem Dice has at the moment. It can design games around the wants of the older Battlefield crowd, as V was mean't to be a return to Battlefields roots, but in terms of what a modern market wants people just aren't as interested. I might be wrong but I believe V only sold as well as BF4?

    In terms of current interest in the gaming community even the YouTubers are switching back to BF1 as it doubles their viewers. The 'Only in Battlefield' moments mean different things to different generations.

    I'm quite fortunate that I loved 1 but I'm enjoying V also, I think there's a lot of potential still to come. 

    In terms of a Battlefield future I'd quite like it if EA/Dice developed two separate lines of the Battlefield franchise.
    Say 'Bad Company' which would harken back to the older titles in game design. I think it would be smaller in terms of sales/player base but I imagine the games would play at a higher level and standard of player.
    And the 'Battlefield' which would have BF1's grandeur and mayhem. Designed more around having fun, it would probably have a far larger player base tapping into the more 'casual' crowd.

    For me, I'd play both.


    BFB-LeCharybdis for my perfect Battlefield it's more a mesh of what made Battlefield great for a few eras, the older refractor titles are represented but for me it's mostly drawn from the Frostbite titles when BF was really big on console and PC as a basis, with the refractor stuff thrown in where it makes sense. I think DICE is having so much trouble making a Battlefield that that everyone almost universally likes again because they in essence have three competing player bases. We have the old Refractor PC only crowd who wants the large battles (BF1942-BF2142), we have the early Frostbite crowd (BC2-BF4) and then we have the post SWBF crowd (BF1-BF5). The first two have traditionally gotten along well even if back in BF3 there was a bit of friction due to the influx of new console players from Halo, COD, and Gears of War who were pretty infantry centric. However the last group seems to largely at odds with the first two from what I've seen on social media and the forums.
    .
    Regarding sales, BF4 I believe out-sold BF5 if the youtube pundits are to be believed, however we don't know since they've not released any player or sales numbers for 5. I see a lot of Youtubers actively playing and making content for BF4 and BF3 more than BF1 but I don't doubt you when you say that many are also making BF1 vids since we haven't had a lot of new content in BF5 outside of cosmetics and limited time game modes. I think BF1 had solid sales mainly because it wasn't Hardline, the marketing campaign was excellent, and the community was starving for a main line war game from Battlefield after the Hardline situation. Pair that with COD: IW's disaster of a marketing campaign and we received a lot of new players during BF1. Don't get me wrong on BF1, I bought the collector's edition, I played it a lot and had fun in BF1 with friends. That being said it wasn't a game that I'd play by myself more than once in a blue moon unlike all of the BF titles before it where I played for hours each night on all three platforms.
    .
    I've got a lot of nostalgia like many people for Bad Company, however I think we as a community need to look at what exactly the community thinks makes a "Bad Company" game or we're going to get a lot of people yelling "Hey this isn't Bad Company, it's just BF6!" when\if it releases. First and foremost it was the campaign, as long as there's a tongue in cheek Kelly's Heroes type of campaign a large part of the player base will be happy. But what makes it a Bad Company for Multi-player? Now this is where we're going to have issues IMO since traditionally BC has had small infantry centric maps where vehicles can have an effect. BC games had no jets just choppers, small player counts per map even on PC, and maps specifically designed for the game mode that they were on (which is why BC2 rush and BF3 DOM had such awesome maps). They also had a bizarre class structure where the medic had LMGs and assault had ammo. I could have fun with a game that does all of this again but I'd like a class structure closer to BF3-4 than BC2's or BF1-5. We need out medics up reviving people not back laying prone with an MG-3.
  • mf_shro0m
    1459 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    BFB-LeCharybdis said:

    ragnarok013 said:

    M_Rat13 said:

    MBT_Layzan said:
    I never really liked either game. Though BF1 was better. I miss games like 1943, bf3, Vietnam. 2142. Bf1 to me was a sign of how it was all going, and here we are now with this mess. 




    BF1 is the best battlefield of this decade. I'd forgotten what a real battlefield felt like until I played BF1. It was a return to form where weapon class each had a role, eventually (LMGs needed some tweaks), where soldiers/vehicles moved like they had weight, and weren't just UFOs, and where everything was just so immersive and atmospheric.

    And then Dice dropped the ball, hard....

    BFV is like taking that perfectly made cheese and tomato pizza that has all the right textures and tastes from BF1, and then slapping on the pineapple from BF4 on top of it. If BC3 is just a BF4 clone, battlefield is dead to me, and that's a shame.

    Becuase for one glorious moment, we had BF1. We had, perfection.


    I have to disagree here.  I really wanted to like BF1 but it was so freaking bland and boring and never felt like a real Battlefield title to me. To me BF5 is a step in the right direction and actually feels more like a Battlefield title than BF1 although for the next one I wish they'd ignore everything after BF4 (and SWBF) and take what made the series great from BF1942-BF4 and build upon it instead of repeatedly shaking up the etcha-sketch and starting over from scratch. My perfect Battlefield would be to use BF3 as the basis minus suppression, then add BF2's commander, BF4's assist counts as kill and counter knife, BF4's UI and weapon customization system and a robust RSP that replicates all of the abilities that we had with procon\r-con. We'd have a normal hard core and core setting as well.  I'd leave all of the animations and attrition on the cutting room floor as if my soldiers ever crossed LD with less than their full combat load I'd have had more than strong words with them. All of the animations severely limit all of the "only in Battlefield" moments that we used to have until BF1.

    Interesting. I found BF4 to be good but quite dull in comparison with 1.

    While you may not like BF1, you can't deny it's the runaway hit of the Battlefield series in terms of sales and player base. Mainly because the console market on the whole absolutely loved it.

    I'm wondering if this desire for a return to things past would work in terms of a modern player base?
    For me that's the biggest problem Dice has at the moment. It can design games around the wants of the older Battlefield crowd, as V was mean't to be a return to Battlefields roots, but in terms of what a modern market wants people just aren't as interested. I might be wrong but I believe V only sold as well as BF4?

    In terms of current interest in the gaming community even the YouTubers are switching back to BF1 as it doubles their viewers. The 'Only in Battlefield' moments mean different things to different generations.

    I'm quite fortunate that I loved 1 but I'm enjoying V also, I think there's a lot of potential still to come. 

    In terms of a Battlefield future I'd quite like it if EA/Dice developed two separate lines of the Battlefield franchise.
    Say 'Bad Company' which would harken back to the older titles in game design. I think it would be smaller in terms of sales/player base but I imagine the games would play at a higher level and standard of player.
    And the 'Battlefield' which would have BF1's grandeur and mayhem. Designed more around having fun, it would probably have a far larger player base tapping into the more 'casual' crowd.

    For me, I'd play both.




    BFB-LeCharybdis for my perfect Battlefield it's more a mesh of what made Battlefield great for a few eras, the older refractor titles are represented but for me it's mostly drawn from the Frostbite titles when BF was really big on console and PC as a basis, with the refractor stuff thrown in where it makes sense. I think DICE is having so much trouble making a Battlefield that that everyone almost universally likes again because they in essence have three competing player bases. We have the old Refractor PC only crowd who wants the large battles (BF1942-BF2142), we have the early Frostbite crowd (BC2-BF4) and then we have the post SWBF crowd (BF1-BF5). The first two have traditionally gotten along well even if back in BF3 there was a bit of friction due to the influx of new console players from Halo, COD, and Gears of War who were pretty infantry centric. However the last group seems to largely at odds with the first two from what I've seen on social media and the forums..

    What would you say the post-SWBF crowd and other crowds disagree over?
  • GRAW2ROBZ
    1673 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I couldn't stand BF1.  I think I got maybe 60 hours total in the game?  Could be cause I hated most of the vanilla maps.  I only liked Argonne Forest.
  • ArchAngeL_777
    44 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Member
    y_j_es_i said:
    I think a big mistake they made with BFV’s maps was that they tried to make them really open for vehicles and left them too open with inadequate cover. The BF4 maps I’ve played are all urban and so whilst there’s plenty of room for infantry, darting from cover to cover to very much viable for infantry as they traverse the map. I think Dice gave in to the people screaming for big, open vehicle dominated maps like Panzerstorm, claiming that that’s the ‘classic battlefield’ feeling and what battlefield’s meant to be like. When you go too far in that direction, you don’t sufficiently cater to infantry, i.e. about 58 out of every 64 players in each big round, so 85% of the players. This is inevitably going to leave that 85% with a bad experience

    Big open maps just encourage infantry to camp but traversing large expanses I’d open ground is always going to be dangerous
    I agree.   The maps in BF4 had plenty of cover and ways to move around the map.   There are also a LOT more vehicles in BF4 which makes traversal of the map easier.  Even in maps that aren't urban like Paracel Storm and Golmud Railway.   There are hills, buildings, trees and various other forms of cover too many to name.   Despite its heavy vehicle presence, infantry could easily move around BF4 maps.

    BF4 China Rising DLC included  Altai Range, Silk Road, and Dragon Pass...all vehicle heavy maps with mountains, hills, dunes, various buildings and structures.

    BF4 Second Assault DLC included Gulf of Oman...and instant classic from BF2 and BF3.  It had Caspian Border and Operation Firestorm with that huge oil complex.

    BF4 Navel Strike DLC was all tropical island maps with tons of naval vehicles.  Wavebreaker had the submarine base inside the center island and surrounding islands had outposts and cover.  Operation Mortar was a huge island with a castle at the top.  Lost Island had the downed aircraft in the middle and islands spread out around.

    BF4 Dragon's Teeth DLC was more urban medium sized maps with trains, Sunken Dragon with the temple in the middle, etc.

    BF4 Final Stand DLC went back to large scale maps and heavy vehicle combat.   These maps were in snowy mountain terrain with bases inside mountains and spread out through hill terrain.   Hangar 21 had a large hanger in a mountain that had flags A and B.   Giants of Karellia had bases in various hills and a couple in mountains.   Whiteout was on an arctic landscape littered with walls of ice, hills, and a snowstorm would blow up limiting visibility.

    Battlefield 4 maps were an experience in themselves.
    I have to agree here. I've always really liked Panzerstorm and like it more after the infantry friendly rework but there are simply just not enough vehicles in Panzerstorm (or BF5's maps in general). Take that fact and pair it with the inadequate SWBF style vehicle spawn system and you've got a recipe for frustration for vehicle players.  We need to go back to the old set number of each type of vehicles (for example: 3 Heavy tanks, two light tanks, 5 half tracks, 5 staff cars, 2 fighters 1 bomber, 1 MAA per side etc.) being permanently spawned in the faction spawn as well as on each flag system. This is important because you can balance a map by limiting the number and types of vehicles available per map so we don't get three MAAs per side like I've seen several times on Panzerstorm.
    I'd like to see this too.   From the start on a BF4 map, you've got 6-10 vehicles in a single starting spawn.   There's more vehicles in one starting spawn in most BF4 maps, then on entire maps in BFV.   You know right away you're in a vehicle heavy game.

    I forgot to mention Dragon Valley 2015, which people still run in 24/7 servers on PS4.   That's another gem where you get plenty of vehicle action and a lot of cover for infantry to move around too.   It's also a great example of how to modernize classic BF maps for today's gamer.   There's a good YouTube video I think of how they reworked that map from BF2.   To be honest, the BF2 version of Dragon Valley was one of my least favorite maps.   There was a lot of open space which vehicles completely dominated.   For BF4, they added flags and added that temple in the middle of the map.   Overall they pulled the action in and gave more cover for infantry to move about.
  • ArchAngeL_777
    44 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Member
    for my perfect Battlefield it's more a mesh of what made Battlefield great for a few eras, the older refractor titles are represented but for me it's mostly drawn from the Frostbite titles when BF was really big on console and PC as a basis, with the refractor stuff thrown in where it makes sense. I think DICE is having so much trouble making a Battlefield that that everyone almost universally likes again because they in essence have three competing player bases. We have the old Refractor PC only crowd who wants the large battles (BF1942-BF2142), we have the early Frostbite crowd (BC2-BF4) and then we have the post SWBF crowd (BF1-BF5). The first two have traditionally gotten along well even if back in BF3 there was a bit of friction due to the influx of new console players from Halo, COD, and Gears of War who were pretty infantry centric. However the last group seems to largely at odds with the first two from what I've seen on social media and the forums.
    .
    Regarding sales, BF4 I believe out-sold BF5 if the youtube pundits are to be believed, however we don't know since they've not released any player or sales numbers for 5. I see a lot of Youtubers actively playing and making content for BF4 and BF3 more than BF1 but I don't doubt you when you say that many are also making BF1 vids since we haven't had a lot of new content in BF5 outside of cosmetics and limited time game modes. I think BF1 had solid sales mainly because it wasn't Hardline, the marketing campaign was excellent, and the community was starving for a main line war game from Battlefield after the Hardline situation. Pair that with COD: IW's disaster of a marketing campaign and we received a lot of new players during BF1. Don't get me wrong on BF1, I bought the collector's edition, I played it a lot and had fun in BF1 with friends. That being said it wasn't a game that I'd play by myself more than once in a blue moon unlike all of the BF titles before it where I played for hours each night on all three platforms.
    .
    I've got a lot of nostalgia like many people for Bad Company, however I think we as a community need to look at what exactly the community thinks makes a "Bad Company" game or we're going to get a lot of people yelling "Hey this isn't Bad Company, it's just BF6!" when\if it releases. First and foremost it was the campaign, as long as there's a tongue in cheek Kelly's Heroes type of campaign a large part of the player base will be happy. But what makes it a Bad Company for Multi-player? Now this is where we're going to have issues IMO since traditionally BC has had small infantry centric maps where vehicles can have an effect. BC games had no jets just choppers, small player counts per map even on PC, and maps specifically designed for the game mode that they were on (which is why BC2 rush and BF3 DOM had such awesome maps). They also had a bizarre class structure where the medic had LMGs and assault had ammo. I could have fun with a game that does all of this again but I'd like a class structure closer to BF3-4 than BC2's or BF1-5. We need out medics up reviving people not back laying prone with an MG-3.
    I didn't realize we had 3 groups of players, but I can see it.   After SWBF, PS4 achieved over 50 million consoles sold and there were a lot more Xbox One players too.   BF1 would be the first mainline Battlefield only on current generation consoles.   Now PS4 is pushing 100 million sold, and a lot of those players weren't on the platform before BF1.

    I definitely think BF1 sales were a product of the circumstances surrounding it's launch more than the idea it was a superior title to BF4.  Fans were ready for another mainline title after Hardline, and there were a lot more players on consoles when BF1 launched.   BF4 was a PS4/Xbox One launch title with versions on PS3/360.   I don't know if they count PS3 and 360 in the sales numbers for BF4.

    Bad Company would definitely have to be in line with the formula of the first two games.   Keep the "Kelly's Heroes" type single player going, and keep it smaller scale like Bad Company 2.   The idea is to keep a solid identity in each game instead of trying to please everyone within a single game.   Bad Company fills the itch for smaller scale conflicts.   Then they can bring out a mainline Battlefield VI with large scale maps and large scale vehicle warfare of old.

    Bad Company already is an established and popular series, unlike something new like Hardline.   Why not use it?   Let the next Battlefield game be Bad Company 3, which would be well received.   Then two years later give us something like a Battlefield 2143?   Return of Titan mode?   Maybe Battlefield 6 in a modern setting like BF2 or BF4?   Something large scale with lots of vehicles.   Then two years after that Bad Company 4, and so on.
  • mf_shro0m
    1459 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited May 19
    GRAW2ROBZ wrote: »
    I couldn't stand BF1.  I think I got maybe 60 hours total in the game?  Could be cause I hated most of the vanilla maps.  I only liked Argonne Forest.

    I hated BFI at launch because of the TTKs but I’m really enjoying it atm and tbh I like all the maps I’ve played except Argonne forest lol
  • GRAW2ROBZ
    1673 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    M_Rat13 said:
    I never really liked either game. Though BF1 was better. I miss games like 1943, bf3, Vietnam. 2142. Bf1 to me was a sign of how it was all going, and here we are now with this mess. 

    BF1 is the best battlefield of this decade. I'd forgotten what a real battlefield felt like until I played BF1. It was a return to form where weapon class each had a role, eventually (LMGs needed some tweaks), where soldiers/vehicles moved like they had weight, and weren't just UFOs, and where everything was just so immersive and atmospheric. And then Dice dropped the ball, hard.... BFV is like taking that perfectly made cheese and tomato pizza that has all the right textures and tastes from BF1, and then slapping on the pineapple from BF4 on top of it. If BC3 is just a BF4 clone, battlefield is dead to me, and that's a shame. Becuase for one glorious moment, we had BF1. We had, perfection.

    I have to disagree here.  I really wanted to like BF1 but it was so freaking bland and boring and never felt like a real Battlefield title to me. To me BF5 is a step in the right direction and actually feels more like a Battlefield title than BF1 although for the next one I wish they'd ignore everything after BF4 (and SWBF) and take what made the series great from BF1942-BF4 and build upon it instead of repeatedly shaking up the etcha-sketch and starting over from scratch. My perfect Battlefield would be to use BF3 as the basis minus suppression, then add BF2's commander, BF4's assist counts as kill and counter knife, BF4's UI and weapon customization system and a robust RSP that replicates all of the abilities that we had with procon\r-con. We'd have a normal hard core and core setting as well.  I'd leave all of the animations and attrition on the cutting room floor as if my soldiers ever crossed LD with less than their full combat load I'd have had more than strong words with them. All of the animations severely limit all of the "only in Battlefield" moments that we used to have until BF1.
    Interesting. I found BF4 to be good but quite dull in comparison with 1.

    While you may not like BF1, you can't deny it's the runaway hit of the Battlefield series in terms of sales and player base. Mainly because the console market on the whole absolutely loved it.

    I'm wondering if this desire for a return to things past would work in terms of a modern player base?
    For me that's the biggest problem Dice has at the moment. It can design games around the wants of the older Battlefield crowd, as V was mean't to be a return to Battlefields roots, but in terms of what a modern market wants people just aren't as interested. I might be wrong but I believe V only sold as well as BF4?

    In terms of current interest in the gaming community even the YouTubers are switching back to BF1 as it doubles their viewers. The 'Only in Battlefield' moments mean different things to different generations.

    I'm quite fortunate that I loved 1 but I'm enjoying V also, I think there's a lot of potential still to come. 

    In terms of a Battlefield future I'd quite like it if EA/Dice developed two separate lines of the Battlefield franchise.
    Say 'Bad Company' which would harken back to the older titles in game design. I think it would be smaller in terms of sales/player base but I imagine the games would play at a higher level and standard of player.
    And the 'Battlefield' which would have BF1's grandeur and mayhem. Designed more around having fun, it would probably have a far larger player base tapping into the more 'casual' crowd.

    For me, I'd play both.


    BFB-LeCharybdis for my perfect Battlefield it's more a mesh of what made Battlefield great for a few eras, the older refractor titles are represented but for me it's mostly drawn from the Frostbite titles when BF was really big on console and PC as a basis, with the refractor stuff thrown in where it makes sense. I think DICE is having so much trouble making a Battlefield that that everyone almost universally likes again because they in essence have three competing player bases. We have the old Refractor PC only crowd who wants the large battles (BF1942-BF2142), we have the early Frostbite crowd (BC2-BF4) and then we have the post SWBF crowd (BF1-BF5). The first two have traditionally gotten along well even if back in BF3 there was a bit of friction due to the influx of new console players from Halo, COD, and Gears of War who were pretty infantry centric. However the last group seems to largely at odds with the first two from what I've seen on social media and the forums.
    .
    Regarding sales, BF4 I believe out-sold BF5 if the youtube pundits are to be believed, however we don't know since they've not released any player or sales numbers for 5. I see a lot of Youtubers actively playing and making content for BF4 and BF3 more than BF1 but I don't doubt you when you say that many are also making BF1 vids since we haven't had a lot of new content in BF5 outside of cosmetics and limited time game modes. I think BF1 had solid sales mainly because it wasn't Hardline, the marketing campaign was excellent, and the community was starving for a main line war game from Battlefield after the Hardline situation. Pair that with COD: IW's disaster of a marketing campaign and we received a lot of new players during BF1. Don't get me wrong on BF1, I bought the collector's edition, I played it a lot and had fun in BF1 with friends. That being said it wasn't a game that I'd play by myself more than once in a blue moon unlike all of the BF titles before it where I played for hours each night on all three platforms.
    .
    I've got a lot of nostalgia like many people for Bad Company, however I think we as a community need to look at what exactly the community thinks makes a "Bad Company" game or we're going to get a lot of people yelling "Hey this isn't Bad Company, it's just BF6!" when\if it releases. First and foremost it was the campaign, as long as there's a tongue in cheek Kelly's Heroes type of campaign a large part of the player base will be happy. But what makes it a Bad Company for Multi-player? Now this is where we're going to have issues IMO since traditionally BC has had small infantry centric maps where vehicles can have an effect. BC games had no jets just choppers, small player counts per map even on PC, and maps specifically designed for the game mode that they were on (which is why BC2 rush and BF3 DOM had such awesome maps). They also had a bizarre class structure where the medic had LMGs and assault had ammo. I could have fun with a game that does all of this again but I'd like a class structure closer to BF3-4 than BC2's or BF1-5. We need out medics up reviving people not back laying prone with an MG-3.
    You make a point about what makes Bad Company so great. As for next gen and Bad Company 3.  It will be hard to match Bad Company 2 standards.  I think the lessor player counts helped for XBOX 360.  It was like 12vs12.  Wikipedia mentions Bad Company 2 sold like 12 million world wide for all consoles and pc.
  • mf_shro0m
    1459 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    BFB-LeCharybdis said:

    ragnarok013 said:

    M_Rat13 said:

    MBT_Layzan said:
    I never really liked either game. Though BF1 was better. I miss games like 1943, bf3, Vietnam. 2142. Bf1 to me was a sign of how it was all going, and here we are now with this mess. 




    BF1 is the best battlefield of this decade. I'd forgotten what a real battlefield felt like until I played BF1. It was a return to form where weapon class each had a role, eventually (LMGs needed some tweaks), where soldiers/vehicles moved like they had weight, and weren't just UFOs, and where everything was just so immersive and atmospheric.

    And then Dice dropped the ball, hard....

    BFV is like taking that perfectly made cheese and tomato pizza that has all the right textures and tastes from BF1, and then slapping on the pineapple from BF4 on top of it. If BC3 is just a BF4 clone, battlefield is dead to me, and that's a shame.

    Becuase for one glorious moment, we had BF1. We had, perfection.


    I have to disagree here.  I really wanted to like BF1 but it was so freaking bland and boring and never felt like a real Battlefield title to me. To me BF5 is a step in the right direction and actually feels more like a Battlefield title than BF1 although for the next one I wish they'd ignore everything after BF4 (and SWBF) and take what made the series great from BF1942-BF4 and build upon it instead of repeatedly shaking up the etcha-sketch and starting over from scratch. My perfect Battlefield would be to use BF3 as the basis minus suppression, then add BF2's commander, BF4's assist counts as kill and counter knife, BF4's UI and weapon customization system and a robust RSP that replicates all of the abilities that we had with procon\r-con. We'd have a normal hard core and core setting as well.  I'd leave all of the animations and attrition on the cutting room floor as if my soldiers ever crossed LD with less than their full combat load I'd have had more than strong words with them. All of the animations severely limit all of the "only in Battlefield" moments that we used to have until BF1.

    Interesting. I found BF4 to be good but quite dull in comparison with 1.

    While you may not like BF1, you can't deny it's the runaway hit of the Battlefield series in terms of sales and player base. Mainly because the console market on the whole absolutely loved it.

    I'm wondering if this desire for a return to things past would work in terms of a modern player base?
    For me that's the biggest problem Dice has at the moment. It can design games around the wants of the older Battlefield crowd, as V was mean't to be a return to Battlefields roots, but in terms of what a modern market wants people just aren't as interested. I might be wrong but I believe V only sold as well as BF4?

    In terms of current interest in the gaming community even the YouTubers are switching back to BF1 as it doubles their viewers. The 'Only in Battlefield' moments mean different things to different generations.

    I'm quite fortunate that I loved 1 but I'm enjoying V also, I think there's a lot of potential still to come. 

    In terms of a Battlefield future I'd quite like it if EA/Dice developed two separate lines of the Battlefield franchise.
    Say 'Bad Company' which would harken back to the older titles in game design. I think it would be smaller in terms of sales/player base but I imagine the games would play at a higher level and standard of player.
    And the 'Battlefield' which would have BF1's grandeur and mayhem. Designed more around having fun, it would probably have a far larger player base tapping into the more 'casual' crowd.

    For me, I'd play both.




    BFB-LeCharybdis for my perfect Battlefield it's more a mesh of what made Battlefield great for a few eras, the older refractor titles are represented but for me it's mostly drawn from the Frostbite titles when BF was really big on console and PC as a basis, with the refractor stuff thrown in where it makes sense. I think DICE is having so much trouble making a Battlefield that that everyone almost universally likes again because they in essence have three competing player bases. We have the old Refractor PC only crowd who wants the large battles (BF1942-BF2142), we have the early Frostbite crowd (BC2-BF4) and then we have the post SWBF crowd (BF1-BF5). The first two have traditionally gotten along well even if back in BF3 there was a bit of friction due to the influx of new console players from Halo, COD, and Gears of War who were pretty infantry centric. However the last group seems to largely at odds with the first two from what I've seen on social media and the forums..
    Regarding sales, BF4 I believe out-sold BF5 if the youtube pundits are to be believed, however we don't know since they've not released any player or sales numbers for 5. I see a lot of Youtubers actively playing and making content for BF4 and BF3 more than BF1 but I don't doubt you when you say that many are also making BF1 vids since we haven't had a lot of new content in BF5 outside of cosmetics and limited time game modes. I think BF1 had solid sales mainly because it wasn't Hardline, the marketing campaign was excellent, and the community was starving for a main line war game from Battlefield after the Hardline situation. Pair that with COD: IW's disaster of a marketing campaign and we received a lot of new players during BF1. Don't get me wrong on BF1, I bought the collector's edition, I played it a lot and had fun in BF1 with friends. That being said it wasn't a game that I'd play by myself more than once in a blue moon unlike all of the BF titles before it where I played for hours each night on all three platforms.
    .I've got a lot of nostalgia like many people for Bad Company, however I think we as a community need to look at what exactly the community thinks makes a "Bad Company" game or we're going to get a lot of people yelling "Hey this isn't Bad Company, it's just BF6!" when\if it releases. First and foremost it was the campaign, as long as there's a tongue in cheek Kelly's Heroes type of campaign a large part of the player base will be happy. But what makes it a Bad Company for Multi-player? Now this is where we're going to have issues IMO since traditionally BC has had small infantry centric maps where vehicles can have an effect. BC games had no jets just choppers, small player counts per map even on PC, and maps specifically designed for the game mode that they were on (which is why BC2 rush and BF3 DOM had such awesome maps). They also had a bizarre class structure where the medic had LMGs and assault had ammo. I could have fun with a game that does all of this again but I'd like a class structure closer to BF3-4 than BC2's or BF1-5. We need out medics up reviving people not back laying prone with an MG-3.

    It’s interesting how the BCs which were infantry heavy actually precede the arrival of the players who play/played COD and Halo who crossed over for BF3. Both the BCs and BF3 and BF4 are remembered in a very positive light and the players who played them were probably mostly infantry focused. The majority of the maps in those games were designed primarily around infantry. This stands against the notion some players hold that BF is traditionally vehicle focused and that a successful BF needs to be focused on vehicles.
    This makes sense because if the devs had to choose between making infantry happy and making the vehicle users happy, it’d make more sense to make the 80% happy even if it comes at some detriment to the 20%.

    I didn’t play either BC but from what I gather, fans really liked the destructability, which is something I feel is lacking in BFV. The lack of destructability is most glaring on Devastation as barely any of the map is destructible which makes flushing out campers that much harder and makes the camping situation worse. The same is true for Rotterdam. I think the coming maps for BFV and the maps for future Bfs should be more destructible than BfV’s. Perhaps not quite as destructible as BC’s but something like BF4’s. Even some of BFI’s maps are disappointingly lacking in destructability

    Something else I’ve come to realise is that when I’m tanking, the less open maps are actually more fun than the most open ones. For example Hamada with its hills and dunes is more fun than Panzerstorm. In BFI, the most fun maps for tanking are the urban ones. Of course the tank:infantry balance in BFV needs tweaking but for those tweaks to happen, they need to introduce more less open maps with vehicles
  • ArchAngeL_777
    44 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Member
    Bad Company destructibility was fun because it was the first games to do it.   But reality is, Bad Company 2 took it too far and it wasn't unusual for maps to get completely leveled.  Then all the sudden you had no cover which isn't going to work well with 64 player games and larger vehicle counts.   Not to mention that helped in attack helicopter being viewed as completely OP in Bad Company 2.

    While BF3 and BF4 had an infantry focus, it wasn't at the expense of the maps and vehicles.   BF4 in particular still had large vehicle counts and larger maps.   But when you look at the maps, there's usually areas with more congested flags giving rise to heavy infantry fights...the center island flags G and H on Dragon Valley 2015...A and B flag on the island in Paracel Storm...A, B, and C flag in the small town area of Golmud Railway...B and D flags near the dam in Lancang Dam, etc.    But generally BF4 maps either provided plenty of cover to move around for infantry, or there were plenty of vehicles like motorcycles, quad bikes, jeeps, jet skis, hover craft to hop in and take off to a flag on the opposite side of the map or wherever.
  • BFB-LeCharybdis
    814 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    M_Rat13 said:
    I never really liked either game. Though BF1 was better. I miss games like 1943, bf3, Vietnam. 2142. Bf1 to me was a sign of how it was all going, and here we are now with this mess. 

    BF1 is the best battlefield of this decade. I'd forgotten what a real battlefield felt like until I played BF1. It was a return to form where weapon class each had a role, eventually (LMGs needed some tweaks), where soldiers/vehicles moved like they had weight, and weren't just UFOs, and where everything was just so immersive and atmospheric. And then Dice dropped the ball, hard.... BFV is like taking that perfectly made cheese and tomato pizza that has all the right textures and tastes from BF1, and then slapping on the pineapple from BF4 on top of it. If BC3 is just a BF4 clone, battlefield is dead to me, and that's a shame. Becuase for one glorious moment, we had BF1. We had, perfection.

    I have to disagree here.  I really wanted to like BF1 but it was so freaking bland and boring and never felt like a real Battlefield title to me. To me BF5 is a step in the right direction and actually feels more like a Battlefield title than BF1 although for the next one I wish they'd ignore everything after BF4 (and SWBF) and take what made the series great from BF1942-BF4 and build upon it instead of repeatedly shaking up the etcha-sketch and starting over from scratch. My perfect Battlefield would be to use BF3 as the basis minus suppression, then add BF2's commander, BF4's assist counts as kill and counter knife, BF4's UI and weapon customization system and a robust RSP that replicates all of the abilities that we had with procon\r-con. We'd have a normal hard core and core setting as well.  I'd leave all of the animations and attrition on the cutting room floor as if my soldiers ever crossed LD with less than their full combat load I'd have had more than strong words with them. All of the animations severely limit all of the "only in Battlefield" moments that we used to have until BF1.
    Interesting. I found BF4 to be good but quite dull in comparison with 1.

    While you may not like BF1, you can't deny it's the runaway hit of the Battlefield series in terms of sales and player base. Mainly because the console market on the whole absolutely loved it.

    I'm wondering if this desire for a return to things past would work in terms of a modern player base?
    For me that's the biggest problem Dice has at the moment. It can design games around the wants of the older Battlefield crowd, as V was mean't to be a return to Battlefields roots, but in terms of what a modern market wants people just aren't as interested. I might be wrong but I believe V only sold as well as BF4?

    In terms of current interest in the gaming community even the YouTubers are switching back to BF1 as it doubles their viewers. The 'Only in Battlefield' moments mean different things to different generations.

    I'm quite fortunate that I loved 1 but I'm enjoying V also, I think there's a lot of potential still to come. 

    In terms of a Battlefield future I'd quite like it if EA/Dice developed two separate lines of the Battlefield franchise.
    Say 'Bad Company' which would harken back to the older titles in game design. I think it would be smaller in terms of sales/player base but I imagine the games would play at a higher level and standard of player.
    And the 'Battlefield' which would have BF1's grandeur and mayhem. Designed more around having fun, it would probably have a far larger player base tapping into the more 'casual' crowd.

    For me, I'd play both.


    BFB-LeCharybdis for my perfect Battlefield it's more a mesh of what made Battlefield great for a few eras, the older refractor titles are represented but for me it's mostly drawn from the Frostbite titles when BF was really big on console and PC as a basis, with the refractor stuff thrown in where it makes sense. I think DICE is having so much trouble making a Battlefield that that everyone almost universally likes again because they in essence have three competing player bases. We have the old Refractor PC only crowd who wants the large battles (BF1942-BF2142), we have the early Frostbite crowd (BC2-BF4) and then we have the post SWBF crowd (BF1-BF5). The first two have traditionally gotten along well even if back in BF3 there was a bit of friction due to the influx of new console players from Halo, COD, and Gears of War who were pretty infantry centric. However the last group seems to largely at odds with the first two from what I've seen on social media and the forums.
    .
    Regarding sales, BF4 I believe out-sold BF5 if the youtube pundits are to be believed, however we don't know since they've not released any player or sales numbers for 5. I see a lot of Youtubers actively playing and making content for BF4 and BF3 more than BF1 but I don't doubt you when you say that many are also making BF1 vids since we haven't had a lot of new content in BF5 outside of cosmetics and limited time game modes. I think BF1 had solid sales mainly because it wasn't Hardline, the marketing campaign was excellent, and the community was starving for a main line war game from Battlefield after the Hardline situation. Pair that with COD: IW's disaster of a marketing campaign and we received a lot of new players during BF1. Don't get me wrong on BF1, I bought the collector's edition, I played it a lot and had fun in BF1 with friends. That being said it wasn't a game that I'd play by myself more than once in a blue moon unlike all of the BF titles before it where I played for hours each night on all three platforms.
    .
    I've got a lot of nostalgia like many people for Bad Company, however I think we as a community need to look at what exactly the community thinks makes a "Bad Company" game or we're going to get a lot of people yelling "Hey this isn't Bad Company, it's just BF6!" when\if it releases. First and foremost it was the campaign, as long as there's a tongue in cheek Kelly's Heroes type of campaign a large part of the player base will be happy. But what makes it a Bad Company for Multi-player? Now this is where we're going to have issues IMO since traditionally BC has had small infantry centric maps where vehicles can have an effect. BC games had no jets just choppers, small player counts per map even on PC, and maps specifically designed for the game mode that they were on (which is why BC2 rush and BF3 DOM had such awesome maps). They also had a bizarre class structure where the medic had LMGs and assault had ammo. I could have fun with a game that does all of this again but I'd like a class structure closer to BF3-4 than BC2's or BF1-5. We need out medics up reviving people not back laying prone with an MG-3.
    Agree that a lot of the points you made contributed to the success of BF1, but I think your under estimating just how much of a cultural phenomenon BF1 was and how perfect it was designed for a more mainstream 'casual' market. It brought in people like me who had until that point absolutely no interest in FPS shooters. I'd been aware of CoD for years, but I'd never even heard of Battlefield. What brought me here is that absolutely everyone I knew was talking about BF1 and how amazing it was. 

    Alright in a perfect world scenario where EA decides this is well worth the investment, keep Battlefield for the traditionalists, as there doesn't seem to be a lot of friction between earlier generations described. Do you think it would be possible to incorporate aspects of BF1942 - BF4 into a single game that both generations of players would enjoy? Or are they also just too different?

    Keep Bad Company as its own title or drop it entirely, the last thing needed is more division over a Battlefield game.

    Create a new title for the BF1 'SWBF arena' crowd, I don't know call it Battlefield Insurrection, or something far more catchy. I'd use it as a base to try out new fads that grab hold of the publics interest, like Battle Royale for example. 

    Dice gets to keep the original fan base and continue expanding into the more technical shooter market, whilst at the same time keep hold of the large lucrative mainstream market.


  • ArchAngeL_777
    44 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Member
    Agree that a lot of the points you made contributed to the success of BF1, but I think your under estimating just how much of a cultural phenomenon BF1 was and how perfect it was designed for a more mainstream 'casual' market. It brought in people like me who had until that point absolutely no interest in FPS shooters. I'd been aware of CoD for years, but I'd never even heard of Battlefield. What brought me here is that absolutely everyone I knew was talking about BF1 and how amazing it was. 

    Alright in a perfect world scenario where EA decides this is well worth the investment, keep Battlefield for the traditionalists, as there doesn't seem to be a lot of friction between earlier generations described. Do you think it would be possible to incorporate aspects of BF1942 - BF4 into a single game that both generations of players would enjoy? Or are they also just too different?

    Keep Bad Company as its own title or drop it entirely, the last thing needed is more division over a Battlefield game.

    Create a new title for the BF1 'SWBF arena' crowd, I don't know call it Battlefield Insurrection, or something far more catchy. I'd use it as a base to try out new fads that grab hold of the publics interest, like Battle Royale for example. 

    Dice gets to keep the original fan base and continue expanding into the more technical shooter market, whilst at the same time keep hold of the large lucrative mainstream market.

    I don't entirely understand what makes BF1 part of the 'SWBF arena' crowd.   The biggest thing BF1 lacked vs past Battlefield games was a higher vehicles count.   But that goes with a WWI setting imo.   The maps weren't all that inventive, but I think DICE was going for historical accuracy.

    I actually think this 'SWBF arena' crowd would like the older PC games.   There was a lot of features in the older games that would appeal to someone not interested in a twitch shooter.  Class structure was more rigid and had better defined roles.   The Commander and the on-ground commander assets were something special.   Spec Ops class could use C4 to blow them up robbing the enemy commander of UAVs, Artillery, and the enemy team's Radar minimap.   Engineers could repair them and had plenty of vehicles to repair.   Vehicles didn't just drive off on you LOL!!  Ammo and medics were critical.  There were a lot of vehicle options.   These are all options that a more casual player can get into without feeling like they have to be on top of their FPS game.

    It reminds me of Planetside 2.   Planetside 2 is essentially a Battlefield style MMO.   A lot of the features remind me of the old PC Battlefield games.   The Planetside 2 player base is full of more "casual" players not interested in hard core shooters like COD.   It has so many other options and roles to fill.

    So again, I think stick with the Bad Company/mainline Battlefield rotation idea.   Let Bad Company be the twitch shooter for the smaller scale fans.   Let the mainline series go back to it's PC roots which should also appeal to this "SWBF crowd'.
  • mf_shro0m
    1459 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited May 20
    Has anyone seen any demographics for the BF games’ populations?
  • mf_shro0m
    1459 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    ragnarok013 said:

    BFB-LeCharybdis said:

    ragnarok013 said:

    M_Rat13 said:

    MBT_Layzan said:
    I never really liked either game. Though BF1 was better. I miss games like 1943, bf3, Vietnam. 2142. Bf1 to me was a sign of how it was all going, and here we are now with this mess. 




    BF1 is the best battlefield of this decade. I'd forgotten what a real battlefield felt like until I played BF1. It was a return to form where weapon class each had a role, eventually (LMGs needed some tweaks), where soldiers/vehicles moved like they had weight, and weren't just UFOs, and where everything was just so immersive and atmospheric.

    And then Dice dropped the ball, hard....

    BFV is like taking that perfectly made cheese and tomato pizza that has all the right textures and tastes from BF1, and then slapping on the pineapple from BF4 on top of it. If BC3 is just a BF4 clone, battlefield is dead to me, and that's a shame.

    Becuase for one glorious moment, we had BF1. We had, perfection.


    I have to disagree here.  I really wanted to like BF1 but it was so freaking bland and boring and never felt like a real Battlefield title to me. To me BF5 is a step in the right direction and actually feels more like a Battlefield title than BF1 although for the next one I wish they'd ignore everything after BF4 (and SWBF) and take what made the series great from BF1942-BF4 and build upon it instead of repeatedly shaking up the etcha-sketch and starting over from scratch. My perfect Battlefield would be to use BF3 as the basis minus suppression, then add BF2's commander, BF4's assist counts as kill and counter knife, BF4's UI and weapon customization system and a robust RSP that replicates all of the abilities that we had with procon\r-con. We'd have a normal hard core and core setting as well.  I'd leave all of the animations and attrition on the cutting room floor as if my soldiers ever crossed LD with less than their full combat load I'd have had more than strong words with them. All of the animations severely limit all of the "only in Battlefield" moments that we used to have until BF1.

    Interesting. I found BF4 to be good but quite dull in comparison with 1.

    While you may not like BF1, you can't deny it's the runaway hit of the Battlefield series in terms of sales and player base. Mainly because the console market on the whole absolutely loved it.

    I'm wondering if this desire for a return to things past would work in terms of a modern player base?
    For me that's the biggest problem Dice has at the moment. It can design games around the wants of the older Battlefield crowd, as V was mean't to be a return to Battlefields roots, but in terms of what a modern market wants people just aren't as interested. I might be wrong but I believe V only sold as well as BF4?

    In terms of current interest in the gaming community even the YouTubers are switching back to BF1 as it doubles their viewers. The 'Only in Battlefield' moments mean different things to different generations.

    I'm quite fortunate that I loved 1 but I'm enjoying V also, I think there's a lot of potential still to come. 

    In terms of a Battlefield future I'd quite like it if EA/Dice developed two separate lines of the Battlefield franchise.
    Say 'Bad Company' which would harken back to the older titles in game design. I think it would be smaller in terms of sales/player base but I imagine the games would play at a higher level and standard of player.
    And the 'Battlefield' which would have BF1's grandeur and mayhem. Designed more around having fun, it would probably have a far larger player base tapping into the more 'casual' crowd.

    For me, I'd play both.




    BFB-LeCharybdis for my perfect Battlefield it's more a mesh of what made Battlefield great for a few eras, the older refractor titles are represented but for me it's mostly drawn from the Frostbite titles when BF was really big on console and PC as a basis, with the refractor stuff thrown in where it makes sense. I think DICE is having so much trouble making a Battlefield that that everyone almost universally likes again because they in essence have three competing player bases. We have the old Refractor PC only crowd who wants the large battles (BF1942-BF2142), we have the early Frostbite crowd (BC2-BF4) and then we have the post SWBF crowd (BF1-BF5). The first two have traditionally gotten along well even if back in BF3 there was a bit of friction due to the influx of new console players from Halo, COD, and Gears of War who were pretty infantry centric. However the last group seems to largely at odds with the first two from what I've seen on social media and the forums..
    Regarding sales, BF4 I believe out-sold BF5 if the youtube pundits are to be believed, however we don't know since they've not released any player or sales numbers for 5. I see a lot of Youtubers actively playing and making content for BF4 and BF3 more than BF1 but I don't doubt you when you say that many are also making BF1 vids since we haven't had a lot of new content in BF5 outside of cosmetics and limited time game modes. I think BF1 had solid sales mainly because it wasn't Hardline, the marketing campaign was excellent, and the community was starving for a main line war game from Battlefield after the Hardline situation. Pair that with COD: IW's disaster of a marketing campaign and we received a lot of new players during BF1. Don't get me wrong on BF1, I bought the collector's edition, I played it a lot and had fun in BF1 with friends. That being said it wasn't a game that I'd play by myself more than once in a blue moon unlike all of the BF titles before it where I played for hours each night on all three platforms.
    .I've got a lot of nostalgia like many people for Bad Company, however I think we as a community need to look at what exactly the community thinks makes a "Bad Company" game or we're going to get a lot of people yelling "Hey this isn't Bad Company, it's just BF6!" when\if it releases. First and foremost it was the campaign, as long as there's a tongue in cheek Kelly's Heroes type of campaign a large part of the player base will be happy. But what makes it a Bad Company for Multi-player? Now this is where we're going to have issues IMO since traditionally BC has had small infantry centric maps where vehicles can have an effect. BC games had no jets just choppers, small player counts per map even on PC, and maps specifically designed for the game mode that they were on (which is why BC2 rush and BF3 DOM had such awesome maps). They also had a bizarre class structure where the medic had LMGs and assault had ammo. I could have fun with a game that does all of this again but I'd like a class structure closer to BF3-4 than BC2's or BF1-5. We need out medics up reviving people not back laying prone with an MG-3.


    Agree that a lot of the points you made contributed to the success of BF1, but I think your under estimating just how much of a cultural phenomenon BF1 was and how perfect it was designed for a more mainstream 'casual' market. It brought in people like me who had until that point absolutely no interest in FPS shooters. I'd been aware of CoD for years, but I'd never even heard of Battlefield. What brought me here is that absolutely everyone I knew was talking about BF1 and how amazing it was.

    What were you playing before you started playing BFI?
  • mf_shro0m
    1459 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    BFB-LeCharybdis said:
    Agree that a lot of the points you made contributed to the success of BF1, but I think your under estimating just how much of a cultural phenomenon BF1 was and how perfect it was designed for a more mainstream 'casual' market. It brought in people like me who had until that point absolutely no interest in FPS shooters. I'd been aware of CoD for years, but I'd never even heard of Battlefield. What brought me here is that absolutely everyone I knew was talking about BF1 and how amazing it was. 

    Alright in a perfect world scenario where EA decides this is well worth the investment, keep Battlefield for the traditionalists, as there doesn't seem to be a lot of friction between earlier generations described. Do you think it would be possible to incorporate aspects of BF1942 - BF4 into a single game that both generations of players would enjoy? Or are they also just too different?




    I actually think this 'SWBF arena' crowd would like the older PC games.   There was a lot of features in the older games that would appeal to someone not interested in a twitch shooter.  Class structure was more rigid and had better defined roles.   The Commander and the on-ground commander assets were something special.   Spec Ops class could use C4 to blow them up robbing the enemy commander of UAVs, Artillery, and the enemy team's Radar minimap.   Engineers could repair them and had plenty of vehicles to repair.   Vehicles didn't just drive off on you LOL!!  Ammo and medics were critical.  There were a lot of vehicle options.   These are all options that a more casual player can get into without feeling like they have to be on top of their FPS game.

    The term ‘casual gamer’ is too much of a blanket term for market segmentation imo. It’s an oversimplification.

    The stuff you mentioned sounds like it’d appeal to older players who don’t have the reflexes needed to compete in twitch shooters anymore. I think most youngsters are too impatient and KD obsessed to spend their time sneaking behind enemy lines to plant bombs on vehicles n stuff. That’s more the kinda thing older players who’re patient and care about tactics would do.
    I wouldn’t be surprised if most older players could be considered ‘casual players’
Sign In or Register to comment.