Absolutely not, unless DICE puts more effort into Anti-Cheat and not protect the cheaters and condemn the honest players if suspicion arises. so until I see like 2 step verification or something... this is my last BF title!
I bought ever title with the exception of BF 2142 and Hardline (AKA
"Yo, I'm from the 'hood" demographic sales pitch). BF games
were always buggy and poorly balanced at launch, but the new "game
as a service" approach just pushed this to unacceptable levels.
No, I would not buy a new title, not at the price tag EA tries to sell them, unless I was sure it delivers a
reasonable levels of quality and content. Especially with the recent
trend of doubling the price tag of so called AAA+ games when compared
to 10+ years ago and delivering half of their predecessors’
My main frustrations with BF franchise are:
General game quality at launch,
number of less and more bugs, with many serious issues taking up to
12 months to fix (some never gain addressed)
Game stability. A sizeable portion
of PC playerbase (but not only) complain about the game crashes,
just look at now legendary BF1 thread, which ended up with 500/600?
pages long describing that very issue. That thread was going since
2016 and is still active even in 2019
Game FPS performance. With DICE
constantly trying to improve graphical fidelity, they started to
neglect frame rates. BF is a first person shooter. Being unable to
maintain stable frames per second on a medium/high end PC is
unacceptable for a FPS title. With some settings tweaks 120+ FPS
should be easy enough. Over-bloated graphics also feed another
In-game visibility and poor audio.
The game offers too much visual clutter. Directional audio and
importance of communicating near threats is also bad. DICE seems to
be unable to understand that footsteps are still to quiet and that
vehicles engines are also way to quiet. I'm tired to stealth tanks,
which you don't hear until they are literally on the top of you
Below average map design. This is Battlefield, not Arma or
Call of Duty. Maps should cater to BF strengths: arcade warfare
combining THREE aspects on ALL maps: infantry, ground vehicles and
aircraft. Maps should be designed to allow sensible level of balance
for all forces. Sufficient amount of space for vehicles and
indestructible cover for infantry to move around between ALL
objectives. Popularity of maps like Metro isn't a metric you should
design your maps around
Too late involvement of Battlefield community in design of
the new titles does not allow for feedback to make much difference
in the final product. How many times you need to learn this lesson
the hard way? You continue to release half-finished titles and
design the game systems without community input
The in-game progression/achievement system still remains a
missed opportunity to teach players the core purpose of their combat
role. I appreciate that to maintain BF “accessibility” - your business
teams cares about - enforcing teamplay is a taboo subject and as easy
as herding cats, but you have experienced game designers, don’t
you? How hard it is to understand that encouraging class role
actions over pointless challenges like (achieve 10 headshots in a
cap zone, do 16 000 damage) should be a priority.
No, iv had enough of the same BF problems game after game, the netcode is the same with each game and the AC is nowhere to be found. I bought Hell Let Loose and it’s pretty good for a incomplete game,it’s a work in progress and they state that clearly before you buy the game.
EA completely lost my trust, I simply cannot buy from them ever again.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!