Weekly Debrief

Small maps destroy the Battlefield franchise.

«1
Marcusspinner
264 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
edited August 23
With all the release of the smaller gamemode and maps I have the feeling the community that is not Battlefield let's say more CoD player are opting for smaller maps with that in mind DICE is now destroying the franchise because of these CoD community player within the Battlefield franchise. I hope this is not true because apperently Battlefield suppose to be this combined warfare experience. With the canceled project 5 versus 5 with is a disappointment for me I still hope DICE is leaning to the veteran Battlefield player who is use to the big maps and not the close quarters map. I still think DICE is getting pushed to smaller maps with the games on the market and the influencer from other games like CoD. If DICE can stay true to their formule of their combined warfare sandbox experience then the community will come back, but for now the community is getting destroyed from the inside by outsider who want to turn this game in a CoD experience.

Comments

  • full951
    2465 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Small maps do not destroy battlefield. The lack of maps in general do, amongst other factors I'm sure we could all name a few.
  • SirBobdk
    4125 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I get the feeling that BFV is one big experiment to see how little Dice can get away with. 
    They try with so many different solutions, as if they don't know what they want or what the player base want.
    Almost as if they want future BF games with smaller maps and players and annual releases, ala Cod or Moha.
  • TFBisquit
    1714 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Back in the day cod wiped away all the competition and became market leader.
    Battlefield grabbed a piece of the pie, but never became as big.
    So now they face smaller sales and have to do something to stay alive and naturally try to bring what others seem to do well with.
    People in general are not into tank warfare so infantry based is the norm.
    If they stick with their old formula the curtain will fall sooner than later, just as happened to other franchises.
    Anyway, with all the modern combat behind us, the fatique from ww2 games, it’s pretty difficult to bring that again as a triple A game.
    Besides that they still have horrible netcode, and an engine that’s easily hacked. Hardly encouraging for investors.
  • Hawxxeye
    6002 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    TFBisquit said:
    Back in the day cod wiped away all the competition and became market leader.
    Battlefield grabbed a piece of the pie, but never became as big.
    So now they face smaller sales and have to do something to stay alive and naturally try to bring what others seem to do well with.
    People in general are not into tank warfare so infantry based is the norm.
    If they stick with their old formula the curtain will fall sooner than later, just as happened to other franchises.
    Anyway, with all the modern combat behind us, the fatique from ww2 games, it’s pretty difficult to bring that again as a triple A game.
    Besides that they still have horrible netcode, and an engine that’s easily hacked. Hardly encouraging for investors.
    They could reduce the budget on pointlessly detailed graphics and mechanics/physics and keep their combined arms audience.
  • TFBisquit
    1714 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Yes all good points.
  • R1ckyDaMan19
    499 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    VincentNZ wrote: »
    No, they do not. Infantry combat is the most prevalent in any BF game and this has always been the case. Further, when you look at the map poll that Niklas Astrand posted, the maps that are most popular have an "urban vibe" to it and are tendencially smaller. Maps like Panzerstorm and Hamada (which I consider a really good map) fall short. The reasons are obvious. Large maps require more work than smaller maps to work well. Panzerstorm has 40ha of coverless wasteland, combined with a plethora of vehicles. That is just careless.On the other hand "urban" does not mean without vehicles or with only one vehicle. Caspian Border is a perfect example, as is Zavod. Quite a few vehicles per side, but the time to get to action is short, the engagement ranges are short, you can avoid vehicles, yet vehicles play a large role.
    On Seine and Damavand the tank driver is the most important player on the field, while you can still play around him. Karkand is another great example. Urban with a few vehicles and always ways to go around them and attack another point or engage it.BFV is often just a plain field with cover only present at flags, where vehicles have basically free reign, ironically while still playing awfully.

    Kharg island had everything and was not a massive map, that map on conquest is still the perfect middle ground to me personally.
  • Masqerader
    639 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Seine,  Bazaar probably 2 of the greatest maps and they're quite small.


  • Hawxxeye
    6002 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Seine,  Bazaar probably 2 of the greatest maps and they're quite small.


    Are you in Seine now?
  • Marcusspinner
    264 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
  • Ferdinand_J_Foch
    3409 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    BF3 had the Close Quarters DLC. Wasn't outrage because of all the 64 player maps that was already out.
    I remember when people lost their minds after the CQ DLC was announced. They said that this was the 'Call of Duty DLC' and was the nail in the coffin for those who expected BF3 to be a more BF2-esque experience. People said that the guns were ripped out of Modern Warfare 2/3, and that the Gunmaster mode had been ripped out from Black Ops 1 (which technically ripped it from HALO).

    Nonetheless, I'd rather play on Ziba Tower than Metro ... 
  • VincentNZ
    3195 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    (Quote)
    I remember when people lost their minds after the CQ DLC was announced. They said that this was the 'Call of Duty DLC' and was the nail in the coffin for those who expected BF3 to be a more BF2-esque experience. People said that the guns were ripped out of Modern Warfare 2/3, and that the Gunmaster mode had been ripped out from Black Ops 1 (which technically ripped it from HALO).

    Nonetheless, I'd rather play on Ziba Tower than Metro ... 

    But it was true, wasn’t it? We were right. Close Quarters WAS a sign of the Battlefield apocalypse. Look where we are now!

    The CQ maps had a certain focus, only worked with 16 players, BUT are completely different to the maps of BFV because they had a certain design philosophy attached to it. A meaning if you so will. First of all they were visually all stunning, had an own feeling to it, with no reused assets between the four of them (imagine that), a map flow and every part of the map equally played. They were some of the best designed maps BF ever had, and this is also due to the lower playercount or their smaller size.
    It is much harder to make bigger maps actually work.
  • DasScharminkel
    61 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    gimme a recycled stalingrad or berlin from bf1942 and i'm as happy as can be. there's a reason i prefer devastation almost to all other maps.
  • ragnarok013
    3345 postsMember, Moderator, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Moderator
    BF3 had the Close Quarters DLC. Wasn't outrage because of all the 64 player maps that was already out.
    I remember when people lost their minds after the CQ DLC was announced. They said that this was the 'Call of Duty DLC' and was the nail in the coffin for those who expected BF3 to be a more BF2-esque experience. People said that the guns were ripped out of Modern Warfare 2/3, and that the Gunmaster mode had been ripped out from Black Ops 1 (which technically ripped it from HALO).

    Nonetheless, I'd rather play on Ziba Tower than Metro ... 
    This is all true however BF3 had a dedicated DOM community for years after other modes were empty despite only having 4 very well made maps. It was a solid execution and offered people who loved large vehicle maps that option and people who wanted an infantry focused mode alternatives other than the 24\7 metro servers a good game play experience. Battlefield can offer both types of experience and as BF3 showed does very well when it does.
  • MidriffUrchin0
    116 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Member
    edited August 23
    Battlefield 2 had stellar maps - large, great for 6 man squads and vehicle combat. Sure, it was only 64 players on these but this was to me the definitive bf experience.

    This may upset people but bf3 and 4 are at fault for where we're at with this small infantry map rot. Was horrific to a BF2 player to try bf3 and realise the franchise had decided to chase Cod players with garbage like metro and locker, as un-battlefield at that point as you could get.

    Understandable from a business pov, but now because such a great influx of players entered at bf3/4 on console that these sort of maps have become the norm and the larger 'traditional' bf maps are frowned upon by these players.

    I mean I saw, a you tuber calling the new cod mw more battlefield than battlefield, - what because its full of infantry close quarter BS on a tiny map?? They have no idea the true bf history prior to bf3, it clearly shows with these kind of nonsense claims and is infuriating, as it clearly influences Dice and EA's decisions.

    It's a sad state of affairs.

  • LinkZeppeloyd
    799 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    VincentNZ wrote: »
    (Quote)

    The CQ maps had a certain focus, only worked with 16 players, BUT are completely different to the maps of BFV because they had a certain design philosophy attached to it. A meaning if you so will. First of all they were visually all stunning, had an own feeling to it, with no reused assets between the four of them (imagine that), a map flow and every part of the map equally played. They were some of the best designed maps BF ever had, and this is also due to the lower playercount or their smaller size.
    It is much harder to make bigger maps actually work.

    But thats the thing, I’m not criticizing CQ itself. It was a criticism and a warning (which turned out to be correct) that DICE was abandoning the core Battlefield experience to focus more on infantry only gameplay, just like every other shooter in existence.

    And that is exactly what has happened. Here with are with pitiful few 64p Conquest maps with vehicles and infantry, and so many small/infantry modes I cant even remember them all.

    Tdm? Sqdm? Airborne? Frontlines? Breakthrough? Domination? Sqd domination? Incursions? 5v5?

    Good lord we never asked for that because that stuff is what *every other shooter in existence does*! And better! Battlefield was the ONLY game that offered large vehicle and infantry warfare. It is *insane* that DICE is so blind to that and keeps trying all day everyday to do every non-battlefield thing they can think of, and ignoring the fact that they should have a monopoly on actual Battlefield style gameplay!
  • bigiain
    292 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    COD sold like crazy after COD4, CS:GO and then Fortnite made mountains of money from cosmetics. It's not like the devs have been plugging away at the other modes on a whim, they're doing what EA want. What's actually weird is that they keep on getting modes to work - Rush, Domination and then Grand Operations - then throw them away and focus on something else. 

    I've no idea why they think they can chase the competitive scene without any sort of ranked matchmaking either.
  • bran1986
    5755 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    I don't see the problem with smaller maps or infantry only maps, it is all about having a diversity of maps. This will allow players to set up custom playlists that will give players different experiences and will keep the game fresh. Sometimes people don't want to worry about tanks or planes and just want chaotic fun. There isn't anything wrong with that. BFV isn't lacking maps with all out warfare, but vehicle balance, map design, and class balance makes vehicle combat so awful vehicles just tend to camp in one spot.
Sign In or Register to comment.