Ok Battlefield 5. You sold me.

Recommended Videos

Samtemdo8_v1legacy

New member
Aug 2, 2015
7,915
0
0
Dalisclock said:
BabyfartsMcgeezaks said:
Gordon_4 said:
BabyfartsMcgeezaks said:
Gordon_4 said:
SckizoBoy said:
Yeeesh, I think the last Battlefield game I played was 2...! And was a little disappointed...
Last one I played seriously was 2142. Remind me, does BFV have a story campaign?
I wouldn't call it a story campaign, it's like BF1 where they have like 4 mini-stories which are like a little more than one hour each.

At this point, they might as well just get rid of the singleplayer and focus on the multiplayer if you ask me.
Only if they drop the price by 40%
Then wait until it's 40% off because the singleplayer isn't worth paying for. It's there just to please the ''I need muh campaign in every game''.
BF1 was $20 with Titanfall 2 a couple months back. That's like a year after release.

It's amazing what a little waiting can get you. 2 AAA games for $10 each? Yes Please.
The worry is everyone will have moved on to the next yearly game they pump out.

I mean how many people are still playing Battlefield 3 right now?
 

Samtemdo8_v1legacy

New member
Aug 2, 2015
7,915
0
0
The multiplayer design philosophy is just a sad, sad state of affairs. Rinse and repeat phoned in content that these devs/pubs can always rely on because they known how much people thrive off of merely the competitive aspect, regardless of how good it actually is.
 

Samtemdo8_v1legacy

New member
Aug 2, 2015
7,915
0
0
hanselthecaretaker said:
The multiplayer design philosophy is just a sad, sad state of affairs. Rinse and repeat phoned in content that these devs/pubs can always rely on because they known how much people thrive off of merely the competitive aspect, regardless of how good it actually is.

Honestly don't you guys have a single postive bone in your body about this game?

What has recent Battlefields have done that does not hold a candle to what came before?

I mean how do I know this is not just being blinded by nostalgia? Because I played Battlefield 1942. And its dated as hell to the point of unplayable. And I played many shooters when I say BF 1942 feels as dated and unplayable in the sameway Goldeneye 64 is dated and unplayable.
 

The Rogue Wolf

Stealthy Carnivore
Legacy
Nov 25, 2007
17,491
10,275
118
Stalking the Digital Tundra
Gender
✅
Samtemdo8 said:
Honestly don't you guys have a single postive bone in your body about this game?
I am right at this moment watching a BFV stream where a match started with literally twice as many people on one side as the other. More than 48 (the list scrolled off the screen) versus 26. This is inexcusable.
 

jademunky

New member
Mar 6, 2012
973
0
0
B-Cell said:
plus its basically battlefield feminist/SJW edition.
The hell? The 45 minutes of BFV i've played had me as the ultra-british-white-male Billy Bojangles (probably not his real last name) sneaky-stabbing his way through German-occupied northern Africa.

Now granted we switched to the hockey game before the ending so it is entirely possibly that the climax to that single-player mini-campaign ended with Mr. Bojangles discussing his feelings with his otherkin support group but I kinda doubt it.
 

Dalisclock

Making lemons combustible again
Legacy
Escapist +
Feb 9, 2008
11,286
7,086
118
A Barrel In the Marketplace
Country
Eagleland
Gender
Male
Samtemdo8 said:
Dalisclock said:
BabyfartsMcgeezaks said:
Gordon_4 said:
BabyfartsMcgeezaks said:
Gordon_4 said:
SckizoBoy said:
Yeeesh, I think the last Battlefield game I played was 2...! And was a little disappointed...
Last one I played seriously was 2142. Remind me, does BFV have a story campaign?
I wouldn't call it a story campaign, it's like BF1 where they have like 4 mini-stories which are like a little more than one hour each.

At this point, they might as well just get rid of the singleplayer and focus on the multiplayer if you ask me.
Only if they drop the price by 40%
Then wait until it's 40% off because the singleplayer isn't worth paying for. It's there just to please the ''I need muh campaign in every game''.
BF1 was $20 with Titanfall 2 a couple months back. That's like a year after release.

It's amazing what a little waiting can get you. 2 AAA games for $10 each? Yes Please.
The worry is everyone will have moved on to the next yearly game they pump out.

I mean how many people are still playing Battlefield 3 right now?
No idea. I don't care about multiplayer in the slightest. Dark Souls/Bloodbrone being the exception for the co-op. I've tried different types of MP over the years(MMO, shooter, free-to-play) and it's never held my interest for long so I've given up trying to get into it.

And for me, $10 was worth it for the War Stories in BF1. I wouldn't have payed $60 for BF1.

The point being, games tend to go down in price after release and you pay the most if you buy early(which is stupid as shit if you're a consumer). You have the option of generally paying the price you want at the cost of having to wait x amount of time to spend y amount of monies to do so.

In singleplayer this works in your favor simply by waiting a few months/years until the game drops to the price point you feel it's worth and then the game is will generally work for the forseeable future.

With multiplayer, you risk the player base having moved on, but honestly, if you're playing multiplayer, you know this is always a risk. Either a.) THe servers are gonna be shut down and baring dedicated player servers the game is now dead and/or b.) the player base has dwindled, leaving for other pastures, either because the next game in the series came out(The BF/COD factor) or the game just stopped keeping peoples interest(Destiny).

If you're playing a multiplayer game with yearly releases, you kind of know this is the deal going in and presumably you're fine with it. Now you have to make that compromise between acceptable price point to you and having enough other players to make it worth it.
 

Dalisclock

Making lemons combustible again
Legacy
Escapist +
Feb 9, 2008
11,286
7,086
118
A Barrel In the Marketplace
Country
Eagleland
Gender
Male
jademunky said:
B-Cell said:
plus its basically battlefield feminist/SJW edition.
The hell? The 45 minutes of BFV i've played had me as the ultra-british-white-male Billy Bojangles (probably not his real last name) sneaky-stabbing his way through German-occupied northern Africa.

Now granted we switched to the hockey game before the ending so it is entirely possibly that the climax to that single-player mini-campaign ended with Mr. Bojangles discussing his feelings with his otherkin support group but I kinda doubt it.
You missed the part where Billy has his bojangles removed for gender reassignment surgery prior to joining the feminist liberation army and conquering the world by burning down the patriachy.

Man, that ending came out of left field.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
Trailer looks nice, but after playing the beta I couldn't care less about the game. It just bored me.

jademunky said:
The hell? The 45 minutes of BFV i've played had me as the ultra-british-white-male Billy Bojangles (probably not his real last name) sneaky-stabbing his way through German-occupied northern Africa.

Now granted we switched to the hockey game before the ending so it is entirely possibly that the climax to that single-player mini-campaign ended with Mr. Bojangles discussing his feelings with his otherkin support group but I kinda doubt it.
There's a woman on the cover, which is all it takes to be "feminist" or "SJW."

Well,. a woman wearing some modicum of clothes....
 

Gethsemani_v1legacy

New member
Oct 1, 2009
2,552
0
0
Seeing as how I got me a 10 hour trial because I am an Origin Access member, I figured I might as well try the game again. And I like it. I've never been a huge Battlefield fan, but there's something about the sheer spectacle of it that no other game matches. It can be frustrating at times (seriously, did they even play test Halfya to see if attackers got half a chance?), but every match also provides tons of spectacular moments. So balance issues aside (those bombers) and the fact that they need to make a few more optimization passes, I'll undoubtedly get BFV.
 

Addendum_Forthcoming

Queen of the Edit
Feb 4, 2009
3,647
0
0
Squilookle said:
As someone who waited 16 years for Battlefield to return to the war that was always the best fit for its gameplay in the first place, I'll probably get it. Not because I want to, but because it may be time for me to finally concede that this is as good as it's ever going to get. I played the Beta and the gunplay was solid, but when the highest praise I can give it is that it looks like it's fixed most of the fuckups Battlefield 1 had, that's not very encouraging.

It looks gorgeous. But it's not a battle. It's 4 or 8 vehicles at a time with everyone else in a skirmish on foot. Where's the whirling mass of aircraft that once swarmed over Britain and the Coral Sea? The legions of tanks that smashed each other and fortifications at Aberdeen and El Alamein? Where are the whole fleets, submarines, heavy bombers, landing craft, Russians, Japanese, Canadians, Eastern Front, Pacific theatre, torpedoes, bazookas, etc etc etc?

All we wanted was an expanded BF 1942, us players who were there from the start. Instead we're getting barely half the launch content, with WW2 looking like an utter circus. I'm definitely not getting it until all the reviews are out, because it's not a game I would usually buy.

But if Battlefield doesn't return to WW2 again until 2034, what choice have I got, really?
BF2142 was my favourite entrant, though. The vehicles were interesting, all controlled differently, and Titan matches were glorious. Nothing quite beats that feeling of drop podding straight onto the enemy titan, your squad managing to cut a path to its core, blowing it up, fighting your way back to the hanger and leaping off to parachute away.

The compelling narrative of survival as the ultimate ideology and the believably futuristic stylings of the level design and the utterly divergent capabilities of every class. How it managed to meaningfully make squad based combat a necessity fpr racking up a decent point score, the differently handling vehicles that were appreciably different but balanced. The ruthlessly long slogs at chokepoints with the ridiculously high number of people with defribs that doubled both as instant lifesavers and a particularly troll-y CQ weapon with the classic 'dive shock' at people.... useful cheese for bringing back friendlies, dodging fire, and getting a cheap knife or defrib kill.

BF2142 is definitive proof you can bring BF to anywhere, you just need to put the effort in.
 

Satinavian

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 30, 2016
2,109
879
118
Samtemdo8 said:
Dalisclock said:
BabyfartsMcgeezaks said:
Gordon_4 said:
BabyfartsMcgeezaks said:
Gordon_4 said:
SckizoBoy said:
Yeeesh, I think the last Battlefield game I played was 2...! And was a little disappointed...
Last one I played seriously was 2142. Remind me, does BFV have a story campaign?
I wouldn't call it a story campaign, it's like BF1 where they have like 4 mini-stories which are like a little more than one hour each.

At this point, they might as well just get rid of the singleplayer and focus on the multiplayer if you ask me.
Only if they drop the price by 40%
Then wait until it's 40% off because the singleplayer isn't worth paying for. It's there just to please the ''I need muh campaign in every game''.
BF1 was $20 with Titanfall 2 a couple months back. That's like a year after release.

It's amazing what a little waiting can get you. 2 AAA games for $10 each? Yes Please.
The worry is everyone will have moved on to the next yearly game they pump out.

I mean how many people are still playing Battlefield 3 right now?
If we are still discussing proplr interested in single player foremost, then that is not very relevant.

But yes, a very short lifetime until the player base moves on is a curse of games with multiplayer gameplay at its centre. Have a bad release and you are dead. Have anther game with similar niche and good marketing come out a year later and you are dead.
 

Samtemdo8_v1legacy

New member
Aug 2, 2015
7,915
0
0
Satinavian said:
Samtemdo8 said:
Dalisclock said:
BabyfartsMcgeezaks said:
Gordon_4 said:
BabyfartsMcgeezaks said:
Gordon_4 said:
SckizoBoy said:
Yeeesh, I think the last Battlefield game I played was 2...! And was a little disappointed...
Last one I played seriously was 2142. Remind me, does BFV have a story campaign?
I wouldn't call it a story campaign, it's like BF1 where they have like 4 mini-stories which are like a little more than one hour each.

At this point, they might as well just get rid of the singleplayer and focus on the multiplayer if you ask me.
Only if they drop the price by 40%
Then wait until it's 40% off because the singleplayer isn't worth paying for. It's there just to please the ''I need muh campaign in every game''.
BF1 was $20 with Titanfall 2 a couple months back. That's like a year after release.

It's amazing what a little waiting can get you. 2 AAA games for $10 each? Yes Please.
The worry is everyone will have moved on to the next yearly game they pump out.

I mean how many people are still playing Battlefield 3 right now?
If we are still discussing proplr interested in single player foremost, then that is not very relevant.

But yes, a very short lifetime until the player base moves on is a curse of games with multiplayer gameplay at its centre. Have a bad release and you are dead. Have anther game with similar niche and good marketing come out a year later and you are dead.
Blizzard manages to avoid this this because they support their multiplayer games LONG term. Its the reason why we don't have a WOW 2.

Destiny 2 and The Division 2 has rendered their first games obsolete. (And so far I feel both games were done as a way to make the sequel what the first game should have been in the first place.)

I would not mind if Call of Duty and Battlefield had that one game that was constantly supported and updated.

To me BF4 should have been supported long term and BF 5 should have been just a WW2 expansion.
 

Samtemdo8_v1legacy

New member
Aug 2, 2015
7,915
0
0
Samtemdo8 said:
hanselthecaretaker said:
The multiplayer design philosophy is just a sad, sad state of affairs. Rinse and repeat phoned in content that these devs/pubs can always rely on because they known how much people thrive off of merely the competitive aspect, regardless of how good it actually is.

Honestly don't you guys have a single postive bone in your body about this game?

What has recent Battlefields have done that does not hold a candle to what came before?

I mean how do I know this is not just being blinded by nostalgia? Because I played Battlefield 1942. And its dated as hell to the point of unplayable. And I played many shooters when I say BF 1942 feels as dated and unplayable in the sameway Goldeneye 64 is dated and unplayable.
When BF has a campaign that isn?t phoned in every other year, if that (?NOW WITH CHICS!!?) I would probably check it out. Even BF3, the last one I played, was underwhelming and technically overrated. CoD is even worse in that respect. Speaking of, it?s hard to respect these shooter franchises anymore. These devs are clearly just doing their publishers? bidding.
 
Aug 31, 2012
1,774
0
0
jademunky said:
The hell? The 45 minutes of BFV i've played had me as the ultra-british-white-male Billy Bojangles (probably not his real last name) sneaky-stabbing his way through German-occupied northern Africa.

Now granted we switched to the hockey game before the ending so it is entirely possibly that the climax to that single-player mini-campaign ended with Mr. Bojangles discussing his feelings with his otherkin support group but I kinda doubt it.
The next mini campaign is uhh...insert stereotypically Norwegian woman's name here, running around sneaky stabbing in Norway.

The one after that is insert stereotypically Senegalese man's name here running around loudly shooting in France.

Make of that what you will.
 

jademunky

New member
Mar 6, 2012
973
0
0
Dalisclock said:
You missed the part where Billy has his bojangles removed for gender reassignment surgery prior to joining the feminist liberation army and conquering the world by burning down the patriachy.

Man, that ending came out of left field.
Called it!
 

jademunky

New member
Mar 6, 2012
973
0
0
Zykon TheLich said:
jademunky said:
The hell? The 45 minutes of BFV i've played had me as the ultra-british-white-male Billy Bojangles (probably not his real last name) sneaky-stabbing his way through German-occupied northern Africa.

Now granted we switched to the hockey game before the ending so it is entirely possibly that the climax to that single-player mini-campaign ended with Mr. Bojangles discussing his feelings with his otherkin support group but I kinda doubt it.
The next mini campaign is uhh...insert stereotypically Norwegian woman's name here, running around sneaky stabbing in Norway.

The one after that is insert stereotypically Senegalese man's name here running around loudly shooting in France.

Make of that what you will.
Well, at the very least it conveys the idea that it was indeed a world war. OTOH, thanks to you, I now know where Senegal is on the map.
 

Squilookle

New member
Nov 6, 2008
3,584
0
0
Samtemdo8 said:
hanselthecaretaker said:
The multiplayer design philosophy is just a sad, sad state of affairs. Rinse and repeat phoned in content that these devs/pubs can always rely on because they known how much people thrive off of merely the competitive aspect, regardless of how good it actually is.

Honestly don't you guys have a single postive bone in your body about this game?

What has recent Battlefields have done that does not hold a candle to what came before?

I mean how do I know this is not just being blinded by nostalgia? Because I played Battlefield 1942. And its dated as hell to the point of unplayable. And I played many shooters when I say BF 1942 feels as dated and unplayable in the sameway Goldeneye 64 is dated and unplayable.
That's because your taste in first person shooters is rubbish.

I kid, I kid.

Mostly.

I've been over this loads and loads of times, but people keep asking this question so...

What did the older Battlefields do better?

First of all, Scale of conflict



Bf 1942 had giant open maps, and they crammed them with vehicles. 64 player matches against bots or other players usually had nearly half the players either piloting vehicles or manning the various turrets and cannons and whatnot of those vehicles. It felt like a battle. Like a war. Starting with BF2, the games started getting prettier at the cost of the number of units. They stopped being battles and started being smaller and smaller skirmishes. From Bad Company onwards, they brought in level destruction which shrunk it even more. Nowadays you're lucky to see barely 6 vehicles in a map at the same time. It's kinda pathetic.

Secondly, Accessibility


Everything in the game is at your fingertips right from the start. No bullshit, just here's your gear, off you go. You know, like wars generally are. No piss-farting around with unlocks and perks and grips and scope attachments. You get what you're given and you get on with it. Progression creeped in to BF2, but it also introduced squads so I'll let that slide. I still think the crosshair zoom is far more intuitive than ironsights will ever be, but that's just me.

Third: Authenticity

There's been 4 full release Battlefield games set in real historical wars, and while 1942 and Vietnam at least tried to put the right weapons into the right faction's hands, designed levels to appropriate their actual Battlefield counterparts (just look at the Wake island comparison for example), and provide context to the actual battles before you jump into them in singleplayer, BF1 and V treat their wars like a funfair carnival. Some think all the complaints are about women being in there, and others think Battlefield never cared about History. They're both wrong. If you want to make a fantasy war game, at least have the balls to market it as such.

Fourth: Mods


You can't deny that the wealth of mods for BF 1942 and 2 expanded the gameplay experience several times over, giving you several games in one. Mods for '42 alone gave us a taste of what would become BF Vietnam, BF2, Star Wars Battlefront, and Blackwake.

I could go on but I've spent enough time on this already. You get the general idea.
 

Samtemdo8_v1legacy

New member
Aug 2, 2015
7,915
0
0
Squilookle said:
Samtemdo8 said:
hanselthecaretaker said:
The multiplayer design philosophy is just a sad, sad state of affairs. Rinse and repeat phoned in content that these devs/pubs can always rely on because they known how much people thrive off of merely the competitive aspect, regardless of how good it actually is.

Honestly don't you guys have a single postive bone in your body about this game?

What has recent Battlefields have done that does not hold a candle to what came before?

I mean how do I know this is not just being blinded by nostalgia? Because I played Battlefield 1942. And its dated as hell to the point of unplayable. And I played many shooters when I say BF 1942 feels as dated and unplayable in the sameway Goldeneye 64 is dated and unplayable.
That's because your taste in first person shooters is rubbish.

I kid, I kid.

Mostly.

I've been over this loads and loads of times, but people keep asking this question so...

What did the older Battlefields do better?

First of all, Scale of conflict

snip


Bf 1942 had giant open maps, and they crammed them with vehicles. 64 player matches against bots or other players usually had nearly half the players either piloting vehicles or manning the various turrets and cannons and whatnot of those vehicles. It felt like a battle. Like a war. Starting with BF2, the games started getting prettier at the cost of the number of units. They stopped being battles and started being smaller and smaller skirmishes. From Bad Company onwards, they brought in level destruction which shrunk it even more. Nowadays you're lucky to see barely 6 vehicles in a map at the same time. It's kinda pathetic.

Secondly, Accessibility

snip

Everything in the game is at your fingertips right from the start. No bullshit, just here's your gear, off you go. You know, like wars generally are. No piss-farting around with unlocks and perks and grips and scope attachments. You get what you're given and you get on with it. Progression creeped in to BF2, but it also introduced squads so I'll let that slide. I still think the crosshair zoom is far more intuitive than ironsights will ever be, but that's just me.

Third: Authenticity

There's been 4 full release Battlefield games set in real historical wars, and while 1942 and Vietnam at least tried to put the right weapons into the right faction's hands, designed levels to appropriate their actual Battlefield counterparts (just look at the Wake island comparison for example), and provide context to the actual battles before you jump into them in singleplayer, BF1 and V treat their wars like a funfair carnival. Some think all the complaints are about women being in there, and others think Battlefield never cared about History. They're both wrong. If you want to make a fantasy war game, at least have the balls to market it as such.

Fourth: Mods

snip

You can't deny that the wealth of mods for BF 1942 and 2 expanded the gameplay experience several times over, giving you several games in one. Mods for '42 alone gave us a taste of what would become BF Vietnam, BF2, Star Wars Battlefront, and Blackwake.

I could go on but I've spent enough time on this already. You get the general idea.
Dude, you should see my GOG and Steam library :p

Letting you know that the first BF game I ever played as a kid was BF 1942. I know what makes it special. But I played other shooters and I am sorry but those infantry and shooting controls just feels off. All I can say is despite things like massive scale maps and what not, BF 1942 is just too dated. I mean I played BF 2 and that aged far better.

Just give me BF 1942 with BF 3 to 5's shooting controls and gunplay.
 

Squilookle

New member
Nov 6, 2008
3,584
0
0
Samtemdo8 said:
Just give me BF 1942 with BF 3 to 5's shooting controls and gunplay.
That's fair. I'll admit the gunplay (especially the bullet spread) is dated. But as recent titles such as Ravenfield have shown- the map design and vehicle balance of '42 are anything but.
 

Mad World

Member
Legacy
Sep 18, 2009
795
0
1
Country
Canada
I guess that people are easily impressed. It's basically Battlefield 1.5. After all of the crap that they pulled, I, personally, could never buy it.