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.