Battlefield General - Discuss the series here
- Thread starter Nazi vegeta
- Start date
-
⚙️ Performance issue identified and being addressed.
-
Want to keep track of this thread?
Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
Create account
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2015
Seriously, I can't believe how many people forgot how much of a shitshow BFV and its live service was when 2042 got announced. People were so positive that 2021 would be the year Battlefield would finally "kill" Call of Duty (regardless of Vanguard's quality, even COD's "weakest" year was able to beat Battlefield in 2016), yet 2042 managed to fail even my most pessimistic expectations.
feedtheoctopus
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2016
Most online FPS games are a bad purchase for the soul fact that nobody is going to be playing them in a year. Like if you're really into this shit you're going to be spending 60 dollars (more if you're stupid) more or less every year for a game that is pretty much the exact same thing every time. Battlefield is slightly better than COD in this regard, but still.
I hate this shit so much. And the funny thing is it's only triple A studios like EA that do this shit. I've gotten really into Squad and Hell Let Loose because nerd with no life and they have none of this in game purchase crap despite being owned and updated by far smaller studios and with far less people in general buying the game. So I know it's not some sort of economic necessity, like they need to do this to break even. It's just straight up encouraging kids to steal their moms credit card.
The thing is they do make money. Maybe this time around they're making less then the last time, but they're still making bank. Gamer rage is pretty much factored into their business model at this point. At the end of the day gamers, especially the type who buy this shit, are lemmings. They're not only playing this crap right now despite bitching about it, they're going to buy and play the next unfinished piece of shit, and the next one, and the next one, and the next one...cheaper than having to refund all those season pass purchases. if you deliver the content you sold those passes on, even if it's utter shit for a dead game, means you won't get sued your ass of.
that was always retarded because you'd need a competent writer for that (lol good luck). ironically that would be the easiest to do, all you'd need is some tom clancy lite with recurring characters (which of course would need to be likable too, but again, good writer...)
knowing EA they'll probably double down and taking all the wrong lessons from 2042 bombing, hero skins are much easier to sell and market. expect the next battlefield be even more like cod with a small ass arena and low playernumbers (to "fix" the map being too big and too many clones running around).
>make shit games
>"no one buying our shit games, no need to invest money"
the question why the game is shit given all the money spent on development probably never came up, making a good game which sells on that factor alone is too outlandish and complicated apparently.
wasn't battlefield 1 around 20% or something
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2015
Here's another dev tweet that aged poorly:
And BF2042's ratings are now dropping to the Overwhelmingly Negative rating, and let's hope it stays that way:
And BF2042's ratings are now dropping to the Overwhelmingly Negative rating, and let's hope it stays that way:
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2018
Depends on the FPS. For the most part, FPS can have a longer shelf life than most genres. I'd say two to three years.
- Joined
- May 18, 2014
The Cyberpunk2077 devs must be ecstatic that a dumpster fire of this magnitude rolled right past them and obscured their own failure.
feedtheoctopus
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2016
See when I think of a game with staying power though I'm thinking of like AOE2 where you just have people who have been playing it nonstop for like 20 years. Or at least that you can play by yourself years later and not feel like it's dated. Most multiplayer centric FPS games pretty much only last until something else comes out and the servers just totally empty of life, and most of the time they're pretty simplistic so it's not like there was much keeping people around to begin with other then that just happened to be what all their friends had at the time. Like I don't know if anybody is still going to be playing fortnite in 10 years.
Course the flip side is stuff like Arma that only insane people play to begin with
- Joined
- May 18, 2014
How about Counterstrike? That's an FPS with staying power and a strong community.
feedtheoctopus
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2016
They never made an actual sequel and haven't fucked with it much I don't think. One of those games that's had the same people playing it religiously since the 90's, to the point quitting heroin is probably easier for them. What I was more talking about is stuff like COD where they are just constantly putting out the same game with a different skin and the playerbase never really stays in one place for long.
Those two games I mentioned up above have been going doing pretty well. Squad's been around for like 7 years and whenever I start it up there's a lot of people on. But I feel like that's kind of anomaly with MP games in general. I guess another example of what I mean is like that one guy everyone knows who buys every single new Madden game and then never plays any of the old ones. Like over years I figure my friend's probably spent like 600-700 dollars on that shit. At that point why bother?
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2018
Or Halo. Halo 2 had a sizable community even during the OG Xbox Live closure.
Modern Warfare has broken that trend somewhat. Even after Vanguard, it's still reaching top player charts.
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2015
The other thing about CSGO, is that the cosmetic skins for the game also incentivize players to still keep playing, and it also incentivizes Valve to not make a new CS game, to make sure skins retain value, so they can take that sweet Valve tax on each Steam transaction. TF2 is also in a similar situation, where Valve doesn't want to update the game due to it's 15 years of spaghetti code in it, but wants players to still play it for that sweet microtransaction money, and players still want to play, because TF2 has that set of gameplay that those players don't get with other FPS games.
There is a certain tribalism factor with Valve's games, as some people have superiority complexes because of playing a Valve game, with Valve being a private company, instead of games from publicly invested companies. The most diehard of DOTA 2 fans, and their absolute hatred of Riot Games and League of Legends, is one big example of that. The tribalism is almost as bad as Tesla or Subaru owners.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2020
THE ABSOLUTE FUCKING STATE 
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2021
Every Battlefield was an absolute clusterfuck on release and took at least 3 months to become a playable game, and it's been like this for over a decade. Preordering Battlefield at this point is the vidya equivalent of a cuckold fetish.
The OTHER other thing about CSGO is the same people who play almost nothing other than a game with decade-old graphics will sperg out about muh PC master race and how they theoretically could play games with better graphics than even the latest console could handle if they wanted to.
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2014
As much as people give credit to Battlefield 3 these days, it was generally disliked by long time BF players because it strayed too far from the BF2/2142 system. Bad Company 2 was so well liked because it "wasn't a main Battlefield game" and was allowed to be a little whimsical and watered down. Fortunately, it had good class and weapon balance, series leading environmental destruction, and a few amazing maps, but most of the older players didn't mind because there was some unspoken promise that BF3 would be a reimagined BF2 on a better engine. It wasn't.
BC2's success may have been the first stone in destroying DICE. It was when they started focusing development on consoles, and it made them start thinking they could/should compete with Call of Duty. Had the game been a flop, Battlefield 3 may have been the modernized Battlefield 2 that most of the old heads thought it would be. They've been falling down that exact same rabbit hole ever since. Trying to compete with COD was, is, and will continue to be stupid.
This is kind of incredible. 2042 is getting worse reviews than 2K and EA sports games, and they're both despised on Steam because they refuse to port the next gen versions of their game to PC. An incomplete copy/paste of games from 2017 are better received than BF.
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2015
A Gnome Weapon Charm? Is this seriously the best that DICE can put out right now? I was expecting something in celebration of Black History Month, but either that will have to wait, or it's too difficult for them.
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2018
No scoreboard in a FPS video game...until March.
At this point, just don't even bother. Just put it out its misery.
Screamer
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2021
The thing is BC2 worked because it was made with consoles in mind. It was all stripped back to what they could get away with on consoles and make a unified and robust game. With the later games, they tried to push it for PC and consol where it became inconsistent.
I remember DICE saying years ago they couldn't figure out why BC2 was so beloved. When it was simple as a fan. The game design and maps were consistent and simple. Yeah there's a lot of repetition in buildings, but with that is a lot of known destruction and qualities which led to more dynamic game play. Than maps which aren't built with destruction in mind and it's superficial. Where the environment, destruction and map design is inconsistent and becomes about memory. It's not dynamic in the same way.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2019
hardline was fine from what I remember (since it was the only non-dice sweden battlefield), bf1 I think had some issues but nothing major it was fixed pretty quickly, least don't remember loud complaints (compared to bf4 and V).
this. bc2 also wasn't the problem, remember BC1 was a console exclusive and after people complained "where's the pc battlefield" they just put bc2 on pc and that was it. there was still hope the next mainline battlefield would be a proper battlefield - except dice was lazy again (and/or EA being cheap) and from then on they continued to make one game for both platforms, leading to a "watered down" bf3 (especially the maps because dice was extremely lazy again and didn't really change the layout for the console player number of 24!).
literally all they had to do is alternate it with a mainline battlefield and keep each distinct, and it's not like EA didn't try twice with medal of honor having a smaller game in-between, which later got replaced by battlefront.
in battlefield outside TDM that's an advantage, since you got too many retards going for MUH KILLS instead of playing the fucking objective. can't remember how many matches I lost or got stomped because people were rather farming kills in bumfuck nowhere or were sitting at the back trying to be LE ENEMY AT THE GATES or worse rank 150's tankwhoring. meanwhile I won matches where I ended up in the top 3 with 4 kills or less; you don't need to have the most kills, you only need enough kills to complete your objective. it's the same reason a competent squad can roll a whole 64 player match.
Screamer
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2021
One thing that really irked me with BF3 was that the map design philosophy also became about "everything".
It felt like they went, "3 large conquest, 3 mid-sized conquest and 3 rush maps." Then stuck other modes on those maps. Instead of properly tweaking those maps for the modes they weren't designed for.
So you have some Rush maps with some unique areas. However, the other maps in Rush just became doing a circle of the conquest map. Where it loses the exciting gameplay feeling because you're just playing the conquest areas. Especially the mid-sized conquest maps.
There was no reason Grand Bazaar on rush couldnt have been pushing through other parts of the city, into the market and back out into new areas. Instead of doing a lap around the block.
You're not playing a unique map and then pushing through the conquest area and into new areas.
It gets to the lack of focus in the design. Which could have been extended to the other player numbers for consol.
Interestingly enough, in BF 2042 Portal they seemed to somewhat understand that. The Conquest version of Valparaiso is a larger, expanded version of the map with new areas not in the original or Rush game.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2015
Killing enemies does take away enemy tickets, so it's ideal to go for objectives, but don't die excessively trying to do so, because that bleeds tickets for your team.