Battlefield General - Discuss the series here

  • 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
BF3 has the best sound design, BF4 has the okayest gunplay, BF1 has the best visuals, BFV has the best movement; all they had to do was slap them all together but instead they crapped out 2042.
 
The Last Stand said:
You're still upset that BF1 had actual representation in a war shooter?
Click to expand...
See, having the Indians included with the British was a good idea. Making them all medics was a cop out and passive racism to use the turban for class recognition though.
Female recon soldiers for the Russians was a good idea. Not distracting, blended in well because Russians are crazy and desperate and recon were actually useful/underplayed on those maps more often than not.
Making 9/10 recon soldiers black was a very not good idea because it's both the most popular class and the most hated by everyone, so their psychological attempt at blending them in backfired and just made people hate the decision more.
 
Bill Kilgore said:
This get's me to wonder on whether they would make a Battlefield game focusing on the Korean war at some point, literally one of the most underrated conflicts out there, kind of surprised no major game franchises has ever look upon it.
Click to expand...
I feel like in today's political climate there is a lot of potential (and potential for good) in rehabilitating the Korean War. The one war where America fought the People's Republic of China.

I think it would fit best as a DLC or a front of Battlefield: Cold War. Two to three maps per conflict like BF1 did with fronts of WW1.

WhoBusTank69 said:
See, having the Indians included with the British was a good idea. Making them all medics was a cop out and passive racism to use the turban for class recognition though.
Female recon soldiers for the Russians was a good idea. Not distracting, blended in well because Russians are crazy and desperate and recon were actually useful/underplayed on those maps more often than not.
Making 9/10 recon soldiers black was a very not good idea because it's both the most popular class and the most hated by everyone, so their psychological attempt at blending them in backfired and just made people hate the decision more.
Click to expand...
What pisses me off is that they actually genuinely tried making a game that explored less Hollywoody fronts of the conflict (Middle East, Italian Alps, Russian Civil War, Gaillpoli) - fronts that aren't unfamiliar to history buffs, but are to the general American public - and so they had the perfect opportunity to do something really cool and shine a light on the masterful campaign of Lettow-Vorbeck, the German who lead an all-Black colonial African army on one of the greatest guerilla campaigns of all time in the jungle/savannah.

And they didn't do that. They could have made, like, two maps for it in a DLC and taught people about some really cool history that would authentically promote real diversity, and instead you get 50% of the German Western Front being Black.
 
The Last Stand said:
A flaw with Battlefield is that everybody plays the same map. 3 has Operation Metro, 4 has that warehouse level, Hardline has Downtown, 5 has Operation Underground.
Click to expand...
ironically hardline had a "metro"-map that was actually good, I really don't know what it is with people gravitating to shit maps.
least metro in 4 was fixed somewhat, but once the spawnrape happens it's still game over - something dice either never figured out or never gave a shit about (I can see them going "at that point you deserve it" or some other retarded nonsense). least locker is fun to farm salt camping the backdoor popping all the bumrushers.

WhoBusTank69 said:
Making 9/10 recon soldiers black was a very not good idea because it's both the most popular class and the most hated by everyone, so their psychological attempt at blending them in backfired and just made people hate the decision more.
Click to expand...
I still remember one moment it completely threw me out of the game. it's not like I'm getting automatically triggered by darker pixels and have playing the game a few dozen hours or so, but one match I was playing some austrian dude, completely in the zone, turn around and there's a black dude next to me in 1914 bumfuck hungary.

never experienced it till that point (or since), so never expected it, but I guess that's what people call immersion-breaking...

Sithis said:
Nothing will top the feel of the old Gulf of Oman missions on Battlefield 2 though, loading up with the boys on the aircraft carrier and boating over to kill some ragheads on the other team.
Click to expand...
tribes 2 transport dropping a bunch of heavies on the enemy flag and going HAM.

Edelgard von Hresvelg said:
My biggest gripe with older Battlefield games is the fact that DLC maps are pretty much nonexistent. I chalk it up to the old map packs for BF3/4/1 still being paid content that nobody wants to buy any more. Trying to find a good server with China Rising maps for BF4 or Turning Tides/Apocalypse maps in BF1 is super rare in my experience.
Click to expand...
just EA being lazy/cheap cunts. they could sell the DLC as a paid exclusive for a year or 6 months before making it free, however at that point you're supposed to buy the sequel so it's not in their interest to add value to the "old" title. hardline had some banger maps, and the DLC maps looked even better, but I've never seen a populated server running them.
 
ZMOT said:
I still remember one moment it completely threw me out of the game. it's not like I'm getting automatically triggered by darker pixels and have playing the game a few dozen hours or so, but one match I was playing some austrian dude, completely in the zone, turn around and there's a black dude next to me in 1914 bumfuck hungary.
Click to expand...
Not the abundance of automatic weaponary in a WW1 setting? Or the visual bugs?
 
The Last Stand said:
Not the abundance of automatic weaponary in a WW1 setting? Or the visual bugs?
Click to expand...
no visual bugs on my end, the automatic weapons were overall balanced and battlefield always played fast&lose with real world influences. it's still a battlefield game after all, what I mean that shit's all gameplay. that's the difference between "authentic" and "accurate". I wouldn't mind more "realistic" modifiers as a gamemode, but bf-niggers don't even know what classic is and hardcore is all over the fucking place with half the weapons turning it into unreal instagib.

of course nu-dice doesn't know when to stop or have good taste, that's when you get red dot scopes in V...
 
The Last Stand said:
Not the abundance of automatic weaponary in a WW1 setting?
Click to expand...
First, gameplay is one thing and another is aesthetics and historicity. And second, its literally the "you can accept dragons but not a 2004 honda civic in your fantasy setting" meme. There's a difference between a period appropiate but prototype weapon like the Hellriegel, another thing is to add modern sensibilities to your otherwise period appropiate game.
 
The Last Stand said:
Maybe it's me, but I was unaffected with BF1's diversity decisions. It was refreshing to see a new war with different factions that represented fantastical versions of actual events.
Click to expand...
that's what I said till it happened to me. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

ChampFantana said:
I'd love to see a BF game where everyone ISN'T running around with automatic weaponry. BF1 is pretty good, but everyone running around with an SMG or LMG is kinda silly.
Click to expand...
it really depends on the map. I mostly stuck to operations which has a healthy mix of terrain, you're ineffective half the match if you stick with the same weapon the whole time.
 
Nice how well the game holds up. Shows that you don't need games to be the most hardware pushing with "realistic" graphics and shit to make it look spectacular. I was looking for games that try to scratch that Battlefield itch and all I'm getting is people telling me either Battlebit or some upcoming furfag game called Wild Assault. Someone really needs to capitalize on his void and not fuck it up like Battlebit, and this "Wild Assault" is a time bomb for the most degenerate people to congregate to so not touching that with a 39 and a half foot pole.
 
Snekposter said:
Because it would piss off the Chinese. Perfect for CoD and its infinite enemies gimmick since that's how things felt like on the ground for the UN guys, but gunning down a few hundred Chinese in one mission would make Comrade Xi sad.
Click to expand...
They could just make all the enemies only North Koreans and maybe even add some historical revisionism with some Russian 'volunteers' you fight. Would work in current year because Russia-seething is still pretty relevant with all that Ukraine stuff going on and can just make the Russians EVIL white men who are FORCING these asian (akshully, Tariq Nasheed said the REAL Koreans were BLACK!) North Koreans to do their bidding.

Homefront and the Red Dawn remake was originally going to be about the Chinese as the villains but then they just changed them into North Koreans last minute to save face (this was all back in 2009 to 2012 btw, not a new phenomenon).
 
Maybe late, but the best Battlefield game is Battlefield 2 by a mile. 1942 is also up there but mostly because I can drive everything in that game and I can drive it wherever I want, even if it is a beach. And you can still play BF2 today! It's one of those old multiplayer games where people rebuilt the servers. I've played around with this for a couple years and it's legit. Your old copy will still fire up and work great.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom