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
As somebody who played a shit ton of BC2 and BF3, I will say that I've been disappointed with the series since about halfway into the BF3 season pass. It just felt so passionless and like they were churning shit out for the lowest common denominator. I can sorta accept that in BF3 and BF4 but BF1 personally pissed me off in ways that were only worsened with BFV. The complete and total disregard for history in both the single player and multiplayer were the first sign that Battlefield was just going to be a generic shooter with no care for the setting aside from using it as a paint job. It didn't help that from the gameplay I saw, the whole gameplay loop didn't look as rewarding as it was in BF3 or BF4. Personally, I hope the series dies just so they can't bastardize history any further.

For the record, I didn't buy any game after BF3.
 
As somebody who played a shit ton of BC2 and BF3, I will say that I've been disappointed with the series since about halfway into the BF3 season pass. It just felt so passionless and like they were churning shit out for the lowest common denominator. I can sorta accept that in BF3 and BF4 but BF1 personally pissed me off in ways that were only worsened with BFV. The complete and total disregard for history in both the single player and multiplayer were the first sign that Battlefield was just going to be a generic shooter with no care for the setting aside from using it as a paint job. It didn't help that from the gameplay I saw, the whole gameplay loop didn't look as rewarding as it was in BF3 or BF4. Personally, I hope the series dies just so they can't bastardize history any further.

For the record, I didn't buy any game after BF3.

BF 1 was a birthday present for me when it came out and I felt bad about how much I disliked it. I stopped playing it after the first week because it felt like a lazy reskin and then they added in all the bullshit prototype weapons that never saw actual use, etc.

My favorite was personally BF2 Modern Combat but the series has fallen a looooooooooong way since then.
 
As somebody who played a shit ton of BC2 and BF3, I will say that I've been disappointed with the series since about halfway into the BF3 season pass. It just felt so passionless and like they were churning shit out for the lowest common denominator. I can sorta accept that in BF3 and BF4 but BF1 personally pissed me off in ways that were only worsened with BFV. The complete and total disregard for history in both the single player and multiplayer were the first sign that Battlefield was just going to be a generic shooter with no care for the setting aside from using it as a paint job. It didn't help that from the gameplay I saw, the whole gameplay loop didn't look as rewarding as it was in BF3 or BF4. Personally, I hope the series dies just so they can't bastardize history any further.

For the record, I didn't buy any game after BF3.
BF 1 was a birthday present for me when it came out and I felt bad about how much I disliked it. I stopped playing it after the first week because it felt like a lazy reskin and then they added in all the bullshit prototype weapons that never saw actual use, etc.

My favorite was personally BF2 Modern Combat but the series has fallen a looooooooooong way since then.
The only good thing about BF1 was teaching zoomers a basic background of World War 1 and the Behemoths and destruction physics. I also liked the poison gas, flamethrower, bayonet charge and destruction of almost everything as well as barbed wire able to take your hp away. And you can also say Nigger in the official chat without consequences on the official dice servers.
 
EA really had to cuck my shit up with their update today.

View attachment 1510932
View attachment 1510947
Do you get that everytime you launch the game?

As somebody who played a shit ton of BC2 and BF3, I will say that I've been disappointed with the series since about halfway into the BF3 season pass.
BF3 is when everything started to change. The Close Quarters DLC was a dogwhistle to the CoD crowd. I don't know why DICE wanted that playerbase instead of the one that was there since the origin.
 
The only good thing about BF1 was teaching zoomers a basic background of World War 1 and the Behemoths and destruction physics. I also liked the poison gas, flamethrower, bayonet charge and destruction of almost everything as well as barbed wire able to take your hp away. And you can also say Nigger in the official chat without consequences on the official dice servers.
I can concede there are interesting aspects to BF1 such as the ones you listed however I'll disagree on giving zoomers a basic background on WW1. DICE went all out to kill any potential realistic portrayal of WW1 when they had guys in knight armor firing machine guns at each other. I'd expect multiplayer to be a bit more of a shitshow but this could have been an opportunity to present an often forgotten part of the Great War in a respectful way and they instead used it for cheap gimmicks. They don't care at all about the history, it's exploitation through and through.

BF3 is when everything started to change. The Close Quarters DLC was a dogwhistle to the CoD crowd. I don't know why DICE wanted that playerbase instead of the one that was there since the origin.
I sorta liked Close Quarters simply because it gave me back the AUG but from a map design standpoint I'd agree it was a disaster for a Battlefield experience. Nothing felt like a battle, merely a bunch of corridor skirmishes.
 
I'd expect multiplayer to be a bit more of a shitshow but this could have been an opportunity to present an often forgotten part of the Great War in a respectful way and they instead used it for cheap gimmicks.
It's a shame that DICE refused to make Back to Basics the main setting for multiplayer so instead it was just people running around with automatic weapons and LMGs.
 
It's a shame that DICE refused to make Back to Basics the main setting for multiplayer so instead it was just people running around with automatic weapons and LMGs.
Honestly if they didn’t shit the bed and “realistically” portrayed WW1 I probably would have bought the game. Running around like a chicken with its head cut off and spraying people down like it’s CoD all the time is a serious turnoff. The video I saw from @MrJokerRager of the French soldier with the HUD removed looked pretty neat and would be a near perfect way I’d want to see the game presented.
 
EAs target demographic doesn't have the patience to sit in trenches trading shots at each other with 5 round magazine bolt action rifles. Or the attention span.
 
God, BFV is such a dumpster fire. In the 1.5+ years it's been out, they haven't done anything to fix the inconsistent footsteps audio, or poor visibility, and haven't enabled any kind of anti-cheat.

No privately owned servers, no ping restriction, west coast and EU are practically Asia, a lot of them cheat because CHINA NUMBA ONE!

I have no faith in DICE's ability to make good BF games anymore. I think they're another dev that EA's touch of shit has ruined.
 
Last edited:
Honestly if they didn’t shit the bed and “realistically” portrayed WW1 I probably would have bought the game. Running around like a chicken with its head cut off and spraying people down like it’s CoD all the time is a serious turnoff. The video I saw from @MrJokerRager of the French soldier with the HUD removed looked pretty neat and would be a near perfect way I’d want to see the game presented.
I can concede there are interesting aspects to BF1 such as the ones you listed however I'll disagree on giving zoomers a basic background on WW1. DICE went all out to kill any potential realistic portrayal of WW1 when they had guys in knight armor firing machine guns at each other. I'd expect multiplayer to be a bit more of a shitshow but this could have been an opportunity to present an often forgotten part of the Great War in a respectful way and they instead used it for cheap gimmicks. They don't care at all about the history, it's exploitation through and through.


I sorta liked Close Quarters simply because it gave me back the AUG but from a map design standpoint I'd agree it was a disaster for a Battlefield experience. Nothing felt like a battle, merely a bunch of corridor skirmishes.

These games are close to what you looking for. However they are also BORING to play as unless you heavily into WW1 history or French or Russian or some shit. EA has to balance the fun normie factor with how much they want to keep the game close to the time period. Its the same thing they did with BF4 as well.



God, BFV is such a dumpster fire. In the 1.5+ years it's been out, they haven't done anything to fix the inconsistent footsteps audio, or poor visibility, and haven't enabled any kind of anti-cheat.

No privately owned servers, no ping restriction, west coast and EU are practically Asia, a lot of them cheat because CHINA NUMBA ONE!

I have no faith in DICE's ability to make good BF games anymore. I think they're another dev that EA's touch of shit has ruined.
EAs target demographic doesn't have the patience to sit in trenches trading shots at each other with 5 round magazine bolt action rifles. Or the attention span.

Difference between BF1 and BF5 is that marketing campaign first of all kind of seemed close to the average joe's perception of World War 1. Yeah the Nigger on the cover was kind of eyebrow raising but seemed close enough. And then they have to find a way to make the game interesting other than bolt action rifles and camping in the trenches.

BF5 first full trailer was some cunt with a metallic cyber arm and a cricket bat. Removing the WW2 advertisiing and it could look like some steampunk alternative universe game based on WW2.
 
These games are close to what you looking for. However they are also BORING to play as unless you heavily into WW1 history or French or Russian or some shit. EA has to balance the fun normie factor with how much they want to keep the game close to the time period. Its the same thing they did with BF4 as well.


I've played a lot of Tannenberg but it lacks the polish of even a basic CoD. As for being in trenches with bolt action rifles, that's a very Western Front thing. The Eastern Front was big vast battlefields with lots of back and forth movement. As for bolt action rifles, there's not much we can do there and as @White Devil mentioned the audience they've accrued no longer has the patience to wait more than 5 seconds between kills/deaths. A shame really but that's the way things went.
 
Honestly if they didn’t shit the bed and “realistically” portrayed WW1 I probably would have bought the game. Running around like a chicken with its head cut off and spraying people down like it’s CoD all the time is a serious turnoff. The video I saw from @MrJokerRager of the French soldier with the HUD removed looked pretty neat and would be a near perfect way I’d want to see the game presented.

that's why you play operations, best thing dice ever added (and promptly fucked up in BFV). even with the usual dice-jank and questionable "historical accuracy" BF1 was still a fun, casual large scale shooter. it will probably take a long while till a game comes around that will give me the same feel to hunker down with 8-10 randoms desperately holding a spot while hordes of the enemy constantly throw themselves into your line of fire. not even you typical omaha beach map could give you that. game's also fucking gorgeous.
another thing is that battlefield games never really were realistic. I know that's a stupid argument, especially after redditors liked to throw it around after BFV, but what the games where good at was giving you the "feel" of that conflict (black germans portrayed as proto-nazis were still stupid as fuck tho where it took me right out of the game at one point standing knee-deep in snow in some slav shithole with some ymca level larper popping up next to me, only to think WAT?! - and that was after several dozen hours into the game).
all they would've needed to do is push classic instead of their casual mode or their retarded "hardcore" mode and it would've been a 9/10 game.

(not the best video, but surprisingly there aren't that many of brusilov and where I don't have to facepalm every minute).

also never got warm with bf4, every time I tried to get into it it was either an absolute shitshow or just meh. launch gave BFV a run for it's money (after dropping bf3 like a hot potato just because it's 2 year due date was up), naval strike was utter shit and proved that dice can't even copy simple titan mode from 2142 without fucking it up. luckily LA took over at that point but they could only fix so much. last time I tried it was either smoke spam or FLIR, and playing in black&white isn't my thing, sorry.

besides, at that point I already got my "modern" battlefield fix from hardline, which outshined bf4 in almost every way (maps, balance, modes, even their levolution gimmick), but was torpedo'd by EA right out of the gate. damn shame, and one of the reasons I'm adamant everyone a dice needs their balls stapled to a desk. the only reason they sell sold games was being in charge of the mainline titles and battlefront - nothing more. in a better timeline hardline would've been bf5 and dice reduced to engine support. also keeping visceral alive instead of those dumbfuck swecucks.

I have no faith in DICE's ability to make good BF games anymore. I think they're another dev that EA's touch of shit has ruined.

imo I still don't think it was really EA. their only fault was probably giving dice sweden too much rope to hang themselves with since they were EA's premier FPS studio. usually in cases like this it's because the publisher didn't nip shit in the bud for too long. just look at naughty dog. heck what we know about bioware and how they got away with shit is another good example.

EAs target demographic doesn't have the patience to sit in trenches trading shots at each other with 5 round magazine bolt action rifles. Or the attention span.

the amount of salt I farmed just having minimal map awareness and actually using all the tools at my disposal - like flak guns to shut down planewhores the second they pop up - was immeasurable. turns out blindly rushing down an alley with your cheesy auto while I'm sitting at the end with a LMG primed on the entrance isn't the smartest move. not the first time, certainly not the fifth time.

it's not even hard, I don't know why a lot of people are so fucking bad.

You know what would be better? An FPS where it could have its own setting and have both males and females fighting forces of evil.

Corporate mandated shit right here.

lot of people would have no problem with that, fuck they'd probably like it even more, just look how overwatch sold due to the waifu-factor alone.
literally all dice had to do was a) go full war of the worlds in BF1 b) full steampunk alternate reality in BFV. adapt paolo parente's dust setting (remember bad company's humor?) and that shit would literally fly of the shelves. but nope, gotta have black germans and some lone norwegian girl soloing a whole map because current year.
 
Last edited:
besides, at that point I already got my "modern" battlefield fix from hardline, which outshined bf4 in almost every way (maps, balance, modes, even their levolution gimmick), but was torpedo'd by EA right out of the gate. damn shame,
They tried to sell Battlefield Hardline as a $60 product. Their justification was that Hardline was just as complete as 4.

That's up for interpretation, but I think it should've been sold as an expansion pack or a budget price for $40.

I liked Hardline. It embraced the casual market while staying true to the Battlefield formula. Shame EA couldn't capitalize on that properly. I think that's why Visercal got the axe. Hardline wasn't the hit they wanted.
 
that's why you play operations, best thing dice ever added (and promptly fucked up in BFV). even with the usual dice-jank and questionable "historical accuracy" BF1 was still a fun, casual large scale shooter. it will probably take a long while till a game comes around that will give me the same feel to hunker down with 8-10 randoms desperately holding a spot while hordes of the enemy constantly throw themselves into your line of fire. not even you typical omaha beach map could give you that. game's also fucking gorgeous.
another thing is that battlefield games never really were realistic. I know that's a stupid argument, especially after redditors liked to throw it around after BFV, but what the games where good at was giving you the "feel" of that conflict (black germans portrayed as proto-nazis were still stupid as fuck tho where it took me right out of the game at one point standing knee-deep in snow in some slav shithole with some ymca level larper popping up next to me, only to think WAT?! - and that was after several dozen hours into the game).
all they would've needed to do is push classic instead of their casual mode or their retarded "hardcore" mode and it would've been a 9/10 game.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=06mKW-hak5o(not the best video, but surprisingly there aren't that many of brusilov and where I don't have to facepalm every minute).

BF1 does have superb visuals and that's one of the things I'd never fault DICE for. The Frostbite engine produces very pretty graphics and makes everything look pristine. The operations game mode looks cool and at least attempts to give some semblance of historical foundation to the game although my largest complaints with accuracy are campaign based. Running around with an M1917 in multiplayer is the equivalent to running around with a laser rifle however I can almost tolerate it.

I'm gonna harp on it again but Avanti Savoia! was one of the absolute worst depictions of any historical event in a video game. My great-grandfather fought in that theater and told stories of how he had to hide under corpses to avoid being caught by Austro-Hungarian soldiers. Endless wave after wave of Italians being sent to die by a truly incompetent man entirely in vain because he thought wars were won simply by courage and a desire to succeed. What could have been a story about the futility of misplaced bravado and a population already disillusioned by pointless bloodshed after a dozen Battles of the Isonzo River was instead turned into the Juggernaut from MW2 going on a killing spree. This alone would be enough to get me to never trust DICE ever again and they further cemented it with BFV.
 
I've never played BF1, but in other multiplayer games with pre-modern setting where most players are running around with iron-sight bolt actions and there are little to no semi-auto and full auto weapons, players are actually able to move around the environment much more aggressively and dynamically, since quick and accurate follow-up shots are so hard to achieve with iron-sight bolt actions. When most players are limited to bolt actions, there is a lot less danger when crossing open ground with even a minimum of cover and concealment than in a game where everyone is running around with semi or full auto rifles.

If the game turns into a static and boring trench-bound snipefest, then that is primarily a fault of map design. All it takes is a few flanking saps or slightly defiladed approaches between the two sides to give a trench map some viable opportunities for aggressive pushes and CQC
 
They tried to sell Battlefield Hardline as a $60 product. Their justification was that Hardline was just as complete as 4.

That's up for interpretation, but I think it should've been sold as an expansion pack or a budget price for $40.

I liked Hardline. It embraced the casual market while staying true to the Battlefield formula. Shame EA couldn't capitalize on that properly. I think that's why Visercal got the axe. Hardline wasn't the hit they wanted.

visceral was canned because they were simply to expensive, being based in LA (there's a post-mortem flying around detailing it). but this wouldn't have mattered as much if they would've released a million seller battlefield. 60 bucks + premium tip was retarded from the get-go when at best people perceived it as a somewhat bigger BF4 DLC, in the end EA played themselves. and it's even more ironic considering when they needed devs experienced with frostbite and third person games their only options were some swedes or whatever diversity hire bioware could muster. so their shiny new destiny competitor bombed even harder (and as someone who actually kinda likes it it would've been exciting to see what visceral would've done with it).

man, I miss hardline like you wouldn't believe. and I'll forever regret I got into it at a point the DLC was so dead I never got to experience the maps (and thanks to modern fps design you can't even host it for yourself just to at least run around in it to check it out).

BF1 does have superb visuals and that's one of the things I'd never fault DICE for. The Frostbite engine produces very pretty graphics and makes everything look pristine. The operations game mode looks cool and at least attempts to give some semblance of historical foundation to the game although my largest complaints with accuracy are campaign based. Running around with an M1917 in multiplayer is the equivalent to running around with a laser rifle however I can almost tolerate it.

I'm gonna harp on it again but Avanti Savoia! was one of the absolute worst depictions of any historical event in a video game. My great-grandfather fought in that theater and told stories of how he had to hide under corpses to avoid being caught by Austro-Hungarian soldiers. Endless wave after wave of Italians being sent to die by a truly incompetent man entirely in vain because he thought wars were won simply by courage and a desire to succeed. What could have been a story about the futility of misplaced bravado and a population already disillusioned by pointless bloodshed after a dozen Battles of the Isonzo River was instead turned into the Juggernaut from MW2 going on a killing spree. This alone would be enough to get me to never trust DICE ever again and they further cemented it with BFV.

part of gitting gud is knowing what kit to use when and where. I dropped plenty of supports with a pistol up close because for many using a different weapon besides standing still and pressing m1 is akin to cheating.

as for the the history part, that's what I meant. a lot of shit happened in ww1, and while there is certainly a demographic for it to experience it in it's gritty detail, that's not how you sell a casual fps to millions of normies, which was always the case when it came to battlefield. no one wants to play bf4 where your buddy gets his legs blown off by an IED and dies in screaming agony for minutes.
however that suspension of disbelief only goes so far, women in ww2 while claiming to be "grounded in reality" is just nonsense. after a certain point the look and feel of that conflict simply gets lost where you have to wonder what's the point. might as well turn it in to alternate history by then which gives you a lot more options in every regard - except being able to rewrite history with "untold stories" shit.

Battlefield V in some ways is a downgrade compared to BF1.

they've been constantly downgrading since bc2, turns out turning a map into a field of rubble every match by a tank sniping in the back doesn't make for exciting gameplay. hence "levolution", which ironically showed they still had no fucking clue since people were doing the exact same thing to trigger the gimmick, like topping the skyscraper in shanghai. the smart move would've been to make it a random to the degree it doesn't happen at all or right from the start, so you still have the map changing but not always the exact same way at the same time (which, hilarously enough is the way hardline managed some of them, like the desert storm).
dice sweden just sucks donkey balls when it comes to game design, but EA let's them do the big fps titles which sell on name alone, so...
 
Last edited:
part of gitting gud is knowing what kit to use when and where. I dropped plenty of supports with a pistol up close because for many using a different weapon besides standing still and pressing m1 is akin to cheating.

as for the the history part, that's what I meant. a lot of shit happened in ww1, and while there is certainly a demographic for it to experience it in it's gritty detail, that's not how you sell a casual fps to millions of normies, which was always the case when it came to battlefield. no one wants to play bf4 where your buddy gets his legs blown off by an IED and dies in screaming agony for minutes.
however that suspension of disbelief only goes so far, women in ww2 while claiming to be "grounded in reality" is just nonsense. after a certain point the look and feel of that conflict simply gets lost where you have to wonder what's the point.
Apologies, when I said laser rifle I meant an actual alien laser rifle for accuracy rather than it being mechanically a laser rifle that fires straight with no recoil. That was my bad in choosing a bad comparison.

As for the history part, I can agree that for multiplayer that level of realism would be intolerably boring. I'll also mention that if they're pulling at straws to include automatic weapons into multiplayer then WW1 wasn't the right setting for them. The problem is further exacerbated in BFV when they clearly wanted to make a totally different game but somebody higher up said "Guys this needs to be WW2 themed".
 
Back
Top Bottom