>How would you fix it?
Don't release a new game every single year, simple as that, people won't get burnt out if the new entry takes like 3 or 4 years to release and the improvements are more meaningful.
stop removing things and add things without removing shit
want to add moronic class mode? go ahead . dont remove anything from the previous game
want to add big head mode? do it . but dont remove snipers
games are supposed to improve . not go backwards
>>can't sell the same thing forever
Who the hell told you this lie? Where the frick did this lie start? Coke and Pepsi have been selling the same 100g of sugar for years.
The only thing people ask for is bigger and better. Battlefield killed it's selling point to attract CoD fans, instead of realizing the only reason it was in competition with CoD was because it was a different game. If people wanted CoD they'll just play CoD, not CoD with a Battlefield logo.
All they have to do is go back to being Battlefield. Just go back to making huge destructible maps. Literally just make BF3 but with more destruction and that's it. Tweak the gumplay some, make everything more responsive.
Yup 2002 64 player maps. 2024 where is the 256 player map??? If they just stuck with what worked and improved on it the series would still be hugely successful.
I know there were but most maps weren't designed to be played for this number iirc? Anyways my point is newer games have smaller maps and less player capacity. Why?
3 months ago
Anonymous
well even current bf2042 maps look too big for only 500 players
Its funny how CoD got shit right - they kept the core but just gave people Battlefield like gamemode aka Ground War back in MW2019 that got really popular and even a lot of BF refugees bought that game just for that mode. I know a lot of people who still play BF4 and jump on MW2019's ground war.
Yup 2002 64 player maps. 2024 where is the 256 player map??? If they just stuck with what worked and improved on it the series would still be hugely successful.
This, I can't believe they were this fricking moronic. I remember playing 1942 with friends for hundreds of hours, it was just so much fun and bigger maps, lots of objectives, hours of fighting was great.
All they had to do was make it bigger and better, hone the look, the feel, gunplay, just polish the little things.
>I remember playing 1942 with friends for hundreds of hours, it was just so much fun and bigger maps, lots of objectives, hours of fighting was great.
This is what I really miss in modern games. The freedom to just move around on the map and pull a long flank if I wanted to.
I played nuBattlefront 2 and some of the maps are like fighting in a straw.
Battlefield 5 has that. The conquest maps are really big and you can flank objectives with your squad all day long. It's not my cup of tea though since I play as a loner unless I get lucky and spawn into a good squad that actually does objectives.
There were still easy improvements to be made that didn't require the massive deviations from the formula that they chose to force. For example, four classes is too few, bumping up to five or maybe six would dramatically improve balance.
Even simple iteration on environmental destruction, more gun customization, these are obvious things to do in a sequel that don't require reinventing the wheel.
They could, most consoomers don't even really like big changes and just want the graphics to improve and maybe a few QoL changes to each new game. Literally all you have to do to make a successful FPS franchise
if it were up to me and i wasn't a money grabbing psychopath, i'd stop releasing new games at a $69.99 per year price point. i think it'd be better for the players if they switched to a 2 year dev cycle for true sequels and just sold a $39.99 DLC on the first anniversary of whatever the current game's launch is that adds a new game's worth of new Weapons and Maps to the sandbox.
so you'd get Modern Warfare in 2024, and in 2025 you'd get the Modern Warfare Expansion. then in 2026 you'd get Modern Warfare 2, which would lead to the MW2 Expansion in 2027, and so on and so forth. committing to any one title for more than 2 years would start to introduce conversations like, "what do we do about ranking up cause everyone's gonna be 15th Prestige by the end of year 1 and won't have anywhere else to go" so you've gotta start considering hard Rank resets to true LV1.
They should've went all in on destruction, probably not the levelution route
The introduction of it in BC1 was insanely cool but it ended up getting scaled back in BF3 and that was such a travesty
>it ended up getting scaled back in BF3 and that was such a travesty
Why would that be a travesty? BF3's return to the 'traditional' formula meant that they had to scale back destruction in order to increase the chances of players taking cover. A map such as Kharg Island or Operation Firestorm would've been much worse if players could level every building in both of these maps.
You know they could've designed maps and environments with BC2 level destruction in mind
It makes the maps harder to design, but showing us how cool Frostbite can be and then throwing that part of the engine out the windows is just sad
Even having some buildings be indestructible to help keep a semblance of the base map design would be fine
>You know they could've designed maps and environments with BC2 level destruction in mind
I know, but they refused to do so because it was a game design decision for the reason I mentioned before.
>it ended up getting scaled back in BF3 and that was such a travesty
Pretty sure that happened because of the PS3 and Xbox 360 versions, which were already limited to 24 players.
Literal moron. You can and should stick to what you have and only change when it doesn't work at all. BF was doing great in its own direction and was constantly growing. But like degenerate Ganker gamblers, they said frick this steady growth, sign me up for the 100x player base moonshot by emulating COD! And they have never recovered since, only nostalgia grifters like post BF4 games and 4 is already treading a thin line. As per usual EA fashion, they had an easy bag and fumbled it.
You can sell the same thing forever. Look at Forknife. They made a single game and kept developing it. It LOOKED like they were getting the idea with Warzone but then went and made Warzone 2. Granted, it made sense with how atrociously bloated the first was in raw file size but Warzone 2 is on track to have the same fricking problem
>What is Pokémon, FIFA, NHL, Counter-Strike, League of Legends etc you get the point
the people who buy and play that shit every year or two are cattle. If anything BF's decline in sales and players says good things about its community- it's more discerning, and doesn't put up with getting ripped off (as much)
>can't sell the same thing forever
You absolutely can. It’s all the new shit like battlepasses and Niki minaj that made tons of players quit. What I wouldn’t give for a better looking MW2 so I could run around dual wielding 1887s and ruining lobbies.
Think about it for half a second. Who scared off all the competent people in an underpaying industry which is a labor of love? It's not even nefarious, the US government said so in the 50's, women and homosexuals work to undermine business just by existing.
i dont care if you sell the same thing forever, as long as you wait at least 3 years in between game. yearly releases killed many a franchises because it makes the formula stale
its like rewatching christmas movies every december. theyre still charming because you only watch them during one month. if you watched them every month, youd fricking hate them
>Personally I would just retire these series
that's exactly what you should do. end a series 2 or 3 deep instead of milking it for every last cent with 16 iterations of the same game
COD is still doing fun generic multiplayer 6v6 deathmatch well. Every new entry has its own host of issues but at the end of the day you're still playing some good ass mindless pvp shooting like cod always has been which is more than battlefield can say.
BF 4 was unnecessary and people felt it was just a cheap cash grab - which it was.
It could've been a content patch for BF3, but once again short term profits were valued over the long term brand value.
BF2042 was a completely unnecessary exploration of replacing classes with hero personalities.
Heros only work if you only have one of each on your team.
One Jack the Sniper, one Ivan the Support, one Fukushida the Medic or whatever... just like in Overwatch, League of other hero based MP games.
Having 2 Jack the Snipers and five Ivans the Supports does not work because it breaks the immersion, a fricking 8th grader couldve told you that. Too bad EA devs are too overpaid and too moronic at the same time, so they didn't think doing research before would be necessary.
Also, all characters are fricking ugly. If they had realized that the whole "sexy woman bad" whining is an artificial debate on twitter only and nobody IRL gives a FRICK about characters being hot and good looking, they couldve at least partially saved the last BF titles.
I want to play as a hot girl with a pretty face, not some ugly 56yr old half granny thats built like a fricking brick layer and has the face to match.
God, BF2042 was such a preventable disasters I could write an entire fricking book about it.
At the time bf4 was viewed that way but its also beloved to this day. bf1 started the downward spiral with certain gunplay and vehicle mechanics but it also had a lot of passion poured into it and was one of the last games to use artistic direction to complement graphics technology instead of just brute forcing your GPU to oblivion for mediocre graphics. Ganker lost its mind over the black people but thats a different conversation entirely
>I want to play as a hot girl with a pretty face, not some ugly 56yr old half granny thats built like a fricking brick layer and has the face to match.
how about you don't play as a woman in this WAR game
>Too bad EA devs are too overpaid and too moronic at the same time, so they didn't think doing research before would be necessary.
Ironically this used to be fixed in other games by limiting the classes. Think RO2 or RS2. Not everyone could play sniper every match. And that was a good thing.
yup they completely fricked the gunplay from bf3 to bf4. it was the beginning of the end. you could clearly notice they had lost almost all of their talented devs at that point and they made such moronic design decisions.
BF3 was already fricking some stuff up. BFBC2 had a better destruction system and netcode, as I never noticed the magnet bullets issue in BC2 but in BF3 it was everywhere especially early on. I'll always be a little mad over BC2 rebooting the plot of the first and turning Bad Company into generic meatheads rather than goofy idiots though.
>netcode, as I never noticed the magnet bullets issue in BC2
Because BC2 was the last BF game that utilized server side only even with the terrible netcode, in every BF since 3 they use a server side-client side hybrid.
The only reason Overwatch stopped allowing multiple of the same character on a team was people spamming McCree's stun on the same guy to guarantee kills.
>BF 4 was unnecessary and people felt it was just a cheap cash grab - which it was.
It could've been a content patch for BF3, but once again short term profits were valued over the long term brand value.
No it wasn't? BF4 was a completely different game. >BF2042 was a completely unnecessary exploration of replacing classes with hero personalities. >Heros only work if you only have one of each on your team. >One Jack the Sniper, one Ivan the Support, one Fukushida the Medic or whatever... just like in Overwatch, League of other hero based MP games.
No, heroes don't work because it's not fricking battlefield. Battlefield is literally all about 2 massive teams of faceless soldiers fighting each other. The hero shit goes against all of that and just turns everyone into a shitty 'le speshul' operator with a gay name and a gayer personality.
>I want to play as a hot girl with a pretty face, not some ugly 56yr old half granny thats built like a fricking brick layer and has the face to match.
Again, one of the main themes of battlefield is faceless soldiers, homies wanna be a faceless frick fighting other faceless fricks because that's what war is. It's also why COD fricking suck nowaday because you have fricking nicki minaj running around with a pink rainbow glitter gun taking big fat white wiener in a shooter.
>No, heroes don't work because it's not fricking battlefield
they're chasing the COD audience since COD started the whole Operator shtick since MW2019, which is ironic because not being COD was BF greatest strength.
>MW2019
You wish 2042 was an MW2019 ripoff.
Black Ops III and IIII(sic) were the CoD games that had hero characters with unique abilities to define them and otherwise pulled all of their gear from a generic pool available to all. They're even called "Specialists."
>Heros only work if you only have one of each on your team.
No, heros only work in cartoon settings like team fortress.
Rainbow six siege is an anomaly but it is pretty cartoony compared to even call of duty.
Rainbow Six Siege's hero system worked because of its settings. The Rainbow 6 team is a highly specialized group and they're not letting just about anyone in, it makes sense to have the team members to be personalised. It wasn't until much later that R6S operator went from actual policemen to le quirky special snowflake character.
I'll give R6S a pass because it's apart of their whole shtick.
Rainbow Six was an elite counter-terrorist group.
Unfortunately it went to shit when Dokkabei was added and it opened the way for every chick to be some kind of mary sue.
BF4 was a cheap cash grab at launch, but once they fixed the issues and had variable tick rate dedicated servers it actually turned into something really great. I can't even play BF3 anymore because I can feel the delay in even very basic movement, like vaulting. Hardline on the other hand was absolutely a low effort cash grab, I liked some of the ideas but it could have easily been a BF4 expansion.
Of course, the real issue with the Battlefield series since Bad Company 2 is EA's refusal to allow any kind of modding on Frostbite. Battlefield 1942, Vietnam, 2, and 2142 all had good sized mod communities, and the fact that Project Reality is STILL kicking should convince them to develop mod tools for the engine. It's probably too late now, the series has gone too far downhill, and I bet whatever is next is some kind of hyperpozzed Bad Company reboot with a "diverse" (only in skin color and sexuality) cast. They killed the games with that kind of shit, and they killed the community by stripping away any kind of community interaction in order to sell horseshit DLC.
It was because Total Asscancer told everyone it was bad because you didn't player as army men like in 4 so everyone ate his shit and shat on Hardline. I wish that homosexual died 10 years earlier.
>God, BF2042 was such a preventable disasters I could write an entire fricking book about it.
Do it. The near-constant frickups of modern video game and film studios should be documented as much as possible for study by future generations of creators on what NOT to do.
BF4 failed because it had TOO many weapons/gadgets/attachments and that usually wouldn't be a bad thing but DICE are absolute shit at balancing as is even with a small amount of weapons so that is what fricked it in the end I think.
these devs are running out of excuse. bungie was said to be truly free once free from activision and they raped the players for cash more then bobby could dream of. diablo 4 is a cash pit selling horse skins the same price of final fantasy 7 rebirth. they now going to go back to blaming gamers for not liking their work
Ironically it copied every other FPS trend like battle royales and hero bullshit over CoD, couple with recently setting the bar in replacing competent devs with double-digit IQ pajeets.
I feel like even at the core of it, removing any political shit, any dumb shit about womens empowerment in a ww2 game, the game is genuinely boring and not worth playing. All the maps fricking suck, and barely any are from battles people give a shit about, which could be well if done right, but you play that greece map for like 10 minutes and you never want to see it again.
if they wanted women so bad, why didnt they highlight the female russian snipers more? maybe make a campaign about their story? instead they just went full moron and lost so many customers
The love and passion is gone. The old devs, skills and inspiration, gone.
The only people left are just there for a pay check and listen to whatever the homosexual shareholders / EA want.
>The old devs, skills and inspiration, gone.
Who cares if they were gone? Do you honestly think that they would have made 2042 or the next BF somehow good or great enough? They would be just as stubborn as usual and ignore what you guys would want or expect from the series. Remember that some of the people who worked on the older BFs were also responsible for the disasters that are BF5 & BF2042.
The relationship between the quality of battlefield and the game devs aversion to the glorification of warfare is inverse.
BF is no longer about the faceless soldier, it’s about establishing overwatch/apex characters and subverting the classic “MC humbly upholds his duty and does what’s right” narratives that all the other games had
Ignoring the fact that the games release as barely functional disasters, trying to appeal to everyone rather than playing to their strengths and then ending up with a product that appeals to no one.
played it on pc. I wouldn't but it in greatest multiplayer experience, but I had one match that was probably one of the greatest comeback matches on a 1000 ticket Heavy Metal Conquest. Entering 100 tickets left with the opposing team just under 500, and ending the match with a 1 ticket win. Sweating bullets by the time we hit 10 tickets and they still had almost 30.
>publisher reaches to veteran designers/producers who made old games and created the IP >"our market research and community voice said that what we need to do is to go back to what worked back then thats why we want you guys back" >"frick yeah lets do it [here insert publishers name] >months later >"uhhh guys you gotta put Black person rapper skins,battle royale and shiet into the game and redesign stuf because what worked in BF3/4 wont work for da zooms nowadays" >lets leave the company then i didnt singed for that shit say veteran designers and producers who can get a job elsewhere instantly because of their experience
This happens constantly all the fricking time when publishers reach to vets of old IP's they own. First they promise free reign to revitalize IP in the way designers want to but mid development they start meddling and frick shit up so people simply leave the project.
>What went so wrong with the battlefield franchise?
Annual releases, simple as that.
The best devs just jumped ship when they were forced into a 365 days crunch period.
There was always something wrong with the franchise but it was mitigated by the niche they occupied and that no other shooter really quite did what they did.
You can point to any iteration especially from BC2 and onwards for what they settled in for the franchise. BC2 for trying to be more like CoD, BF3/4 for settling on the trend of releasing something broken and then fixing it later, BF1 and BFV for its questionable implementation of many things. Really, 2042 was the nail in the coffin when it dropped the ball on basically everything.
Idk, but I still play Battlefield 2142 on private server actually the newest BF game I have played in the year 2024 is from 2006 and for good reason. Because the new ones suck monkey wiener.
4 had a rough release but ended up being fricking awesome. It gets glossed over a lot but I definitely think hardline was the immediate nosedive in quality and signaled the end. I tried and hated it.Ii tried and hated 1. I have thousands of hours in the series but didn't buy V or whatever the abortion of a scifi title the newest one was. The series is gone.
Yeah pretty much. Most matches I have in 2042 is either, im running in an empty field for minutes until im sniped or I spawn into an absolute clusterfrick and blow up immediately. Neither are very fun.
This never happened in the real Battlefield games. Map points were spead out so that each base was being fought over separated by large masses of land and structures. Modern moron designers never understood that concept.
The battles were spaced all over the map, now the map is even worse with players spawn camping and even a greater potential to kill people in the wide open than ever before.
I like the meat grinder. It's awesome when you and your buddies pull of a push and the tide turns. Even back in 24/7 Metro nothing felt quite as good as finally taking B.
That's a map design problem not a playercount problem.
If every map is a line with designated "you should go here" points laid out in a row surrounded by completely devoid of cover no-man's land of course everyone will congregate in the one spot you can play the game.
it is a challenge for map designers
planetside 2 already had this problem
how do you make sure that players get 3-4 changing contested areas instead of 50 guys lobbing grenades at each other in 3 hallways
something about the objectives and the flow needs to be rethought
>in 3 hallways
lets take a momment now and remember 24 years ago
when you could break the fricking walls with c4 and rocket launchers or the terrain in other games
that is what i imagined bf3 could be back in the day.
take bf2 maps where one could enter every building making your own paths as you please and hell throw in some sewers and such.
maybe i just played too much project reality and expected way too much from actual paid devs.
>take bf2 maps where one could enter every building making your own paths as you please and hell throw in some sewers and such
That's what DICE did to the Karkand remake in BF3, you could enter buildings which weren't accessible in BF2 and even reach the rooftops, many BF2 vets didn't like it since it allowed players to gain the highground and camp there instead of keeping the firefights in the streets like in the original.
>many BF2 vets didn't like it since it allowed players to gain the highground and camp there instead of keeping the firefights in the streets like in the original
This is BF3 and 4 in a nutshell, find some way to get on a rooftop and camp like a b***h for the entire round
3 months ago
Anonymous
BF3's verticality was fine, but I do agree that DICE went full moron with the verticality on many of BF4's maps.
there were very few building in karkand were you could safely snipe from the top without getting blasted by a tank shell or rpg splash damage.
If only those few could be totally collapsed that would have been beyond top tier. Map is one of my all time favorite anyway.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>If only those few could be totally collapsed that would have been beyond top tier
I disagree. This would've heavily affected the map negatively and would ruin the cover. Take BF3's Sharqi, there were certain structures that couldn't be destroyed in the original version, the cover becomes increasingly difficult to find as the round continues, it's worse when you consider the attack heli in mind.
if you think back most maps were kind of bad
strike at karkand was the og grenade spam map for the first checkpoint
on sharqi all the fighting was in the city, so on 30% of the map
dragon valley was fantastic for jets and helis but a bit of a slog for infantry
I get it, no one had really done 64 player maps before and they were still figuring it out. But it has been decades and there has been no improvement
True, used to hate karkand back in the day as next guy. But in hindsight you actually had chances to break the stalemate by rushing from left side for ninja caps. Compared to what we got in bf3, shittier cramped maps like grand bazaar and metro
>strike at karkand was the og grenade spam map for the first checkpoint
Well the problem with nade spam in Karkand wasn't tied to the map itself but rather the amount of grenades each class had including the resupply time, BF3's Karkand addresses this problem and it was one of few positive changes about it.
Also, the original Karkand had pathways for the attackers to flank, which wasn't included in the remake IIRC. >on sharqi all the fighting was in the city, so on 30% of the map
The city is the center focus of Sharqi, it's a Conquest Assault map, the MEC forces are supposed to recapture the city held by the defending US forces. >dragon valley was fantastic for jets and helis but a bit of a slog for infantry
Slog how? Is it because of the map's size?
Issue is maps are too big.
TF2 has 100 player servers and the maps are so small every flank is filled with players. It’s a stalement up until multiple Medic + Pyro/Demo combos can clear the area
Its because of map and mechanics design. The players don't have a lot of reasons to go to other spots on the maps. There should be more capture things on the maps to give players reasons to go to other points. And definitely have other than victory capture points, like spawn points or fortifications or whatever. And to mix things up have asymmetric maps. Things like one side defends, the other attacks.
Also the commanders and intel should have much more influence on the battle. Most of the time all they're doing is giving messages and calling artillery. They should be able to send out npc forces or something and then assign players special missions for point bonuses they can use in spending for things in-battle or something.
Also the scoring systems aren't really encouraging 'warfare' game play, so players don't do it. The scoring is usually all about player kills.
I played Titanfall 2 recently, the only way to score is kills. Everything else counts to getting a titan or not at all. And the best way to get points towards spawning a titan are player kills. So you get this game play where players frantically run around trying to flank each other because that is the best way to score a kill since players die before they know they're being shot at. As long as you're killing more than dying this is fine as well since spawning is so fast and close. If things like gaining points towards spawning a titan were something else or not kills at all, and if dying and re-spawning were much more consequential, players would play a much more 'warfare' style of play.
Using class abilities, transporting players and NPCs, whatever else should be more point heavy. Also maybe experiment with things like variable points for kills with whatever weapon or vehicle.
Section 8 did it wonderfully, you have these random missions spawn through the match that gives out tons of points, really changing the tide in a big way, and even if you want more motivation then just change points for some team advantage. It was a great way of introducing variety and changing the pace, plus redirecting and focusing the combat on varied areas of the map, instead of the traditional chokepoint or everyone spread out you would get players to gang up on other areas through the match. It was a great design that no one else copied for some fricking reason.
The spawn system was also amazing but heavily tied to the sci fi design of the game
Right is unironically kino when you manage to sneak past the meat grinder and wreak havoc from the back.
Operation Metro was one of the most satisfying maps because if you did manage to sneak past and take the flag behind enemy lines you could completely break the match.
>BFBC2 >Valparaiso >Grenade throwing match near start for 30 minutes
I loved every single minute of it.
>defending in Valparaiso Rush >lose the checkpoint with the lighthouse nearby >hide in the lighthouse until the enemies settle in and everyone from my team retreats >climb to the top >snipe the enemy in the frontline from the back >the moment they plant a bomb jump down and just destroy everyone from the back, giving your mates a chance to defuse the bomb
Absolute kino.
Meat grinder matches are fun and it's why operation locker and operation metro matches tend to have full servers and are also seemingly always up. A lot of people seem to want this constant chaotic action and DICE never fully embraced it.
Yes, it's good to have maps that play differently, but hating meatgrinders is folly. Either embrace the chaos or leave the match if you hate it so much.
the fact that BF3 fans actually like this shit explains why the series is dead.
metro was good because it had well crafted flank routes and room to room fighting. Having so much chaotic bullshit going on was awesome. Giving up on a choke point to run through a nearby door you've been ignoring for a couple minutes only to find an entire nest of like three squads was amazing.
The only map like it in Bf4 was operation locker or whatever and it was generally shit. It only had one flank route which won or lost a match based on if you had snipers camping it or not
cramped choke point maps with grenadefests was peak cancer and marked the death of these kind of games. The only shooters nowadays with somewhat success are niche shooters and for good reason.
>cramped choke point maps with grenadefests was peak cancer and marked the death of these kind of games.
Yes that's why those servers with the cramped maps are still seemingly alive and well even on the old games and the new games don't even have maps like that. You are totally right. That's why the new games are dead.
crawling like rats in a sewer and slamming your head against a brick wall in the hopes that a giant scale tips in your favour isn't compelling gameplay. It's for people who want to completely shut off their brain and any higher level brain function in order to reap easy dopamine from high kill counts.
BF 3 fans in general have the shittiest taste in FPS modes and mechanics, they are even worse than COD npcs. It's such a monumental step down from BC2 is hard to grasp and yet its boosted as the peak of the IP, you ended up with the IP you deserve.
That is what real large scale warfare looks like. Two sides batter ramming each other for inches of progress and the match being decided by attrition (in this case - whichever side runs out of spawn tickets). Your puny mind wants a children's game when this is what a real battle looks like.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Its true, I saw soldiers in Ukraine running into minefields then respawning in order to clear them out, very clever. real war is very entertaining and not at all boring, I wish all war games were about sitting in a trench for 3 months waiting for something to happen or storming a checkpoint and dying in 30 seconds so your country will commemorate your pointless sacrifice.
Being a rat with no control over anything is fun.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Yes, in a video game you get to respawn and try again as a new soldier. Welcome to playing a fricking video game, moron.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>Your puny mind wants a children's game when this is what a real battle looks like >Welcome to playing a fricking video game, moron
take your pills, take your pills
why does anyone want either option? The first is indistinguishable from a smaller map with a smaller player count except the maps are barren and badly directed because they are too big. If you want massive maps with large player counts you have to go all in on combined arms but battlefield never did so by default they just made shitty meat grinder games since BC2.
This is why I liked Rush the most. You don't have to deal with annoying homosexuals on ATVs going around the actual gameplay and backcapping all the points.
But by God the spawns and objective placement in Rush can be HORRIBLE.
Stupid changes instead of keeping what worked before. Also making another ww2 game instead of literally any other conflict. Battlefield 1, despite all its flaws showed that other eras could work. A korean war or vietnam war game would have been awesome. Additionally they wasted time on a shitty battle royale abortion nobody asked for or played, as well as goofy character creator that they walked back immediately. Then they forget all the previous criticisms and remove classes(one of the core elements of battlefield) to add poorly thought out and designed hero’s nobody asked for. For some reason at dice they seem to think they have to do something radically different with their games each time now and only end up making them way worse. Look at their moronic battlefront games that have worse vehicles than the og games, and the first game attempting some moronic card system instead of classes, genuinely mind boggling.
didn't most of the DICE veterans leave after Battlefield 1?
Someone please fill me in.
What happened to DICE is exactly what happened to Blizzard. All the veterans left and the game development was taken over by 100s of worthless employees who can't make basic features for a game.
it still blows my mind that both diablo 3 and diablo 4 lacked several quality of life features present not only in every single other arpg on the market for the last 20 years, but some that were also in their own diablo 2 which pioneered those features in the first place.
>didn't most of the DICE veterans leave after Battlefield 1?
Yes, the final mass exodus was during BFV development. It's why the roadmap of BFV was never completed and was the start of development for 2042. I don't think there is anyone leftover at DICE that is an OG.
The Ganker musical song about it was deleted, does anyone have it? It was like the AlbinoBlackSheep scientology video.
Also...
I did play BFV not spending a single dime on it, somehow I get all EA games on my account either through GPU promos, extra keys or giveaways and let me tell you, the historical inaccuracy and strong womyn fantasy was not the worst part of it.
The mission with the titular character seemed to be created out of spite because you cannot create something so foul on accident.
It was stealth mission where the NPCs automatically detect you if you go outside a determined path and afterwards it becomes an escort mission, the escort walks faster than you but runs slower than you and can get stuck in multiple places and of course it is game over if she gets shot. I think there was a QTE like section in the beginning too, something with skis. It was a shit show.
The MP was the same old, snipers are op and your view is obscured by too much clutter. Everything from BF3 onwards hurts my eyes after a while. I could not stand the Nu-Battlefront games, too much fricking glare and whatever it is the name of the effect when you are in doors but the outside looks like the sun is exploding, this stupid amount of contrast between areas, incredibly irritating.
the whole point of BF is to be that nameless/faceless soldier thrown into some big shit without being center of attention. And these israelites decided to make it into a hero shooter.
American capitalism >We have this popular product where we just need to change the coat of paint every few years. Even though it's not #1 in the marketplace, it still brings in plenty of profit. Let's keep milking it >OR we could shamelessly and half-assedly graft on elements from the products that ARE #1. Then we'd make even more money! There's no way it could fail and anyone who suggests it's even a possibility is fired!
>Two creative guys
Is this really a bad thing? Like Battlefield really doesn't need anything creative. Its grunt team one verse grunt team two it doesn't need this stupid epic immersive story they keep trying to shill. Honestly they keep trying to reinvent the wheel.
I just know that despite taking nearly 3 years to get 2042 to just a tolerable state from its abysmal launch, the next BF will again be another 5 steps backwards that takes just as long to undo all the stupid shit they make.
Canaries in the coal mine
High level talents constantly leaving like it's a revolving door is never a good sign, even if it's for a useless position. Gives you an indication as to their talent retention
Individual contributors leaving quickly indicates shit working conditions or impossible to climb the ladder without nepotism.
Mid and high level leadership types bailing means systemic failure inbound
Battlefield is the series that died because its aimlet fanbase got BTFO by a necessary TTK increase which is a requirement to have in games with open maps and vehicles be fun.
Now everyone is playing Apex.
>What went so wrong with the battlefield franchise?
What happened with every other large studio. They drank the kool aid and suicided on the altar of <insert ideology>.
I hate that nothing has filled the battlefield niche.
The only shooters now are either arcady or milsim shit. Battlefield was such a good middle ground where it's still accessible and fun and not a walking simulator until you get instakilled from some guy in a bush from a mile away.
It’s mad really. There’s such a gaping void in the FPS genre. COD is too ADHD and mil-sim stuff is full of mentally Ill freaks who wish they were in the army, with gameplay consisting of sitting around looking at the horizon and breaking your legs when you when you fall off a 2ft ledge.
Literally every thing they do is follow trends. Other AAA games do that as well, but DICE/EA are a bit slower than others. Rumors are they plan on making a BR Battlefield. AGAIN. The fps genre has already moved past that to the extraction trend.
There's a lot of ways to split the pie and split the audience on BF but to be reductive and sum it up, it's downstream from CoD which became "yesterdays game" years ago and now its only shreds of relevance are tied to an uninformed massive audience who grew up on COD4 and Blops and MW2 and will just buy the same name forever (until they completely age out of console gaming) and Battlefield always pushes ahead super aggressively no matter what. They offer so many separate games that are basically within the same space, so it's like they're constantly cannibalizing themselves between BF1, BFV, and 2042 at the current moment. I thought 2042 was stupid but I like V a lot which I heard was not well-received. Seemed like fun to me. They would do well to just consolidate on a long-running game and try to funnel all the players there until they're ready to do something in the series that is actually different enough to be a new game or a side-game. It's amazing how long these shit series can go on for when they get this big, they're like Frankenstein. It's amazing that a brand can be so popular that it can take years and years and years of poo poo to have any real measurable effect on the majority of the consumers. But it's just like Ass Creed--nobody who "plays games" has given a frick about that series since III disappointed everyone, but here we are 12 years later
>What went so wrong with the battlefield franchise?
BF5 is where it all went downhill.
They then learned nothing and went off the cliff with 2042, and now nobody gives a shit about that franchise anymore.
it starts with BFV, wokeshit aside it is a pretty good game but you can tell that its beginning of the end for DICE.
BF2042 is what happens when you started to chase trends and it backfires.
nah you could see the decline clearly start in BF1, the cancer had totally metastasized by BFV but it started earlier. BF1 just had enough cool shit to make people overlook it.
They lost their way. They gave up the pure BF titles for their cod-like BC stuff while calling them BF games but then kept watering them down till there was little BF left in them beyond having vehicles.
Are they ever gonna update 3 so that it isn't a $80 hunk of shit that you can't get all of the DLC unlockables and 1911, and requiring a browser to find servers?
Battlefield 3 was the first sign things were wrong with the paid unlocks, but 4 went full CoD pandering with terrible maps, projectile trajectories all being the same, faster TTK, recoil that's all visual, and moronic campaign that makes no sense.
BF4 is the franchise peak imo. It's hard to go back to though because 2042 does do somethings better.
It's impressive what a mess 2042 is. Some parts of the game are great. The gunplay feels really nice in a vacuum, but the balancing is fricked. SMG can snipe you but a assault rifle doesn't land a single shot at the same distance. Keyboard and Mouse input also has bad hit registration.
The earlier maps were clearly designed for Hazard Zone and not a Battlefield game. The newest maps (Flashpoint, Redacted and Renewal) are all good and are BF4 style maps.
BF3/4/2042/2142 lore is actually pretty interesting but DICE have implemented it in the shitest way possible. So, nobody gives a frick.
I don't think the cast would allow for wokeshit but I do agree it is too late.
BC3 would feel like a Battlefield game rather than Bad Company. They would forget that they once marketed the series with gunpowder scratch and sniff.
All they have to do is make Battlefield 4 again, without the bullshit. I didn't like people being able to teleport in and out of vehicles. Needed better gun customization, as in we can add accessories and shit that's on the civilian market.
they had their finger on the pulse for a good minute and then just completely lost it. Battlefield 4 was their last game i really put time into. all i think most people want is Bad Company 3 because that was the game where their destruction and sandbox peaked. they got sidetracked with that Operator/Hero shooter shit trying to mutate in a risky and ultimately ill-fitting direction.
>giving assault rifle to medic is a mistake
It's not. It's a good way to encourage people to use the Medic class to increase the chances of getting heals + revives (Yes yes, I know that this hasn't been the case in the recent BFs but you have to consider that there are factors that made Medics play like total dicks).
Just give the people what they want. Why can these morons not get the talent required to produce another 2142 Titan game with battle cruisers and mechs and vtol jank?
yeah those fricks have bigger problems to worry about than keeping their long dead company afloat. Completely subverted by israelites like the US and used as a giant testing ground for importing millions of third worlders.
DICE creating a "return to ww2" shooter but it being an ideologically driven game made for/by trannies was the moment I think most people on the planet just decided to forget that Battlefield existed.
This basically.
Then they had some chance with 2042 and they made it a fricking hero shooter.
>wuz killing your franchise in the long term wurf the fast cash ESG bucks, homie?
What's funny is that BFV didn't cause nearly as much asshurt in Ganker as BF1.
BF1 got several daily seethe threads about it until launch because of the Black folk in them, meanwhile BFV just came and went.
>like franchise >make shit sequel >stop caring about franchise at all
it happened with bf , with everything from crapcum and almost any franchise thats 10+ years old
Yes cause BF1 was the first of the israelite-fied games with alternate reality shit being pushed as reality. People just stopped giving a shit after that and BFV went out like a wet fart cause people knew it was going to be pozzed like BF1.
I'm surprised this franchise still exists at this point, honestly none of the games after BF4 seemed worth playing to me and I don't think 3 & 4 were super great either.
Corporate greed. Their company was bought out and a bunch of sleazeballs in suits came in and started making all the decisions. Almost all of the video game companies that were once great and are now in the toilet bowl and getting flushed into the gutter have this same story.
They couldn't understand what made BC 2 good then misunderstood the positive reception for B3 and put that as their target when it was a downgraded version of BC 2 that only appealed to newcomers who didn't know any better. It then degenerated from here since B3 was lacking most of what made BC 2 fun and the few good parts were from remnants of the BC 2 staff. Now they have neither the talent nor the right guiding star to ever make another good game.
BF3 and BFBC2 were both great in different ways, there is no need for historical revision. BFBC2, BF3, and BF4 was the golden era of Battlefield games and I am tired of pretending they weren't.
Its not revisionism in any way, I hated BF 3 on launch day and you loved it, nothing changed. Every subsequent game has just been a re-iteration of this formula that was shit to begin with yet everyone seems confused why they hate BF now and what the secret sauce was. DICE at that time were one of the best developers in the world, even with the shitty BF 3 direction they managed to make a game that was better than COD, once they lost that staff all they had left was a shit blueprint.
For me it was BF1 that wasn't very good and I would argue that modern BF games have too much of BF1's identity. BF1's success is the one that confused DICE. But we have different perspectives on this, obviously.
The point is it was made for you, every game since BF 3 was made for you and they were all shit because BF 3 is shit. High player count, sterile and aimless maps with pointless classes and shitty, casual vehicle combat was the aim and they hit it square on every time.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Nah BF1 sucked, BFV sucked even more, and BF2042 is just so bad I can't even begin to describe it in a sufficiently succinct way. BF3 and BF4 are.... way, way, way above these games. Don't even try to rope them into the same category.
3 months ago
Anonymous
the way you feel about BF1 is how I feel about BF3, the only difference is I got in before you and saw the decline. You will get into arguments with people who got into BF with BF 1 and you will understand my position.
3 months ago
Anonymous
all battlefield games until 3 are essentially the same game. 4 was a half broken 3 dlc
3 months ago
Anonymous
I've been playing BF since BF2. BF3 is the peak of the series. BFBC2 is the second peak. Sorry. The decline of the series did not begin with BF3, BF3 was amazing and Ganker's historical revisionism can go hang itself in the closet.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Bullshit. I hated BF3 before I even knew Ganker was a thing you are coping. I played it for 100 hours out of desperation but even as a moronic teen I knew the game was garbage compared to BF2 and BC2. I had never been more disappointed in a game in my life.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Bad company and BF3 are the exact same games
3 months ago
Anonymous
The gunplay, map design and destruction were all made worse across the board. You're correct it basically is Bad Company except they made it terrible.
If you were autistically into the destruction stuff then yes, BF3 was a huge disappointment for you. Outside of that, almost everything was a HUGE improvement.
>HUGE improvment
There is not a single thing going from BC2 to BF3 that was not made worse. Even shit like the net-code was made worse. Also need I mention >forced to interact with the Origin website to simply access the game
FRICK off.
3 months ago
Anonymous
this is false, every game has made the destruction better, are you pretending to be a battlefield fan?
3 months ago
Anonymous
If you were autistically into the destruction stuff then yes, BF3 was a huge disappointment for you. Outside of that, almost everything was a HUGE improvement.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Nope. The common consensus among people who actually played BC 2 is it was a step down in every single way. The issue is BC 2 sold much fewer units than BF3 so people with that perspective are in the minority.
3 months ago
Anonymous
literally the same games
3 months ago
Anonymous
Is true of every battlefield since 3. The move away from rush, purposeful map design, lower player counts, distinct classes and destruction is more substantial than any difference between subsequent games that you claim are total abominations. When I hear modern battlefield fans argue its all tiny minutiae
3 months ago
Anonymous
>Nah dude everyone hated BF3, TRUST ME.
Just kek, dude.
The gunplay, map design and destruction were all made worse across the board. You're correct it basically is Bad Company except they made it terrible.
[...] >HUGE improvment
There is not a single thing going from BC2 to BF3 that was not made worse. Even shit like the net-code was made worse. Also need I mention >forced to interact with the Origin website to simply access the game
FRICK off.
Yeah outside of the destruction, BF3 is a way more advanced game than BFBC2.
3 months ago
Anonymous
I hated it, played it for 20-30 hours and moved on, I didn't talk or think about BF ever again but 15 million morons like you kept jerking off to it. I was the one sperging to my friends about how BF was a million times better than COD and that they should join me and when they finally did I fricked off.
The narrative that BC 2 is the best game in the series is not new, the fact that the developers were asked so often to return to it they had to admit they didn't know how is not revisionist history, you just have shit taste.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Ok. They were different games entirely, so yeah, some people are not going to like the changes. I played BFBC2 before BF3 and I loved both. I lamented the fact that I couldn't level the entire maps anymore, I loved how in BC2 the maps were just big piles of rubble by the end, but everything else in BF3 was so much more advanced that it made up for itself and I focused on what was good about it and kept playing it. I think most people were like me, and the general sentiment of BF3 seemed to be that it was fricking awesome, but there were a few BFBC2 enthusiasts that were grumpy that their little playground of destruction didn't play quite the same anymore.
3 months ago
Anonymous
you could never "level entire maps"
3 months ago
Anonymous
Yes, you could, you fricking trash. I argued with you as if you weren't a moron, but now I see that you are nothing but worthless sack of trash. Did you even play BFBC2 at all or are you trollposting like some trash that deserves a bullet in the head.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Post proof homosexual
3 months ago
Anonymous
Prove what homosexual? That I've played the game? Keep in mind I also played it just as much on Xbox so it's double that time.
The way you talk is like someone who has never played BC 2 or played it for 3 hours then gave up. reducing the map to rubble is what someone watching YouTube videos about it would call out as the most fun aspect.
You can definitely reduce the map to rubble. This is such a stupid "haha you never really played it, we win" move. There were objects you couldn't destroy but most buildings could come down. Maybe you are the ones that never really played BFBC2 and just shitpost on Ganker all day.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Imagine coming into popular threads and pretending to be fans of games for attention
imagine how pathetic you are irl
3 months ago
Anonymous
You are the one claiming that I started with BF3 and that I must have only played BFBC2 for 2-3 hours and gave up on it. Eat shit and die, worthless trash. You deserve a bullet in hour head.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Dude shut up, nobody believes you
3 months ago
Anonymous
highlighted it this time. And yeah, played it on Xbox 360 just as much cuz I had friends on there too. >NOOOO.... NOOOOOOOOOOOO.... YOU JUST.... YOU JUST DIDN'T PLAY IT OK? FRICKING BF3 BABIES MAN, RUININ MUH BF SERIES
hahahaha
3 months ago
Anonymous
bad company 2 has worse destruction than BG3
3 months ago
Anonymous
BF3*
3 months ago
Anonymous
You meant to say BF3 I guess, but no. Map destruction is the one thing BFBC2 has over BF3.
3 months ago
Anonymous
You just keep repeating yourself like a child, I know you're wrong, you know you're wrong. What the hell is wrong with you lol
Map destruction was the main selling point of bad company, something they improved on in every battlefield since. You have something wrong with you
3 months ago
Anonymous
ok, then you're just dumb. congratulations, I dont really expect critical thinking from someone who thinks metro meat grinder is peak FPS map design. It's nice you played BC2 and all you got out of it was blowing up buildings was fun.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Also here is proof I bought it and played it before BF3 ever came out or was announced. If you going to claim someone if a BF3 baby then just be prepared to be proven wrong.
yeah, the meat grinder maps in BF3 were fun as hell. A lot of people seem to agree with me too since the meat grinder servers in BF4 tend to be full. And to be clear I like both BF3 and BFBC2 kek. I think BF3 is a bit better overall, but BFBC2 has really good destruction. This is probably a way more sensible opinion than your worthless butthurt fanboyism over 1 game and hating the other one like it was lucifer's kid or something.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Its not really surprising that people with bad taste miss the point of why things are special or the fact that they like pretty much everything. This is the average fan of every series in terminal decline.
3 months ago
Anonymous
BF3/BF4 was the peak of the franchise though. It was not in decline during that era lmfao.
3 months ago
Anonymous
nobody cares about your shitty opinion over when the decline started, I'm only responding to you because you said some moronic shit about how BC2 and BF 3 are the same game sans destruction.
Is true of every battlefield since 3. The move away from rush, purposeful map design, lower player counts, distinct classes and destruction is more substantial than any difference between subsequent games that you claim are total abominations. When I hear modern battlefield fans argue its all tiny minutiae
the difference between BC 2 and BF 3 is bigger than any subsequent shift.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>I'm only responding to you because you said some moronic shit about how BC2 and BF 3 are the same game sans destruction.
I never said that. I said BFBC2 does destruction better but almost everything else is a huge improvement in BF3.
3 months ago
Anonymous
If this isn't you
Bad company and BF3 are the exact same games
literally the same games
Then this conversation is over since discussing your arbitrary preference is a waste of everyone's time.
3 months ago
Anonymous
3 months ago
Anonymous
>You can definitely reduce the map to rubble
I never said this, instead of behaving like a schizo who thinks they only have 1 person mass replying to them address your arguments to the guy who said it. What I said was that when the map got reduced to rubble it was shit, not the best part of the game.
3 months ago
Anonymous
This shithole board has no user IDs so deal with it, homosexual. Reply to whatever part of my post you want or cry like a little b***h like you're doing now.
3 months ago
Anonymous
get a life
3 months ago
Anonymous
kek, who's crying? you're the one lying about which games you play.
>NOOOO YOU WERE SUPPOSED TO REPLY TO MEEEEEE
lol crybabies. I can see why you were filtered by BF3. Little cuck babies can't handle losing daddy's attention.
3 months ago
Anonymous
kek, who's crying? you're the one lying about which games you play.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Most people didn't fricking play BC 2, there are 10+ million people who jumped on board with BF3 and they are who run the narrative. Ending a match in BC 2 with the entire map being a pile of rubble was the worst part of that game not the best, I dont trust your opinion on any part of it.
It only ever happened if the defending team managed to stall on one segment of the map for a long time. Unless you are talking about conquest which should have been shelved as a game mode because rush is better in every way.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Most people didn't fricking play BC 2, there are 10+ million people who jumped on board with BF3 and they are who run the narrative. Ending a match in BC 2 with the entire map being a pile of rubble was the worst part of that game not the best, I dont trust your opinion on any part of it.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>Ending a match in BC 2 with the entire map being a pile of rubble was the worst part of that game not the best
It is literally the only thing BC2 had over BF3. Kindly go frick yourself now.
3 months ago
Anonymous
The way you talk is like someone who has never played BC 2 or played it for 3 hours then gave up. reducing the map to rubble is what someone watching YouTube videos about it would call out as the most fun aspect.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>Ending a match in BC 2 with the entire map being a pile of rubble was the worst part of that game not the best
Low T
3 months ago
Anonymous
Sometimes it was fun when you used vehicles to create makeshift cover or suicide bomb the rush point or if you had some elaborate smoke screen game plan but otherwise playing in a totally destroyed aimless map felt like playing BF 3.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Everything was a huge improvement over the BC games but this was supposed to be a BF title. I guarantee you that anyone you find that couldn't stick with 3 wanted more battlefield, not more bad company.
3 months ago
Anonymous
I think what would have been great is if they used Bad Company as a spin off series (it literally already was that) and made BC3 and made it a true sequel to BC2, and then kept the mainline BF games going as well. So we'd get BF4 and then we'd get BFBC3 after that and so on.
3 months ago
Anonymous
It seemed like what they were going to keep doing but EA gonna EA.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>been playing BF since BF2
Same, and i agree. BF4 was the last BF game i ever bought. No regrets stopping there either.
3 months ago
Anonymous
I started with BF1 and honestly think it's pretty good. BF3 and 4 is just outdated at this point.
Nahhhhh. BC1 was great and annoyingly never gets mentioned. Maybe no one played it. I loved how Rush was Gold Rush and you didn’t need to use an explosive charge to destroy the crates. You could spam artillery, use a bunch of C4 or just get a tank and blast it until it broke.
BF3 felt like a cheap rip off of COD. I’m tired of people pretending it was anything more than a watered down version of precious games.
I played Bad Company 1 and I didn't really care about it. When I played Bad Comany 2 for the first time I instantly knew I was playing something special and spent like several hundred hours into it. Bad Company 1 just didn't hit that mark yet.
It's funny looking back at those COD vs BF flamewars that were all over Youtube a decade ago.
Imagine telling them that in the end, both COD and Battlefield would just commit suicide.
BF3 had deep issues with weapon balance that they never put any effort to solve. Plus, remember the TV missile spam. That shit killed the open maps making them unplayable.
BF4 had even worse weapon balance at release, but slowly got fixed. Unfortunately everything else was worse. >muh vertical gameplay
They completely failed to understand the appeal of their own games. All of this despite the fact that those games filled a niche that no other FPS could really offer. They gave that up to try and become a cheap Warzone knockoff. It’s fricking bizarre.
It feels like a game that nobody wanted to make. I’ll never get over playing the demo and trying to check my score and kills to see no scoreboard. I had to stop playing and look online, I didn’t think such incompetency was possible.
No they don't, tons of chicks played Overwatch, is just this is made by commie numales who think the very idea of competitiveness is hecking fascist capitalism.
commie numales are the only men left when you flood a male oriented profession with lazy women that want a paycheck
3 months ago
Anonymous
And that's enough to turn you into a numale?
3 months ago
Anonymous
All the self respecting men left and became software developers, this is common knowledge to the point that shit eating consulting companies say so
3 months ago
Anonymous
Anyone with an IQ above 90 became a software developer because videogame development nowadays is a shitty job that offers no security, pays like shit unless you are the head of the studio and makes you work for hours and hours on end.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Rather the job was destroyed by women, you're just a whipping boy code monkey for freebleeders making 20% less than a regular codemonkey without the existential gaslighting suicide fuel
3 months ago
Anonymous
Videogame development as a job became shit when you couldn't get away with having 20 guys making an entire Triple A game.
Now you either make shitty indies or become part of a 2000 people studio to make a derivative game.
And that happened in the late 2000s, which is why all the talent that made games like Battlefield or Mass Effect started bailing out of their studios, and all that's left is the idiots.
3 months ago
Anonymous
The gorillion people studio is bloat caused by dead weight women
3 months ago
Anonymous
if there's no women how will I get my daily breast milk from the fridge
3 months ago
Anonymous
>male orientated hobby >becomes successful >women get grandfathered in/hired as studio expands >start detrimentally affecting creative process >almost immediately all the competitive competent men are weeded out by the women, one by one >need 500 people just to make a 2010's tier game >industry collapses >nobody has learned anything, women left playing in the ashes and rubble
After Bf3 it started going downhill, hero shooters? frick that shit. then the wokeness of adding females. did 4 and above even have a story? I guess I don't remember 3 either tbf, but lotta cod players play cod for the story, so missing a piece of that would lead to lower sales.
BC2 was their best and last good product. I loved the idea of a comedy rag tag team in the military, the story was fun. and the multiplayer was great, the destruction system is what separated it from cod to me. Nothing was funner than arica harbor with a shotty or sniper and then having a tank destroy the camper zones. loved playing medic too
I'm playing battlefield v right now and it's okay, but so many issues are holding it back. There's rampant cheaters everywhere ranging from obvious snipers head shotting everyone across the map to discrete wallhackers who somehow always know where you are.
Half the maps are total ass being either too large without any clear funnels between objectives or too small turning into clusterfricks.
Then there's the server desync and lag where ttk is totally fricked at times so you die in 2 bullets.
Still better than BF2042 too. I tried that shit for 2 hours and was turned off by the super special black women operators and how every gun has a million levels to grind for overpowered attachments.
Hackers and playerbase got dilluted between different versions of this game. Oh and EA is involved which is a good reason to avoid those games like AIDS.
And then BFV was even worse and turned possibly the greatest raid in history by a crack team of Norwegians which stopped Hitler from acquiring nukes… into a mother and daughter girlboss story. It’s funny, it used to be the case that disrespecting WW2 vets like that would be seen as controversial rather than righteous.
>bf1 was completely inaccurate nonsense posing as real history hamfisted monkeys into everything
African soldiers were called up by any nation that had an African colony. Stop erasing history dumbass.
>play BFV >it's supposedly WW2 >entire British team is Black person women >turn off the game after 10 minutes >delete >never touch that rancid shit again
I am convinced more and more every day that the cold war was supposed to end with us nuking each other. Instead we are in an alternate timeline where we've been cursed with an endless descent into ruin.
Really? Every time I join its always people using the gas mask Germans, the Tom cruise experience white male pilot, or the white woman resistance fighter.
I played BFV in 2019 or 2020 or something. IDK what the state of the game is today. When I played, I was playing against the british and everyone on the other team was a black woman. I just couldn't bother with that crap for more than 10 minutes (basically after I stopped laughing about it) and I will never try that game again.
I think the black woman is the default model so everyone on launch used her. Nowadays only oldgays remain and I never see black skins anymore unless it's a newbie just starting for the first time. I actually wish I saw more black people since it would at least be more diverse (heh), but now everyone is using the same 3 skins and 2 costumes.
BFV
BF1 had some weird decision but overall it was a massive success and achieved a great reputation. Devs knew what they customer base liked and delievered just that. Almost everything went right from the very beginning. Amazing trailer made people excited for the game and at its launch was the one of the stablest in BF history.
Then you have whatever the frick BFV. It's like a whole game was designed by DEI department and their only goal was to achieve high ESG score.
Battlefield went to shit with BF3 and its been downhill ever since. They had something unique with Bad Company and gave it up to make something homogenized and gay. Trying to please everyone. In the end BF purists that only want big maps and conquest still went back to good ol BF2 and BCbros hated the gimped gunplay and destruction. Conquest suffered because maps had to be made to also be played on Rush and Rush suffered because of the change to far larger and less focused maps. Classic example of trying to please everyone but end up pleaseing nobody. Dice deserves their fate.
the game right after bf4 turned the players into naruto sprinting crouch sliding fortnite characters
you had 0 feeling for the ground, im 100% sure the characters were floating
it became super arcadey overnight
The exact same thing that's gone wrong with franchises all across the market these days: all the experienced devs quit or get kicked out and the moneymen replace them with fresh new college grads. It's entirely about paying them less salaries but has the side benefit of them lacking experience and willpower enough to push back against stupid ideas so that the producers can just push whatever flavor of the month they think is brilliant.
No ESG, no globalhomo, no woke. It's entirely short-sighted decisions chasing profit. Gaming, like many other industries, has been bought out by wall street and the built-up trust of decades squandered for little to no gain.
DICE has infamously shit upper management and creative leads that can’t handle criticism. All in all it’s a pretty dogshit company that really only exists because Battlefield is selling copies.
They never tried to replicate it because BC 2 sold like 6 mil units while BF 3 sold 17 million. They were always aiming to replicate BF 3 without realising the only reason it was positively received was residual BC 2 DNA.
It's so fricking funny they didn't want to have scoreboard. It's just so absurd and makes me think of those women posting their "day at the office" on tiktok
>It's so fricking funny they didn't want to have scoreboard
Well they added it back and yet people still b***h about it.
Besides, there are more and older egregious examples of DICE forgetting or taking long to fix/add stuff back into their games.
>not really
You're new to the series and it shows.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Not an argument. Females have been infiltrating the industry for over a decade. The first hit were the major studios where lazy women wanted 9 to 5 cubicle jobs and has now evolved into basically industry wealth extraction
3 months ago
Anonymous
>Not an argument
It is an argument, you keep saying that because you and the rest of the newcomers to the franchise are shocked to see DICE making strange decisions with 2042 such as the lack of scoreboard when in reality they've been doing this shit for decades, they've been constantly fricking up their games in one way or other, you would have known this if you played the earlier BFs but you obviously didn't anyway.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Not OP but the Scoreboard was literately down to the previous UX lead quitting and the new UX person being a junior promoted to lead that fricked it up (also a woman).
3 months ago
Anonymous
I'm not arguing whether if the UX designer was a woman or not, my point is that DICE has always made questionable decision regarding legacy features or taking too long to addres exploits.
3 months ago
Anonymous
You're wrong, most bad decisions/failures in major AAA games are women, and they are the main reason
3 months ago
Anonymous
I'll reiterate: my point is that DICE has always made questionable decisions regarding legacy features or taking too long to address exploits. You guys refuse to believe the shitty reality of DICE's past history since you're new to the series.
https://web.archive.org/web/20121105041721/http://www.mordorhq.com/showthread.php?3880-The-True-Story-of-Battlefield-3-the-Battlefield-Franchise-Its-Community-amp-EA-DICE
3 months ago
Anonymous
>dice always bad
yes it's just a coincidence that they took down the scoreboard when their company was taken over by women, it's also a coincidence that their games got progressively less and less finished as they hired more women
3 months ago
Anonymous
>dice always bad
Exactly. >yes it's just a coincidence that they took down the scoreboard when their company was taken over by women
It's not a coincidence when you consider their past history as evidenced in the above and other examples ITT. >it's also a coincidence that their games got progressively less and less finished as they hired more women
It's the same as it's ever been, this is part of DICE's cycle when it comes to development; they start from the ground up and forget or ignore "legacy features" that were present in previous titles, they only cave in if the redditors are vocal enough.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>NO IT'S NOT THE FACT THAT THEY FILLED THEIR COMPANY WITH WOMEN
have you been living under a rock
3 months ago
Anonymous
>have you been living under a rock
I think you're the one who's been living under a rock seeing how you're crying over DICE practicing their usual dev shticks despite all the given evidence.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Do you actually have anything to say?
3 months ago
Anonymous
Do you? I have said enough but it seems you don't have any, not surprising coming from a newcomer to the franchise.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Oh so you're just a shitposting loser
3 months ago
Anonymous
>shitposting loser
I'd say that you've perfectly described yourself considering that you've failed to refute my argument, NuBF gays like you are so naive.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Do you actually have anything to say?
3 months ago
Anonymous
See
Do you? I have said enough but it seems you don't have any, not surprising coming from a newcomer to the franchise.
>the formula got stale as frick.
I would argue that it has more to do with the quality getting worse. Just as an example, BF4 has like... 120 guns or something. I'm guessing, but it's a lot. How many guns does BF2042 have? Like 25? Not only that there are less attachments for the guns too. In BF4 every weapon had like 30+ different cuztomization options and BF2042 has like 15 or so. A lot of gadgets are locked behind specific characters you have to use (not classes, fricking characters) which is some stupid zoomer crap that seeped into Battlefield where it never belonged. Even if you WANT to like BF2042, it is a game with much less content than its predecessors and unnecessary anti-fun restrictions.
Would BF4 have the longevity it seemingly has had if the game only had like 25 guns and some basic attachments?
Pretty much everything that possibly could
Released very buggy unfinished games
Became antagonistic towards their core demographic
Confusing releases that nobody wanted and totally missed the point of the whole franchise
Just the typical things that happen when you hire a ton of leftist employees
Reminder that it took DICE AGES to fix the USAS-12 frags bug and the M26 dart to the point where most admins had to ban both because DICE didn't do jackshit, yet there's still some newbies who pretend that the lack of scoreboard 2042 is a surprise or as it's the worst thing that happened to humanity.
>A brokenly overpowered gun is a normal problem to have
It's not a normal problem when it took DICE almost a year to fix it.
Also, is it normal for DICE to take too long to remove negative mouse acceleration in BF3? Is it normal to remove VOIP for PC players? Is it normal to play and change your loadout or join servers via a website instead of in-game?
Yeah the things you describing are normal problems. The reason BF2042 didn't have a scoreboard is because scoreboards promote "toxic masculinity" and "competitiveness is part of what makes males so problematic" and etc. A gun that is broken and is performing too well is a normal classic problem.
>A gun that is broken and is performing too well is a normal classic problem
I mentioned multiple examples outside of the guns, I wouldn't consider to be normal especially when the devs neglect their own game for too long. But if you consider the rest of these issues to be "normal" then don't be surprised when DICE decides to remove the scoreboard or DICE doing something that you wouldn't even think of.
By the way, is it normal for DICE to struggle with making the final patches for BC2 because they couldn't someone who could cook the files?
3 months ago
Anonymous
Bro. One is like, a normal problem because the devs are incompetent. Another is a failure because the israelites have twisted morality into up being down and right being wrong. The very nature of the problems are different. Do you understand?
3 months ago
Anonymous
He's a shit stirring moron. The incompetence past a certain point (not finishing games) is caused by women, the scoreboard being removed is obviously something a woman would do. This is why so many homosexuals complain about crunch, because half the dev team is dead weight moronic women that want a stable 9 to 5 job and nothing else. Literal interns turned lead writers and VPs just because they stuck with it long enough that they seniority everybody else out
>What went so wrong with the battlefield franchise?
So much. >no Bad Company 3 >playing catch-up to CoD >killing Visceral after giving them only one shot at a BF game Hardline is better than BF1 >two anachronistic World War games in a row >ending BFV support just as it was starting to get good >pouring resources into that BFV battle royale mode no one played >everything about 2042
but the most recent- and imo one of the biggest- is cutting support for Portal mode. BF Portal had the chance to become a greast Battlefield "best-of" and they just dumped it on a whim to focus on a next Battlefield game that will probably suck too.
Ending support for BFx after it just started getting good and DICE
Name a more iconic duo
IDK what it is like today, but if you wanted to setup a Battlefield portal match you had to go online and go to some website to configure it.... why can you not do it in the game itself? It's so clear they didn't give a shit or just gave up. BF Portal had potential and it was all squandered.
this plus the complete whiplash that came after when it was revealed classes were kill and replaced by diversified named characters
like seriously whoever made that trailer had no communication with the actual game team, even by cinematic trailer standards it was total false advertising.
Rush mode should have been kept out of BF3/4 because the philosophy behind their map design- extremely small linear maps like Metro, Locker, and (I bet you forgot!) pic related works in Bad Company but not in 3/4, ESPECIALLY not when they get made available in Conquest mode. Why, you ask? >conquest mode on tiny maps nets everyone tons and tons of easy kills >lots of easy fast rank/weapon XP >EA/DICE counter this by making all rank/weapon XP take much longer >suddenly every other map becomes a way slower grind >people go back to smaller maps because it's the way they think they're "supposed" to play to rank up and get equipment >all the most populated servers are the same 1/2 maps
Meanwhile you play Rush mode on any almost any "big" maps made for conquest mode and it feels like a clumsy afterthought... because it was. Face it, Rush mode should have stayed in Bad Company. The smaller maps and slower movement (and lack of prone) fit it much much more naturally.
They keep forcing the people who made the games good out of the company by not letting them do what they want. Dennis Branvall made BF2017 an unironically good game, wanted to make Battlefront 3, and they told him no because it’s cheaper to just make Battlefield since it’s not someone else’s license
They could have done that and it would have been fine/successful enough, but they botched it and vomitted out Battlefield Portal instead. Forget about any Battlefield remakes/remasters now kek.
>LAN with the guys being like 9 people >Current day games team limit 4 players, and menus are such non functioning clusterfricks so we cant join the same server
Love this consolized meme.
I wouldn't touch a future BF games with a 10 foot pole just for their regressive political antics, but knowing they can't design an actual PC shooter still pisses me off.
It's funny because this was a leftist push, yet if it WASN'T, the leftists would have cried instead that you're shooting women and women of color now, which would've given them a reason for outcry regardless.
You literally can't win or please them, especially when
1. They aren't the target audience
2. They don't play these games (or in general, most games that they try to corrupt)
3. Even if they play a game like this, they'd suck at it and would quit
>What went so wrong with the battlefield franchise?
The pandered to crying vehicle gays all the time so the games filled with tanks who go 100-3 and made unit explosives to take down tanks etc super weak.No one wants to play a game where you're just fodder for vehicle homosexuals.
to be fair tho... farming simulator is really fun. If you want to get really crazy get the mod that lets you check and add nutrients to the soil. makes the game so much better
The only theatres of WWII where women regularly saw combat were the Eastern Front (fighting for the Soviet Union and anti-Nazi resistance movements) and the Asia-Pacific War (fighting for Nationalist/Communist China and other anti-Japanese resistance movements).
Both of these theatres were characterized by exceptionally ferocious fighting and the belligerents frequently resorting to wholesale genocide of entire populations to achieve their goals, something that is conspicuously omitted from Battlefield V.
>operators and special abilities >extremely gay way to deal with criticism >even tho people tell em exactly what they want they still refuse to just give us that
I hope at some point they come back to reality and focus on 64v64 modern warfare combat with vehicles in big maps with no magic or operators instead classes and gadgets.
Bf3/bf4 with cool graphics from frostbite.
The worst part about all of this is they won't learn. Watch how the next BF comes with ANOTHER failed BR mode and more ugly woman and then they'll blame YOU for not understanding how great the game was when it fails.
>they'll blame YOU for not understanding how great the game was when it fails.
How film producers and video game developers managed to develop this "the customer is always wrong" mentality will never cease to amaze me.
Apart from the fact it's the literal opposite of what they teach you in advertising, it's simply a display of unbridled arrogance that's incredibly off-putting to virtually everyone who isn't a complete suckup to you.
I stopped playing after BF3 because it was just reskinned slop after that and they started catering to console/COD children instead of keeping the series to its PC roots. Anyone who started with BC2 or later doesn't know what a good Battlefield game was like.
>Enjoyed conquest a bit in BF2 but it gets stale and everyone is jerking themselves off in different corners of the map >2142 comes out people hate it but Titan mode is fun. spent most of my hours here >BC1 is console only whatever >BC2 is fricking great. Rush is fantastic at naturally creating frontlines and battles feel big. >everything since is back to boring conquest
Zzzzzz
People always point out the dumbest shit in these threads.
Yeah I'd rather play as a faceless grunt and not some gay specialist, but recent Battlefield games have had way bigger issues such as dogshit maps, awful gun balancing and the live service model
Purely random chance, there’s simply no way I could think of that the mind of someone who prioritizes the former could be bad at the latter. Everyone is equal in all things and there are no patterns to thoughts amongst groups.
people grew out of semi-realistic war FPS, especially when they were being pumped out like water from a faucet.
Oversaturated market combined with quality dropping and increasing filesizes
Personally I just didn't see them innovate enough, and I wasn't interested in "WOOOOAH better crap-hicks! LOOK at the destruction detail that most PC can't run without drop in fps!!"
problem with battlefield >execs want to chase cod and tries to emulate cod >execs wants to chase modern business strategies and tries to introduce f2p and battlepass at the same time charging the person for the game and hero mode and whatever the latest trend is >execs thinking its a service rather than a game >execs being moronic israelites >by expanding the game to console players meaning the loss of slower gameplay seen in 2142 and previous >the existence of streamers and their lack of attention span means dumbing down of the game >the loss of commander role >the merging of assault and medic roles >the merging of support and engineering roles >offshoring the development of assets to pajeets >the introduction of women in the workplace
the series is kinda shit, but i had fun with it between the og and about bf4. just cheap and fast entertainment. no thinking, hit hardcore, find server, die in various close quarters gun fights repeatedly for an hour. call it shitty slop, but remember, for every 1 hour of the game was running, 59 minutes of it was me actually playing the fricking game. can you say the same of modern bullshit
They quit doing what worked. CoD is going down the same path.
>can't sell the same thing forever
>can't change things as it won't work as well
How would you fix it?
Personally I would just retire these series for some time and do something different.
>How would you fix it?
Don't release a new game every single year, simple as that, people won't get burnt out if the new entry takes like 3 or 4 years to release and the improvements are more meaningful.
stop removing things and add things without removing shit
want to add moronic class mode? go ahead . dont remove anything from the previous game
want to add big head mode? do it . but dont remove snipers
games are supposed to improve . not go backwards
>>can't sell the same thing forever
Who the hell told you this lie? Where the frick did this lie start? Coke and Pepsi have been selling the same 100g of sugar for years.
The only thing people ask for is bigger and better. Battlefield killed it's selling point to attract CoD fans, instead of realizing the only reason it was in competition with CoD was because it was a different game. If people wanted CoD they'll just play CoD, not CoD with a Battlefield logo.
All they have to do is go back to being Battlefield. Just go back to making huge destructible maps. Literally just make BF3 but with more destruction and that's it. Tweak the gumplay some, make everything more responsive.
Yup 2002 64 player maps. 2024 where is the 256 player map??? If they just stuck with what worked and improved on it the series would still be hugely successful.
>only 256 when there were servers with 124 maps in 2004
I know there were but most maps weren't designed to be played for this number iirc? Anyways my point is newer games have smaller maps and less player capacity. Why?
well even current bf2042 maps look too big for only 500 players
Very witty and sharp you are.
Its funny how CoD got shit right - they kept the core but just gave people Battlefield like gamemode aka Ground War back in MW2019 that got really popular and even a lot of BF refugees bought that game just for that mode. I know a lot of people who still play BF4 and jump on MW2019's ground war.
This, I can't believe they were this fricking moronic. I remember playing 1942 with friends for hundreds of hours, it was just so much fun and bigger maps, lots of objectives, hours of fighting was great.
All they had to do was make it bigger and better, hone the look, the feel, gunplay, just polish the little things.
But no.
>I remember playing 1942 with friends for hundreds of hours, it was just so much fun and bigger maps, lots of objectives, hours of fighting was great.
This is what I really miss in modern games. The freedom to just move around on the map and pull a long flank if I wanted to.
I played nuBattlefront 2 and some of the maps are like fighting in a straw.
Battlefield 5 has that. The conquest maps are really big and you can flank objectives with your squad all day long. It's not my cup of tea though since I play as a loner unless I get lucky and spawn into a good squad that actually does objectives.
You don't fricking do one every year.
There were still easy improvements to be made that didn't require the massive deviations from the formula that they chose to force. For example, four classes is too few, bumping up to five or maybe six would dramatically improve balance.
Even simple iteration on environmental destruction, more gun customization, these are obvious things to do in a sequel that don't require reinventing the wheel.
They could, most consoomers don't even really like big changes and just want the graphics to improve and maybe a few QoL changes to each new game. Literally all you have to do to make a successful FPS franchise
if it were up to me and i wasn't a money grabbing psychopath, i'd stop releasing new games at a $69.99 per year price point. i think it'd be better for the players if they switched to a 2 year dev cycle for true sequels and just sold a $39.99 DLC on the first anniversary of whatever the current game's launch is that adds a new game's worth of new Weapons and Maps to the sandbox.
so you'd get Modern Warfare in 2024, and in 2025 you'd get the Modern Warfare Expansion. then in 2026 you'd get Modern Warfare 2, which would lead to the MW2 Expansion in 2027, and so on and so forth. committing to any one title for more than 2 years would start to introduce conversations like, "what do we do about ranking up cause everyone's gonna be 15th Prestige by the end of year 1 and won't have anywhere else to go" so you've gotta start considering hard Rank resets to true LV1.
They should've went all in on destruction, probably not the levelution route
The introduction of it in BC1 was insanely cool but it ended up getting scaled back in BF3 and that was such a travesty
>it ended up getting scaled back in BF3 and that was such a travesty
Why would that be a travesty? BF3's return to the 'traditional' formula meant that they had to scale back destruction in order to increase the chances of players taking cover. A map such as Kharg Island or Operation Firestorm would've been much worse if players could level every building in both of these maps.
You know they could've designed maps and environments with BC2 level destruction in mind
It makes the maps harder to design, but showing us how cool Frostbite can be and then throwing that part of the engine out the windows is just sad
Even having some buildings be indestructible to help keep a semblance of the base map design would be fine
>You know they could've designed maps and environments with BC2 level destruction in mind
I know, but they refused to do so because it was a game design decision for the reason I mentioned before.
>it ended up getting scaled back in BF3 and that was such a travesty
Pretty sure that happened because of the PS3 and Xbox 360 versions, which were already limited to 24 players.
Literal moron. You can and should stick to what you have and only change when it doesn't work at all. BF was doing great in its own direction and was constantly growing. But like degenerate Ganker gamblers, they said frick this steady growth, sign me up for the 100x player base moonshot by emulating COD! And they have never recovered since, only nostalgia grifters like post BF4 games and 4 is already treading a thin line. As per usual EA fashion, they had an easy bag and fumbled it.
>can't sell the same thing forever
COD? FIFA? The best way to rake in cash in the vidya industry is to find a winning formula and then do it forever.
>Cant sell the same thing forever
>What is McDonald's and NFL/NBA/any sport
Things that “sell forever” are called commodities.
You can sell the same thing forever. Look at Forknife. They made a single game and kept developing it. It LOOKED like they were getting the idea with Warzone but then went and made Warzone 2. Granted, it made sense with how atrociously bloated the first was in raw file size but Warzone 2 is on track to have the same fricking problem
I just wish Activision had stuck with Blackout. There both cod BRs but Blackout was my jam and I never liked Warzone at all.
do one every two years
change the setting every two years, every 10 years start the cycle over
slowly incorporate tech advances
>only two years
No, frick that. Three or even four years sounds like a good life cycle.
>can't sell the same thing forever
What is Pokémon, FIFA, NHL, Counter-Strike, League of Legends etc you get the point
>What is Pokémon, FIFA, NHL, Counter-Strike, League of Legends etc you get the point
the people who buy and play that shit every year or two are cattle. If anything BF's decline in sales and players says good things about its community- it's more discerning, and doesn't put up with getting ripped off (as much)
>can't sell the same thing forever
You absolutely can. It’s all the new shit like battlepasses and Niki minaj that made tons of players quit. What I wouldn’t give for a better looking MW2 so I could run around dual wielding 1887s and ruining lobbies.
this problem is caused by LINE MUST GO UP, it was always going to happen
>this problem is caused by LINE MUST GO UP
it's caused by women
CHUD
Think about it for half a second. Who scared off all the competent people in an underpaying industry which is a labor of love? It's not even nefarious, the US government said so in the 50's, women and homosexuals work to undermine business just by existing.
i dont care if you sell the same thing forever, as long as you wait at least 3 years in between game. yearly releases killed many a franchises because it makes the formula stale
its like rewatching christmas movies every december. theyre still charming because you only watch them during one month. if you watched them every month, youd fricking hate them
>Personally I would just retire these series
that's exactly what you should do. end a series 2 or 3 deep instead of milking it for every last cent with 16 iterations of the same game
COD is still doing fun generic multiplayer 6v6 deathmatch well. Every new entry has its own host of issues but at the end of the day you're still playing some good ass mindless pvp shooting like cod always has been which is more than battlefield can say.
BF 4 was unnecessary and people felt it was just a cheap cash grab - which it was.
It could've been a content patch for BF3, but once again short term profits were valued over the long term brand value.
BF2042 was a completely unnecessary exploration of replacing classes with hero personalities.
Heros only work if you only have one of each on your team.
One Jack the Sniper, one Ivan the Support, one Fukushida the Medic or whatever... just like in Overwatch, League of other hero based MP games.
Having 2 Jack the Snipers and five Ivans the Supports does not work because it breaks the immersion, a fricking 8th grader couldve told you that. Too bad EA devs are too overpaid and too moronic at the same time, so they didn't think doing research before would be necessary.
Also, all characters are fricking ugly. If they had realized that the whole "sexy woman bad" whining is an artificial debate on twitter only and nobody IRL gives a FRICK about characters being hot and good looking, they couldve at least partially saved the last BF titles.
I want to play as a hot girl with a pretty face, not some ugly 56yr old half granny thats built like a fricking brick layer and has the face to match.
God, BF2042 was such a preventable disasters I could write an entire fricking book about it.
At the time bf4 was viewed that way but its also beloved to this day. bf1 started the downward spiral with certain gunplay and vehicle mechanics but it also had a lot of passion poured into it and was one of the last games to use artistic direction to complement graphics technology instead of just brute forcing your GPU to oblivion for mediocre graphics. Ganker lost its mind over the black people but thats a different conversation entirely
>I want to play as a hot girl with a pretty face, not some ugly 56yr old half granny thats built like a fricking brick layer and has the face to match.
how about you don't play as a woman in this WAR game
>Too bad EA devs are too overpaid and too moronic at the same time, so they didn't think doing research before would be necessary.
Ironically this used to be fixed in other games by limiting the classes. Think RO2 or RS2. Not everyone could play sniper every match. And that was a good thing.
I've been playing bf3 and bf4 back to back lately, and I don't think that could have been a patch. it really is a completely different game.
yup they completely fricked the gunplay from bf3 to bf4. it was the beginning of the end. you could clearly notice they had lost almost all of their talented devs at that point and they made such moronic design decisions.
BF3 was already fricking some stuff up. BFBC2 had a better destruction system and netcode, as I never noticed the magnet bullets issue in BC2 but in BF3 it was everywhere especially early on.
I'll always be a little mad over BC2 rebooting the plot of the first and turning Bad Company into generic meatheads rather than goofy idiots though.
>netcode, as I never noticed the magnet bullets issue in BC2
Because BC2 was the last BF game that utilized server side only even with the terrible netcode, in every BF since 3 they use a server side-client side hybrid.
The only reason Overwatch stopped allowing multiple of the same character on a team was people spamming McCree's stun on the same guy to guarantee kills.
>BF 4 was unnecessary and people felt it was just a cheap cash grab - which it was.
It could've been a content patch for BF3, but once again short term profits were valued over the long term brand value.
No it wasn't? BF4 was a completely different game.
>BF2042 was a completely unnecessary exploration of replacing classes with hero personalities.
>Heros only work if you only have one of each on your team.
>One Jack the Sniper, one Ivan the Support, one Fukushida the Medic or whatever... just like in Overwatch, League of other hero based MP games.
No, heroes don't work because it's not fricking battlefield. Battlefield is literally all about 2 massive teams of faceless soldiers fighting each other. The hero shit goes against all of that and just turns everyone into a shitty 'le speshul' operator with a gay name and a gayer personality.
>I want to play as a hot girl with a pretty face, not some ugly 56yr old half granny thats built like a fricking brick layer and has the face to match.
Again, one of the main themes of battlefield is faceless soldiers, homies wanna be a faceless frick fighting other faceless fricks because that's what war is. It's also why COD fricking suck nowaday because you have fricking nicki minaj running around with a pink rainbow glitter gun taking big fat white wiener in a shooter.
>No, heroes don't work because it's not fricking battlefield
they're chasing the COD audience since COD started the whole Operator shtick since MW2019, which is ironic because not being COD was BF greatest strength.
>MW2019
You wish 2042 was an MW2019 ripoff.
Black Ops III and IIII(sic) were the CoD games that had hero characters with unique abilities to define them and otherwise pulled all of their gear from a generic pool available to all. They're even called "Specialists."
>Heros only work if you only have one of each on your team.
No, heros only work in cartoon settings like team fortress.
Rainbow six siege is an anomaly but it is pretty cartoony compared to even call of duty.
Rainbow Six Siege's hero system worked because of its settings. The Rainbow 6 team is a highly specialized group and they're not letting just about anyone in, it makes sense to have the team members to be personalised. It wasn't until much later that R6S operator went from actual policemen to le quirky special snowflake character.
I'll give R6S a pass because it's apart of their whole shtick.
Rainbow Six was an elite counter-terrorist group.
Unfortunately it went to shit when Dokkabei was added and it opened the way for every chick to be some kind of mary sue.
BF4 was a cheap cash grab at launch, but once they fixed the issues and had variable tick rate dedicated servers it actually turned into something really great. I can't even play BF3 anymore because I can feel the delay in even very basic movement, like vaulting. Hardline on the other hand was absolutely a low effort cash grab, I liked some of the ideas but it could have easily been a BF4 expansion.
Of course, the real issue with the Battlefield series since Bad Company 2 is EA's refusal to allow any kind of modding on Frostbite. Battlefield 1942, Vietnam, 2, and 2142 all had good sized mod communities, and the fact that Project Reality is STILL kicking should convince them to develop mod tools for the engine. It's probably too late now, the series has gone too far downhill, and I bet whatever is next is some kind of hyperpozzed Bad Company reboot with a "diverse" (only in skin color and sexuality) cast. They killed the games with that kind of shit, and they killed the community by stripping away any kind of community interaction in order to sell horseshit DLC.
Battlefield peaked with 4 you moron
>Battlefield peaked with 4
Nope
Nobody thought BF4 was a cash grab at the time you fricking contrarian weirdo
have a nice day. I'm not reading the rest of your shitty post.
Fricking morons on this site, what the frick
BF4 wasn't a cashgrab, Hardline was, but it was also the most fun I've ever had in Battlefield by a fricking mile.
Hardline was so fun... and people hated it for no fricking reason.
Because it was just an expansion for 4 sold as a full price game?
>Because it was just an expansion for 4
It really wasn't though.
it wasnt
It was because Total Asscancer told everyone it was bad because you didn't player as army men like in 4 so everyone ate his shit and shat on Hardline. I wish that homosexual died 10 years earlier.
This was so good in beta, but they killed with not supporting my region with an official server.
>God, BF2042 was such a preventable disasters I could write an entire fricking book about it.
Do it. The near-constant frickups of modern video game and film studios should be documented as much as possible for study by future generations of creators on what NOT to do.
BF4 failed because it had TOO many weapons/gadgets/attachments and that usually wouldn't be a bad thing but DICE are absolute shit at balancing as is even with a small amount of weapons so that is what fricked it in the end I think.
EA
these devs are running out of excuse. bungie was said to be truly free once free from activision and they raped the players for cash more then bobby could dream of. diablo 4 is a cash pit selling horse skins the same price of final fantasy 7 rebirth. they now going to go back to blaming gamers for not liking their work
tried so hard to copy COD and killed their fanbase
What about Battlefield is Call of Duty?
2042 is the closest to "Call of Duty" to date.
Ironically it copied every other FPS trend like battle royales and hero bullshit over CoD, couple with recently setting the bar in replacing competent devs with double-digit IQ pajeets.
Thing were going downstair since the begining of bf4 but still worked out. Then BFV happened and killed the franchise
>don't go f2p
>constantly do moronic decisions
>make boring as frick gameplay
woooooow who could have seen this coming?
EA / shareholders pushing trends rather than being the trend settings.
BC2 happened and it went downhill from there.
Lol no. Best in the series.
Yep! Frick with their fans. Fans always win. We don't need games. Games need players.
>Publishers calling out their own consumers
That ended up working very well in the long run.
Silvio..... we miss you....
Menomale che Silvio céééééé
I just assume every game that openly talks shit about their fanbase is going to be dead on arrival
Seems to have never failed me so far
This. Once you reached the point where you're telling fans to accept or don't buy it, you fricked up.
The guy who said this runs Embark now, they make The Finals.
And it's a better game than almost any recent battlefield. crazy.
I feel like even at the core of it, removing any political shit, any dumb shit about womens empowerment in a ww2 game, the game is genuinely boring and not worth playing. All the maps fricking suck, and barely any are from battles people give a shit about, which could be well if done right, but you play that greece map for like 10 minutes and you never want to see it again.
>Yet the game also had a campaign where you play as a freaking Wehrmacht tank commander
The dualities.
>removed all the le hecking nazi imagery
>black nazis
The game itself was fine, but the marketing and the backlash was so bad it made the company lost all their talent.
if they wanted women so bad, why didnt they highlight the female russian snipers more? maybe make a campaign about their story? instead they just went full moron and lost so many customers
>The game itself was fine
No it wasn't.
BF3 was good until they overbuffed the M16
Every new game being a mechanical and technical downgrade.
No idea... but I'm gonna blame straight white males!
2042 was that bad
The love and passion is gone. The old devs, skills and inspiration, gone.
The only people left are just there for a pay check and listen to whatever the homosexual shareholders / EA want.
>The old devs, skills and inspiration, gone.
Who cares if they were gone? Do you honestly think that they would have made 2042 or the next BF somehow good or great enough? They would be just as stubborn as usual and ignore what you guys would want or expect from the series. Remember that some of the people who worked on the older BFs were also responsible for the disasters that are BF5 & BF2042.
The relationship between the quality of battlefield and the game devs aversion to the glorification of warfare is inverse.
BF is no longer about the faceless soldier, it’s about establishing overwatch/apex characters and subverting the classic “MC humbly upholds his duty and does what’s right” narratives that all the other games had
BF1 happened
In trying to aim for a bigger and bigger audience each time they eventually ended up making shit that appealed to no one. Many such cases.
they tried to be call of duty
I like 4 and skipped every game past that, I can't believe they thought 2042 was a good idea.
Ignoring the fact that the games release as barely functional disasters, trying to appeal to everyone rather than playing to their strengths and then ending up with a product that appeals to no one.
Played Bad Company 2 on the ps3, it ran like shit but was somehow the greatest multiplayer experience of my life.
played it on pc. I wouldn't but it in greatest multiplayer experience, but I had one match that was probably one of the greatest comeback matches on a 1000 ticket Heavy Metal Conquest. Entering 100 tickets left with the opposing team just under 500, and ending the match with a 1 ticket win. Sweating bullets by the time we hit 10 tickets and they still had almost 30.
It is one of those games that is just irresistibly fun. It feels like you have the freedom to play however you want and still enjoy it.
making it a hero shooter instead of sticking to classes
battlefield have been shit since it went multiplatform anyway
>publisher reaches to veteran designers/producers who made old games and created the IP
>"our market research and community voice said that what we need to do is to go back to what worked back then thats why we want you guys back"
>"frick yeah lets do it [here insert publishers name]
>months later
>"uhhh guys you gotta put Black person rapper skins,battle royale and shiet into the game and redesign stuf because what worked in BF3/4 wont work for da zooms nowadays"
>lets leave the company then i didnt singed for that shit say veteran designers and producers who can get a job elsewhere instantly because of their experience
This happens constantly all the fricking time when publishers reach to vets of old IP's they own. First they promise free reign to revitalize IP in the way designers want to but mid development they start meddling and frick shit up so people simply leave the project.
>What went so wrong with the battlefield franchise?
Annual releases, simple as that.
The best devs just jumped ship when they were forced into a 365 days crunch period.
>can't play BF2 online anymore
just google BF2 private server guy. people are still making mods for this game far from dead.
did bf2hub die
There was always something wrong with the franchise but it was mitigated by the niche they occupied and that no other shooter really quite did what they did.
You can point to any iteration especially from BC2 and onwards for what they settled in for the franchise. BC2 for trying to be more like CoD, BF3/4 for settling on the trend of releasing something broken and then fixing it later, BF1 and BFV for its questionable implementation of many things. Really, 2042 was the nail in the coffin when it dropped the ball on basically everything.
Idk, but I still play Battlefield 2142 on private server actually the newest BF game I have played in the year 2024 is from 2006 and for good reason. Because the new ones suck monkey wiener.
4 had a rough release but ended up being fricking awesome. It gets glossed over a lot but I definitely think hardline was the immediate nosedive in quality and signaled the end. I tried and hated it.Ii tried and hated 1. I have thousands of hours in the series but didn't buy V or whatever the abortion of a scifi title the newest one was. The series is gone.
>whatever the abortion of a scifi title
Odd, it's like you've never played Battlefield 2142. Strange to make fun of the latest one for it's title. You have played from the start right anon?
They failed to understand what made BC2 work and refused to learn.
Ai thread
>"creative" director
>last games were unoriginal garbage
he never really worked then
He got hired in december 2021 so after BF2042 release anon he didnt directed new games and now wont direct any BF game lol
This
Its been a while since I made one of these links I hope it works.
There's no need to further increase map player count.
Yeah pretty much. Most matches I have in 2042 is either, im running in an empty field for minutes until im sniped or I spawn into an absolute clusterfrick and blow up immediately. Neither are very fun.
This
2042's maps are really just huge meatgrinders placed in between larges stretches of frick-all
128p was a mistake and a marketing gimmick
Well that's bad game design then.
This never happened in the real Battlefield games. Map points were spead out so that each base was being fought over separated by large masses of land and structures. Modern moron designers never understood that concept.
should be both things
Actually, left is what some of 2042's maps used to play like, the image on right sums up 2042's maps after the reworks.
You're forgetting how everyone gravitated towards the stadium
The battles were spaced all over the map, now the map is even worse with players spawn camping and even a greater potential to kill people in the wide open than ever before.
I agree with the point you're making, but the rework of this map was a marked improvement for a dirty sniper like me that is
Operations in BF1 was absolute gold though with all players focusing on specific areas of the map.
I like the meat grinder. It's awesome when you and your buddies pull of a push and the tide turns. Even back in 24/7 Metro nothing felt quite as good as finally taking B.
That's a map design problem not a playercount problem.
If every map is a line with designated "you should go here" points laid out in a row surrounded by completely devoid of cover no-man's land of course everyone will congregate in the one spot you can play the game.
it is a challenge for map designers
planetside 2 already had this problem
how do you make sure that players get 3-4 changing contested areas instead of 50 guys lobbing grenades at each other in 3 hallways
something about the objectives and the flow needs to be rethought
>in 3 hallways
lets take a momment now and remember 24 years ago
when you could break the fricking walls with c4 and rocket launchers or the terrain in other games
that is what i imagined bf3 could be back in the day.
take bf2 maps where one could enter every building making your own paths as you please and hell throw in some sewers and such.
maybe i just played too much project reality and expected way too much from actual paid devs.
>take bf2 maps where one could enter every building making your own paths as you please and hell throw in some sewers and such
That's what DICE did to the Karkand remake in BF3, you could enter buildings which weren't accessible in BF2 and even reach the rooftops, many BF2 vets didn't like it since it allowed players to gain the highground and camp there instead of keeping the firefights in the streets like in the original.
>you now remember roof camping MECs on the first flag of karkand
>many BF2 vets didn't like it since it allowed players to gain the highground and camp there instead of keeping the firefights in the streets like in the original
This is BF3 and 4 in a nutshell, find some way to get on a rooftop and camp like a b***h for the entire round
BF3's verticality was fine, but I do agree that DICE went full moron with the verticality on many of BF4's maps.
there were very few building in karkand were you could safely snipe from the top without getting blasted by a tank shell or rpg splash damage.
If only those few could be totally collapsed that would have been beyond top tier. Map is one of my all time favorite anyway.
>If only those few could be totally collapsed that would have been beyond top tier
I disagree. This would've heavily affected the map negatively and would ruin the cover. Take BF3's Sharqi, there were certain structures that couldn't be destroyed in the original version, the cover becomes increasingly difficult to find as the round continues, it's worse when you consider the attack heli in mind.
if you think back most maps were kind of bad
strike at karkand was the og grenade spam map for the first checkpoint
on sharqi all the fighting was in the city, so on 30% of the map
dragon valley was fantastic for jets and helis but a bit of a slog for infantry
I get it, no one had really done 64 player maps before and they were still figuring it out. But it has been decades and there has been no improvement
True, used to hate karkand back in the day as next guy. But in hindsight you actually had chances to break the stalemate by rushing from left side for ninja caps. Compared to what we got in bf3, shittier cramped maps like grand bazaar and metro
>strike at karkand was the og grenade spam map for the first checkpoint
Well the problem with nade spam in Karkand wasn't tied to the map itself but rather the amount of grenades each class had including the resupply time, BF3's Karkand addresses this problem and it was one of few positive changes about it.
Also, the original Karkand had pathways for the attackers to flank, which wasn't included in the remake IIRC.
>on sharqi all the fighting was in the city, so on 30% of the map
The city is the center focus of Sharqi, it's a Conquest Assault map, the MEC forces are supposed to recapture the city held by the defending US forces.
>dragon valley was fantastic for jets and helis but a bit of a slog for infantry
Slog how? Is it because of the map's size?
Issue is maps are too big.
TF2 has 100 player servers and the maps are so small every flank is filled with players. It’s a stalement up until multiple Medic + Pyro/Demo combos can clear the area
this happens because poor map and poor map flow design.
Its because of map and mechanics design. The players don't have a lot of reasons to go to other spots on the maps. There should be more capture things on the maps to give players reasons to go to other points. And definitely have other than victory capture points, like spawn points or fortifications or whatever. And to mix things up have asymmetric maps. Things like one side defends, the other attacks.
Also the commanders and intel should have much more influence on the battle. Most of the time all they're doing is giving messages and calling artillery. They should be able to send out npc forces or something and then assign players special missions for point bonuses they can use in spending for things in-battle or something.
Also the scoring systems aren't really encouraging 'warfare' game play, so players don't do it. The scoring is usually all about player kills.
I played Titanfall 2 recently, the only way to score is kills. Everything else counts to getting a titan or not at all. And the best way to get points towards spawning a titan are player kills. So you get this game play where players frantically run around trying to flank each other because that is the best way to score a kill since players die before they know they're being shot at. As long as you're killing more than dying this is fine as well since spawning is so fast and close. If things like gaining points towards spawning a titan were something else or not kills at all, and if dying and re-spawning were much more consequential, players would play a much more 'warfare' style of play.
Using class abilities, transporting players and NPCs, whatever else should be more point heavy. Also maybe experiment with things like variable points for kills with whatever weapon or vehicle.
Section 8 did it wonderfully, you have these random missions spawn through the match that gives out tons of points, really changing the tide in a big way, and even if you want more motivation then just change points for some team advantage. It was a great way of introducing variety and changing the pace, plus redirecting and focusing the combat on varied areas of the map, instead of the traditional chokepoint or everyone spread out you would get players to gang up on other areas through the match. It was a great design that no one else copied for some fricking reason.
The spawn system was also amazing but heavily tied to the sci fi design of the game
Section 8 was kino
When the normal movement speed is you zooming around like a headless chicken on fire then its inevitably gonna end up like this.
>BFBC2
>Valparaiso
>Grenade throwing match near start for 30 minutes
I loved every single minute of it.
Right is unironically kino when you manage to sneak past the meat grinder and wreak havoc from the back.
Operation Metro was one of the most satisfying maps because if you did manage to sneak past and take the flag behind enemy lines you could completely break the match.
>defending in Valparaiso Rush
>lose the checkpoint with the lighthouse nearby
>hide in the lighthouse until the enemies settle in and everyone from my team retreats
>climb to the top
>snipe the enemy in the frontline from the back
>the moment they plant a bomb jump down and just destroy everyone from the back, giving your mates a chance to defuse the bomb
Absolute kino.
Meat grinder matches are fun and it's why operation locker and operation metro matches tend to have full servers and are also seemingly always up. A lot of people seem to want this constant chaotic action and DICE never fully embraced it.
meat grinders are fine for a live but if its all the game got , its shit
just like i like rush for a while or capture the flag for a while
Yes, it's good to have maps that play differently, but hating meatgrinders is folly. Either embrace the chaos or leave the match if you hate it so much.
BF3 was the peak of the Battlefield series.
the fact that BF3 fans actually like this shit explains why the series is dead.
metro was good because it had well crafted flank routes and room to room fighting. Having so much chaotic bullshit going on was awesome. Giving up on a choke point to run through a nearby door you've been ignoring for a couple minutes only to find an entire nest of like three squads was amazing.
The only map like it in Bf4 was operation locker or whatever and it was generally shit. It only had one flank route which won or lost a match based on if you had snipers camping it or not
cramped choke point maps with grenadefests was peak cancer and marked the death of these kind of games. The only shooters nowadays with somewhat success are niche shooters and for good reason.
it required actual team play and felt more like team fortress than some shitty console fps
thats why your shit games dont have destruction
thats a easy fix it
>cramped choke point maps with grenadefests was peak cancer and marked the death of these kind of games.
Yes that's why those servers with the cramped maps are still seemingly alive and well even on the old games and the new games don't even have maps like that. You are totally right. That's why the new games are dead.
crawling like rats in a sewer and slamming your head against a brick wall in the hopes that a giant scale tips in your favour isn't compelling gameplay. It's for people who want to completely shut off their brain and any higher level brain function in order to reap easy dopamine from high kill counts.
BF 3 fans in general have the shittiest taste in FPS modes and mechanics, they are even worse than COD npcs. It's such a monumental step down from BC2 is hard to grasp and yet its boosted as the peak of the IP, you ended up with the IP you deserve.
>in the hopes
sounds like you are moronic and couldn't try to outskill the enemy team
yes, yes please elaborate further on how your ideal game is actually just you inhabiting the role of a creep in a moba.
i dont know what the frick is a creep on a moba, i dont play boring 6vs6 shit genre
That is what real large scale warfare looks like. Two sides batter ramming each other for inches of progress and the match being decided by attrition (in this case - whichever side runs out of spawn tickets). Your puny mind wants a children's game when this is what a real battle looks like.
Its true, I saw soldiers in Ukraine running into minefields then respawning in order to clear them out, very clever. real war is very entertaining and not at all boring, I wish all war games were about sitting in a trench for 3 months waiting for something to happen or storming a checkpoint and dying in 30 seconds so your country will commemorate your pointless sacrifice.
Being a rat with no control over anything is fun.
Yes, in a video game you get to respawn and try again as a new soldier. Welcome to playing a fricking video game, moron.
>Your puny mind wants a children's game when this is what a real battle looks like
>Welcome to playing a fricking video game, moron
take your pills, take your pills
This is why I like Breakthrough. It does what Metro did but better.
I will never ever understand nostalgia for that piece of shit map. It’s the least battlefieldy battlefield map ever made. Just play COD.
>samegayging
this is why we need IDs so trying this would just be embarrassing and difficult
Take your medicine you fricking freak.
Get a life homosexual
Fake and Gay
Everyone should be at the base next to enemy spawns.
That's based tho
It's like a front-line that's always shifting
commander mode could have fixed this but DICE gimped it. So only turbosweats used it on their tablet while they were taking a shit between matches.
This is the truth and only morons will argue otherwise
why does anyone want either option? The first is indistinguishable from a smaller map with a smaller player count except the maps are barren and badly directed because they are too big. If you want massive maps with large player counts you have to go all in on combined arms but battlefield never did so by default they just made shitty meat grinder games since BC2.
This is why I liked Rush the most. You don't have to deal with annoying homosexuals on ATVs going around the actual gameplay and backcapping all the points.
But by God the spawns and objective placement in Rush can be HORRIBLE.
Inaccurate, there are WAY too little dots representing snipers siting at the edges of the map.
Me personally, I love the meat grinders. They're the best part.
BF1 had the best meatgrinders though, closest on 2042 would be that new no-vehicle map.
They stopped doing battlefield things and started chasing trends. That literally it. They stopped being what made them successful
As someone who only plays on console now I can confidentially say consoles. BC2 was awful and it never recovered
for me it was when one of the devs or whoever said don't play our games. stopped buying them after that.
Misogynistic chuds don’t belong in battlefield
Member when shooty games had generic soldier men instead of neon clowns? I member
BF1.
Stupid changes instead of keeping what worked before. Also making another ww2 game instead of literally any other conflict. Battlefield 1, despite all its flaws showed that other eras could work. A korean war or vietnam war game would have been awesome. Additionally they wasted time on a shitty battle royale abortion nobody asked for or played, as well as goofy character creator that they walked back immediately. Then they forget all the previous criticisms and remove classes(one of the core elements of battlefield) to add poorly thought out and designed hero’s nobody asked for. For some reason at dice they seem to think they have to do something radically different with their games each time now and only end up making them way worse. Look at their moronic battlefront games that have worse vehicles than the og games, and the first game attempting some moronic card system instead of classes, genuinely mind boggling.
didn't most of the DICE veterans leave after Battlefield 1?
Someone please fill me in.
What happened to DICE is exactly what happened to Blizzard. All the veterans left and the game development was taken over by 100s of worthless employees who can't make basic features for a game.
it still blows my mind that both diablo 3 and diablo 4 lacked several quality of life features present not only in every single other arpg on the market for the last 20 years, but some that were also in their own diablo 2 which pioneered those features in the first place.
>didn't most of the DICE veterans leave after Battlefield 1?
Yes, the final mass exodus was during BFV development. It's why the roadmap of BFV was never completed and was the start of development for 2042. I don't think there is anyone leftover at DICE that is an OG.
>What went so wrong with the battlefield franchise?
Hard to say, really. We'll probably never know.
The Ganker musical song about it was deleted, does anyone have it? It was like the AlbinoBlackSheep scientology video.
Also...
I did play BFV not spending a single dime on it, somehow I get all EA games on my account either through GPU promos, extra keys or giveaways and let me tell you, the historical inaccuracy and strong womyn fantasy was not the worst part of it.
The mission with the titular character seemed to be created out of spite because you cannot create something so foul on accident.
It was stealth mission where the NPCs automatically detect you if you go outside a determined path and afterwards it becomes an escort mission, the escort walks faster than you but runs slower than you and can get stuck in multiple places and of course it is game over if she gets shot. I think there was a QTE like section in the beginning too, something with skis. It was a shit show.
The MP was the same old, snipers are op and your view is obscured by too much clutter. Everything from BF3 onwards hurts my eyes after a while. I could not stand the Nu-Battlefront games, too much fricking glare and whatever it is the name of the effect when you are in doors but the outside looks like the sun is exploding, this stupid amount of contrast between areas, incredibly irritating.
the whole point of BF is to be that nameless/faceless soldier thrown into some big shit without being center of attention. And these israelites decided to make it into a hero shooter.
American capitalism
>We have this popular product where we just need to change the coat of paint every few years. Even though it's not #1 in the marketplace, it still brings in plenty of profit. Let's keep milking it
>OR we could shamelessly and half-assedly graft on elements from the products that ARE #1. Then we'd make even more money! There's no way it could fail and anyone who suggests it's even a possibility is fired!
>Two creative guys
Is this really a bad thing? Like Battlefield really doesn't need anything creative. Its grunt team one verse grunt team two it doesn't need this stupid epic immersive story they keep trying to shill. Honestly they keep trying to reinvent the wheel.
I just know that despite taking nearly 3 years to get 2042 to just a tolerable state from its abysmal launch, the next BF will again be another 5 steps backwards that takes just as long to undo all the stupid shit they make.
Canaries in the coal mine
High level talents constantly leaving like it's a revolving door is never a good sign, even if it's for a useless position. Gives you an indication as to their talent retention
Individual contributors leaving quickly indicates shit working conditions or impossible to climb the ladder without nepotism.
Mid and high level leadership types bailing means systemic failure inbound
> What went so wrong with the battlefield franchise?
You can only walk towards a camera so long before it turns into a Mel Brooks gag.
Battlefield is the series that died because its aimlet fanbase got BTFO by a necessary TTK increase which is a requirement to have in games with open maps and vehicles be fun.
Now everyone is playing Apex.
But 2042 has the lowest ttk in recent history and it's considered dogshit by everyone
That's not the reason for the game being shit
So then why are you acting like ttk is why the game is shit?
That anon is not me 😉
Everyone found other games to play when they tried this in BFV.
If it was a requirement for the game to be fun why did everyone stop having fun when it happened?
Nobody was playing it happened, that was the problem.
Battlefield 3 happened
>What went so wrong with the battlefield franchise?
What happened with every other large studio. They drank the kool aid and suicided on the altar of <insert ideology>.
Lol. This was the time of peak Swedish progressivism. They are now rolling back on that HARD.
jews
go woke go broke
I miss killing people with the MAV so much.
Lack of Titan Mode.
reminder bf5 unironically launched without russian front maps for multiplayer
I hate that nothing has filled the battlefield niche.
The only shooters now are either arcady or milsim shit. Battlefield was such a good middle ground where it's still accessible and fun and not a walking simulator until you get instakilled from some guy in a bush from a mile away.
It’s mad really. There’s such a gaping void in the FPS genre. COD is too ADHD and mil-sim stuff is full of mentally Ill freaks who wish they were in the army, with gameplay consisting of sitting around looking at the horizon and breaking your legs when you when you fall off a 2ft ledge.
Why would this be surprising?
People change jobs every 5 years in tech.
Literally every thing they do is follow trends. Other AAA games do that as well, but DICE/EA are a bit slower than others. Rumors are they plan on making a BR Battlefield. AGAIN. The fps genre has already moved past that to the extraction trend.
There's a lot of ways to split the pie and split the audience on BF but to be reductive and sum it up, it's downstream from CoD which became "yesterdays game" years ago and now its only shreds of relevance are tied to an uninformed massive audience who grew up on COD4 and Blops and MW2 and will just buy the same name forever (until they completely age out of console gaming) and Battlefield always pushes ahead super aggressively no matter what. They offer so many separate games that are basically within the same space, so it's like they're constantly cannibalizing themselves between BF1, BFV, and 2042 at the current moment. I thought 2042 was stupid but I like V a lot which I heard was not well-received. Seemed like fun to me. They would do well to just consolidate on a long-running game and try to funnel all the players there until they're ready to do something in the series that is actually different enough to be a new game or a side-game. It's amazing how long these shit series can go on for when they get this big, they're like Frankenstein. It's amazing that a brand can be so popular that it can take years and years and years of poo poo to have any real measurable effect on the majority of the consumers. But it's just like Ass Creed--nobody who "plays games" has given a frick about that series since III disappointed everyone, but here we are 12 years later
>What went so wrong with the battlefield franchise?
BF5 is where it all went downhill.
They then learned nothing and went off the cliff with 2042, and now nobody gives a shit about that franchise anymore.
it starts with BFV, wokeshit aside it is a pretty good game but you can tell that its beginning of the end for DICE.
BF2042 is what happens when you started to chase trends and it backfires.
nah you could see the decline clearly start in BF1, the cancer had totally metastasized by BFV but it started earlier. BF1 just had enough cool shit to make people overlook it.
They told their customers to not buy their game
They lost their way. They gave up the pure BF titles for their cod-like BC stuff while calling them BF games but then kept watering them down till there was little BF left in them beyond having vehicles.
Are they ever gonna update 3 so that it isn't a $80 hunk of shit that you can't get all of the DLC unlockables and 1911, and requiring a browser to find servers?
Battlefield 3 was the first sign things were wrong with the paid unlocks, but 4 went full CoD pandering with terrible maps, projectile trajectories all being the same, faster TTK, recoil that's all visual, and moronic campaign that makes no sense.
hey if you dont like it dont buy it
stop complaining on Ganker like some b***h
Im still playing BF4, anyone else? there is no other game like it
BF4 is the franchise peak imo. It's hard to go back to though because 2042 does do somethings better.
It's impressive what a mess 2042 is. Some parts of the game are great. The gunplay feels really nice in a vacuum, but the balancing is fricked. SMG can snipe you but a assault rifle doesn't land a single shot at the same distance. Keyboard and Mouse input also has bad hit registration.
The earlier maps were clearly designed for Hazard Zone and not a Battlefield game. The newest maps (Flashpoint, Redacted and Renewal) are all good and are BF4 style maps.
BF3/4/2042/2142 lore is actually pretty interesting but DICE have implemented it in the shitest way possible. So, nobody gives a frick.
>BF4 is the franchise
>BF3 dlc
lol
They didn't make BC3.
this and its too late now, if they make BC3 now the story will suck and filled with wokeshit
I don't think the cast would allow for wokeshit but I do agree it is too late.
BC3 would feel like a Battlefield game rather than Bad Company. They would forget that they once marketed the series with gunpowder scratch and sniff.
All they have to do is make Battlefield 4 again, without the bullshit. I didn't like people being able to teleport in and out of vehicles. Needed better gun customization, as in we can add accessories and shit that's on the civilian market.
2 was where the series went to shit
the problem is progression/unlocks
they had their finger on the pulse for a good minute and then just completely lost it. Battlefield 4 was their last game i really put time into. all i think most people want is Bad Company 3 because that was the game where their destruction and sandbox peaked. they got sidetracked with that Operator/Hero shooter shit trying to mutate in a risky and ultimately ill-fitting direction.
Developers are Swedish, it's a fricking miracle the BF franchise stayed decent for as long as it did.
they werent releasing it annually before bf3, that gave them some time to actually innovate.
it didn't last that long, bad company 2 was exceptional then everything after was shit.
From BF3 onwards they started catering to lone wolf k/d hunters (ie. casual players) and abandoned all class balance and teamwork.
giving assault rifle to medic is a mistake, bf1 did it best by giving medic dmr instead
>giving assault rifle to medic is a mistake
It's not. It's a good way to encourage people to use the Medic class to increase the chances of getting heals + revives (Yes yes, I know that this hasn't been the case in the recent BFs but you have to consider that there are factors that made Medics play like total dicks).
No, it was BC2 at the latest.
Just give the people what they want. Why can these morons not get the talent required to produce another 2142 Titan game with battle cruisers and mechs and vtol jank?
>Why can these morons not get the talent required
One of the reasons is because they're in Sweden.
yeah those fricks have bigger problems to worry about than keeping their long dead company afloat. Completely subverted by israelites like the US and used as a giant testing ground for importing millions of third worlders.
DICE creating a "return to ww2" shooter but it being an ideologically driven game made for/by trannies was the moment I think most people on the planet just decided to forget that Battlefield existed.
This basically.
Then they had some chance with 2042 and they made it a fricking hero shooter.
>wuz killing your franchise in the long term wurf the fast cash ESG bucks, homie?
lel
What's funny is that BFV didn't cause nearly as much asshurt in Ganker as BF1.
BF1 got several daily seethe threads about it until launch because of the Black folk in them, meanwhile BFV just came and went.
>BFV didn't cause nearly as much asshurt in Ganker as BF1
because V was so ridiculously shit nobody cared about it
>like franchise
>make shit sequel
>stop caring about franchise at all
it happened with bf , with everything from crapcum and almost any franchise thats 10+ years old
I skipped BF1 and BFV hoping 2042 would be good
Requiesce in pace, anon.
Yes cause BF1 was the first of the israelite-fied games with alternate reality shit being pushed as reality. People just stopped giving a shit after that and BFV went out like a wet fart cause people knew it was going to be pozzed like BF1.
I'm surprised this franchise still exists at this point, honestly none of the games after BF4 seemed worth playing to me and I don't think 3 & 4 were super great either.
Corporate greed. Their company was bought out and a bunch of sleazeballs in suits came in and started making all the decisions. Almost all of the video game companies that were once great and are now in the toilet bowl and getting flushed into the gutter have this same story.
women
They couldn't understand what made BC 2 good then misunderstood the positive reception for B3 and put that as their target when it was a downgraded version of BC 2 that only appealed to newcomers who didn't know any better. It then degenerated from here since B3 was lacking most of what made BC 2 fun and the few good parts were from remnants of the BC 2 staff. Now they have neither the talent nor the right guiding star to ever make another good game.
BF3 and BFBC2 were both great in different ways, there is no need for historical revision. BFBC2, BF3, and BF4 was the golden era of Battlefield games and I am tired of pretending they weren't.
>BF3, and BF4
I loved both
>BFBC2
Missed out on this unfortunately.
I still play BF4 occasionally.
>missed out on BFBC2
That sucks. It was truly one of the best
>I still play BF4 occasionally
It's the only BF game I still go back to now.
Its not revisionism in any way, I hated BF 3 on launch day and you loved it, nothing changed. Every subsequent game has just been a re-iteration of this formula that was shit to begin with yet everyone seems confused why they hate BF now and what the secret sauce was. DICE at that time were one of the best developers in the world, even with the shitty BF 3 direction they managed to make a game that was better than COD, once they lost that staff all they had left was a shit blueprint.
For me it was BF1 that wasn't very good and I would argue that modern BF games have too much of BF1's identity. BF1's success is the one that confused DICE. But we have different perspectives on this, obviously.
BF1 was hailed as "a return to form" of BF 3, it's all for the same audience.
Don't care at all what it was hailed as.
The point is it was made for you, every game since BF 3 was made for you and they were all shit because BF 3 is shit. High player count, sterile and aimless maps with pointless classes and shitty, casual vehicle combat was the aim and they hit it square on every time.
Nah BF1 sucked, BFV sucked even more, and BF2042 is just so bad I can't even begin to describe it in a sufficiently succinct way. BF3 and BF4 are.... way, way, way above these games. Don't even try to rope them into the same category.
the way you feel about BF1 is how I feel about BF3, the only difference is I got in before you and saw the decline. You will get into arguments with people who got into BF with BF 1 and you will understand my position.
all battlefield games until 3 are essentially the same game. 4 was a half broken 3 dlc
I've been playing BF since BF2. BF3 is the peak of the series. BFBC2 is the second peak. Sorry. The decline of the series did not begin with BF3, BF3 was amazing and Ganker's historical revisionism can go hang itself in the closet.
Bullshit. I hated BF3 before I even knew Ganker was a thing you are coping. I played it for 100 hours out of desperation but even as a moronic teen I knew the game was garbage compared to BF2 and BC2. I had never been more disappointed in a game in my life.
Bad company and BF3 are the exact same games
The gunplay, map design and destruction were all made worse across the board. You're correct it basically is Bad Company except they made it terrible.
>HUGE improvment
There is not a single thing going from BC2 to BF3 that was not made worse. Even shit like the net-code was made worse. Also need I mention
>forced to interact with the Origin website to simply access the game
FRICK off.
this is false, every game has made the destruction better, are you pretending to be a battlefield fan?
If you were autistically into the destruction stuff then yes, BF3 was a huge disappointment for you. Outside of that, almost everything was a HUGE improvement.
Nope. The common consensus among people who actually played BC 2 is it was a step down in every single way. The issue is BC 2 sold much fewer units than BF3 so people with that perspective are in the minority.
literally the same games
Is true of every battlefield since 3. The move away from rush, purposeful map design, lower player counts, distinct classes and destruction is more substantial than any difference between subsequent games that you claim are total abominations. When I hear modern battlefield fans argue its all tiny minutiae
>Nah dude everyone hated BF3, TRUST ME.
Just kek, dude.
Yeah outside of the destruction, BF3 is a way more advanced game than BFBC2.
I hated it, played it for 20-30 hours and moved on, I didn't talk or think about BF ever again but 15 million morons like you kept jerking off to it. I was the one sperging to my friends about how BF was a million times better than COD and that they should join me and when they finally did I fricked off.
The narrative that BC 2 is the best game in the series is not new, the fact that the developers were asked so often to return to it they had to admit they didn't know how is not revisionist history, you just have shit taste.
Ok. They were different games entirely, so yeah, some people are not going to like the changes. I played BFBC2 before BF3 and I loved both. I lamented the fact that I couldn't level the entire maps anymore, I loved how in BC2 the maps were just big piles of rubble by the end, but everything else in BF3 was so much more advanced that it made up for itself and I focused on what was good about it and kept playing it. I think most people were like me, and the general sentiment of BF3 seemed to be that it was fricking awesome, but there were a few BFBC2 enthusiasts that were grumpy that their little playground of destruction didn't play quite the same anymore.
you could never "level entire maps"
Yes, you could, you fricking trash. I argued with you as if you weren't a moron, but now I see that you are nothing but worthless sack of trash. Did you even play BFBC2 at all or are you trollposting like some trash that deserves a bullet in the head.
Post proof homosexual
Prove what homosexual? That I've played the game? Keep in mind I also played it just as much on Xbox so it's double that time.
You can definitely reduce the map to rubble. This is such a stupid "haha you never really played it, we win" move. There were objects you couldn't destroy but most buildings could come down. Maybe you are the ones that never really played BFBC2 and just shitpost on Ganker all day.
Imagine coming into popular threads and pretending to be fans of games for attention
imagine how pathetic you are irl
You are the one claiming that I started with BF3 and that I must have only played BFBC2 for 2-3 hours and gave up on it. Eat shit and die, worthless trash. You deserve a bullet in hour head.
Dude shut up, nobody believes you
highlighted it this time. And yeah, played it on Xbox 360 just as much cuz I had friends on there too.
>NOOOO.... NOOOOOOOOOOOO.... YOU JUST.... YOU JUST DIDN'T PLAY IT OK? FRICKING BF3 BABIES MAN, RUININ MUH BF SERIES
hahahaha
bad company 2 has worse destruction than BG3
BF3*
You meant to say BF3 I guess, but no. Map destruction is the one thing BFBC2 has over BF3.
You just keep repeating yourself like a child, I know you're wrong, you know you're wrong. What the hell is wrong with you lol
Map destruction was the main selling point of bad company, something they improved on in every battlefield since. You have something wrong with you
ok, then you're just dumb. congratulations, I dont really expect critical thinking from someone who thinks metro meat grinder is peak FPS map design. It's nice you played BC2 and all you got out of it was blowing up buildings was fun.
Also here is proof I bought it and played it before BF3 ever came out or was announced. If you going to claim someone if a BF3 baby then just be prepared to be proven wrong.
yeah, the meat grinder maps in BF3 were fun as hell. A lot of people seem to agree with me too since the meat grinder servers in BF4 tend to be full. And to be clear I like both BF3 and BFBC2 kek. I think BF3 is a bit better overall, but BFBC2 has really good destruction. This is probably a way more sensible opinion than your worthless butthurt fanboyism over 1 game and hating the other one like it was lucifer's kid or something.
Its not really surprising that people with bad taste miss the point of why things are special or the fact that they like pretty much everything. This is the average fan of every series in terminal decline.
BF3/BF4 was the peak of the franchise though. It was not in decline during that era lmfao.
nobody cares about your shitty opinion over when the decline started, I'm only responding to you because you said some moronic shit about how BC2 and BF 3 are the same game sans destruction.
the difference between BC 2 and BF 3 is bigger than any subsequent shift.
>I'm only responding to you because you said some moronic shit about how BC2 and BF 3 are the same game sans destruction.
I never said that. I said BFBC2 does destruction better but almost everything else is a huge improvement in BF3.
If this isn't you
Then this conversation is over since discussing your arbitrary preference is a waste of everyone's time.
>You can definitely reduce the map to rubble
I never said this, instead of behaving like a schizo who thinks they only have 1 person mass replying to them address your arguments to the guy who said it. What I said was that when the map got reduced to rubble it was shit, not the best part of the game.
This shithole board has no user IDs so deal with it, homosexual. Reply to whatever part of my post you want or cry like a little b***h like you're doing now.
get a life
>NOOOO YOU WERE SUPPOSED TO REPLY TO MEEEEEE
lol crybabies. I can see why you were filtered by BF3. Little cuck babies can't handle losing daddy's attention.
kek, who's crying? you're the one lying about which games you play.
It only ever happened if the defending team managed to stall on one segment of the map for a long time. Unless you are talking about conquest which should have been shelved as a game mode because rush is better in every way.
Most people didn't fricking play BC 2, there are 10+ million people who jumped on board with BF3 and they are who run the narrative. Ending a match in BC 2 with the entire map being a pile of rubble was the worst part of that game not the best, I dont trust your opinion on any part of it.
>Ending a match in BC 2 with the entire map being a pile of rubble was the worst part of that game not the best
It is literally the only thing BC2 had over BF3. Kindly go frick yourself now.
The way you talk is like someone who has never played BC 2 or played it for 3 hours then gave up. reducing the map to rubble is what someone watching YouTube videos about it would call out as the most fun aspect.
>Ending a match in BC 2 with the entire map being a pile of rubble was the worst part of that game not the best
Low T
Sometimes it was fun when you used vehicles to create makeshift cover or suicide bomb the rush point or if you had some elaborate smoke screen game plan but otherwise playing in a totally destroyed aimless map felt like playing BF 3.
Everything was a huge improvement over the BC games but this was supposed to be a BF title. I guarantee you that anyone you find that couldn't stick with 3 wanted more battlefield, not more bad company.
I think what would have been great is if they used Bad Company as a spin off series (it literally already was that) and made BC3 and made it a true sequel to BC2, and then kept the mainline BF games going as well. So we'd get BF4 and then we'd get BFBC3 after that and so on.
It seemed like what they were going to keep doing but EA gonna EA.
>been playing BF since BF2
Same, and i agree. BF4 was the last BF game i ever bought. No regrets stopping there either.
I started with BF1 and honestly think it's pretty good. BF3 and 4 is just outdated at this point.
Nahhhhh. BC1 was great and annoyingly never gets mentioned. Maybe no one played it. I loved how Rush was Gold Rush and you didn’t need to use an explosive charge to destroy the crates. You could spam artillery, use a bunch of C4 or just get a tank and blast it until it broke.
BF3 felt like a cheap rip off of COD. I’m tired of people pretending it was anything more than a watered down version of precious games.
>still pretending to be a battlefield fan
>still huffing copium
get a life you worthless homosexual
imagine being this mad
I played Bad Company 1 and I didn't really care about it. When I played Bad Comany 2 for the first time I instantly knew I was playing something special and spent like several hundred hours into it. Bad Company 1 just didn't hit that mark yet.
Nah it was great. Simple as.
It's funny looking back at those COD vs BF flamewars that were all over Youtube a decade ago.
Imagine telling them that in the end, both COD and Battlefield would just commit suicide.
They started a needless war against their player base.
>what went wrong with this EA owned franchise
Beats me
Don't need 128 players
stay in your shit boring console games
BF3 had deep issues with weapon balance that they never put any effort to solve. Plus, remember the TV missile spam. That shit killed the open maps making them unplayable.
BF4 had even worse weapon balance at release, but slowly got fixed. Unfortunately everything else was worse.
>muh vertical gameplay
They completely failed to understand the appeal of their own games. All of this despite the fact that those games filled a niche that no other FPS could really offer. They gave that up to try and become a cheap Warzone knockoff. It’s fricking bizarre.
They knew the appeal, they just filled their studio with women until they were no longer capable of shipping complete games
Battlefield 2042 is extremely bizarre to me. It feels like none of the old DICE employees worked on this game at all.
It feels like a game that nobody wanted to make. I’ll never get over playing the demo and trying to check my score and kills to see no scoreboard. I had to stop playing and look online, I didn’t think such incompetency was possible.
Its a game women wanted to make. Women don't like scoreboards because it gives them panic attacks
No they don't, tons of chicks played Overwatch, is just this is made by commie numales who think the very idea of competitiveness is hecking fascist capitalism.
commie numales are the only men left when you flood a male oriented profession with lazy women that want a paycheck
And that's enough to turn you into a numale?
All the self respecting men left and became software developers, this is common knowledge to the point that shit eating consulting companies say so
Anyone with an IQ above 90 became a software developer because videogame development nowadays is a shitty job that offers no security, pays like shit unless you are the head of the studio and makes you work for hours and hours on end.
Rather the job was destroyed by women, you're just a whipping boy code monkey for freebleeders making 20% less than a regular codemonkey without the existential gaslighting suicide fuel
Videogame development as a job became shit when you couldn't get away with having 20 guys making an entire Triple A game.
Now you either make shitty indies or become part of a 2000 people studio to make a derivative game.
And that happened in the late 2000s, which is why all the talent that made games like Battlefield or Mass Effect started bailing out of their studios, and all that's left is the idiots.
The gorillion people studio is bloat caused by dead weight women
if there's no women how will I get my daily breast milk from the fridge
>male orientated hobby
>becomes successful
>women get grandfathered in/hired as studio expands
>start detrimentally affecting creative process
>almost immediately all the competitive competent men are weeded out by the women, one by one
>need 500 people just to make a 2010's tier game
>industry collapses
>nobody has learned anything, women left playing in the ashes and rubble
After Bf3 it started going downhill, hero shooters? frick that shit. then the wokeness of adding females. did 4 and above even have a story? I guess I don't remember 3 either tbf, but lotta cod players play cod for the story, so missing a piece of that would lead to lower sales.
BC2 was their best and last good product. I loved the idea of a comedy rag tag team in the military, the story was fun. and the multiplayer was great, the destruction system is what separated it from cod to me. Nothing was funner than arica harbor with a shotty or sniper and then having a tank destroy the camper zones. loved playing medic too
I'm playing battlefield v right now and it's okay, but so many issues are holding it back. There's rampant cheaters everywhere ranging from obvious snipers head shotting everyone across the map to discrete wallhackers who somehow always know where you are.
Half the maps are total ass being either too large without any clear funnels between objectives or too small turning into clusterfricks.
Then there's the server desync and lag where ttk is totally fricked at times so you die in 2 bullets.
Still better than BF2042 too. I tried that shit for 2 hours and was turned off by the super special black women operators and how every gun has a million levels to grind for overpowered attachments.
I tried 2042 a week ago with a friend, and it felt like a fisher price version of battlefield 3. uninstalled that garbage almost immediately
Hackers and playerbase got dilluted between different versions of this game. Oh and EA is involved which is a good reason to avoid those games like AIDS.
>accidentally stumble upon pure undiluted kino with operations in BF1
>immediately decide to ruin it for BFV and push a battle royale instead
>all the shit they made for bf1 was completely inaccurate nonsense posing as real history hamfisting monkeys into everything
And then BFV was even worse and turned possibly the greatest raid in history by a crack team of Norwegians which stopped Hitler from acquiring nukes… into a mother and daughter girlboss story. It’s funny, it used to be the case that disrespecting WW2 vets like that would be seen as controversial rather than righteous.
>bf1 was completely inaccurate nonsense posing as real history hamfisted monkeys into everything
African soldiers were called up by any nation that had an African colony. Stop erasing history dumbass.
>play BFV
>it's supposedly WW2
>entire British team is Black person women
>turn off the game after 10 minutes
>delete
>never touch that rancid shit again
I am convinced more and more every day that the cold war was supposed to end with us nuking each other. Instead we are in an alternate timeline where we've been cursed with an endless descent into ruin.
Really? Every time I join its always people using the gas mask Germans, the Tom cruise experience white male pilot, or the white woman resistance fighter.
I played BFV in 2019 or 2020 or something. IDK what the state of the game is today. When I played, I was playing against the british and everyone on the other team was a black woman. I just couldn't bother with that crap for more than 10 minutes (basically after I stopped laughing about it) and I will never try that game again.
I think the black woman is the default model so everyone on launch used her. Nowadays only oldgays remain and I never see black skins anymore unless it's a newbie just starting for the first time. I actually wish I saw more black people since it would at least be more diverse (heh), but now everyone is using the same 3 skins and 2 costumes.
BFV
BF1 had some weird decision but overall it was a massive success and achieved a great reputation. Devs knew what they customer base liked and delievered just that. Almost everything went right from the very beginning. Amazing trailer made people excited for the game and at its launch was the one of the stablest in BF history.
Then you have whatever the frick BFV. It's like a whole game was designed by DEI department and their only goal was to achieve high ESG score.
Battlefield went to shit with BF3 and its been downhill ever since. They had something unique with Bad Company and gave it up to make something homogenized and gay. Trying to please everyone. In the end BF purists that only want big maps and conquest still went back to good ol BF2 and BCbros hated the gimped gunplay and destruction. Conquest suffered because maps had to be made to also be played on Rush and Rush suffered because of the change to far larger and less focused maps. Classic example of trying to please everyone but end up pleaseing nobody. Dice deserves their fate.
>In the end BF purists that only want big maps and conquest still went back to good ol BF2
Yep, I only lasted through a week of BF3.
It's crazy how Battlebit understands what people want in a Battlefield game more than the actual devs.
the game right after bf4 turned the players into naruto sprinting crouch sliding fortnite characters
you had 0 feeling for the ground, im 100% sure the characters were floating
it became super arcadey overnight
This was the best multiplayer fps game ever made and we are never going back, battlefield bros.
>that theme
Music is so weird bros. It's like a time machine. Hearing that theme is taking me back to 2011 when I was playing BF3 all the time.
I prefered BC2
I have not kept up with the games because it was essentially the same shit with shittier monetization
>Women belong in war, chud
>Shoot the woman, bigot
>Don't buy it if you don't like it, nazi
>We hate white men
idk
Became woke garbage
That black french troony character or asexual or whatever the frick she's supposed to be is just close to parody man
reminder BFV has no actual anti-cheat and is unplayable on PC for that very reason
they need less creative directors and more historical directors
The exact same thing that's gone wrong with franchises all across the market these days: all the experienced devs quit or get kicked out and the moneymen replace them with fresh new college grads. It's entirely about paying them less salaries but has the side benefit of them lacking experience and willpower enough to push back against stupid ideas so that the producers can just push whatever flavor of the month they think is brilliant.
No ESG, no globalhomo, no woke. It's entirely short-sighted decisions chasing profit. Gaming, like many other industries, has been bought out by wall street and the built-up trust of decades squandered for little to no gain.
yeah it's not "le corporation's fault", it's women
DICE has infamously shit upper management and creative leads that can’t handle criticism. All in all it’s a pretty dogshit company that really only exists because Battlefield is selling copies.
How was bad company 2 multiplayer so fricking good, how did they do it, why can’t they fricking recapture that???
They never tried to replicate it because BC 2 sold like 6 mil units while BF 3 sold 17 million. They were always aiming to replicate BF 3 without realising the only reason it was positively received was residual BC 2 DNA.
BC2 didn't age very well. Went back and played it before it shut down and it felt like a more basic version of BF3/4 with more destruction.
BF4 with all the BF3 maps included (and the BF3 version of Metro) would be peak for me.
Tehran Highway at night with Zavod night optics would be sweet.
BF3 Close Quarters maps were also sweet.
It's so fricking funny they didn't want to have scoreboard. It's just so absurd and makes me think of those women posting their "day at the office" on tiktok
>It's so fricking funny they didn't want to have scoreboard
Well they added it back and yet people still b***h about it.
Besides, there are more and older egregious examples of DICE forgetting or taking long to fix/add stuff back into their games.
Incompetence and emotion, so... female influence?
>female influence
It goes way back before the studio became woke, actually.
not really, female incompetence is industry wide by ~2013. It's probably directly responsible for mass effect 3 not getting finished for example
>not really
You're new to the series and it shows.
Not an argument. Females have been infiltrating the industry for over a decade. The first hit were the major studios where lazy women wanted 9 to 5 cubicle jobs and has now evolved into basically industry wealth extraction
>Not an argument
It is an argument, you keep saying that because you and the rest of the newcomers to the franchise are shocked to see DICE making strange decisions with 2042 such as the lack of scoreboard when in reality they've been doing this shit for decades, they've been constantly fricking up their games in one way or other, you would have known this if you played the earlier BFs but you obviously didn't anyway.
Not OP but the Scoreboard was literately down to the previous UX lead quitting and the new UX person being a junior promoted to lead that fricked it up (also a woman).
I'm not arguing whether if the UX designer was a woman or not, my point is that DICE has always made questionable decision regarding legacy features or taking too long to addres exploits.
You're wrong, most bad decisions/failures in major AAA games are women, and they are the main reason
I'll reiterate: my point is that DICE has always made questionable decisions regarding legacy features or taking too long to address exploits. You guys refuse to believe the shitty reality of DICE's past history since you're new to the series.
https://web.archive.org/web/20121105041721/http://www.mordorhq.com/showthread.php?3880-The-True-Story-of-Battlefield-3-the-Battlefield-Franchise-Its-Community-amp-EA-DICE
>dice always bad
yes it's just a coincidence that they took down the scoreboard when their company was taken over by women, it's also a coincidence that their games got progressively less and less finished as they hired more women
>dice always bad
Exactly.
>yes it's just a coincidence that they took down the scoreboard when their company was taken over by women
It's not a coincidence when you consider their past history as evidenced in the above and other examples ITT.
>it's also a coincidence that their games got progressively less and less finished as they hired more women
It's the same as it's ever been, this is part of DICE's cycle when it comes to development; they start from the ground up and forget or ignore "legacy features" that were present in previous titles, they only cave in if the redditors are vocal enough.
>NO IT'S NOT THE FACT THAT THEY FILLED THEIR COMPANY WITH WOMEN
have you been living under a rock
>have you been living under a rock
I think you're the one who's been living under a rock seeing how you're crying over DICE practicing their usual dev shticks despite all the given evidence.
Do you actually have anything to say?
Do you? I have said enough but it seems you don't have any, not surprising coming from a newcomer to the franchise.
Oh so you're just a shitposting loser
>shitposting loser
I'd say that you've perfectly described yourself considering that you've failed to refute my argument, NuBF gays like you are so naive.
Do you actually have anything to say?
See
Oh so you're just a shitposting loser
Women
soul
Last BF I played was 3, and it was quite fun. Is it still possible to play today?
the formula got stale as frick. that's what happens when you pump out gaems factory-style.
>the formula got stale as frick.
I would argue that it has more to do with the quality getting worse. Just as an example, BF4 has like... 120 guns or something. I'm guessing, but it's a lot. How many guns does BF2042 have? Like 25? Not only that there are less attachments for the guns too. In BF4 every weapon had like 30+ different cuztomization options and BF2042 has like 15 or so. A lot of gadgets are locked behind specific characters you have to use (not classes, fricking characters) which is some stupid zoomer crap that seeped into Battlefield where it never belonged. Even if you WANT to like BF2042, it is a game with much less content than its predecessors and unnecessary anti-fun restrictions.
Would BF4 have the longevity it seemingly has had if the game only had like 25 guns and some basic attachments?
We need MAG 2.
Pretty much everything that possibly could
Released very buggy unfinished games
Became antagonistic towards their core demographic
Confusing releases that nobody wanted and totally missed the point of the whole franchise
Just the typical things that happen when you hire a ton of leftist employees
The authentic Battlefield™ experience
Meme or not, this was some of the most fun shit I had in the Battlefield games.
Reminder that it took DICE AGES to fix the USAS-12 frags bug and the M26 dart to the point where most admins had to ban both because DICE didn't do jackshit, yet there's still some newbies who pretend that the lack of scoreboard 2042 is a surprise or as it's the worst thing that happened to humanity.
A brokenly overpowered gun is a normal problem to have. The lack of a scoreboard is an indictment of something far more sinister.
>A brokenly overpowered gun is a normal problem to have
It's not a normal problem when it took DICE almost a year to fix it.
Also, is it normal for DICE to take too long to remove negative mouse acceleration in BF3? Is it normal to remove VOIP for PC players? Is it normal to play and change your loadout or join servers via a website instead of in-game?
Yeah the things you describing are normal problems. The reason BF2042 didn't have a scoreboard is because scoreboards promote "toxic masculinity" and "competitiveness is part of what makes males so problematic" and etc. A gun that is broken and is performing too well is a normal classic problem.
>A gun that is broken and is performing too well is a normal classic problem
I mentioned multiple examples outside of the guns, I wouldn't consider to be normal especially when the devs neglect their own game for too long. But if you consider the rest of these issues to be "normal" then don't be surprised when DICE decides to remove the scoreboard or DICE doing something that you wouldn't even think of.
By the way, is it normal for DICE to struggle with making the final patches for BC2 because they couldn't someone who could cook the files?
Bro. One is like, a normal problem because the devs are incompetent. Another is a failure because the israelites have twisted morality into up being down and right being wrong. The very nature of the problems are different. Do you understand?
He's a shit stirring moron. The incompetence past a certain point (not finishing games) is caused by women, the scoreboard being removed is obviously something a woman would do. This is why so many homosexuals complain about crunch, because half the dev team is dead weight moronic women that want a stable 9 to 5 job and nothing else. Literal interns turned lead writers and VPs just because they stuck with it long enough that they seniority everybody else out
>What went so wrong with the battlefield franchise?
So much.
>no Bad Company 3
>playing catch-up to CoD
>killing Visceral after giving them only one shot at a BF game Hardline is better than BF1
>two anachronistic World War games in a row
>ending BFV support just as it was starting to get good
>pouring resources into that BFV battle royale mode no one played
>everything about 2042
but the most recent- and imo one of the biggest- is cutting support for Portal mode. BF Portal had the chance to become a greast Battlefield "best-of" and they just dumped it on a whim to focus on a next Battlefield game that will probably suck too.
Ending support for BFx after it just started getting good and DICE
Name a more iconic duo
IDK what it is like today, but if you wanted to setup a Battlefield portal match you had to go online and go to some website to configure it.... why can you not do it in the game itself? It's so clear they didn't give a shit or just gave up. BF Portal had potential and it was all squandered.
Oh I forgot the ACTUAL worst thing
>taking the online mode for older BF games down
>legally going after modders who try to revive them (see 2142)
they got me with the trailer ...
I knew the game was going to be shit when I saw this
?t=187
The fricking desperation of it.
>REMEMBER WHEN YOU LIKED BATTLEFIELD? REMEMBER? REMEMBER? REMEMBER? REMEMBER? PLEASE???
this plus the complete whiplash that came after when it was revealed classes were kill and replaced by diversified named characters
like seriously whoever made that trailer had no communication with the actual game team, even by cinematic trailer standards it was total false advertising.
>moronic b***h diving through people with deployed chutes
She would have been fragged first chance anyone got for being a dangerous moronic c**t.
Rush mode should have been kept out of BF3/4 because the philosophy behind their map design- extremely small linear maps like Metro, Locker, and (I bet you forgot!) pic related works in Bad Company but not in 3/4, ESPECIALLY not when they get made available in Conquest mode. Why, you ask?
>conquest mode on tiny maps nets everyone tons and tons of easy kills
>lots of easy fast rank/weapon XP
>EA/DICE counter this by making all rank/weapon XP take much longer
>suddenly every other map becomes a way slower grind
>people go back to smaller maps because it's the way they think they're "supposed" to play to rank up and get equipment
>all the most populated servers are the same 1/2 maps
Meanwhile you play Rush mode on any almost any "big" maps made for conquest mode and it feels like a clumsy afterthought... because it was. Face it, Rush mode should have stayed in Bad Company. The smaller maps and slower movement (and lack of prone) fit it much much more naturally.
They keep forcing the people who made the games good out of the company by not letting them do what they want. Dennis Branvall made BF2017 an unironically good game, wanted to make Battlefront 3, and they told him no because it’s cheaper to just make Battlefield since it’s not someone else’s license
Can they just release a remaster of Bad Company 2? I'll buy that
They could have done that and it would have been fine/successful enough, but they botched it and vomitted out Battlefield Portal instead. Forget about any Battlefield remakes/remasters now kek.
>WE'RE BETTER THAN COD
>WE'RE DIFFERENT TO COD
>BF2 Map in BF4 engine
Yeah, im thinking this is the exact moment the BF franchise peaked.
idk what the frick happened, but you know its bad when they were having their lunch stolen by a minecraft mod.
>LAN with the guys being like 9 people
>Current day games team limit 4 players, and menus are such non functioning clusterfricks so we cant join the same server
Love this consolized meme.
I wouldn't touch a future BF games with a 10 foot pole just for their regressive political antics, but knowing they can't design an actual PC shooter still pisses me off.
Battlefield 3
Bad company. As soon as the franchise turned into a console shooter it became shit.
ESG score and israelites
Why was it so hard for them to make another BF 3/4? That's all they had to do
>Near bump limit
>3 ips
>Just one dude on his phone, laptop, and playstation browser
Kys homosexual
I don't even see the number. Maybe something is messed up with it.
I just want a game like Squad with the destruction of BC2. Is there anything out there remotely close to that description?
What about that Creative Director's daughter?
S
It's funny because this was a leftist push, yet if it WASN'T, the leftists would have cried instead that you're shooting women and women of color now, which would've given them a reason for outcry regardless.
You literally can't win or please them, especially when
1. They aren't the target audience
2. They don't play these games (or in general, most games that they try to corrupt)
3. Even if they play a game like this, they'd suck at it and would quit
are they going on about dice losing creative director? i don't follow
I'm not buying a war game and playing as a female.
kek
To be fair, the heir to the throne, Elizabeth II, was fricking hot back then, so plenty of British soldiers probably lusted after her IRL
>What went so wrong with the battlefield franchise?
The pandered to crying vehicle gays all the time so the games filled with tanks who go 100-3 and made unit explosives to take down tanks etc super weak.No one wants to play a game where you're just fodder for vehicle homosexuals.
Battlefield 5 is basically free at this point. I tried playing it and got bored before finishing the first mission
BFV is where battlefield died for most people
it has never recovered
to be fair tho... farming simulator is really fun. If you want to get really crazy get the mod that lets you check and add nutrients to the soil. makes the game so much better
Are they trying to appeal to grandmas?
The only theatres of WWII where women regularly saw combat were the Eastern Front (fighting for the Soviet Union and anti-Nazi resistance movements) and the Asia-Pacific War (fighting for Nationalist/Communist China and other anti-Japanese resistance movements).
Both of these theatres were characterized by exceptionally ferocious fighting and the belligerents frequently resorting to wholesale genocide of entire populations to achieve their goals, something that is conspicuously omitted from Battlefield V.
>operators and special abilities
>extremely gay way to deal with criticism
>even tho people tell em exactly what they want they still refuse to just give us that
I hope at some point they come back to reality and focus on 64v64 modern warfare combat with vehicles in big maps with no magic or operators instead classes and gadgets.
Bf3/bf4 with cool graphics from frostbite.
The worst part about all of this is they won't learn. Watch how the next BF comes with ANOTHER failed BR mode and more ugly woman and then they'll blame YOU for not understanding how great the game was when it fails.
>they'll blame YOU for not understanding how great the game was when it fails.
How film producers and video game developers managed to develop this "the customer is always wrong" mentality will never cease to amaze me.
Apart from the fact it's the literal opposite of what they teach you in advertising, it's simply a display of unbridled arrogance that's incredibly off-putting to virtually everyone who isn't a complete suckup to you.
Once they started adding thermoptics to fricking everything the games became a boring shoot the white blob shooting gallery.
I stopped playing after BF3 because it was just reskinned slop after that and they started catering to console/COD children instead of keeping the series to its PC roots. Anyone who started with BC2 or later doesn't know what a good Battlefield game was like.
>Enjoyed conquest a bit in BF2 but it gets stale and everyone is jerking themselves off in different corners of the map
>2142 comes out people hate it but Titan mode is fun. spent most of my hours here
>BC1 is console only whatever
>BC2 is fricking great. Rush is fantastic at naturally creating frontlines and battles feel big.
>everything since is back to boring conquest
Zzzzzz
TOTAL
WOKE
GENOCIDE
>Right Side of History
Lmao, wokeBlack folk didn't even have a full decade of power
People always point out the dumbest shit in these threads.
Yeah I'd rather play as a faceless grunt and not some gay specialist, but recent Battlefield games have had way bigger issues such as dogshit maps, awful gun balancing and the live service model
Do you think there’s any correlation between the two or it’s completely random?
Purely random chance, there’s simply no way I could think of that the mind of someone who prioritizes the former could be bad at the latter. Everyone is equal in all things and there are no patterns to thoughts amongst groups.
Are you suggesting two seemingly separate phenomena… could have a shared cause? Do you have a source for this?
people grew out of semi-realistic war FPS, especially when they were being pumped out like water from a faucet.
Oversaturated market combined with quality dropping and increasing filesizes
Personally I just didn't see them innovate enough, and I wasn't interested in "WOOOOAH better crap-hicks! LOOK at the destruction detail that most PC can't run without drop in fps!!"
It never had a good campaign.
it didnt need to, BC1 and BC2 both had pretty good campaign tho
problem with battlefield
>execs want to chase cod and tries to emulate cod
>execs wants to chase modern business strategies and tries to introduce f2p and battlepass at the same time charging the person for the game and hero mode and whatever the latest trend is
>execs thinking its a service rather than a game
>execs being moronic israelites
>by expanding the game to console players meaning the loss of slower gameplay seen in 2142 and previous
>the existence of streamers and their lack of attention span means dumbing down of the game
>the loss of commander role
>the merging of assault and medic roles
>the merging of support and engineering roles
>offshoring the development of assets to pajeets
>the introduction of women in the workplace
the series is kinda shit, but i had fun with it between the og and about bf4. just cheap and fast entertainment. no thinking, hit hardcore, find server, die in various close quarters gun fights repeatedly for an hour. call it shitty slop, but remember, for every 1 hour of the game was running, 59 minutes of it was me actually playing the fricking game. can you say the same of modern bullshit
>creative director
????????
ITS FRICKING BATTLEFIELD
the game would probably be better without any creative directors.