Yep I'd rather have solid frame pacing 60FPS(yuck) than 100fps wildly variable like the BETA is was awful.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Maybe you should read the full sentence ?
Means that's a PC running in a preset similar to next gen, so under what a crazy PC configuration would be able to do. And it's honestly very similar to what I saw in the beta with my XsX (bugs excluded)
Weird. I RARELY got the judders on PC. Performance obviously needs some work (which I'm hopefuly will be there for launch), but what I played was still a ton of fun for me 🤷
I'll actually push back on "weapon variety" as someone fairly critical of what we've seen so far.
I'd rather have 5 well-constructed/meaningfully different assault rifles than 15 for the sake of unlocks and progression. BF was better when it wasn't chasing CoD engagement loops. 90% of weapons in BFV within any given category are just variations of one another with slightly different ROF and range dropoffs.
I'd rather have 5 well-constructed/meaningfully different assault rifles than 15 for the sake of unlocks and progression. BF was better when it wasn't chasing CoD engagement loops. 90% of weapons in BFV within any given category are just variations of one another with slightly different ROF and range dropoffs.
I seen the complaint a lot too. I have a feeling that once they release big map it will be easier to find engagements as well since we will be able to actually see the contested hot zones.
I would agree that a limited set of weapons for the 2 or 3 first months is OK. But they will definitively need to drop some new ones (not just one or 2) pretty fast.
You can just play with 64 players or even less, which is what I am going to do. Since I am not interested in Conquest, I will probably not play many 128 player matches.
The weapons list was data mined, nobody knew if it was 100% accurate but based on the recent clips it appears it might be the full one
That picture is missing M5 AR that was default one in beta, but otherwise that is all beta client had in it.
No sidearms either, hoping we end up with a decent launch lineup with another for each type for every season.
Of course it's running on a PC but Why not say "PC footage representative of next gen console experience" instead of "PC representative next gen game engine footage"?
Their specialists gameplay from last week didn't have that disclaimer.
But their Hazard Zone trailer did.
That doesnt make sense.
Last edited:
Thats in the list but its called the Spear which is the name of the real world weapon its based on (the M5 name was made up for the game).
Same. If I see a flag is beginning to get capped I spawn right in to defend it, clear the area then push to the next point.
Back from what? We see the building get destroyed in India and we've seen destruction in the beta line up with previous titles not named Bad Company 2.
It's Dice, quite often many things don't make sense with them :) But what's sure is that I didn't see anything fundamentally different from what I saw during the beta. In fact the beta was even better as it was running at 60fps...
Yeah.
Would just love a 5-10 minute walk through of gameplay and features of some of the other maps.
Siege of Shanghai styled video version of 2042 when!? :(
Every gun effectively has three major variations with the ammo types as well.
elenarie This is a pretty niche option, but can you say if there will be the ability to resize red dots like in previous game? Or is it more like BFV where the red dot size and clarity is part of balancing the sights?
I agree, it ends with everyone screaming for their favorite gun to get buffed or the best one to get nerfed for a while and a lot of time gets wasted on mostly bad balance changes and reverses. Worst case they force weapons into weird niche roles that don't suit what you'd expect from the gun at all. Worse in contemporary/near future settings as well I think because most guns should be very powerful and very fully-automatic so the forced diversity feels even more arbitrary, near future gets some points for having a chance to be more experimental and not just have a bunch of bullet hoses... but that's probably what it will be.
I think 5 assault rifles is too many really... burst, semi-auto, low RoF low recoil, high RoF high recoil, middle ground would make the choice too easy aaaaand we're down to 1... 2... 3... 4! SMGs can have one very high RoF variant and I hesitate to say Suomi-high because in online settings it yields boring 1-on-1s, when everyone can pick every gun you don't need a slower/more accurate model, you pick assault instead. Sniper you need one long range and one close range. You don't need shotguns because they cannot be balanced to play well, you hate playing against them or you hate using them. You don't need HMGs unless you have suppression. You need to have 24 handguns and one revolver with one hit headshots because every one will use that anyway. And boom! There's your 32-but-really-8 gun BF that fans will hate and scream at for all eternity! If needed throw in a 400 round HMG that'll lose out to every other gun 99% of the time.
I mostly didn't like the customization in V either, for one they gave experienced players straight up upgrades (that were admittedly easy to obtain), and furthermore most weapons had a clear superior upgrade path with a few exceptions... and a lot of upgrades were so close to meaningless that they just felt like needless padding, like the quick scope upgrade giving like a 72ms advantage... scope customization and the 3x scope ended up being terrible for balancing HMGs and Assault Rifles against snipers... so drop customization as well! Haha! There's your 8 gun BF with no customization, the most popular Portal mode!
Last edited:
They showed a video before of their work in progress of a skyscraper falling down where individual pylons and levels crashed into each other in a way closer to a Houdini graphics simulation. The destruction they have now is barely any better than what was in 4, even BFV had more believable inwards/outwards falling buildings.
Thank you very much for your reply. Personally, I would be happy with only 64 players battles, if it means 120FPS on a Series X for example. But of course I know it's not that simple, I'm curious to see what the future holds.
I love how this toes the line between near-future and future. Little details like this are why I'm excited for this game.
Can't put my finger on it but the props/buildings feel thin. As if the edges could use some more beveling. Some of the corners look razor sharp. It could just be the video quality or
Maybe the large maps taking a toll on visual fidelity.
Maybe the large maps taking a toll on visual fidelity.
Oh for sure, real time will always be much harder to implement. I often feel lucky that I use Houdini for film and not games because we have less limitations. The Rocket does look awesome and I understand why it's more of a cached/alembic event.
Clearly a mandate came down that it needed to be cross-gen so we wouldn't be getting the true current gen versions of Battlefield. Comparing the game to what amounts to a tech demo doesn't seem reasonable. It's like the litany of folks who keep referring back to a February investor call where they were "ahead of schedule." Things change and as we've seen from that Press Sneak Fuck's books, EA simultaneously likes to meddle/doesn't have a full grasp of what goes into making games.
Some short sequences of the maps shown in the trailer. You can see some new sections and perspectives in higher detail.
I think it's the same for PS5. I have a faint memory that it said "2 days before" when I pre-ordered it a couple of days ago.
Some of the stuff they were showing off at the time seemed ok and somewhat plausible to an extent based on what I could see, even though it looked like a cached offline render. Memory issues, problems with previous gen and other factors probably played a part in toning it down somewhat, but I really wish they would not show this stuff unless they're sure it's getting in. Kind of reminds me of the Crackdown 3 amazing destruction demo, only to have the final product nowhere near what's promised. I'd rather a company underpromise and overdeliver, than promise a 2300HP engine under the bonnet only to lift the hood and find 2 chickens in a fucking wheel.
Here was the tech demo/experimentation for reference :
Under the same breath, Epic Games had a pretty good destruction system that eats a lot of destruction systems lunches 2 years ago, though I'm pretty sure this is running on a rails type system to load/unload stuff in the background and is not quite open world.
I was hoping DICE could have accomplished something similar, but that was on me for making connected comparisons and having unrealistic expectations I guess.
Maps look gorgeous. For curiosity's sake, I wonder what the reasoning was for going for more symbolic map names rather than geography based? Seems like most maps of the past were either named as an Operation or by the geographical location of the map. I guess Battlefield 4 had some like Rogue Transmission.
Is the playable area both on the arrid side (mirrors/desert), the entry gate between the areas, and the fertile/irrigated one?