-
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.
Battlefield 6 update during EA earnings call - Spring reveal
- Thread starter Milennia
- Start date
I'd love that. Just stay away from "accuracy" altogether from the jump. State the vison clearly and everyone who wants in will be there and everyone who doesnt can step off. They're going to complain no matter what if they see any female representation in the game anyway.
Conquest and Breakthrough should be the priority then, same player count for both gamemodes and much easier to share maps. They can make modifications for the smaller modes for a better fit.
Despite scale, Warzone still feels small cause the fights are so quick and short. Nothing still comes close to the chaos of large groups of players and vehicles you get in the Battlefield games.
A little touch in Battlefield V that I think adds a lot is the use of the amazing soundtrack at key moments. It feels really good as you're clinging onto the final point or making that last push as the music swells. And then you get another music cue at the start of the next sector in Breakthrough. It's pretty rad.
Keep the composers and others who had a part in the music, they did such an amazing job with Battlefield 1 and V. The new takes on the theme were pretty good which also leads me to my next suggestion. Use the theme whenever you can, it's dope. We don't need a piano cover of Livin' on a Prayer for the trailer or whatever marketing is planning, use the theme!
Keep the composers and others who had a part in the music, they did such an amazing job with Battlefield 1 and V. The new takes on the theme were pretty good which also leads me to my next suggestion. Use the theme whenever you can, it's dope. We don't need a piano cover of Livin' on a Prayer for the trailer or whatever marketing is planning, use the theme!
100% agree. Battlefield and DICE are clearly far better at large-scale combat than Call of Duty so really nail that part to differentiate yourself. Don't chase TDM, we don't need it. Conquest and Breakthrough/Rush are your showcases. I like the idea of Grand Operations but I also think that the players kind of make their own narratives if allowed to which is more rewarding than one provided by the game.
Yeah, it really doesn't have the same feel of the push and pull of two large teams fighting each other which I don't think it was intended to evoke. DICE has never disappointed technically though. Their games have always performed well for the amount of stuff that's going on (vehicles, tons of players, destructible environments), looked amazing, and the best sound in the business. BioWare may not like Frostbite for RPGs but it's glorious for large-scale shooters imo.
Could just mean what they did before with Battlefield 3 with PS3/PS4 kind of leap. PS3 was 32 player maps I believe, while PS4 was the 64 player count. You also went from 30fps to 60fps.
Going to second the poster. I absolutely loved Metro on BF3. Was a great 'small map' that focused a lot of action at certain points.
For real. If they are going to make shitty single player then better not make it at all.
Fully Agree. MP is their main reason people stick around, so I hope DICE used that extra time to make MP amazing.
Smaller gamemodes that the competitive community want to Squad Conquest or Rush are fine, just have a separate team adapt the maps. I believe this is what they were doing with BFV before plans got scrapped, hopefully they can pull it off in the next game without the burden of pumping out Battlefield and Battlefront yearly.
I don't think it's worth the time or resources to devote any time to when they have struggles getting the games complete by launch and timely post-launch support. Catering to the crowd isn't worth a second or a cent that could be put towards perfecting the main draws. Another stab at a battle royale mode would be more worthwhile than the small team modes imo.
this, no one who plays plays battlefield for the last 20 years cares about a single player campaign
The main team should have solved these issues with the SWE team focusing on BF6. DICE LA while assisting them with BF had a team developing the comp mode. I disagree about the lack of interest here, there are big communities that played small competitive games going back to BF3. On BF1 PS4 for example, there were many teams in NA and EU that played in squad league's myself included.
This series is primarily about large scale Conquest but a lot of those players also enjoy smaller scale gameplay. Clan matches on BF1's Frontlines and BFV's Squad Conquest modes were great times. I do not think they want to cannibalize Apex's population with a competing BR either.
Unless they are doing a bad company campaign (which I would love), there is no reason to waste resources on a campaign mode. I'm sure DICE and EA probably have some research that claims otherwise which is why they keep sticking them in, but I'm just going to say whatever the research says, its misguided and not actually relevant outside of a focus group.
I was skeptical of the BR mode in Battlefield V but I actually loved that mode. I think the problem was it wasn't worked on post launch, it wasn't f2p, and it wasn't crossplay. All three are death to a BR game in the modern market.
I would be fine with another crack at BR as long as there are two separate teams working on the br and the main game. Instead it felt like DICE never had the resources to handle both in BF V which ended up hurting both in the long run.
As far as small scale competitive modes, personally I love that kind of stuff as I'm 100% an infantry player at all times, but its once again a matter of resource allocation. You can't be everything to everybody. You have to pick and choose what you are. And at the end of the day, do you have the staff to allocate to properly do something right. They've always fallen short on these type of modes imo sadly which speaks to the problem of splitting themselves too thinly.
In the battlefield game that comes out this year, there shouldn't be these areas of the game that you know 95% of the community will never touch. It sounds simple but I feel like so many battlefield games are littered with stuff that almost nobody touches as they struggle to broaden their market and you know cost resources that could have been used elsewhere to give more bang for the buck.
I was skeptical of the BR mode in Battlefield V but I actually loved that mode. I think the problem was it wasn't worked on post launch, it wasn't f2p, and it wasn't crossplay. All three are death to a BR game in the modern market.
I would be fine with another crack at BR as long as there are two separate teams working on the br and the main game. Instead it felt like DICE never had the resources to handle both in BF V which ended up hurting both in the long run.
As far as small scale competitive modes, personally I love that kind of stuff as I'm 100% an infantry player at all times, but its once again a matter of resource allocation. You can't be everything to everybody. You have to pick and choose what you are. And at the end of the day, do you have the staff to allocate to properly do something right. They've always fallen short on these type of modes imo sadly which speaks to the problem of splitting themselves too thinly.
In the battlefield game that comes out this year, there shouldn't be these areas of the game that you know 95% of the community will never touch. It sounds simple but I feel like so many battlefield games are littered with stuff that almost nobody touches as they struggle to broaden their market and you know cost resources that could have been used elsewhere to give more bang for the buck.
Its basically the crowd that screams about a content per dollar ratio that will be your biggest voices railing against it. Same group that looks at a fighting game and goes, "oh x game had y number of characters and the sequel has less, I'm being ripped off". Those arent usually the people who are going to be sticking with the game long term buying shit. I used to think that way too and I had to learn (thanks to games getting mp modes forced into them in the 7th gen) that people should stick to their strengths and deliver the best possible product, not the most possible product.
But I think content per dollar ratio is valid when comparing BF4 which was JAMMED full of content compared to the latest battlefield that hasn't had much of anything.
Is last-gen support confirmed?
I wish. Do people even play that? Just seems like a waste of time and resources imo.
At the very least, give me the option to not install it.
Weird request but pls bring back the art team that was behind BF1. I've been replaying that lately and holy crap the atmosphere is off the charts (1st and 2nd points of St. Quentin Scar Operations for example).
BFV looked solid but it really felt like it lacked that extra sheen that BF1 had. Hopefully the extra year of development did some good!
BFV looked solid but it really felt like it lacked that extra sheen that BF1 had. Hopefully the extra year of development did some good!
Yes but it's an entirely different team porting it over. DICE will be all in on next-gen.
-- EDIT --
Turns out it is heavily rumoured that's the case, no official communication on it yet.
I bet trophy or achievement percentages would give a good indication of how many people play single player but I'm too lazy to look though lol.
Pls DICE have a properly supported hardcore mode. Games like Squad and Hell Let Loose are all I have and I want something with that big budget flair.
Honestly, I think BF4 had too much content. You needed Premium for the map packs, which splintered the playerbase. Those expansions also had new modes exclusive to those maps, which further splintered those who bought them separately. Then they start adding all these new guns and gadgets, and balancing them all becomes very difficult, especially when they fall into the same trap of "new gun is better than everything else", because there are already so many guns that are almost identical.
😂 Locker and Metro have their places, but I don't understand the 24/7 servers. A part of me thinks it's lack of BF3/4 servers that makes people join the rusted-on vets who are quite literally addicted to those maps and that's what bumps the numbers? But then when you find that supple hardcore large conquest server rotating DLC maps... That's a slice of heaven.
I hope they get some basic stuff right out of the gate. We can talk all we want about design, mechanics and art direction, but I'd really hate for the game to not ship with a team balancer, a functioning party system, a descriptive and fast server browser, solid anti-cheat/reporting tools and all the other shit they sometimes remember to ship and other times make it sound like it's the hardest thing in the world to build.
I'm hoping for classic Rush to return like a lot of people. That said, in addition to classic Rush/conquest, I would love for DICE to combine Battle Royale with those objective-based modes that Battlefield is known for.
Like, find a way to combine Rush and Conquest with two giant teams of 64 players parachuting onto the map. Maybe add limited or no respawns to the mode as well. And then, like Warzone, make it separate from the regular multiplayer and also F2P. I think that could be really exciting.
Like, find a way to combine Rush and Conquest with two giant teams of 64 players parachuting onto the map. Maybe add limited or no respawns to the mode as well. And then, like Warzone, make it separate from the regular multiplayer and also F2P. I think that could be really exciting.
I think BFV made a very strong case as to why spotting is needed. I hope it returns.
What I want:
- Simpler Loadouts
Sure, give me some variety, but I don't want dozens and dozens of permutations.
- Less air support spam
Honestly, a lot of the games get ruined by people that get in an aircraft and are just untouchable and rack up all the kills. It's obnoxious. Give me old school battlefield planes or nerf them to hell. It's just not fun.
- Rush/Conquest as focal gametypes
Enough said.
- Simpler Loadouts
Sure, give me some variety, but I don't want dozens and dozens of permutations.
- Less air support spam
Honestly, a lot of the games get ruined by people that get in an aircraft and are just untouchable and rack up all the kills. It's obnoxious. Give me old school battlefield planes or nerf them to hell. It's just not fun.
- Rush/Conquest as focal gametypes
Enough said.
Bring back the doritos!! I'm serious, I never had a problem with them.
And the endless amount of attachments in BF4, I liked the variety lol.
Yup...they need to take a hard look at BF2 on PC. Take that...modernize it...add destruction...call it a day.
I said the EXACT same thing to my friend when we booted up BF4 the other day and had a ball. BF1 and V are missing a lot of the elements that make 'Battlefield moments'. Although I think the squad weapons like the rocket do a lot of the heavy lifting for the BFV spectacle. Would be nice if Commander returned and could delegate those kind of deployables to squad leaders.
They did this the last two games and it was horrible. More loadouts and unlocks means me playing more.
I'm fine with the load outs I guess, I don't care that much.
Biggest thing I hate is air spam. It ruins everything.
If it isn't BC3, then the only singleplayer I need is MP modes with bots for the times I want to play but don't want the stress of playing with real players. Or just want to practice various things a little more freely.
BF4: 20.2%
BF1: 34.2%
BFV: 28.43%
Trophy percentages and BF1 and V are an average of the campaigns.
Both 3D spotting and a ping system would be appreciated.
As long as Medic is forced to run revive, and ammo for Support.
OP
OP
Regarding unlocks -
BF3 and 4 had a ton of attachments, most of which did the same thing, just looked different cosmetically.
I understand the confusion the system caused, but I prefer it.
More cosmetic unlockables across the board would be great, even in the form of that attachment system.
DICE tends to be super reserved with their cosmetic situation, which I understand considering the want to remain grounded, however the BF4 cosmetic unlockable system in particular was great, I loved getting the knives and suits over time without spending a dime.
BF3 and 4 had a ton of attachments, most of which did the same thing, just looked different cosmetically.
I understand the confusion the system caused, but I prefer it.
More cosmetic unlockables across the board would be great, even in the form of that attachment system.
DICE tends to be super reserved with their cosmetic situation, which I understand considering the want to remain grounded, however the BF4 cosmetic unlockable system in particular was great, I loved getting the knives and suits over time without spending a dime.
I just always switched to a class with a tracking rocket and knocked them out of the sky. Easy points
I thought BFV was fine once they introduced some tweaks to aid player visibility. I'd rather they have minimap spotting like in BF2 since 3D spotting just devolves into shoot the doritos
The bigger issue for me was that sometimes enemy gunshot audio wouldn't play so sometimes you would die without hearing hearing what killed you even if they were only 10m away.
I'm not a massive Battlefield fan, but used to play it on occasion, but what stopped me from playing more often is what vehicles got turned into. I hope Dice returns to adding them onto the map. I hate spawning into vehicles. People just sit on the spawn screen and just wait. In Battlefield and Battlefront.
I want to fight to get to a landing strip and take off in a plane or helicopter. That'd be the single feature that would get me to buy the game Day 1 and play regularly. I miss playing Battlefield 3 because of this.
I want to fight to get to a landing strip and take off in a plane or helicopter. That'd be the single feature that would get me to buy the game Day 1 and play regularly. I miss playing Battlefield 3 because of this.
Nobody I know says "you know what, the thing that Battlefield really needs is a higher player count." So right off the bat you have to suspect that this game isn't being made for Battlefield fans, they're chasing some other demographic. Hell, my favourite mode (from BF1942 onwards) was 12 vs 12 Rush BFBC2 on the PS3.
The greatest Battlefield trailers IMHO are the BFBC2 Battlefield Moments trailers. They were absolutely true to the playing experience of the game (I think you have to click the links to watch them on YouTube due to age restrictions):
The greatest Battlefield trailers IMHO are the BFBC2 Battlefield Moments trailers. They were absolutely true to the playing experience of the game (I think you have to click the links to watch them on YouTube due to age restrictions):
As someone who pretty much played conquest exclusively, a 128 player count sounds amazing, if the map size warrants it. It could really open up the vehicle warfare with larger maps instead of being in planes and basically having to loop every 20-30 seconds because you've hit the edge of the map.
I'm sure they'll have the usual 64 player conquest, rush etc on top of it.