(Jackfrags) "Modern Warfare is a problem for Battlefield"

[EndlessNever]

Call of Duty are reaching 100 players before Battlefield, and after all, this is Battlefield - the game that is supposed to be known for large scale sandbox warfare. And now it is being beaten by one of its competitors

Click to shrink...

Jackfrags is known for covering Battlefield, and being a big fan of the franchise. And I thought his video was interesting enough to start a debate here on Era about what he's saying. It's no lie that with this new iteration of Call of Duty, it is weirdly getting closer to what Battlefield at least, plays like. In the sense of large maps with big player counts. And although 100 player matches is only a rumour right now, many who have played the new Modern Warfare have said the maps are so big that it would better fit having even more players in a single match.

What's your opinion on his video? Does he bring up a good argument?

 

[NippleViking]

For as long as CoD stays as a static 'arena' shooter without squadplay and defined roles, it's not going to be stealing Battlefield's thunder or audience.

If anything I'd argue Battlefield is coming closer to resembling CoD than CoD resembling it. CoD seems to have rekindled some of its excitement with Modern Warfare, whilst Battlefield's charm has been waning since they began to neglect the IP's sandbox roots.

 

[Cripterion]

He's probably right but in my opinion Battlefield is a problem for Battlefield. Game just lost its shine.

 

[Brutalitops]

It is a good argument. It may not be obvious right away but either way, a perception is growing that this is trending at least in the direction of catering to Battlefield fans as well as CoD fans.

I am a longtime BF player who has only dabbled in COD, but I'm showing a lot of interest in MW.

Doesn't help that BFV was a steaming pile and there is no new BF release until next year. Assuming it's a return to form then there won't be a problem.

 

[unAimed]

For as long as CoD stays as a static 'arena' shooter without squadplay and defined roles, it's not going to be stealing any of Battlefield's thunder or audience.

Click to shrink...

I wouldn't be so sure. I personally for example really like battlefield but I am more of an infantry player. I enjoy the large scale "feeling" of War.
If cod can emulate this somehow I am willing to give it at least a chance in the open beta. And for the moment the 100 player mode sounds like it might...

 

[Turkoop]

I saw his last video about Modern Warfare and I'm playing BFV many times per week. Battlefield isn't in a good state. There's still missing content. There's absolutely no depth and some bugs were there for many weeks. EA and DICE need to wake the fuck up. Battlefield V still has potential and I hope they will support the game till 2021 or so. If they give ip this game so fast, I won't be happy.

 

[Bass2448]

Well they certainly have done it. I've been estranged with COD since MW2/Black Ops 2. This game is getting me back. Even though a few months in once reviews settle we'll get microtransactions stuffed down our throats. It'll be a glorious few months at the very least.

 

[KillLaCam]

If BF was in a good state I'd say "nah" but if that 100 person muffed is actually good and somewhat strategic then I could definitely see it taking some BF fans.
Im interested in this CoD but couldn't see it ever replacing BF for me because it doesn't have any destruction or anything like that. If BFV magically became good then I'd probably drop the CoD game right away

 

[Potterson]

I go back to BF5 every couple weeks and I'm still frustrated with progression system. Stupid weapon perks and objectively better weapons from higher levels... Not to mention bad maps.

The new one, Marita, is completely unbalanced for Conquest.

But still, Modern Warfare won't "steal" Battlefield fans. Maybe some of them... But DICE just need to go back to basics. Just make new Battlefield 3 and everyone will be happy.

 

[Deleted member 8784]

I feel like many of other EA's titles, Battlefield V just wasn't ready when it was pushed out, just like Mass Effect and Anthem. I feel whoever is making the call to ship these things out in whatever state they're in is making a serious error of judgement long-term.

I feel like what I find the most frustrating is that these games 'could' be brilliant if they were given the time they needed.

 

[Raxious]

Jackfrags is known for covering Battlefield, and being a big fan of the franchise. And I thought his video was interesting enough to start a debate here on Era about what he's saying. It's no lie that with this new iteration of Call of Duty, it is weirdly getting closer to what Battlefield at least, plays like. In the sense of large maps with big player counts. And although 100 player matches is only a rumour right now, many who have played the new Modern Warfare have said the maps are so big that it would better fit having even more players in a single match.

What's your opinion on his video? Does he bring up a good argument?

Click to shrink...

Is the 100 player thing still a rumour? I thought it was confirmed that the Ground Wars mode would have at least 100 players.

 

[BassForever]

In theory the two shouldn't be comparable. Battlefield should focus on the team element of a large scale, having a ""smaller"" player count of 32 v 32 to create a balanced scenario combining element so land, air, and sea combat with more of a simulation feel. MW's 100 man battle royale even if it incorporates some level of team gameplay should still have a focus on more of an arena feel.

If BFV was living up to it's ideals I doubt anyone would care if MW had more human characters in a map. It's an issue because everyone I know who plays BFV laments it's missing features and content past BF games had.

 

[signal]

Why is his cadence so weird in this video? Sounds like he's trying to be the G-Man from Half-Life.

 

[Full Metal Jumper]

Will always have a soft spot for Joint Operations. 150 players back in 2004.

 

[Deleted member 135]

DICE has been on a downward slide for years. The leadership doesn't listen to their devs, they have perpetual trouble with Frostbite, they keep simplifying or removing long standing features, they always release games before they are ready.

It was a gigantic mistake to do BFV as they did, and as a big fan of the WW2 FPS genre it pissed me off. No US, no USSR, no Italy, no Japan for over a year after launch.

DICE today is a trend chaser not an innovator.

 

[Rabalder.]

Battlefield is a problem for Battlefield. Dice have been in miserable form this gen.

 

[Jakisthe]

Modern Battlefield is a problem for Battlefield.

Dice hasn't made a good game since BF4. Hardline was watered down BF4. Catalyst was all over the place, and kinda besides the point. Battlefront was babby's first man blaster. One was style over substance. Battlefront 2 was more of the same as the first one, but with added "Dice does campaigns badly". BFV was embarrassingly anemic.

Just give us a proper "5 years in the future" Battlefield 5 and stop screwing around, Dice.

 

[EndlessNever]

I wasn't aware DICE (& and more so recent Battlefield games) have been so bad, as I don't really play them all that much.

Is the 100 player thing still a rumour? I thought it was confirmed that the Ground Wars mode would have at least 100 players.

Click to shrink...

From what I know at least, it is still a rumour.

 

[Arkestry]

I enjoyed BFV for a bit but I've entirely shifted to Squad for everything I liked BF for. For everything but gunplay it's better.

 

[NippleViking]

I wouldn't be so sure. I personally for example really like battlefield but I am more of an infantry player. I enjoy the large scale "feeling" of War.
If cod can emulate this somehow I am willing to give it at least a chance in the open beta. And for the moment the 100 player mode sounds like it might...

Click to shrink...

From past experience, trying to scratch a BF itch with CoD just hasn't ever worked. Despite their similarities, they both offer such wildly different experiences that you'll ultimately be disappointed if you're looking for a replacement.

That said, it doesn't seem like BFV is scratching most people's BF itch anyway, so maybe even if it is a pale imitation, it'll be better than its contemporaries.

 

[cooldawn]

The scope of this new Call of Duty still seems smaller than that of Battlefield's. I mean I doubt you'll get anything like the destruction, vehicle types and maps size, for instance, that Battlefield offers and 64 players is a good amount for the way Battlefield maps are designed in this era of the franchise. More is unnecessary.

I think when we see a fully-fledged Battlefield for the next generation of consoles there's a much higher chance that horsepower will enable DICE to get back to what made the franchise great in the first place and start to differentiate it again from the rest of the players in the genre.

 

[kyle mechlachlan]

Dice really needs to rethink what Battlefield is. BF1942 redefined the combat shooter for a lot of people. BF2 did it again... BF3 established what a modern Battlefield game looks like (for better or worse) and they've just been doing that over and over again since. It's annoying that they brought back WWII but decided to keep it in the design style we've seen for years. I was hoping for some old school 1942 type stuff maps. It didn't really feel like WWII and I did enjoy that game, it was just unfinished.

I dunno, I've been a life long BF fan but it's long in the tooth and needs something fresh.

Really what I'm saying is, bring back 2142 and revamp Titan mode. Do it ya cowards.

 

[Deleted member 17676]

BFs gone downhill for me. Enjoyed all of the last gen games and BF4 was ok besides the ridiculous server issues. Can't really get in the new ones.

 

[OG_Thrills]

He's not lying.

I saw the weapon customization trailer and felt bad for the past two entries into the Battlefield series. I don't know what they did to the franchise. In fact, that's a lie. I do know what happened to BF. It got Andrew Wilson'd. When the exec said BF was going for fun instead of skill or something to that effect, I knew it was a done deal.

Visually and in terms of audio, nothing has come close to BF on consoles. But they made that game so easy, that it felt lackluster to me.

It's been years since I've been hyped for a COD game and I think that BF push for the casual market, inadvertently, is part of the reason why.

 

[Akira86]

COD existing and influencing BF in anyway, was a problem, I'd agree.

I've never purchased a COD game except for Infinite Warefare and that's only because I heard the campaign was reminiscent of a BF game.

 

[Zombine]

It would only be a problem if it was supported for more than one year.

 

[Coyote Starrk]

Battlefield is a problem for Battlefield.


And I say that as a die hard as fuck Battlefield fan who despises Call of Duty with every fiber of my being. BFV has been an unmitigated disaster from the start and has not gotten much better since launch. Ans as a fan of BF I am used to rough as hell launches, but DICE almost always irons shit out within 6 months but the game just seems to be getting worse as time goes on.


They either need to properly address the issues of BFV or abandon the project entirely. Because right now I am watching them waste time and resources on a broken game that is barely hanging on. When you have diehard fans and dedicated content creators both telling you shit is fucked that is when you need to sit down and listen.

 

[VN1X]

I mean... it's been a problem for years now? And it's not just because CoD now suddenly boasts a 100 player mode (don't they already with last year's BR mode?).

CoD will continue it's dominance and I'm completely fine with that. They're incredibly enjoyable games and while some entries are less polished than others I do find myself enjoying them a lot more compared to Battlefield lately, even if Activision seemingly can't help themselves fucking it up every year with microtransactions up the wazoo.

Bring on Modern Warfare!

 

[MWorldII]

Is the 100 player thing still a rumour?

Click to shrink...

it is confirmed to have at least 100 players.

 

[EndlessNever]

It would only be a problem if it was supported for more than one year.

Click to shrink...

Call of Duty WW2 is still getting supported to this day with new weapons and such to my knowledge. So it isn't so hard to believe this new MW could also be supported like that.

 

[Turkoop]

He's not lying.

I saw the weapon customization trailer and felt bad for the past two entries into the Battlefield series. I don't know what they did to the franchise. In fact, that's a lie. I do know what happened to BF. It got Andrew Wilson'd. When the exec said BF was going for fun instead of skill or something to that effect, I knew it was a done deal.

Visually and in terms of audio, nothing has come close to BF on consoles. But they made that game so easy, that it felt lackluster to me.

It's been years since I've been hyped for a COD game and I think that BF push for the casual market, inadvertently, is part of the reason why.

Click to shrink...

Yeah it's embarrassing that BFV has almost no customization

 

[Zombine]

Call of Duty WW2 is still getting supported to this day with new weapons and such to my knowledge. So it isn't so hard to believe this new MW could also be supported like that.

Click to shrink...

Wait...is it really....?

 

[TheXbox]

This is a tale as old as time. Battlefield will come back with Bad Company 3 and win back all the good will they lost, and then CoD will be in the hot seat again.

 

[EndlessNever]

Wait...is it really....?

Click to shrink...

https://charlieintel.com/new-weapon...-wwii-collections-permanently-unlocked/55427/

Yep, you can see new weapons just added this month.

 

[Zombine]

https://charlieintel.com/new-weapon...-wwii-collections-permanently-unlocked/55427/

Yep, you can see new weapons just added this month.

Click to shrink...

I'll have to play again. It's one of my favorite CODs.

 

[Monkey Business]

I've thought for years now that Battlefield should've been moving towards something more in the Planetside 2 vein with massive player counts, persistent war and multiple fighting fronts but as of now it remains nothing but a pipedream.

 

[Evolution of Metal]

The only problem for BF franchise is EA/DICE. Nothing else matters - they have progressively made BF games worse, as everyone else was making games better.

 

[Anabolex]

I dislike Bf1 and think that BfV is just garbage. I have no idea how Dice managed to do a 180 on their franchise. The setting is definitely a big factor but I do not believe that current Dice would be able to create a game as good as BF4 even with a modern setting.

 

[VariantX]

He's probably right but in my opinion Battlefield is a problem for Battlefield. Game just lost its shine.

Click to shrink...

Yep. Doesn't matter how many folks you put in an arena if it still plays like call of duty. Worrying about player numbers comparing games is a surface level worry imho. Stripping back weapon customization and adding arbitrary assignments that make people do what isnt optimal for to unlock weapons and customization is a problem. A fucking million game modes we don't need instead of maps for months was a problem. Above all, pushing the game out the door when it aint ready seems to be a problem overall with 2 of the last 3 BF games.

 

[show me your skeleton]

i'm out of the loop, is there even a battlefield out this year or do they not do annual releases?

 

[PeskyToaster]

I'll see if they can actually pull it off. The 50v50 in Blackout is a laggy mess with a lot of graphics issues

 

[MAX PAYMENT]

It would only be a problem if it was supported for more than one year.

Click to shrink...

This is the real answer

 

[Deleted member 135]

Weapon customization via attachments isn't needed, it is just pointless bloat.

What went wrong with Battlefield is that DICE forgot what Battlefield is. Hell, even the console exclusive 12v12 Battlefield 1943 is a better Battlefield game than BF4, BF1, or BFV.

 

[EVIL]

Its a lot of assumptions based on a 100 player mode and them having a few vehicles. From the looks of it, battlefield is still very much a creature of its own with far different game dynamics, but its great for COD to send a message to DICE to step up its game.

 

[Tovarisc]

Flakfire has video about this theme too, MW coming to take BF's lunch money.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdVP2YTTF0k&

If MW's larger game modes actually work well and pull off proper combined arms warfare it will be major blow to already sinking BFV.

 

[Jakisthe]

i'm out of the loop, is there even a battlefield out this year or do they not do annual releases?

Click to shrink...

Nah, they're on a biannual schedule. At least, have been for the last few.

 

[Thrill_house]

Weapon customization via attachments isn't needed, it is just pointless bloat.

What went wrong with Battlefield is that DICE forgot what Battlefield is. Hell, even the console exclusive 12v12 Battlefield 1943 is a better Battlefield game than BF4, BF1, or BFV.

Click to shrink...

Funny you mention this. My entire crew has been wishing we could get another experience like 1943. I don't think any of us got the same fun or vibe from the later games. They are far more pretty sure...but they feel to be missing something imo.

At this point, it feels as if dice are kind of holding themselves back by trying to appeal to everyone.

 

[Deleted member 56580]

Battlefield is doodoo since IV, everyone knows it. Sure they can capture people that are hungry for novelty and whatnot but in terms of actual core base they haven't managed to capture something that was as alive and passionate as BF 2 - Bad Company 2 - 1943 (still the best one of the last installments)

Opening the franchise toward a multi platform perspective did to it some good in terms of revenues I'm sure, but it also led to some of the most repetitive, shallow flow of combats I've seen in games of that scale

I know I left BF IV as soon as Planetside 2 got released and never looked back, since it gave the sandboxy element that I was missing since BF 2. The depth of the roles and whatnot

BF just is not what it used to be. And whats funny about Modern Warfare is that they actually copied Domination from BF while also adding a 100 players mode, as well as a 10v10 / 20v20 which is what every infantry focused player of BF want

win win

 

[OG_Thrills]

Yeah it's embarrassing that BFV has almost no customization

Click to shrink...

What really gets me... And I'm saying this as a long time BF player... Is that the weapons are exactly alike. In every BF up until 4 you had to know your weapons and loadout. Fine tuning the bevy of options to fit your playstyle was always part of the fun to me.

But now, especially in BF1 and 5 the weapons are exactly the same. There is absolutely no difference unless the distance is extreme. A Machine gun, rifle, and hand cannon have no variation apart from rate of fire. You can go full beast mode with a revolver. The maps are uninspired and therefore very little strategy needs to be employed. 50% of the maps I've played on BF5, all the action takes place in houses.

I know BF3 and 4 had bugs but they were FPS master pieces in comparison to the generic nonsense DICE have delivered in 1 and 5.

Jack touches on the irony between BF chasing the casuals and COD chasing the core. I didn't think I'd ever say COD has more appeal than BF but here we are. And I've gloated about how epic BF is as a series, ever since I switched many moons ago. Watching that BF4 montage during Jacks video gave me them feels and also made me kinda sad.

Andrew Wilson is the worst thing to happen to DICE.

 

[TheRaidenPT]

He's probably right but in my opinion Battlefield is a problem for Battlefield. Game just lost its shine.

Click to shrink...

This.

BF:V despite having good core values failed miserably everywhere else, I keep trying to come back to the game update after update but every time I do as such I am reminded on how the game still lacks the polish of bugs that have been around since BETA