-
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.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Jackfrags opinion vid: "Battlefield 6" should be a reboot
- Thread starter Theorry
- Start date
I mean this in the nicest way possible:
Singleplayer. Co-op. Battle royale. Small-scale (5v5) multiplayer.
DICE has proven time and time again they can't do any of these things right. They have shown, however, that they can absolutely nail one thing, and it's all they've ever needed to get right:
Large-scale multiplayer battlefields. The thing the series was named after.
Conquest, Rush, Breakthrough, Frontlines. These modes are all excellent and staples of Battlefield. Throw in TDM and Domination for the folks who like it, but remember that the folks who really want Battlefield, who don't want Call of Duty but slightly different, they want 32v32 matches on big maps with objectives, squad based play, and maybe even a commander.
They do not want bad singleplayer missions. They do not want co-op. They do not want "Firestorm". They do not want small team "competitive multiplayer". They do not want "Elite Kits" or "Behemoths".
They want servers that work. They want anti-cheat, period. They want team balancers, period. They want weapon and gadget variety. They want map variety. They want the things that made Battlefield into what it is. They do not want this "jack of all trades, master of fucking it all up" mess that the series has become.
Singleplayer. Co-op. Battle royale. Small-scale (5v5) multiplayer.
DICE has proven time and time again they can't do any of these things right. They have shown, however, that they can absolutely nail one thing, and it's all they've ever needed to get right:
Large-scale multiplayer battlefields. The thing the series was named after.
Conquest, Rush, Breakthrough, Frontlines. These modes are all excellent and staples of Battlefield. Throw in TDM and Domination for the folks who like it, but remember that the folks who really want Battlefield, who don't want Call of Duty but slightly different, they want 32v32 matches on big maps with objectives, squad based play, and maybe even a commander.
They do not want bad singleplayer missions. They do not want co-op. They do not want "Firestorm". They do not want small team "competitive multiplayer". They do not want "Elite Kits" or "Behemoths".
They want servers that work. They want anti-cheat, period. They want team balancers, period. They want weapon and gadget variety. They want map variety. They want the things that made Battlefield into what it is. They do not want this "jack of all trades, master of fucking it all up" mess that the series has become.
Yeah they just need to retreat to a proven formula. 3 and 4 were excellent games and the modern setting allows for enjoyable experiences like flying helicopters. The setting isn't going to be an issue with female soldiers either (at least not to the same degree) so it won't have a big community backlash before its out of the gate.
They need to junk some of their more recent ideas. Do not give assault the anti tank. Do not make support engineers. Junk stupid stuff like pickup weapons and classes and behemoths. I genuinely enjoyed 3s campaign but every campaign since has sucked.
They need to junk some of their more recent ideas. Do not give assault the anti tank. Do not make support engineers. Junk stupid stuff like pickup weapons and classes and behemoths. I genuinely enjoyed 3s campaign but every campaign since has sucked.
I honestly think Battlefield V is the only real dud in the mainline series. Each entry has its own collective strengths and weaknesses, and even Battlefield V has a handful of its own rewarding ideas and changes (meatier gunplay and removal of spotting were welcome). But Battlefield V is the most incoherently designed of the bunch. The moment to moment play, balance of infantry and vehicles, synergy between roles and their purpose, and average quality maps is so far below part the entire experience aggressively falls apart.
So yeah. I don't really feel it needs to be "rebooted". But I also don't think much of what Jack is proposing wouldn't necessarily constitutes as a reboot so much as...a good Battlefield game. DICE needs to ensure Conquest is the focus, and build the game around that, especially for what that means in how the maps are designed, their unique capture point of interests, and the sense of dynamic moving frontlines. Classes and vehicles need to have flexibility, but within defined roles and game systems that encourage synchronicity between players and less pandering to the solo runners. Freeform vehicle selection needs to be flushed right down the toilet, as it ruins map balance.
I dunno. We'll see.
So yeah. I don't really feel it needs to be "rebooted". But I also don't think much of what Jack is proposing wouldn't necessarily constitutes as a reboot so much as...a good Battlefield game. DICE needs to ensure Conquest is the focus, and build the game around that, especially for what that means in how the maps are designed, their unique capture point of interests, and the sense of dynamic moving frontlines. Classes and vehicles need to have flexibility, but within defined roles and game systems that encourage synchronicity between players and less pandering to the solo runners. Freeform vehicle selection needs to be flushed right down the toilet, as it ruins map balance.
I dunno. We'll see.
Absolutely nothing on that list excites me one bit. I don't knoe if that's a sign of how far the BF series has fallen.
Kinda? The war that starts in Battlefield 3 is still going in Battlefield 4, and you meet one of the previous Battlefield 3 Single player characters in 4, and there's a few maps that are updated versions from 3 in 4. Battlefield One has a Single player character who shares a last name with a character in 3. Battlefield V used part of the intro cinematic from Battlefield One its intro cinematic. The last expansion from Battlefield 4 had the birth of the PAC, the Pan-Asian Coalition, one of the factions from Battlefield 2142, as well as prototypes of weapons and vehicles from 2142.
Just remake all the best maps from previous games, make it a multi-era bug-free Battlefield greatest hits collection with next-gen bells & whistles. If there's a story mode, make it Bad Company 3.
The fact that CoD of all franchises has a massive 150 player BR that wipes the floor with BFs meme Battle Royal mode means that DICE really needs to step up
I would love to see an optional 100+ player option for conquest, seeing as the next gen should be able to handle it
I would love to see an optional 100+ player option for conquest, seeing as the next gen should be able to handle it
There's a key difference here.
Warzone was developed exclusively as a standalone game from the ground up to be its own thing.
Firestorm was made by Criterion and they didn't care enough to put actual resources becasue EA already has Apex Legends and they don't need another Battle Royale game.
Blackout was mediocre because it was not that good to begin with, the tied the game to Black Ops 4 and F2P is the way for BR games.
This is what happened to Firestorm as well.
Battlefield can have its own Battle Royale mode with Conquest and such, but they won't make a standalone BR game when Apex Legends exists and it's successful.
The singleplayer campaign of the first Bad Company tried to emulate the dynamic freeform nature of multiplayer and was kind of in the vein of a Far Cry/Crysis.
It had a sensible and inspired direction. A goofy comedic slant, which was helped greatly by the cast they got together. BC2 was a step down as it became more serious and linear, but they included these dumb improvised idle conversations between characters, and that's the one thing that stood out as a positive.
If DICE were able to bring that back and improve on what worked well, I wouldn't mind if resources were spent on a singleplayer campaign.
It had a sensible and inspired direction. A goofy comedic slant, which was helped greatly by the cast they got together. BC2 was a step down as it became more serious and linear, but they included these dumb improvised idle conversations between characters, and that's the one thing that stood out as a positive.
If DICE were able to bring that back and improve on what worked well, I wouldn't mind if resources were spent on a singleplayer campaign.
This would actually be a good idea.. they should get pointers from Respawn on how to do a service game. It took Respawn time to get it right but they have the knowledge at EA to make a f2p BF game work.
We don't know, but I would imagine they have done some next-gen improvements to the engine.
Yes please. This would remove the frustration and repetition inherent to the static map rotations of DICE servers, and would provide players with more options.
It sucks that they took a step back and introduced a bunch of unnecessary problems by removing this.
They added Community Games to BF5 at some point, but I have no idea how that's supposed to work. It doesn't seem to.
Just make it closer to bf3 and 4
-slower movement speed.
-get rid of vehicle teleporting and bring back spawning
-it should be chaos like 3 and 4 not V
-slower movement speed.
-get rid of vehicle teleporting and bring back spawning
-it should be chaos like 3 and 4 not V
I'd probably be thinking, "can we pull off a Rainbow Six: Siege" with BF right now? That is to say something that largely revamps what the traditional series is known for. I think the answer could easily be yes, and using the Bad Company 3 moniker would be perfect. Individual operators with really unique abilities, with maps built with destruction and medium-large scale combat in mind. Get away from the boring "medic, soldier, engineer, sniper" stuff and create something that's a lot more interesting both game play wise and visually in the form of operators with unique tools, abilities and weapons. It'd be a perfect fit for rush focused design as well.
The SP campaign for BF3 and BF4 were pretty cutting edge. Graphics way more impressive then the multipleyer. They should do both.
You can do cutting edge graphics on multiplayer (see Battlefield 1 and the EA Battlefronts).
Whole series needs and attitude reset to pre bad company before they started warping everything to appeal to cod fans. Playing bfv is like they begrudgingly included vehicles more than anything is. And even outside that it's just a garbage choke point fest full of spam with absolutely no flow at all.
There hasn't been a good 64 player BF since 2142.
There hasn't been a good 64 player BF since 2142.
Don't know about anything else except that it should be MP only.
But, since EA loves to make the uninformed choice, I'm not holding my breath.
PS. Give me the choppahs!
But, since EA loves to make the uninformed choice, I'm not holding my breath.
PS. Give me the choppahs!
That's the only thing that was cutting edge about them though.
Having played through both you couldn't do a more by the numbers corridor shooters. It's story and characters were also uninspired.
I don't necessarily think the SP canibalises the MP but i do think they should do something with the SP that's not just a reskin of the worst aspects of FPS campaign of the PS360 era.
BF3 story was a rip off of some cod campaigns but it was still cool.
BF4 I really like especially the sound track. Remember the song they made that was dedicated to that Dice developer who died during development. Kjell I think? Chills...
I just want sandbox fun back, BF1 and BFV were severely lacking in that area. Hopefully they are using the new Modern Warfare as motivation for creating the new BF game: MW absolutely killed it in terms of gun sounds and animations, solid tacticool aesthetics/cosmetics, and now Warzone has maintained a huge audience because it's providing that sandbox fun that BF4 provided. There's a huge market for another sandbox BF game
Also, it'd be nice if we didn't have to wait a year+ after launch to get basic QOL features like a team balancer. Both BF1 and BFV had issues where matches would start where one team would have 12 players, and the other would have 30.
Also, it'd be nice if we didn't have to wait a year+ after launch to get basic QOL features like a team balancer. Both BF1 and BFV had issues where matches would start where one team would have 12 players, and the other would have 30.
Last edited:
they need to do something. The games have been going downhill. The last enjoyable game they've made imo, was BF4. And that was a nightmare at launch. The buggy mess launch of BF4 was the first red flag that something was amiss. But they managed to right the ship and turn it into a great BF game.
then Star Wars Battlefront released. Thats when the problems really started. Cuz that was like a poor mans battlefield. And for some reason, it felt like Battlefield One was more an extension of the Star Wars game, then it was Battlefield 4 or Bad Company. It became this new hollow shell of itself. A more stripped down, basic game. They tried to put it back together with BF5. But the fun, the magic is gone. The progression sucks. The gameplay feels unrewarding. I dont enjoy the guns. Some of the DLC maps have been cool. Not so much launch maps.
i just dont get how they go from Bad Company 2 a decade ago. To where we are now. Reboot it if necessary. Scorch earth. There is a serious problem with the development of this series now.
then Star Wars Battlefront released. Thats when the problems really started. Cuz that was like a poor mans battlefield. And for some reason, it felt like Battlefield One was more an extension of the Star Wars game, then it was Battlefield 4 or Bad Company. It became this new hollow shell of itself. A more stripped down, basic game. They tried to put it back together with BF5. But the fun, the magic is gone. The progression sucks. The gameplay feels unrewarding. I dont enjoy the guns. Some of the DLC maps have been cool. Not so much launch maps.
i just dont get how they go from Bad Company 2 a decade ago. To where we are now. Reboot it if necessary. Scorch earth. There is a serious problem with the development of this series now.
I need something like Bad Company 2's Rush mode; rushing through jungles on a dirt bike, jumping off and taking the first point, up a hill and to the second then down to the last. I rocked the recon with a SMG and sensors or took down helicopters with a tracer and rocket launcher. BF3/4 conquest was okay but rush was naff.
Im confident we will get sandbox focus back, these new consoles are powerful
What we need is rather simple:
Focused, strict class system. No "operators", no all class weapons (outside of sidearms), at least five classes
Equal footing for all players, meaning no gameplay unlocks, weapon attachments, vehicle modifications, etc. Everyone has everything besides cosmetics from day one.
Balanced maps with both infantry and vehicle gameplay, Provenance is a good example recently.
Conquest-focused design for the maps, all other modes should come second.
Custom servers from day one.
Full no-voice teamwork contextual commo-rose system.
Mid-Cold War setting.
Focused, strict class system. No "operators", no all class weapons (outside of sidearms), at least five classes
Equal footing for all players, meaning no gameplay unlocks, weapon attachments, vehicle modifications, etc. Everyone has everything besides cosmetics from day one.
Balanced maps with both infantry and vehicle gameplay, Provenance is a good example recently.
Conquest-focused design for the maps, all other modes should come second.
Custom servers from day one.
Full no-voice teamwork contextual commo-rose system.
Mid-Cold War setting.
So much this. I'm not a BF super fan, but I always try it out for a few hours. The barrier for unlocking stuff is so high compared to COD that it is ridiculous.
I would actually prefer if guns and attachments were unlocked from the start. Leave the grind for cosmetics and let people play the game freely.
While that is always cool and all, in reality it is simply not fun.
The ideal team sizes in BF3 and 4 on the full large maps where 32 or up to 48 players. go above that and the game becomes frustrating where you get shot from every angle and is just pure chaos. So if you suddenly want 128 players you will need a map that is at least twice as big as the biggest maps in battlefield. while that again sounds cool, it brings with it maaaany downsides like: more vehicle combat, bigger combat effectiveness gap between vehicle and infantry combat. vehicle becoming mandatory to move around effectively, making it annoying to be stuck without one.
They should do another Bad Company. But I have no confidence after what they've been doing after BF3.
That will be hard, as Call of Duty seems to be moving into Battlefield territory, with Modern Warfare's big maps, 64p MP game modes and 150 player BR.
We are gonna have to split Battlefield into two series, cause all those "negatives" are 100% what Battlefield should be.
Yeah, one can be called Battlefield and the other Call of Duty.
What Battlefield "should" be is very much up to DICE, and if they think it should be a more casual experience, then thats what it will be. The most popular Battlefield titles are anything but these "negatives", why would DICE dumb it down so much? Just as Call of Duty serves a purpose of run and gun casual shooter and Squad, or even Arma, serve a purpose of military simulation sandbox, Battlefield's purpose is somewhere between those two. It has always been like this and I don't understand why people want it to be closer to a sim like sandbox, when they can just play those.
And failing, miserably. Ground War is worse than the worst Battlefield has ever been.
Hmm a setting with Mechs and future McGadgets would be cooler.
A Battlefield without leveling up guns and vehicles I think would define 'getting back to the roots' better.
My core hated aspects of Battlefield 5:
- too many damn weapons and a certain percentage of the fans clamoring for MORE guns
- both sides having the same weapons, again this isn't interesting and throws the possibility of asymmetrical weapon balance out the window and a smaller, tighter set of core faction only weapons (if you want that MP40 while on Allied team, you should have to pick it up off someone you downed or special spawned kits at flags like a weapon cache/depot)
- vehicles, factions, and weapons appearing on maps that are supposedly 1939-1940
- a biggie: having to grind and grind for an advantageous weapon or vehicle upgrade (for example, extremely frustrating leveling airplanes against fully decked out pro players with limited loadouts)
Many of these 'features' seem to borrow from Call of Duty and it is annoying and makes BF less unique chasing marketing trends or easily exploiting the human brain to chase the shiny apple.
A Battlefield without leveling up guns and vehicles I think would define 'getting back to the roots' better.
My core hated aspects of Battlefield 5:
- too many damn weapons and a certain percentage of the fans clamoring for MORE guns
- both sides having the same weapons, again this isn't interesting and throws the possibility of asymmetrical weapon balance out the window and a smaller, tighter set of core faction only weapons (if you want that MP40 while on Allied team, you should have to pick it up off someone you downed or special spawned kits at flags like a weapon cache/depot)
- vehicles, factions, and weapons appearing on maps that are supposedly 1939-1940
- a biggie: having to grind and grind for an advantageous weapon or vehicle upgrade (for example, extremely frustrating leveling airplanes against fully decked out pro players with limited loadouts)
Many of these 'features' seem to borrow from Call of Duty and it is annoying and makes BF less unique chasing marketing trends or easily exploiting the human brain to chase the shiny apple.
I just want Battfield1, Battlefront 1, Battfield V, Battlefront 2 era DICE design to die, this games are meant to be large sandboxes the infantry focus has destroyed both.
Infantry, outside of a handful of maps, was always the focus of the Battlefront series. The 2015 Battlefront game is probably DICE's best game this gen by far.
Vehicles being pick-up tokens is one of the dumbest design ideas I have seen.
Being point based in 2 was also really bad.
Battlefront has too much bullshit and is very casual compared to Battlefield. I don't think they're that comparable, they have two different appeals.
I'm really enjoying Battlefront 2 right now after it was made free with PS+. But I absolutely do not want any design philosophies from Battlefront applied to Battlefield.
It already crept on there in BF1 with the stupid heroes, and vehicles that just spawn into existence on the map and aren't there for everyone to grab. BFV started to get away from some of that thank god, but even then they messed up so much other stuff to the point it didn't really feel like a true Battlefield game. I actually enjoyed BF1 considerably more than BFV. BFV is my least played Battlefield game ever
EA/DICE love to promote these games for their "Battlefield Moments", when they pretty much stripped those away in BFV by making everything much more restrictive, especially with the maps that largely punished you for trying anything crazy since they were all so flat and wide open.
That second tangent was my own rant and not a response to your enjoyment Battlefront 2015 lol
I was 15 at the time, but that game was amazing, in fact with BF3 I was expeting something like BF2, but nope.
Mass Effect remaster is the rumor..not particularly interested in more remakes but i guess itll hold off fans until next year
They would denounce entry and lit it on fire.
Battlefield, to its core following, is FPS experience.