Re: Battlefield Playerbase is a dinosaur...
@Ingeniekey wrote:They made a war-game for kids, thats it.
Its like if a James Bond movie suddenly was made for people under 15.
You could use your same arguments then. James Bond fans are dinosaurs bla bla. Audience never satisfied bla bla. These arguments sounds like a dev that is creatively hardstuck.
But the James Bond franchise has been through significant revisions over the years - from naive "bad man in a volcano with a bit of a dark undertone" (Connery), to high camp (Moore), to Timothy Dalton (we don't know what that was meant to be) to dark, gritty, musclebound and blond (Craig).
They're fundamentally different films for different audiences with different expectations. They're also (mostly) not especially good films.
In other words, they're not a terribly good example.
With regard to BF2042, the same kind of misunderstandings permeate the criticisms of the game. The old "it doesn't feel like Battlefield" canard is a useful point to examine: Feel like Battlefield in what way? What does Battlefield feel like? Most commenters, shall we say, struggle to articulate themselves in this regard. If you haven't played since BF4 (and I see a lot of people who are ignorant enough of the contemporary Battlefield mechanics for me to be certain that they haven't played a modern Battlefield; they're legacy players), you basically don't get to talk about how Battlefield "feels" - there are significant enough differences between BF4 and BF1, even, that a direct comparison is unfair, even misguided. BF4 and BFV might as well be an unrelated franchise. For what it's worth, I think BFV a better game than BF4 in most respects.
This is not to mention the disconnect between Battlefield on the Refractor engine (BF1942 - BF2142) and Frostbite (BFBC2+). That was no iterative evolution - the games on each engine play very differently.
Frankly, I think many of the complaints about the game stem from players who used to (consider themselves to) be good at Battlefield and now aren't.
