They should have named this title Battlefriends with the front cover being Angel, Sundance and Boris smiling while hugging each other with a rainbow above them, maybe then the game wouldn’t be misleading and there would be a player base that takes the game for what it is, instead of using the battlefield name to generate sales.
discuss.
Lol as funny as this is, its true.
Na, game is designed to make team and squad fight against each other instead of the enemy. Should be called Battlefiend.
@RAMBO2k9It's a fair point, especially about the cover art. I was thinking about that over the Christmas break. They have this cover art that looks like a standard Battlefield soldier just like other titles. But then none of these specialists look like him lol!! It is definitely a bit misleading.
It would have been better if we just had the standard class system, and the specialists were Battle Point reinforcements like those in Battlefront 2. That would:
A) line up with the actual cover art and overall fan expectations
B) make the specialists actually feel like specialists lol.
it's kinda finny
Nice,
I also thought BattleAlone would have been a fitting title.
While I think EA/Dice was misleading in their marketing, we (myself included) are actually to blame.
We should have refunded and left the game after the beta, which was unfinished and a mess of bugs, it also showcased the awful specialist system.
But again, in the beta they used one of the only playable maps (for infantry players) and we didn't know at that time, that most of the maps would just be barren wastelands that are almost unplayable (for infantry).
Yeah not misleading when they put out a free beta and 10 hr trial for $5 and they have a track record of buggy unfinished launches going way way back to 2002.
Misleading would be if they actually released a polished BF game day one.
...or Battlefield Woke
