Next battlefield.
So. No hooks No wingsuits No AIR TANKS No wallhacks No plantable stationary miniguns No lethally pushing shields No cars with explosives' shells ( At least reduce them) No funny knifing anima...
Forum Discussion
@Man_iLoveFishing Excellent, Battlefield that's it
Vince Zampella seems to know the flaws that led Battlefield to failure, a light at the end of the tunnel.
https://www.barrons.com/articles/ea-vince-zampella-call-of-duty-battlefield-51663180969
Vince Zampella seems to know the flaws that led Battlefield to failure, a light at the end of the tunnel.
https://www.barrons.com/articles/ea-vince-zampella-call-of-duty-battlefield-51663180969
@JasonVoorHeesxD wrote:
@Man_iLoveFishingExcellent, Battlefield that's it
Vince Zampella seems to know the flaws that led Battlefield to failure, a light at the end of the tunnel.
https://www.barrons.com/articles/ea-vince-zampella-call-of-duty-battlefield-51663180969
it's paywalled. here is the part about BF:
You are in charge of EA’s Battlefield franchise going forward. What do think happened with the disappointing release of Battlefield 2042 last year?
I think they just strayed a little too far from what Battlefield is. They tried to do a couple things that were maybe ambitious: grow the player count etc. I don’t think they spent enough time iterating on what makes that fun. It’s not inherently a bad idea. The way they were set up and the way they executed just didn’t allow them to find the best thing possible.
What can you say about Battlefield under your watch?
It’s a whole new structure. We’re putting multiple studios together. We’re bringing the best talent together and giving them the time to do something amazing.
What do you think about the traditional shooter category? Call of Duty, Halo, and Battlefield all disappointed last year. Is it still viable or has everything moved to more group-driven style of battle royale?
It’s definitely still viable.
Was it just bad execution by the three franchises?
I don’t want to talk ill about anyone else’s development. We all do this because we love it. No one wants to do anything that is disappointing.
But traditional shooters like Call of Duty, Battlefield —where you have a campaign and multiplayer component—is it still going to be strong if someone executes in the future?
Yeah. Absolutely. People love it. There are people that play only multiplayer. There are people that play only campaign. They want that story and to be part of an adventure.
@Prof3ss0r_M1k3Thanks for including that for everyone.
As many, many people have said for going on seven years now... talk is cheap. The proof is in the pudding and the pudding has looked and smelled like * for a while now.
I hope he fixes things and I hope Battlefield returns to greatness, but man... ole' Vince has some work to do.
@carsono311 wrote:@Prof3ss0r_M1k3Thanks for including that for everyone.
As many, many people have said for going on seven years now... talk is cheap. The proof is in the pudding and the pudding has looked and smelled like * for a while now.
I hope he fixes things and I hope Battlefield returns to greatness, but man... ole' Vince has some work to do.they have used up all their "trust me bro, i got you" capital. now we are in "prove to me you will make the game you claim to make before i give you money" territory
@Prof3ss0r_M1k3 wrote:they have used up all their "trust me bro, i got you" capital. now we are in "prove to me you will make the game you claim to make before i give you money" territory@Prof3ss0r_M1k3 ^^^THIS RIGHT HERE!^^^
- @Prof3ss0r_M1k3 Very good, the first time I opened the interview I was able to read it without any problems.
@JasonVoorHeesxD wrote:
@Prof3ss0r_M1k3Very good, the first time I opened the interview I was able to read it without any problems.you can load most websites into archive.ph and you can bypass any * they throw up that keeps you from reading them. doesn't always work but it worked for me on this website
