Repetition of the Same Mistakes
Watching the Hazard Zone reveal was an interesting experience, and highlighted several things for me. The first being that DICE is trying something somewhat new with a BR-like mode, which is cool, bu...
Forum Discussion
@TONYBOY56--_ wrote:@SilverJoystixx What's the guys name? I think I know who you're referring to I just can't recall whom
It was announced June 1st this year, that Byron Beede, the former Call of Duty and Destiny General Manager, had been appointed as the new SVP and GM of the entire Battlefield franchise, which perhaps “signals a strategic, long-term commitment to the growth of the franchise.”
Beede played a huge role in the development of both Call of Duty and Destiny, even playing an integral part in the growth of Warzone and Call of Duty Mobile, which are extremely popular.
So Bryan Beede will also be directing the new Battlefield Mobile entity set for next year as well as any new Battlefield games.
Beede left Activision and Call of Duty in April 2021, when Activision announced that Johanna Faries would take over as General Manager of Call of Duty...
Beede reports directly to Respawn founder Vince Zampella, who took over as head of DICE LA last year. DICE Stockholm GM, Oskar Gabrielson, and EA European studios GGM David Rutter saw no changes to their positions, but obviously its a clustered mismash now of highranking VPs all battling for decisions on getting their way with the BF game and its future... (DICE Stockholm was named the lead studio for the BF2042 game, remember.)
Too many cooks in the kitchen if you ask me...
@CyberDymePerhaps you are right.
But personally I think the BF franchise is slowly dying and Dice is trying all kind of things to avoid that. Dice hasn't had a 'big hit' like Warzone, Apex Legends, Fortnite etc and they are desperately trying to get it somehow.
Us old-timers hate it, but we can probably not keep the franchise alive financially. Dice needs new players getting into the game.
I think the old BF-formula just is not working well, in the current market (which is a shame). So far all attempts by Dice has failed (BF1/BFV), the old fans hates it and they didn't attract a new lasting player-base either.
I think they need to change the formula of BF somehow, but how this could be done without 'destroying' the feeling of BF I don't know.
BF2042 feels like old-school BF mixed with Apex Legends and it seems like a weird way to go...
I'm a little pissed at the general BF community all whining and boo-boo lipping the specialist system. It's like they refuse to allow for innovation. These same players would have likely bemoaned not enough innovation if the core gameplay was kept 1:1 with BF4/V. I'm not 100% sold that the specialists are better than the old class system, but I'm not convinced they are worse either.
I want to see how Dice addresses the friend-foe-ID and hope that it is adequately robust enough to allow for a hardcore/no HUD mode to work. I saw the FFID panels on the character models and those seem like they could fit the bill. I do like the community idea posted to make the skins for OPFOR grey/cold tones versus the warmer/beige tones for US.
I say we give Dice the chance to try something new and give it a go. I feel the class system is too restrictive, stagnant, and plays like a 15-20 years ago mechanic. I didn't feel like the specialists messed up anything which couldn't be easily addressed in some balance passes. Although, I really didn't like the idea of following my two buddies support icons and asking them for ammo for my AT/AA only to discover they both didn't have ammobox equipped. Easily fixed with ammo dumps circa BFV.@DocApokalypseI agree. I'm happy to try Dice's innovation. Even if specialists is a borrowed concept I'd be excited to try it in Battlefield.
Classes are boring. 5000 hours in this franchise and all I did was decide every single round do I want a med kit or a rocket launcher. So boring. We'll have countless options to choose from every round under a specialist system.
@DocApokalypse wrote:I'm a little pissed at the general BF community all whining and boo-boo lipping the specialist system. It's like they refuse to allow for innovation. These same players would have likely bemoaned not enough innovation if the core gameplay was kept 1:1 with BF4/V. I'm not 100% sold that the specialists are better than the old class system, but I'm not convinced they are worse either...
Innovation is when you add value to something; that you make it better.
The Specialists do none of that.
After you have chosen your Specialist, you still have to select your loadout kit anyway that you want to run with, which is again then back to the class selection you actually make there. The big difference is that you now in BF2042 can actually mix and match any of the weapon types and any of the gadgets as you want.
EXCEPT... the special gadget that belongs to a certain Specialist. So why now that lack of 'innovation' here from the EA game designers? Because that is the only way they can put a block on you using THAT specific gadget, EXCEPT if you are willing to pay for it! (that is what is in store for you in near future from EA) Because we would not need the specialists at all, if all gadgets truly were free to mix and match as you wanted for your soldier!
So now try and tell me again why we need those Specialists?
Total misplaced, especially if you say yourself that we don't want the classes. Well then why do you need the specialists?
The answer is that you don't!
EA should go all the way then and allow ALL GADGETS to be available as option FOR ALL to pick from.
And I agree with you, that hxrdcore mode will literally be impossible until we haver more direct visible difference between friends an foes. So again, not innovation but a step back. As was so many other things we tested here in the BF2042 Beta, and that is why 'so many in the general BF community was whining and boo boo'. For good reason, because what we saw/experienced was NOT innovation but instead a drastic step back in gameplay mechanics, soldier movements, vehicle handling, aircraft dynamics, animations, hit registrations, etc etc etc.....
So like all the learnings from many the previous BF games had been thrown out the window and we now got like a BF1942 version 0.7. And YES, it even looked like the graphics and clumsy movements we had back in early 2002, when we beta tested that one...!
@CyberDymeI'd argue there's nothing wrong with adding the specialist gadgets (as you said) and that they've already picked them for each class, it's not like the specialists don't loosely confirm to the old classes either (assault, engineer, medic, recon) so they could literally just make a "specialist" tab on the old classes and put the gadgets there based on what specialist was supposed to have the gadget, that would even give each old class some extra "worth" based on the situational value of the gadget. (in the case of the medic, if they made "hold R" a 5-round range rez, i think the gadget would be fine for it's intended purpose for instance, 3 shots total with decent delay)
Edit: Don't get me wrong here, the paddles need fixing too if nothing else for the medics.
I also don't think the HZ mode in itself is a bad idea, i might even give it a whirl now and then, i just think it's a *horrible* idea to cram the specialist system that makes perfect sense there into the core game seemingly just for advertisement purposes, whoever had that idea needs a wobble.
I don't play tarkov so it's said, but i have played division (HZ looks similar to the dark zone) and i honestly don't mind them throwing a "take a break and try this" game mode in, but imo making it bleed into the core game was a huge mistake.
If it was just about monetization, as we've said before in multiple other threads, just include the BF5 character creator and sell cosmetics to your heart's content, the system was already in place.
The specialists in the core game just felt like "so guys, look at this cool stuff we made for another game mode, come try this other mode so you can see how cool it is!" and *completely* missing the point of core BF in the process.
- @cso7777 I'm not sure dying is quite right.
BF1 sold around 23 million copies worldwide and propelled the Battlefield franchise into a new level of consumer awareness.
Admittedly V was a bit of a disaster, but even that game managed to sell as many copies as BF4 on its opening weekend and still somehow maintains a healthy enough player base (at least on PS).
BFV may not be a great Battlefield for me personally, but it's still by far the best combined arms, large scale shooter currently on the market. That's the niche that Dice have filled and no other franchise has even come close to challenging it in my opinion.
I wasn't a huge fan of the Beta myself but we definitely need to try the full game and especially Portal before we rule 2042 out.
@BFB-Praetorian wrote:
@cso7777I'm not sure dying is quite right.
BF1 sold around 23 million copies worldwide and propelled the Battlefield franchise into a new level of consumer awareness.
Admittedly V was a bit of a disaster, but even that game managed to sell as many copies as BF4 on its opening weekend and still somehow maintains a healthy enough player base (at least on PS).
BFV may not be a great Battlefield for me personally, but it's still by far the best combined arms, large scale shooter currently on the market. That's the niche that Dice have filled and no other franchise has even come close to challenging it in my opinion.
I wasn't a huge fan of the Beta myself but we definitely need to try the full game and especially Portal before we rule 2042 out.Let there be no mistake, the core reason for the initial BF1 success was coming on the back of the huge success that BF4 was longer term!
While already 12-18 mths after BF1 launch, that initial glimmer had already faded away and the BF4 player count was above the by then the rapid decline in player count still active on BF1...
Here btw statements from EA leadership on the commercial failures that both BF1 and BFV were, as Battlefield V sold fewer than half the physical copies that Battlefield 1 did upon its launch during the same period of time. The game sold 7.3 million copies by the end of 2018. On February 5, 2019, EA's CEO Andrew Wilson announced that the game ultimately failed to meet sales expectations, blaming the game's marketing as well as their focus on developing a single-player campaign instead of a battle royale mode, a genre which had gained recent widespread popularity. Wilson also highlighted Battlefield V's long development cycle, and release in a month of strong competition. EA's stock prices also faced its worst drop in more than a decade during its third quarter of the fiscal year, declining by around 18 percent, which EA attributed in part to the poor sales of the game.
This also helps to understand why so much effort was put into the R&D team to make a BF BattleRoyal game from EA and why we see so much of that penetrating various aspects of the BF2042 game design we see today in the Beta (as focused on also in another thread we have ongoing on our forum here...)
@CyberDyme wrote:
@BFB-Praetorian wrote:
@cso7777I'm not sure dying is quite right.
BF1 sold around 23 million copies worldwide and propelled the Battlefield franchise into a new level of consumer awareness.
Admittedly V was a bit of a disaster, but even that game managed to sell as many copies as BF4 on its opening weekend and still somehow maintains a healthy enough player base (at least on PS).
BFV may not be a great Battlefield for me personally, but it's still by far the best combined arms, large scale shooter currently on the market. That's the niche that Dice have filled and no other franchise has even come close to challenging it in my opinion.
I wasn't a huge fan of the Beta myself but we definitely need to try the full game and especially Portal before we rule 2042 out.Let there be no mistake, the core reason for the initial BF1 success was coming on the back of the huge success that BF4 was longer term!
While already 12-18 mths after BF1 launch, that initial glimmer had already faded away and the BF4 player count was above the by then the rapid decline in player count still active on BF1...
Here btw statements from EA leadership on the commercial failures that both BF1 and BFV were, as Battlefield V sold fewer than half the physical copies that Battlefield 1 did upon its launch during the same period of time. The game sold 7.3 million copies by the end of 2018. On February 5, 2019, EA's CEO Andrew Wilson announced that the game ultimately failed to meet sales expectations, blaming the game's marketing as well as their focus on developing a single-player campaign instead of a battle royale mode, a genre which had gained recent widespread popularity. Wilson also highlighted Battlefield V's long development cycle, and release in a month of strong competition. EA's stock prices also faced its worst drop in more than a decade during its third quarter of the fiscal year, declining by around 18 percent, which EA attributed in part to the poor sales of the game.
This also helps to understand why so much effort was put into the R&D team to make a BF BattleRoyal game from EA and why we see so much of that penetrating various aspects of the BF2042 game design we see today in the Beta (as focused on also in another thread we have ongoing on our forum here...)
People forget how at the time of BF1, the competitor was CoD infinite warfare. That CoD game failed so much on its reveal compared to BF1 that it became an entire meme of CoD bad BF1 good. This brought a metric ton of new players into BF1 who were CoD refuges.
BF1 succeed massively at the part where BFV failed massively. Marketing
