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
@UP_Hawxxeye In fairness, BF5 failed on a lot more levels than marketing. While it wasn't the trainwreck that was battlefront, it was probably closer to battlefront 2 in how things went from launch to "fixed state".
I personally think the obsession with trying to leech players away from CoD/other franchises has hurt the BF franchise more over time than any competition, simply due to the fact that the more they tried to tempt players from other franchises, the more they left what made the BF3/4 combo so successful.
BF4 was probably the first one (people tend to forget the "this feels a little too much like CoD" complaints when we went from 3 to 4 and just say 1 was the first culprit, it really wasn't), and i personally think the success of 4 decided their approach *despite* that BF4 probably owed a lot of it's success coming off BF3 which really set a high bar for content and "fun" gameplay.
The marketing went into overdrive for 1/5/battlefront and the more they hyped things up, the less actual content we seemed to end up with (look at the DLC/premium content over the lifespan of 3 and 4 vs 1 and then later 5, also how the introduced new game modes and appealed to different playstyles between those titles).
So i'm clear, i have zero issues with them throwing in game modes that might be popular at the time or the inclusion of HZ in BF2042, i personally think though that the main "problem" they've had since 4 is more and more tinkering with the core of what made the game(s) successful, and not doing what they did in 3/4, which was take experimental game modes and make them separate DLC/tack-on game modes while keeping the core game modes "logical" incremental upgrades, instead of dumping all those new ideas into the core game right away.
(or in the case of 5, include a FOMO weekly/monthly grind that just reeked of "suddenly, i'm logging in to meet goals rather than playing for fun with goals dealt with when i see fit")
Much like battlefront, by the time they'd fixed or tweaked things to a "tolerable" level (subjective obviously) they'd already lost a good chunk of the playerbase.
Right now it seems portal is the fix for the problems described above, but the issue i see (subjective of course) is that it will keep the cascading problem they've had since 1 going, namely that instead of keeping BF the foundation and putting major changes as optional content, they're doing it backwards and hence, perception (fair or not) will end up with "here we go again, never mind, i'll play something else" rather than wait until they may or may not "fix" it to the level those looking for a more standard BF experience are looking for.
Customer numbers and player retention will decide as always in any case, but i do find it interesting that it seems like they keep doubling down on the things that made 1 and 5 relatively "unsuccessful" (if you can say that about anything that sells 7m+ copies) while trying to find or even improve the success and player retention of 4.
In that sense, the OP header is entirely correct at least.
Again though, one opinion of many, but that's how i see it.
And not a critique of BF2042 in itself, just a take on "why didn't 1 and 5 retain players like 3/4 did".
I personally think the obsession with trying to leech players away from CoD/other franchises has hurt the BF franchise more over time than any competition, simply due to the fact that the more they tried to tempt players from other franchises, the more they left what made the BF3/4 combo so successful.
BF4 was probably the first one (people tend to forget the "this feels a little too much like CoD" complaints when we went from 3 to 4 and just say 1 was the first culprit, it really wasn't), and i personally think the success of 4 decided their approach *despite* that BF4 probably owed a lot of it's success coming off BF3 which really set a high bar for content and "fun" gameplay.
The marketing went into overdrive for 1/5/battlefront and the more they hyped things up, the less actual content we seemed to end up with (look at the DLC/premium content over the lifespan of 3 and 4 vs 1 and then later 5, also how the introduced new game modes and appealed to different playstyles between those titles).
So i'm clear, i have zero issues with them throwing in game modes that might be popular at the time or the inclusion of HZ in BF2042, i personally think though that the main "problem" they've had since 4 is more and more tinkering with the core of what made the game(s) successful, and not doing what they did in 3/4, which was take experimental game modes and make them separate DLC/tack-on game modes while keeping the core game modes "logical" incremental upgrades, instead of dumping all those new ideas into the core game right away.
(or in the case of 5, include a FOMO weekly/monthly grind that just reeked of "suddenly, i'm logging in to meet goals rather than playing for fun with goals dealt with when i see fit")
Much like battlefront, by the time they'd fixed or tweaked things to a "tolerable" level (subjective obviously) they'd already lost a good chunk of the playerbase.
Right now it seems portal is the fix for the problems described above, but the issue i see (subjective of course) is that it will keep the cascading problem they've had since 1 going, namely that instead of keeping BF the foundation and putting major changes as optional content, they're doing it backwards and hence, perception (fair or not) will end up with "here we go again, never mind, i'll play something else" rather than wait until they may or may not "fix" it to the level those looking for a more standard BF experience are looking for.
Customer numbers and player retention will decide as always in any case, but i do find it interesting that it seems like they keep doubling down on the things that made 1 and 5 relatively "unsuccessful" (if you can say that about anything that sells 7m+ copies) while trying to find or even improve the success and player retention of 4.
In that sense, the OP header is entirely correct at least.
Again though, one opinion of many, but that's how i see it.
And not a critique of BF2042 in itself, just a take on "why didn't 1 and 5 retain players like 3/4 did".
@Fringerunner wrote:
@UP_HawxxeyeIn fairness, BF5 failed on a lot more levels than marketing. While it wasn't the trainwreck that was battlefront, it was probably closer to battlefront 2 in how things went from launch to "fixed state".
etc
The most objective, level headed and accurate assessment read to date. A great post.
Really like the fact you bring BF3 into the debate. Everyone references BF4, but my memory is of a really lumpy launch and moved things on little from BF3. BF3 was (literally) a game changer and (as you say) raised the bar. We'd never seen anything like it. We'd all been playing BC2 when it launched (and as popular as BC2 was) BF3 felt like the ultimate FPS. A step change.
And I guess I am looking for that feeling of stepping forward with BF2042. If Dice haven't learnt from BF1 (understanding the context @CyberDyme described) and the drift away from what the game is about with BFV (and the resulting loss of revenue) then Dice aren't who I thought they were. They should have rallied and recreated that true contribution to advancing the genre in the same way BF3 did. Lets face it, If we learn from our mistakes, Dice should be quids-in.
(for the record, I thought that BF1 was the most atmospheric and beautiful game ever produced, but I never got on with it... I want bombers and guns with lots of loadout options, I wanna do the maths and earn my options for tailoring my loadouts)
I'll still play, and enjoy 2042, But if the Beta is indicative, its not the game I thought it might be.
