I know you guys like to imitate COD. All right, do like COD, just release the same game every year just with different maps and small visual improvements.
The game was ready since BF3. Is Frostbite so complicated that it's easier to make a new game than to recycle and improve the old one?
Round wheels are a legacy feature
it is to a degree EAs Marketing i think, they most likely have too much sway in how far certain concepts get evolved and which get dropped.
2042 is a prime example.
they marketed the game with a lot of BF nostalgia, but its all more or less superficial, they have portal as a loveletter to fans yet it lacks any feature to make it stick (i.E persistent rentable servers for communities to bother). the gameplay loop is uninspired for the most part and the maps lack any real WOW factor ( i do not count the tornado because that is also only a buzz word then it has impact on the map/game). BFV was hated because DICE delivered a broken mess of a game and handled the PR in a * poor state. Statements like "right side of history" or " don't like it, don't buy it" got so intertwined with the product they were rarely not spoken in the same sentence. a different example of how not to PR is calling the fanbase "uneducated" but then again i purely hated BFV for the * poor technical performance and all the TTD/TTK issues the game had and to a small extend still has...
now with 2042 as far as i can tell DICE wanted to distance themselves as much as humanly possible from BFV, what they didn't realize by doing so they reinvented BF without parts of its core. not everything is gone but enough to ask if this is not another spin off like BF:Hardline was....
@Twordy wrote:
@TickTack121I would love to see the modern battlefield in the same manner as 2/3 and 4. Suppression wasn`t a bad thing, actually, the game felt more balanced thanks to that. Normal Conquest /Breakthrough for 64 and 32 players. I would love to see the destruction that is present in BC2 or BFV. A beautifully crafted world with well-thought environments and something similar to choke points on the map. All-Out-Freakout is a huge 128 player package with fire attrition, trade-offs, and downgrade labels.
Problematic is the incorporation of specialists into a class system without hampering a spine of Conquest. Without strictly formed classes the concept of paper, rock, scissors mechanic is simply gone in Conquest. Without specified roles, CQ becomes fire attrition (all weapons available at the same time) TDM with vehicles and no clear objective.
The role of a Commander, Squad Leader used to be crucial, fun, and engaging. No Squad Management, no VoIP, no global chat, no proper scoreboard, no dedicated servers, the poor map design and gameplay solutions, terrible one-liners, the worst soundtrack in BFs history, and many other things nobody asked for is a package of nails and planks to the BFs coffin.
You extended my post in a perfect way. So again the short form for everyone: Please Dice, ask the players (e.g. regular surveys) what is good about a game and use that for the next game (probably nothing from BF2042, but a lot from BFV) and rework the bad things. I really don't understand what is so hard about that.
They could use BF2/3 and 4 as the concept to get the idea and theme from, while using the BFV core (movement, destruction, gunplay, physics) and focus on fixing the bugs. I bet this game would be 100x better than anything in BF2042. I mean even BF3 in portal sucks, because of the bad core of 2042...
@GamerlnParadise wrote:Them trying to reinvent the wheel wouldn't be such a problem if they didn't keep adding more corners to it.
I will steal that quote
