Yall really didnt like BFV?

I had no problems with it except for Fjell map and the tiny cap area that meant planes could harvest the infantry.

I really didn't. I cannot elaborately explain why. It just never felt anywhere near as fun as bf4 or bf1

.........I should add that I did eventually play the BFV campaign so I do have the game but I obtained it for free through my PS+ subscription.

---

@RayD_O1 wrote:

---

@ElliotLH wrote:

---

@RayD_O1 wrote:

---

@ElliotLH wrote:
@Flavin913Different strokes for different folks I guess. I enjoyed BFV for the most part but did have quite a few issues with it originally, such as the poor visibility and the endless animations etc. Mostly though I just enjoy BF1 and BF4 more and will play those much more frequently than BFV (I also only fly in V too).

---

I must admit I enjoyed all three, BFV / BF1 and BF4. 

Personally I loved the 4 Pacific maps in BFV they were definitely the highlight for me.

One of the negatives for me in BFV was the introduction of the elites some like Wilhelm were a bit cheesy, he looked like he had just walked off the stage in Phantom of the Opera. 🙂

The whole trench warfare setting in BF1 was really well done and they captured that era really well imho.

Really enjoyed BF4 / 3 and all the earlier ones too.

I wish I had a pound for every hour I have spent on the BF franchise, I would be a very rich man indeed.  😃

---

@RayD_O1 Same here. I think a lot of us would love to have a pound for every hour! 

The elites were a bit of an issue too as some of them, like Wilhelm and Hannah, were very cartoony. Not forgetting Captain Bird's-eye either of course. I think they were going in the right direction with the Pacific and it's a bit of a shame that we didn't get an Eastern Front, that would have been good in theory too. 

The trench warfare and the whole atmosphere of BF1 is, I think why I enjoy it so much and I'd agree that Dice did a really good job of capturing that.

---

Ah good old Captain Birds -eye, there was definitely something fishy about that guy. !!

Yeah I agree with you an Eastern Front could have been epic. 

Definitely the BF1 atmosphere was the closest any of the BF's have come to creating that sense of actually being there. 

Maps like River Somme (from Apocalypse DLC) made me realise what it must have been like for the soldiers stuck in those claustrophobic trenches in all weathers.

---

Ha! That was a good one.

BF1 did give us a good look at what it must have been like (probably worse in reality of course), especially River Somme and Passchendaele with all the trenches, charging mchine guns and gas. It was also nice that there was a big focus on history with the codex entries and so on - they actually made me look up what my family did during the war and it was fascinating (and very sad for one of them).

---

@Flavin913 wrote:

This is the biggest surprise I have gotten comming to these forums.

Out side of crashes my only gripe with BFV at launch was the ammo/health crates not showing on the maps when they got dropped.

---

Battlefield 5 eventually got good by the end but it took a long time to get there with a lot of faffing around on Dice Sweden's part. First several months were filled with game breaking updates and every time the game was getting itself in a good place, Dice Sweden would muck around with the TTK and set all the progress they made back months.

I didn't care for BFV's defensive and campy gameplay. Weapons were laser beams due spread (bloom) and recoil being eliminated, which lead to the TTK/TTD fiasco. I'm pretty sure the meta in BFV is still using semi-automatic rifles like the M1 Garand because they're the best all around choice for medium to long range engagement distances.

There's also attrition which amplified the defensive/campy gameplay of BFV along with soldiers blending into the terrain which amplified camping even more. The game just wasn't my cup of tea.

I also didn't care for the wierd 'skill tree' system for weapon and vehicle upgrades.

The game was fun and feels way more like a BF game than BF2042. However, I did not like the setting and the tone of the game. 

I liked the initial gunplay quite a bit.  What I couldn't stand were the idiotic back-and-forth TTK changes that made bullets into Nerf darts and then back again.  I also hated the fact that there were zero downsides to equipping a high-magnification optic like the 3x (very very very very rare in WW II) so EVERYBODY was running around with one and thus there was no point to iron or Nydar sights.  Combine that with the visibility issues, the idiotic woke marketing and war stories (only The Last Tiger was any good IMO), and the bugs causing the content additions to drag out and it wasn't nearly as good to me overall as BF4 or BF1.  If 90% of the assaults (which means over half of the playerbase) weren't running around with the exact same gun--a StG 44 with a 3x optic--it would've been a lot better.

I played BF 5 a lot and thought it was a good game. People's main gripe (from what I know) is in how cheesy the player characters have become, it is like a Blizzard animation. Instead of them looking like soldiers they look like circus characters. There was also a lot of complaints about specifics in BF5 like maps and weapons not being sufficient. 

Yes the other complaint was that it was meant to be a ww2 game and coming from bf1 which was pretty good at trying to be a ww1 game, bf5 decided to do a woke take on ww2 and this set the tone for the game. If I remember the one armed woman character in the trailer as being a catalyst for this type of thinking.