Re: To many memes

@DingoKillr 

Each individual is different and not everyone follows the playstyle I layed out in my previous description. I stated that with my text, but it kind of got buried.

I like Battlefield 4 (console) because of the style, lack of aim assist while in vehicles, maps (are so huge I don't feel confided to lanes), weapon attachments, vehicle unlocks (dislike aim assist, suppression, weapon pickups).

I dislike Battlefield 1 because of Elite classes, Aim assist is too strong plus added to vehicle aiming, Style, Vehicle classes, Weapons, Limited weapon attachments, Gadgets, Maps felt linear (Liked graphical settings on console).

I disliked Battlefield 5 because of Weapon pickups, Weapon attachments made into paths, Vehicles, Scopes were all dirty along the edges, Texture pop-in, Maps felt linear, Too much background FX (like fake soldiers running around on loops).

I'm also in the creative business, everyone has ideas that don't get implemented, but I don't think those ideas have anything to do with Battlefield 5.

People in a business come and go, DICE is no different. I don't think the people who created Battlefield 4 are the same people who created Battlefield 5. Sure, some of the same employees could be working at the studio, but I doubt they think the same as they did 7 - 9 years ago.

I can't give my judgments about BF2 as I started with BF2 Modern Combat for the original Xbox. Very different title than BF2 for PC.

I don't understand the meme part you're talking about.

When I got originally interested into Battlefield franchise back in Bad Company 2 days, I got recommended to try to play it because of 

• Teamwork and objectives are key unlike in Call of Duty where your personal success is only thing which matters.
• It's class based FPS which means there's roles for each of them in team and squads. Instead of self-creation of class and role like in Call of Duty.
• There's awesome vehicles which were lacking from Call of Duty.

That's the formula I bought. Or thought so. Then I learned history lessons from the sensei and started to think I haven't experienced the true Battlefield™.

@DingoKillr 

@Teal_Pipo_Fredo at times I see what people ask for it is to move BF to become COD, Fortnite or ARMA away from those 3 things you talked of.

Vehicles are a good example where team can work we have people calling for inside manual repair being removed for outside repair (fair enough), but saying inside auto repair encouraged team work back in BF4 and will do so again, their just dreaming.

There is lots of these focus on things that are individualistic focus rather then team work. Look at health and ammo BFV became anti-attrition because so many ran action man, wanting a fast pace game and a refusal to rely on other players.
These players only challenge becomes killing for their stats.

I can't see how going back to a remastered BF4 restores those 3 focus points of BF.

@DingoKillrI play almost only BF4, because I think it is the most fun active BF-game.

But BF4 has a lot of issues, vehicle/infantry balance is not good (thermal optics, too many vehicles), the sound really sucks, spotting is totally over the top, movement on terrain is clunky, abusable movement (broken hitboxes), annoying gadgets (mortars, SUAVs etc), many maps have to much verticality (roof-top-campers), weapon-mechanics are too random (suppression/RBD) etc etc. Personally I don't want a new BF4 but "something else".

Even though newer titles has a lot of faults (special classes, attrition, excessive rockets/arty/bombers, rigid weapon-classes, stupid/non-existant customization etc) they also have a lot of improvements and many of them would be good to have in a modern BF-game (movement over terrain, gun-play of BFV etc).

For me, all BF-games are annoying at some level, but the newest titles (BF1/BFV) have become more annoying than fun, most of the time.

In the end, I hope they can make a modern BF-game that is fun to play, which is what's missing most in the newest titles. How they get there I don't know, but if they succeed it doesn't matter much.

yeah the fun to play aspect is the key.  i thought BFV was missing that fun factor overall. 

Too much focus on pro esports gunplay.   New features never grabbed me.  Couldn't stand looking at the game much of the time.   They took out fun stuff.  

Not looking for too cheap.  Too cheap isn't fun either.  But this mentality that everything in a 32vs 32 player shooter has to be  designed as if the game is a 1v1 game of the superiorly skilled player always wins and is always refreshed to win the next 1v1 encounter was a mistake I think.

Game has to show me day one that it is worth putting time into.  I never got that vibe from BFV.  I got the vibe that it was going to be too much work for too little payoff.  

---

@DingoKillr wrote:

@Teal_Pipo_Fredoat times I see what people ask for it is to move BF to become COD, Fortnite or ARMA away from those 3 things you talked of.

Vehicles are a good example where team can work we have people calling for inside manual repair being removed for outside repair (fair enough), but saying inside auto repair encouraged team work back in BF4 and will do so again, their just dreaming.

There is lots of these focus on things that are individualistic focus rather then team work. Look at health and ammo BFV became anti-attrition because so many ran action man, wanting a fast pace game and a refusal to rely on other players.
These players only challenge becomes killing for their stats.

I can't see how going back to a remastered BF4 restores those 3 focus points of BF.

---

@DingoKillr 
Battle(non)sense talked about Battlefield 2 in his videos back in days of Battlefield 4. He was disappointed that there wasn't a worthy successor of Battlefield 2 available. It may have been interpreted as wanting an Arma edition.

I personally would like to play that type of experience, as a console player, as casualised version (Hardcore as an option). What we are missing from gameplay: 

• Commander with counter-playable assets on attackable home bases. Sense of resource gameplay.
• Commander and squad leader decision making maps for pinpoint communication. Sense of coordination of actions.
• Tactical map and HUD markings for said decisions available to whole team. Knowing what chain of command has decided.
• In-game voice and text tutorial while playing the game. Intuitive way to learn.
• Universal translator breaking language barrier.
• Proper commo and tactical roses which bridges the language barrier gap.
• Nameable squads for finding like-minded players. Some will use VOIP. Some will roleplay Mil-sim. Some will be random blue berries etc. no right or wrong in that sense.
• Dedicated soldier classes with well-defined roles. Increasing number of them necessary because there's so many fields of individual gadget groups to cover. Otherwise roles would merge and overlap meaning there's lack of structure and predictability to both friendly and enemy players.
• As an nice extra: Dynamic bridges which changes the flow of combat. It speaks for the scale of combat when you can hinder enemy movement by demolishing one of these. Those seen in Battlefield V didn't do anything really and every class can repair them meaning there's no point to take them down.

@DingoKillr 

Yes. Battle(non)sense's vision is closer to Arma but I would say auto regeneration, spotting, killcams etc. could have their place. Just the things listed added.

But anyway, that's just wishful wish not ever coming true. Just hoping next Battlefield satisfies with something new to experience and explore.