Forum Discussion
It was a failure at launch no question about it. We're way past that now though. If we're to compare it at it's current state I dont know if I would call it a failure but relative to other Battlefield games it's very underwhelming. I still have 500 or so hours in it which is way more than any non-Battlefield Game.
For me its disappointing for many reasons the top of which is horrible maps. Most maps aren't really fps maps, they're more like sections of open world games. They're not designed to work in an fps game.
When there's almost no buildings or other assets in a map the only thing map designers can do is to play around with the topography. Cover based on topography is horrible because it's hard to tell if you're actually in cover.
Compare maps like Mercury, panzerstorm, Hamada, twisted steel, Narvik, Fjell to histrocial epicness like Grand Bazaar, Karkand, Caspain Border, Oman, Outbreak, Noshahr canals, Operation Locker, Amiens, Fort de Vaux, Achi Baba, Nansha Strike, Propaganda, Pearl Market, Silk Road, etc... and you're left very underwhelmed.
I pretty much just play 5 maps over and over in BFV.
- 5 years ago@BtheReaper49 Twisted Steel, Hamada, Panzerstorm, Fjell, Narvik, Aerodrome... some of the worst maps ever made.
- 5 years ago@BaronVonGoon Agreed! I've uttered those EXACT words before. Absolute nightmares on those maps.
- 4 years ago@BtheReaper49 I totally agree! The level design and gameplay is wayyy better on the Pacific Maps than any base maps!
The visibility is also a lot better on these maps.
I only play in "Pacific War" servers now, with some occasional Op. Underground, Provence and Al Marj Camp.
About Battlefield V
Recent Discussions
- 3 hours ago
- 10 hours ago
- 12 hours ago
missing quests
Solved12 hours ago