Forum Discussion
I get it, but I think the most glaring issue is the maps. They only launched the game with 8. They added a 9th map with Panzerstorm. Then it was 6 months before the Greece maps showed up. Al Sundan map showed up broken in Conquest and took a couple extra months to fix. Then they added Underground and the 4 Pacific maps. So what is that total...17 or 18 maps for Conquest? Battlefield 4 had 30 maps at this point after the season pass added 20 to the 10 launch maps. Battlefield 1 had over 30 maps after it's season pass was done too. That's a glaring discrepancy in map count.
The bigger issue imo is the fact most BFV maps just aren't that good. There's not a single map with compelling features on it. Other than Underground, I can't think of a single map from this game that could be considered an "instant classic". I think the map design team needs to go back and take a hard look at Battlefield 4 maps, maybe even go all the way back to Battlefield 2 since every map brought forward from BF2 has been a hit with the community. They need to pay attention to all the unique terrain and features and how well these older games made use of those features, usually putting flags in standout locations, etc. Battlefield 4 maps included dams, a huge satellite dish on Rogue Transmission, the train in Golmud Railway, crashing waves of Paracel Storm with the destroyer, underground submarine bases, a castle in Operation Mortar with tunnels through it, hangars and massive areas inside of mountains, cities full of skyscrapers, etc. The terrain variety alone was amazing.
Standout maps for BF4 include Paracel Storm, Golmud Railway, Rogue Transmission, Operation Locker, Siege of Shanghai, Gulf of Oman, Operation Firestorm, Caspian Border, Dragon Valley 2015, Operation Outbreak, Hangar 21, Wavebreaker, Operation Mortar, Giants of Karelia, Hammerhead, Operation Whiteout, and more. All feature rich, many of these are still fan favorites for 24/7 server rooms.
Some BF2 standout maps include Strike at Karkand, Warlord, Iron Gator, Kubra Dam, Ghost Town, Road to Jalalabad, Mass Destruction, really the whole Special Forces expansion was great as was Armored Fury. Even Battlefield 2142 had maps with part of it on high cliffs, city maps like Berlin, large maps for Titan mode, Camp Gibraltar. It's been so long since I've played these two games that I'm forgetting some. But all these had highly unique features that you don't see in BFV or even BF1 maps.
All this of course assumes they are either going back to a modern warfare setting or the near future. That makes it easier to invent unique maps that don't have to be accurate to any known location or historical setting.
TLDR - I think map design has been a big problem in Battlefield V and to a degree Battlefield 1. Had they showed up with maps on the level of what we had in Battlefield 4, then I don't think BFV struggles like it did. This series has a history of delivering great map content all the way back to the original Battlefield 1942. Fans expect it. Battlefield 1942 maps have been repeatedly reused over the years, as have Battlefield 2 maps. DICE needs to find that winning map making formula again.
Yes I totally agree about the quality of map design. However, considering what they did with the ''Operations'' game-mode in BF1 and how many opportunities this offered for decent BFV maps, it just amazes me nobody at DICE/EA realised the potential in this! Ofcourse I do understand some of the sentiment that says that the D-Day experience is to milked out, but they could've made such great maps by just following at least some of the major WWII battles with the Operations-system from BF1.
About Battlefield V
Recent Discussions
- 2 hours ago
- 8 hours ago
- 11 hours ago
missing quests
Solved11 hours ago