Said it on another thread - but some good comments here for me to add to, so: IF ~ they use the level designers from BF3, it has a chance - because that game the absolute BEST level designers, but all got canned for bf4, or, they lost their souls. DICE kinda backed themselves into a corner for BF4 and Frostbite, and sold their souls to EA for $ so they could create a game engine, but...EA being EA, made it so they had to provide support (detailed, technical support) to the ENTIRE EA partner list. um, LOL? As a result we got the utterly TERRIBLE Anthem, which had more bugs than the Amazon forest. You gotta make your bed and sleep in it, and the bed they made was Frostbite and EA - not really realising that not all of the elements of Frostbite are suitable to ALL game types and processes for ALL game studios. They basically made Frostbite to allow them to make BF games, but, times changed, and their engine lacked all of the rapid prototyping avaliable on practically ALL other game engines, for which game studios are accustomed to. EA strongly encouraged ALL studios to use Frostbite, and, I have to say that having a publisher saying 'hey, we got this game engine, it's great and the guys at DICE made it, you know, the guys that made BATTLEFIELD...yeah, those guys...anyway, we got this engine and you can have ALL THE SUPPORT YOU WANT for free!!!!"...is pretty hard to turn down, because you can blame them for everything, and most did. As others have stated - FROSBITE NEEDS A REBUILD because UE5 is utterly going to trounce everything on next gen, srsly...I really cannot see anyone beating UE5 moving forwards, that is teh new sexh.
EA will do what they think they'll get away with and that's BadCompany3 with the normal Frostbyte engine. If they pull off the same uplifting BC1 mixture between action and funny dialogs it will become a megaseller.
Perhaps, but it's a DICE game, not EA - but they are the ones pulling the strings on DICE fo 'sho. DICE, I thin, have become the very thing the probably wanted to be from the start: mega rich AAA game studio with their own engine, it's just...that white liquid in the back of the mouth is visible to all. Some people will do anything to get ahead, and will even give head to get ahead - and will not care and just live with the consequences of that whilst driving their Ferarri...with a very big cushion underneath their tender ringpeice.
I liked the theme, but I just couldn't get into most maps. Maybe it's subjective, but to me most maps are super exposed with a lot of running around and too few shooting. Most are also absolutely dominated by tanks/planes to play it comfortably as infantry. There is also a version of "Metro" map, which is Verdun. However, unlike metro being simple tube, this is just a maze of corridors that is often frustrating to navigate let alone fight in. Overall I have like 60h in BF1 and I after trying beta I didn't even buy BFV, while I did play hell of a lot of BF2, 3 and 4.
I got BF1 for $5. I've played it for less than 5 hours. (I also have Tannenberg, a BF like, WW1 shooter and I've spent more time playing that) BF4 was the last game I had fun with. It was the last BF game that I enjoyed and played 100s of hours. But the series downfall began long before that. This series peaked at Battlefield 2. (or 2142... same fun game, just modded with titan mode)
BF1 had great atmosphere but I agree with some of you all.. it was garbage as far as gameplay to me. I absolutely hated the random bullet deviation and the random elite spawns. The gameplay catered to a much more random experience and a much lower skill ceiling. It was designed to be casual. It also had a lot of absolutely terrible maps mixed with some great ones.. but not enough good to make up for the bad ones. I loved the art direction that they took the game, but that's about it. BF5 has much better gameplay overall, except vehicle balance is still bad (especially planes vs infantry) and the game is a complete crap show and mess and has been from the start. Terrible content delivery and back and forth with sweeping gameplay changes.
BFV had exactly the same problem tbh, excluding a few maps. Some like the infantry experience, some like the vehicles, some like both. The community designed their own "versions" of the game with their own server rules & settings for a long time using custom servers. This went completely out of the window with the later installments. They need to give some control back to the community tbh, give us the content, but allow the community to tweak it to their liking. 64P Locker/Metro is a cesspool, but I have yet to see a lot of games capture the perfect balance of tactics and pure action that 32P gave on those maps. Or 32P Rush in BF3 for that matter.
I looooved the 64 player infantry only custom conquest servers in bf3... what i played by far the most... and i agree, that's one of the biggest things missing - custom servers.
Leak Info; Tom Henderson said BF6 will be alot like BF3. He was right with leaked infos about COD:Warzone for instance. https://twitter.com/_TomHenderson_/status/1258717537229029378 https://twitter.com/_TomHenderson_/status/1267188558240022529
Lost me then, not good. BF4 felt a little better polished and better maps. I don't want to play BF3 again, already played that game. I don't want to play anything they previously made from modern war, WWI, WWII or Vietnam. From BF1942 through BF4, they all had their memorable moments. But for the most part they were still BF at heart. But they tried to offer something different from the previous title to help make it feel like a new experience. The one game that was truly inventive, and polarizing, was 2142. The Titan battle was a great concept, albeit with the infanmous Titan bugs at release. The future always allows a more imaginative approach to weapons systems. You know what, ships at sea now do have laser systems aboard for defense. I need something fresh from DICE. I was a fan of Frostbite in the early days but if it's what's causing the poor weapons feel in the last releases, it needs to be fixed. Let's hope they are really listening to the fan base, or they won't have much of a fan base for much longer.
We are saying this for years now, and its like Groundhogday, every new Release one or two years later the same...
Mini-Teaser added. (rumors; modern of course (collapsing building, rifles from "grey army" seem to be place holders, e.g. from BF5) + more than 64 players in mp matches + more destruction like BFBC)
I have an Nvidia GPU and for me, DX12 was better on BF5. Can't say I blame you for thinking that though. DX12 optimization in Frostbite 3 has been a slow and painful process for the most part. It started out horribly with Battlefield 1 and Star Wars BF2, but improved significantly with BF5; especially after patches and updates. It's definitely a process. Frostbite engine has very deep optimizations for DX11, so the engine has to be gradually rewritten to take greater advantage of DX12 while not rocking the boat too much and lower performance for Windows 7 gamers who are stuck on DX11. Don't be surprised if the next BF game is DX12 or Vulkan only though. A lot of the big developers are dropping DX11 support. This is a great thing because whatever you might think about DX12/Vulkan, they are both far superior APIs compared to DX11. DX11 can only take us so far before it runs out of gas.
Dice need to dig deep if they are to make a decent game, as of right now, the cod mw weapon mechanics are just amazing, no going back after playing that game
