Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Hilbert Hagedoorn, May 24, 2018.
Battlefield:SJW has lost me.
So after seeing actual gameplay, what happened to the v-1 incoming? Haven't seen a one in any of gameplay footage.
Basically what I'm seeing is Bf1 with WW2 weapons. This was my worry when they announced a WW2 version. It really should be called a Dlc because it looks and plays the same no matter how pretty your bullsheet release video tried to mislead everyone. And I'm sure all the hacking will stay in place making it just as frustrating to take more than two steps after spawning and getting headshot thru a 5 foot thick brick wall. Hmmph pass.
The words Lootbox and Season pass are now toxic, so they will simply change them to say, Expansions or Add-on packs, but in no way will there be no more money to be made after the initial purchase from these games, it's all about services now, and if they can keep the whales and the small fry paying then they can weather any storm. lol
Look again, it's nothing like BF1, unfortunately. The weapons have a crap ton of recoil, limited ammo, you don't regen to max health unless you have a medic, same thing with vehicles, both land and air (need to resupply ammo, can't fully autorepair), 3d spotting is gone, behemoths are gone, fortifications are in (fortnite like, but more limited) - and this is just to mention a few.
Overall, all SJW BS aside (get ready for black female nazi soldiers with facepaint boi), this Battlefield will bring so many gameplay changes that I can't honestly say if it will even feel like a BF game anymore. The pacing will likely be way slower, exact opposite of the bombastic reveal trailer (yet another contradiction), and SHOULD encourage more tactical thinking. But at the same time they implemented the horrible fortifications mechanics (that also award points). So my fear is that the result will be a LOT more base camping and considerable less action.
PS - battle royale anyone?
They have pretty much added everything I've been asking for a long time, It's going to promote squad play hugely.
I'm still not sure about the building. It can be useful in attack/defend modes like grand ops but I can't see it been used much in conquest APART from support who can build AA and mounted machine guns which is very useful.
what you said in the first paragraph is bf
besides the fortnight bs which is lame
I hope you need a medic ammo a wrench and so on.
on vehicles even more so becuase bf is online team play you want Rambo that's cod
Then they don't buy it just like any other game. Why do we have so many threads polluted with RIGHT WING SJW? I mean, is that any less toxic than the extreme left? FFS people, leave your politics at the door.
V1 was practically hardcoded rocket. It was not guided missile. Secondly, why would you send 1000kg explosives in one package to strike one target in dynamic battlefield, when you could make few thousands grenades or other explosives. (portable mortar would be much more efficient use of explosives)
It might be (I have not played the early BF games), but certainly not BF after BFBC2.
BFBC2 has been pretty much the foundation for BF3, BF4, BFH, BF1 and these changes are major because of that. I don't see them as bad, because sure on paper it does encourage teamplay. But since most people tend to play "lone wolf" with pugs, all these will likely lead to more camping.
The fortifications system will be abused and exploited, I'm sure of it. There was no reason for this in a BF game.
One of my friends who plays BF1 gets top score without firing single round as medic. Secondly camping is what ensures your team's defeat, unless it is camping of objectives, which is totally correct thing to do.
But main question about features should always be: "Is it fun to do it in game?" and "Is it fun to do it 100th times?"
If people have fun doing it, then it should be there.
If it feel like: "For win I always have to do 3 times 360 jump. Then I turn around 3 times on my chair in opposite direction and do 3 pushups. And then I have to run entire match to storage and bring sandbags to front lines. I win, but it does feel like work and not like fun."
I was referring to their "release" video that showed a buzz bomb coming in and blowing away everything. Haven't seen any in the actual gameplay and was calling them out on their misleading video of "gameplay".
well you never played real bf so I guess you don't know what I mean
what made bf suck is bc imho
the only campers will/should be snipers other wise you have to squad up or have hacks
whatever games come out people will find exploits in them so that's irrelevant but I might hate it also.
I will just cry like a little baby they might change it
The V1 is a squad perk only able to be called in once enough squad points are earned the churchill tank is another one which only your squad can get in so yeash your not going to see v1's all over the place but here is one from the alpha
Yeah, back then (BF 1942-BF 2142 time frame) I had extremely crappy internet so I was limited to LAN Counter-Strike/Quake as far as multiplayer FPS went. Then when I finally got a decent internet connection around 2005-6 all did I was pretty much playing vanilla WoW and TBC 24/7, with no time for anything else.
Loved BFBC2 though, and pretty much played Rush exclusively (I still think it had the best Rush map design ever since), but I can understand how it wasn't that great for a veteran who was used to bigger action, more players, more vehicles etc. on Conquest.
I don't like the direction the series had been going since 2142 so if there's tons of noticeable changes from BF4/BF1, perhaps they'll be for the better. ...or finally make Battlefield completely un-related to the spirit of the original game.
Perhaps I should stop waiting for someone to make another game like that (1942/BF2) again as it doesn't seem to be coming.
Fine with vehicles with infinite ammo.
Fine with medics being able to revive somebody just blown up by a V1.
Fine with a mini map showing every player.
Fine with an engineer being able to restore a crippled tank to full health in 20 seconds.
Woman with prosthetic - totally unrealistic crap!
Agreed. Recent BFs are much more just pretty twitch shooters now,
The brilliance of BF2 was that teams which worked together, combined with a good commander would win the game. Twitch shooter lone wolves were also welcome as were aircraft specialist. The beauty was that is was so free form.
Hey, you're preaching to the choir. While I'm far from sold on the BFV, I am far from annoyed by female resistance fighter with a prostethic either, like I pointed out, she's not a regular trooper, and those prostethics have been around at the time. And if I end up not buying / playing the game, I will very well not spam the corresponding thread. But honestly, I didn't bring politics to the thread, I already tried in many ways to clarify that people aren't playing the most realistic game here, but a game that makes compromises to gameplay and "fun".
So yeah, you don't need to remind me not to bring politics in, sorry you got the wrong one here my friend. Maybe got the wrong guy quoted
Oh damn, people still butthurt about female being used in trailer? Not historically accurate?
God damn, you telling me medics that instantly revived soldiers after being shot in face by 800mm shell is historically accurate?
I hated trailer for not telling us what game is about, being childish like COD and hinting on Battle Royal.
Anyway, I still prefer Bad Company 2 over battlefield series. Not like I am missing on BF5.
EA is EA and will do whatever to grab money. If Battle Royal is where money is now, BF5 gonna be about Battle Royal.
I'm ashamed for not thinking of this earlier, even though I'm probably going to get hit by "2018" again for this but hey...
EA, if you want BF V to be a 100% success, you should hire none other than MC V (agina) to promote your game (and make it the theme song). Match made in heaven basically.