Battlefield 2042 (PS4, PS5, XB1, XSX, PC) (Nov 19)

[CoolinInTheCut]

EA is desperate for these fortnite type live service games but they don't understand why those type of games are successful. Only reason Apex Legends is successful is because respawn developed it with no input from EA and had to practically beg to get it released.

If EA wants a Battlefield BR game it has to be developed separately from the mainline entry and released as a standalone free to play product. No one who enjoys BR games is gonna pay $70 for a battlefield game, and people who pay for battlefield games aren't doing it to play BR, we buy battlefield for large scale objective based multi player with heavy emphasis on team work.

EA is too greedy to understand that. They want to sell battleroyal games for full price and also make you pay for the content in the game.

Apex is a weird example to use here. Sure, it's good and successful because of Respawn, but it's also bad because of Respawn. Respawn has said EA has no influence on their monetization strategies, and Apex Legends has the most egregious and predatory monetization out of any competing shooter.

And there is actually a lot of overlap in the live service models used by both Apex Legends and BF2042 - both of which Vince was responsible for. And just like BF2042, Apex is notorious for very little content in their season updates.

I think there's more than enough evidence that people will pay for a multiplayer only game if it's good enough, look at Tarkov, Overwatch, PUBG, etc. Pricing and monetization isn't the issue here, they're just making the existing issue worse.

The issue here is most of DICE has been turned over, and the DICE that we have today doesn't know how to make a good BF game. They don't even seem understand what BF is about. Exposure and Stranded are good moves in the right direction, but it's not enough. They need to downsize and focus on making a good BF experience first, before adding things that most BF players don't come to BF for like a campaign or BR mode.

 

[5n0man]

Apex is a weird example to use here. Sure, it's good and successful because of Respawn, but it's also bad because of Respawn. Respawn has said EA has no influence on their monetization strategies, and Apex Legends has the most egregious and predatory monetization out of any competing shooter.

And there is actually a lot of overlap in the live service models used by both Apex Legends and BF2042 - both of which Vince was responsible for. And just like BF2042, Apex is notorious for very little content in their season updates.

I think there's more than enough evidence that people will pay for a multiplayer only game if it's good enough, look at Tarkov, Overwatch, PUBG, etc. Pricing and monetization isn't the issue here, they're just making the existing issue worse.

The issue here is most of DICE has been turned over, and the DICE that we have today doesn't know how to make a good BF game. They don't even seem understand what BF is about. Exposure and Stranded are good moves in the right direction, but it's not enough. They need to downsize and focus on making a good BF experience first, before adding things that most BF players don't come to BF for like a campaign or BR mode.

I don't know much about apex's monetization methods because I don't play it, I assume it's all just cosmetics.

As for battlefield, I don't think the problem is that DICE doesn't know how to make a battlefield game. Battlefield 1 and 5 (despite people complaining about it being too "woke") were pretty damn good.


The issues with 2042 stems from the fact that it was being developed purely as a battle royal game until the last year and a half of development. By that point they didn't have enough time to develop a traditional battlefield game so they just recycled assets and gameplay systems originally designed for a BR game into a traditional battlefield experience, but obviously the shyt didn't work.

Battlefield 2042 started life as a battle royale game, development took 18 months - report

A report on Battlefield 2042's troubled development offers some possible explanations about what lead to the game's current state.

www.vg247.com

" recounts how Battlefield 2042 development started, with EA reportedly asking DICE to "copy what's popular", which at that time was battle royale games. This is supposedly what lead to the creation of the Plus Menu, which was needed to allow players to switch weapon attachments on the fly based on what they find as ground loot.

This also what eventually got the developer to abandon the traditional class system in favour of Specialists early in 2020, which EA saw as another opportunity to monetise the game post-launch, based on the successful model of Warzone.

Some of those battle royale elements found themselves in Hazard Zone, Battlefield 2042's underdeveloped extraction royale mode. Between April and August 2020, development shifted to the current version of Battlefield 2042, bringing back some of the basic franchise elements while maintaining a vision of what the project started out as."


It's obvious from the success of the new maps and the reworking of launch maps that the studio still has an idea of how to make a battlefield game, they just didn't have time during development because EA wanted something that wasn't battlefield.

 

[Kings County]

the game was so bad
the movement was terrible compared to warzone
they have 3 years to make a great game since cod gonna crush the buildings

 

[CoolinInTheCut]

I don't know much about apex's monetization methods because I don't play it, I assume it's all just cosmetics.

Yes its all cosmetic but they've done crazy shyt like tell people a skin is going to be exclusive to get sales, and then release it a year later. Or sell bundles of mixed up cosmetics of different themes, and force people to buy multiple bundles just to get the full set.

All of the events you hear Apex getting arent anything but new skin sales, the game itself gets very little content.

The more important thing here is the drip feed of content and how its so minimal between both games. And this is a result of the whole "less is more" ideology Vince has.

As for battlefield, I don't think the problem is that DICE doesn't know how to make a battlefield game. Battlefield 1 and 5 (despite people complaining about it being too "woke") were pretty damn good.

BF1 was still a huge step down from BF4. They cut down on content and started introducing bullshyt like Operations mode and War Stories.

And BFV was another big disaster like BF2042 too. No one gave a fukk about the "woke" shyt, except racist cacs online. The game was full of bugs, and shytty design issues. And it took a long time to get good maps too. Then they pissed off gamers by playing around with the TTK and cutting support they promised.

The issues with 2042 stems from the fact that it was being developed purely as a battle royal game until the last year and a half of development. By that point they didn't have enough time to develop a traditional battlefield game so they just recycled assets and gameplay systems originally designed for a BR game into a traditional battlefield experience, but obviously the shyt didn't work.

Battlefield 2042 started life as a battle royale game, development took 18 months - report

A report on Battlefield 2042's troubled development offers some possible explanations about what lead to the game's current state.

www.vg247.com

" recounts how Battlefield 2042 development started, with EA reportedly asking DICE to "copy what's popular", which at that time was battle royale games. This is supposedly what lead to the creation of the Plus Menu, which was needed to allow players to switch weapon attachments on the fly based on what they find as ground loot.

This also what eventually got the developer to abandon the traditional class system in favour of Specialists early in 2020, which EA saw as another opportunity to monetise the game post-launch, based on the successful model of Warzone.

Some of those battle royale elements found themselves in Hazard Zone, Battlefield 2042's underdeveloped extraction royale mode. Between April and August 2020, development shifted to the current version of Battlefield 2042, bringing back some of the basic franchise elements while maintaining a vision of what the project started out as."

I already know all about the BF2042 development. This doesn't disprove my point.

We all saw how this DICE team was referring to game modes and common sense features from previous BF games as "legacy features". This DICE team today is nothing like the old DICE team around BF3-BF4. Just look at how they're treating adding cover to maps as a learning experience.

It's obvious from the success of the new maps and the reworking of launch maps that the studio still has an idea of how to make a battlefield game, they just didn't have time during development because EA wanted something that wasn't battlefield.

You're giving them way too much credit here. Exposure and Stranded are great steps in the right direction, but they only reworked one map, and that was a very inadequate rework too. All they did was add one new POI and some cover. Its more in line with competing an unfinished map instead of reworking it. It still suffers from a lot of the same issues as it previously did, especially with how the 64-player layout virtually has no changes.

 

[Detroit Wave]

Yes its all cosmetic but they've done crazy shyt like tell people a skin is going to be exclusive to get sales, and then release it a year later. Or sell bundles of mixed up cosmetics of different themes, and force people to buy multiple bundles just to get the full set.

All of the events you hear Apex getting arent anything but new skin sales, the game itself gets very little content.

The more important thing here is the drip feed of content and how its so minimal between both games. And this is a result of the whole "less is more" ideology Vince has.



BF1 was still a huge step down from BF4. They cut down on content and started introducing bullshyt like Operations mode and War Stories.

And BFV was another big disaster like BF2042 too. No one gave a fukk about the "woke" shyt, except racist cacs online. The game was full of bugs, and shytty design issues. And it took a long time to get good maps too. Then they pissed off gamers by playing around with the TTK and cutting support they promised.



I already know all about the BF2042 development. This doesn't disprove my point.

We all saw how this DICE team was referring to game modes and common sense features from previous BF games as "legacy features". This DICE team today is nothing like the old DICE team around BF3-BF4. Just look at how they're treating adding cover to maps as a learning experience.



You're giving them way too much credit here. Exposure and Stranded are great steps in the right direction, but they only reworked one map, and that was a very inadequate rework too. All they did was add one new POI and some cover. Its more in line with competing an unfinished map instead of reworking it. It still suffers from a lot of the same issues as it previously did, especially with how the 64-player layout virtually has no changes.

bf1 is bf4 with sliding and fewer guns operations is a dope mode the dlc maps are fire
the only good thing about bfv is the gunplay and graphics

they need to go back to roots of battlefield which is class based combined arms objective focused gameplay.

the franchise really went down hill when they took vehicles out of the uncaps


but anyways,



























who tryna squad up rn on 2042 tho? i need gunners so i can get my vehicle unlocks on the MAV and wildcat

 

[5n0man]

BF1 was still a huge step down from BF4. They cut down on content and started introducing bullshyt like Operations mode and War Stories.

And BFV was another big disaster like BF2042 too. No one gave a fukk about the "woke" shyt, except racist cacs online. The game was full of bugs, and shytty design issues. And it took a long time to get good maps too. Then they pissed off gamers by playing around with the TTK and cutting support they promised.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one because I personally think BF1 was better than BF4. I think BF5 had it's fair share of problems but the maps were good and the gunplay is the best in the series, it was nowhere near the disaster people think it was, and it took 2042 for people to go back and acknowledge that BF5 was better than people gave it credit for.

I also believe the love for BF4 is some revisionists shyt because i remember that game being a broken, buggy, laggy, crashing mess for well over a year after launch. It took far longer for them to fix that game than any battlefield game after it except 2042. Everyone has seemingly forgotten how much of a disaster that game was when it came out, and how long it took DICE to fix it.

I already know all about the BF2042 development. This doesn't disprove my point.

We all saw how this DICE team was referring to game modes and common sense features from previous BF games as "legacy features". This DICE team today is nothing like the old DICE team around BF3-BF4. Just look at how they're treating adding cover to maps as a learning experience.

I feel like all this is just PR speak to hide the fact that EA planned it to be a battle royal.

"Legacy features" sounds like it came straight from the suits who forced them to make a different game but don't want to admit it.

You're giving them way too much credit here. Exposure and Stranded are great steps in the right direction, but they only reworked one map, and that was a very inadequate rework too. All they did was add one new POI and some cover. Its more in line with competing an unfinished map instead of reworking it. It still suffers from a lot of the same issues as it previously did, especially with how the 64-player layout virtually has no changes.

You gotta take into consideration that its just a skeleton crew working on the game at this point. Most of the studios probably moved on to the next game not long after launch. Progess is slow because EA already gave up on the game and is just doing the bare minimum to avoid a lawsuit.

 

[CoolinInTheCut]

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one because I personally think BF1 was better than BF4. I think BF5 had it's fair share of problems but the maps were good and the gunplay is the best in the series, it was nowhere near the disaster people think it was, and it took 2042 for people to go back and acknowledge that BF5 was better than people gave it credit for.

I also believe the love for BF4 is some revisionists shyt because i remember that game being a broken, buggy, laggy, crashing mess for well over a year after launch. It took far longer for them to fix that game than any battlefield game after it except 2042. Everyone has seemingly forgotten how much of a disaster that game was when it came out, and how long it took DICE to fix it.

It did take them over a year to fix BF4 but while they were fixing it, they were adding tons of content to the game, way more than any other BF game since. So now, looking back when the game is fixed, you have literally the biggest BF experience, and its under the best era: the modern setting. That's why it seems like revisionist history. But regardless, there's a reason why its still popular today, and widely regarded as the best BF game.

The only way I see anyone picking BF1 over BFV is if you play on console, because BF4 runs terribly on every console. Otherwise BF4 just has way more content from guns, maps, vehicles, game modes, and a better setting, there's no competition between games.

And I disagree on the BFV maps being good. The DLC ones were good, but the launch ones were terrible. It definitely has the best gunplay in the series tho.

I feel like all this is just PR speak to hide the fact that EA planned it to be a battle royal.

"Legacy features" sounds like it came straight from the suits who forced them to make a different game but don't want to admit it.

You gotta take into consideration that its just a skeleton crew working on the game at this point. Most of the studios probably moved on to the next game not long after launch. Progess is slow because EA already gave up on the game and is just doing the bare minimum to avoid a lawsuit.

No one is hiding it was originally a BR game though. DICE said themselves that was the original vision for the game. And the legacy features stuff came straight from DICE.

I dont know what to believe with the skeleton crew shyt either, cause we're seeing over +100 fixes every patch, and they're adding shyt like brand new animations with these last few patches. I definitely don't think its 100% of the team working on BF2042, but its definitely also not a skeleton crew if theyre working on animations.

I think Vince is just planning to pivot every new content release out until the next BF is released 2-3 years from now. This "new map" Stranded was in the gameplay trailers from last year. This is the same shyt he pulled with Apex Legends.

bf1 is bf4 with sliding and fewer guns operations is a dope mode the dlc maps are fire
the only good thing about bfv is the gunplay and graphics

they need to go back to roots of battlefield which is class based combined arms objective focused gameplay.

the franchise really went down hill when they took vehicles out of the uncaps

BF1 was also full of stupid ass horses and sabre swords. Operations was just breakthrough/rush with unnecessary cutscenes.

BF4 had a lot of fun extra modes like Obliteration and CTF that shouldve been brought back. They recently brought back Chainlink and Air Superiority into BF2042 - but its only in Portal. They need to combine AOW and Portal at this point because have them both is kinda redundant.

 

[Detroit Wave]

It did take them over a year to fix BF4 but while they were fixing it, they were adding tons of content to the game, way more than any other BF game since. So now, looking back when the game is fixed, you have literally the biggest BF experience, and its under the best era: the modern setting. That's why it seems like revisionist history. But regardless, there's a reason why its still popular today, and widely regarded as the best BF game.

The only way I see anyone picking BF1 over BFV is if you play on console, because BF4 runs terribly on every console. Otherwise BF4 just has way more content from guns, maps, vehicles, game modes, and a better setting, there's no competition between games.

And I disagree on the BFV maps being good. The DLC ones were good, but the launch ones were terrible. It definitely has the best gunplay in the series tho.



No one is hiding it was originally a BR game though. DICE said themselves that was the original vision for the game. And the legacy features stuff came straight from DICE.

I dont know what to believe with the skeleton crew shyt either, cause we're seeing over +100 fixes every patch, and they're adding shyt like brand new animations with these last few patches. I definitely don't think its 100% of the team working on BF2042, but its definitely also not a skeleton crew if theyre working on animations.

I think Vince is just planning to pivot every new content release out until the next BF is released 2-3 years from now. This "new map" Stranded was in the gameplay trailers from last year. This is the same shyt he pulled with Apex Legends.



BF1 was also full of stupid ass horses and sabre swords. Operations was just breakthrough/rush with unnecessary cutscenes.

BF4 had a lot of fun extra modes like Obliteration and CTF that shouldve been brought back. They recently brought back Chainlink and Air Superiority into BF2042 - but its only in Portal. They need to combine AOW and Portal at this point because have them both is kinda redundant.

the horses are not that bad its like 1 per team and they die to a at nade

Oblit was fun as hell, prolly my favorite mode in bf4 along with carrier assault. too bad that dice is long gone

 

[CoolinInTheCut]

the horses are not that bad its like 1 per team and they die to a at nade

Oblit was fun as hell, prolly my favorite mode in bf4 along with carrier assault. too bad that dice is long gone

Oh yeah Carrier Assault was so fire. shyt was a fun spin on that Titan mode in 2142.

Its crazy how 2042 has zero naval warfare lol. Just another example of how useless this DICE team is.

 

[5n0man]

It did take them over a year to fix BF4 but while they were fixing it, they were adding tons of content to the game, way more than any other BF game since. So now, looking back when the game is fixed, you have literally the biggest BF experience, and its under the best era: the modern setting. That's why it seems like revisionist history. But regardless, there's a reason why its still popular today, and widely regarded as the best BF game.

There are just as many people playing battlefield 1 and 5, you can't really claim BF4 is more popular today when the player count for all 3 games is around the same. And BF4 not working for more than a year was a big deal, especially when you're making the claim that it was the last good battlefield game, especially when you're comparing it to 2 games that were much more polished at launch.

The only way I see anyone picking BF1 over BFV is if you play on console, because BF4 runs terribly on every console. Otherwise BF4 just has way more content from guns, maps, vehicles, game modes, and a better setting, there's no competition between games.

Most people play battlefield on consoles, this isn't really a good argument.

And I disagree on the BFV maps being good. The DLC ones were good, but the launch ones were terrible. It definitely has the best gunplay in the series tho.

BF 5 not having any good maps on release is a lie, they had a couple duds at release but they also had some good ones too. And all the dlc maps were good.

I dont know what to believe with the skeleton crew shyt either, cause we're seeing over +100 fixes every patch, and they're adding shyt like brand new animations with these last few patches. I definitely don't think its 100% of the team working on BF2042, but its definitely also not a skeleton crew if theyre working on animations.

It was reported earlier this year that they had a skeleton crew working on 2042, EA responded with a non answer to those claims, which leads me to believe the claims were true.

BF1 was also full of stupid ass horses and sabre swords. Operations was just breakthrough/rush with unnecessary cutscenes.

Horses and sabres were used by the ottoman empire during WW1, this just seems like you have a problem with the setting itself. I don't think Operations was bad either, dynamically changing objectives was an interesting idea.


My point is that people put 100 percent of the blame on dice when EA chasing recent trends seem to be the main reason for the series falling off.

 

[CoolinInTheCut]

There are just as many people playing battlefield 1 and 5, you can't really claim BF4 is more popular today when the player count is for all 3 games is around the same. And BF4 not working for more than a year was a big deal, especially when you're making the claim that it was the last good battlefield game, especially when you're comparing it to 2 games that were much more polished at launch.

Multiple things can be true at once. BF4 was broken for over a year AND it ended up being the best BF game in the franchise.

Every BF game that came after it had less content than BF4, and more unnecessary gimmicks, and thats why BF4 is better than those games today.

Most people play battlefield on consoles, this isn't really a good argument.

Its not an argument. BF4 on console vs BF4 on PC are two entirely different experiences. If you only play on console then of course you're going to think BF1, and maybe even BFV, are better than BF4, but if you play on PC, where all of these games perform great, you're not going to think these other BF games come close to BF4.

BF4 didnt even run at a solid 60 FPS until the PS4 Pro Boost Mode came around, and even then it was like sub 720p and full of jaggies due to shytty anti aliasing. The game felt terrible on controller too with the input lag and lack of customization when it comes to aiming. BF1 and BFV play better than BF4 in every way on console.

BF 5 not having any good maps on release is a lie, they had a couple duds at release but they also had some good ones too. And all the dlc maps were good.

The launch maps were trash and this is something that was echoed by the community. DLC maps were good tho.

It was reported earlier this year that they had a skeleton crew working on 2042, EA responded with a non answer to those claims, which leads me to believe the claims were true.

It was reported by "Jeff Grubb". Not the most reliable guy. Dude loves to speculate and then back track when hes proven wrong. And EA and DICE said its not true.

Either way the truth is clearly in the middle of what both parties are saying. I dont think a skeleton crew would be wasting resources on creating new animations. Thats a very low priority item in the list of things that BF2042 needs work on.

Horses and sabres were used by the ottoman empire during WW1, this just seems like you have a problem with the setting itself. I don't think Operations was bad either, dynamically changing objectives was an interesting idea.

I know horses and sabres were used WW1, that shyt dont matter to me, but it was stupid as hell how these horses could take like multiple shots while Aladdin slices and dices people up with his sabre.

Operations mode was a gimmick.

My point is that people put 100 percent of the blame on dice when EA chasing recent trends seem to be the main reason for the series falling off.

Its both parties' faults. However, multiple shytty games in a row means DICE definitely deserves a large portion of the blame.

Its evident there's a lot of issues there with the massive turnover since BF4.

 

[5n0man]

Multiple things can be true at once. BF4 was broken for over a year AND it ended up being the best BF game in the franchise.

Every BF game that came after it had less content than BF4, and more unnecessary gimmicks, and thats why BF4 is better than those games today.

Yes, multiple things can be true. For instance, BF4 being your personal favorite in the series doesn't mean every BF game after it was garbage. More content doesn't mean it's a better game, and there's an argument to be made that BF4 started the gimmick shyt in the series with the levolution shyt.

I know alot of people feel like bad company 2 was the best in the series, that doesn't mean BF3 and 4 were trash.

Its not an argument. BF4 on console vs BF4 on PC are two entirely different experiences. If you only play on console then of course you're going to think BF1, and maybe even BFV, are better than BF4, but if you play on PC, where all of these games perform great, you're not going to think these other BF games come close to BF4.

BF4 didnt even run at a solid 60 FPS until the PS4 Pro Boost Mode came around, and even then it was like sub 720p and full of jaggies due to shytty anti aliasing. The game felt terrible on controller too with the input lag and lack of customization when it comes to aiming. BF1 and BFV play better than BF4 in every way on console.

You're literally making the argument that BF4 is only the best in the series to like 20 percent of people who played it on PC, and to everyone else it was a buggy mess of a game.

Thats like saying cyberpunk was great because the handful of people with PCs powerful enough to not experience glitches, had a great time with it.

The launch maps were trash and this is something that was echoed by the community. DLC maps were good tho.

The community shytted on that game because it was "woke". The online community was hyper critical of everything about that game, I don't believe the communities opinion on the game at launch. If you want proof, just go look recent opinions about the launch maps since 2042 released. Most people think the beta map and that narrow map are the only real bad maps in the game.

It was reported by "Jeff Grubb". Not the most reliable guy. Dude loves to speculate and then back track when hes proven wrong. And EA and DICE said its not true.

Either way the truth is clearly in the middle of what both parties are saying. I dont think a skeleton crew would be wasting resources on creating new animations. Thats a very low priority item in the list of things that BF2042 needs work on.

He wasn’t the only one reporting that. More importantly, EAs response was a non answer, they said they had people from multiple studios working on the game but they never said anything about the size of the current team working on the game.

Nearly a year later the only work done is 1 new map, and map that was already shown pre release, and bug fixes. Other battlefield games were on their 3rd expansion at this point. Meanwhile they're announcing a new game less than a year later, it's clearly a skeleton crew working on 2042.

Its both parties' faults. However, multiple shytty games in a row means DICE definitely deserves a large portion of the blame.

Its evident there's a lot of issues there with the massive turnover since BF4.

They didn't have multiple shytty games in a row, most people think BF1 was a great game. BF5 was decent, with people admitting that it was better than people wanted to admit at launch, and then you have 2042 where EA had a huge influence on how the game turned out.


The issues with turnover says more about EA as a company than DICE just losing their way.

 

[CoolinInTheCut]

Yes, multiple things can be true. For instance, BF4 being your personal favorite in the series doesn't mean every BF game after it was garbage. More content doesn't mean it's a better game, and there's an argument to be made that BF4 started the gimmick shyt in the series with the levolution shyt.

I know alot of people feel like bad company 2 was the best in the series, that doesn't mean BF3 and 4 were trash.

You're literally making the argument that BF4 is only the best in the series to like 20 percent of people who played it on PC, and to everyone else it was a buggy mess of a game.

Thats like saying cyberpunk was great because the handful of people with PCs powerful enough to not experience glitches, had a great time with it.

The community shytted on that game because it was "woke". The online community was hyper critical of everything about that game, I don't believe the communities opinion on the game at launch. If you want proof, just go look recent opinions about the launch maps since 2042 released. Most people think the beta map and that narrow map are the only real bad maps in the game.

He wasn’t the only one reporting that. More importantly, EAs response was a non answer, they said they had people from multiple studios working on the game but they never said anything about the size of the current team working on the game.

Nearly a year later the only work done is 1 new map, and map that was already shown pre release, and bug fixes. Other battlefield games were on their 3rd expansion at this point. Meanwhile they're announcing a new game less than a year later, it's clearly a skeleton crew working on 2042.

They didn't have multiple shytty games in a row, most people think BF1 was a great game. BF5 was decent, with people admitting that it was better than people wanted to admit at launch, and then you have 2042 where EA had a huge influence on how the game turned out.


The issues with turnover says more about EA as a company than DICE just losing their way.

Lol you're not even reading or responding to half the shyt I said.

1. If we're comparing iterative sequels in the same franchise, then yes, the game with way more content is often times the better game. Not a perfect comparison but this is like comparing GTA SA to GTA4, GTA SA is still the better game due to its sheer volume of content despite being more dated in gameplay. The only thing BF1 really had going for it over BF4 was the atmosphere.
2. BC2 was another high point in the franchise on console, and thats another popular opinion - I'm not mad at it. But its important to understand whos making these opinions. A PC player will most likely put a different BF over it, because these console players never experienced BF1942 to BF2142.
3. BF was always a PC franchise before it came to console. It makes no sense bringing up accessibility or comparing popularity between platforms here. We can have nuance. Just treat BF4 on console and BF4 on PC as two separate titles, just like we do with Cyberpunk. Like I said, if you play on console BF1 and BFV are better than BF4, but if you play on PC, BF4 is a far better experience. It sounds like you only play BF on console, and theres nothing wrong with that.
4. Again, I dont care about the people complaining about it being woke. All that criticism is completely different from criticism around the launch maps.
5. Jeff Grubb said it was a skeleton crew, EA denied it and said it was a significant crew across multiple studios. Skeleton <> Significant.
6. Again, this is Vince's classic "less is more" bullshyt. Apex went through the same shyt for years. They're planning to stretch the little content they put aside for live service as long as they can doing these minimal updates with one map and a couple guns.
7. You're leaving out BF Hardline (multiplayer only), Mirrors Edge Catalyst, both Battlefront games. DICE's output was trash last generation.

 

[5n0man]

1. If we're comparing iterative sequels in the same franchise, then yes, the game with way more content is often times the better game. Not a perfect comparison but this is like comparing GTA SA to GTA4, GTA SA is still the better game due to its sheer volume of content despite being more dated in gameplay. The only thing BF1 really had going for it over BF4 was the atmosphere.

This is false, in a series like battlefield where the vast majority of people pick the same few weapons despite the game having a ton of weapons, it's not really a negative having less weapons that are more balanced. It's like saying mortal kombat is better than street fighter because it has more fighters.

2. BC2 was another high point in the franchise on console, and thats another popular opinion - I'm not mad at it. But its important to understand whos making these opinions. A PC player will most likely put a different BF over it, because these console players never experienced BF1942 to BF2142.

I don't understand what this has to do with anything, the game was made for multiple platforms and its fair to judge the quality of the product across the different platforms. Especially when the vast majority of the fanbase plays on a specific platform.

. BF was always a PC franchise before it came to console. It makes no sense bringing up accessibility or comparing popularity between platforms here. We can have nuance. Just treat BF4 on console and BF4 on PC as two separate titles, just like we do with Cyberpunk. Like I said, if you play on console BF1 and BFV are better than BF4, but if you play on PC, BF4 is a far better experience. It sounds like you only play BF on console, and theres nothing wrong with that.

Doesn't matter what platform BF started out on, it's undeniable that the majority of people who play these games aren't playing on PC. Even if we're judging strictly off PC, BF1 and 5 still has a slight edge on BF4 in terms of player count, you can go check the steam player count for yourself.

4. Again, I dont care about the people complaining about it being woke. All that criticism is completely different from criticism around the launch maps.

You should care about those complaints, because it has a drastic effect on how people view the game. Alot of people claim that TLOU2 was trash purely because they feel like it was too woke, so they downplay every aspect of the game.

5. Jeff Grubb said it was a skeleton crew, EA denied it and said it was a significant crew across multiple studios. Skeleton <> Significant.

You should stop believing PR speak from companies like EA, they aren’t gonna just admit that they aren't putting effort into a failed project, they said the same shyt about Anthem, then it got canceled. In 2042 they've put out one new map, one map that was already worked on pre release, 1 reworked map, and some bug fixes. You claim it's because the studio is incompetent but the same studio has managed to release far more quality content in a shorter time frame than they have with 2042. Them announcing a new Battlefield game less than a year after the release of 2042 should clue you in to what's really going on.

7. You're leaving out BF Hardline (multiplayer only), Mirrors Edge Catalyst, both Battlefront games. DICE's output was trash last generation.

Hardline was not developed by dice. I've never played mirrors edge and don't know what it has to do with Battlefield. Battlefront 1 lacked Content, I'll give you that, but Battlefront 2 eventually became a great game before EA killed it. And you can't argue that it took too long for Battlefront 2 to be fixed because it took just as long for your favorite Battlefield game to become a good game. Plus the biggest problem with Battlefront was how EA decided to monetized the game, not the actual gameplay.

And if we're blaming the new DICE for shyt like mirrors edge, it's only fair to bring up how old DICE in their golden days developed the last metal of honor game, which was trash, they aren't infallible.



You keep acting like DICE released a perfect game with BF4, then people left and it's been nothing but trash ever since. That's a false narrative, DICE had fukk ups leading up to BF4 and BF4 was also a fukk up. And they've had successful games after people started leaving, you might not like BF1, but general consensus is that it was a great game, Battlefront 2 was a damn good game, and people are admitting that BF5 wasn't nearly as bad as they claimed it was years after release.

 

[CoolinInTheCut]

This is false, in a series like battlefield where the vast majority of people pick the same few weapons despite the game having a ton of weapons, it's not really a negative having less weapons that are more balanced. It's like saying mortal kombat is better than street fighter because it has more fighters.

I don't understand what this has to do with anything, the game was made for multiple platforms and its fair to judge the quality of the product across the different platforms. Especially when the vast majority of the fanbase plays on a specific platform.

Doesn't matter what platform BF started out on, it's undeniable that the majority of people who play these games aren't playing on PC. Even if we're judging strictly off PC, BF1 and 5 still has a slight edge on BF4 in terms of player count, you can go check the steam player count for yourself.

You should care about those complaints, because it has a drastic effect on how people view the game. Alot of people claim that TLOU2 was trash purely because they feel like it was too woke, so they downplay every aspect of the game.

You should stop believing PR speak from companies like EA, they aren’t gonna just admit that they aren't putting effort into a failed project, they said the same shyt about Anthem, then it got canceled. In 2042 they've put out one new map, one map that was already worked on pre release, 1 reworked map, and some bug fixes. You claim it's because the studio is incompetent but the same studio has managed to release far more quality content in a shorter time frame than they have with 2042. Them announcing a new Battlefield game less than a year after the release of 2042 should clue you in to what's really going on.

Hardline was not developed by dice. I've never played mirrors edge and don't know what it has to do with Battlefield. Battlefront 1 lacked Content, I'll give you that, but Battlefront 2 eventually became a great game before EA killed it. And you can't argue that it took too long for Battlefront 2 to be fixed because it took just as long for your favorite Battlefield game to become a good game. Plus the biggest problem with Battlefront was how EA decided to monetized the game, not the actual gameplay.

And if we're blaming the new DICE for shyt like mirrors edge, it's only fair to bring up how old DICE in their golden days developed the last metal of honor game, which was trash, they aren't infallible.



You keep acting like DICE released a perfect game with BF4, then people left and it's been nothing but trash ever since. That's a false narrative, DICE had fukk ups leading up to BF4 and BF4 was also a fukk up. And they've had successful games after people started leaving, you might not like BF1, but general consensus is that it was a great game, Battlefront 2 was a damn good game, and people are admitting that BF5 wasn't nearly as bad as they claimed it was years after release.

DICE did the multiplayer for BF Hardline, that's why I had it in brackets (same situation as that modern MOH).

I never said BF4 launched perfect lol. I said several times that BF4 took over a year to get fixed. All I'm saying is BF4 on PC is the best BF game right now by wide margin, and the best BF ever according to most people. Every BF game since then has been progressively worse.

I can't go back and forth on this stuff forever. Trust me, if you played it then we wouldn't be having this back and forth lol.