https://www.gamespot.com/articles/next-battlefield-is-a-reimagination-of-the-series/1100-6516478/
After Battlefield 2042 came up short, it looks like EA is shaking things up for the next game.
Why are they reimagining anything? Hasn't BattleBit proven that what Battlefield really needs is to go back to its roots? Just make Bad Company 3!
Lol came to say this, fucking battlebit is the next battlefield...and it fucks hard.
I am terrible at the game, like .3 k/d but I love it so much since it reminds me of bf1942
Honestly i feel like if they would have just kept updating battlefield 4 with new maps and content I would have just stuck with that.
Multiplayer gaming has been in a rough state the past while
Yeah I was a diehard Battlefield fan starting from Bad Company 2. I logged thousands of hours between that and BF3/4/1. BF5 was quite boring and my playtime tapered off drastically. By 2142, I'd purchased the game but have only played maybe 20 minutes of it.
I don't think it's solely on Dice as I don't play many games at all now (only Horizon Forbidden West and now Elder Scrolls), but they surely haven't given me a reason to choose their game over any other.
I really didn't care for stuff like Battle Royal and it seems like they really changed what the game is starting with BF1. It feels more like an arcade game than something you can really build skills with now. Gone are the crazy things like parachuting out of a jet and blowing up a chopper with a stinger missile and it really bugged me that there were no choppers due to the WWI setting of BF1.
BC2 is a great game but I think it's funny you say the game got more arcade
They said the same thing about bad company simplifying battlefield to play on consoles.
but I do think they should have leaned more on destruction, environments and strategy
I very much enjoyed BF5, but Dice constantly fucked it up until I gave up on it entirely.
Battlebit has been scratching this itch really well for me lately. I hope the battlefield series can make a return to form but I am not holding my breath. Shooters tend to change with the times (imagine if all games still played like the original DOOM?) and I imagine they're going to keep changing things, but hopefully for the better.
It's interesting to compare Battlefield vs. Call of Duty and how the games have done in the past decade. COD is still a top seller and is doing great, Battlefield not so much. I feel like they both have iterated in ways (the newer COD games are similar to the ones I played in the early ~2010's, but there have been some changes), but the ways COD has iterated have been better accepted. They even had a Battle Royale attached to the game (It sounds like BF was trying to do this at one point) and it was positively received as well.
only reimagination dice seems to do these days is trying to find ways to monetise instead of making a fun game
see: their battle royale fail, 6v6 mode they wasted time on that didnt even release, heroes in 2042, battle passes
The reason nobody liked 2042 was because it shook things up to much. If they were going back to their roots I might be hyped.
Big boss made a good video on this. Problems mostly came from the fact that the original team left and that EA made a game based on what competition was doing (battle Royal, battlepass and so on). And I’m not talking about the optimization.
I’m putting a YT link hoping a good bot will tunnel it
Obligatory "Fuck EA". But as long as people don't learn and continue to buy it, as long EA will exist and continue to feed you all shit. So gobble up, fuckers!
Though they can release some good games like Dead Space Remake.
… but it’s a remake so yeah fuck ‘em.
Agree. They don't need to reimagine, they need to de-imagine and find out what made the BF series unique and fun. They've gone so off-target that someone made the game they should have made, but with block figures, and its a success! (Im talking about Battlebit).
They could have built new and refreshing features on top of the well-functioning formula. BF in a future dystopia could have been great. Wingsuits and extreme weather of various sorts would have been cool. As long as the game still had a fun balance between vehicles and infantry and snipers. Destructable buildings and close city streets combat made all 3 sides feel like they had options.
Can't even remember the last time I've played an EA game. Their games are just not great. Same with Ubisoft. I think studios just get too big to make anything decent after a certain point.
Yeah, too many people are involved in the creative and too many people demanding deadlines
Well the get formulaic because it made money. And followed a successful formula. Breaking that and innovating is hard and risky.
Especially if the people making the game don’t understand their core audience.
Dice and EA are perfect examples of that with Battlefield. They had a good thing with graphics and whatnot and could have chosen to focus on engine optimization, scaling etc. Instead they chased the dragon of what other games were popular (like pubg, apex etc) and made a turd.
Reimagination. So we have this mode Reimagi-match which is Team Death Match but with another name on it. But it won’t be playable for like 48 months after release.
But players can buy Reimagi-Coins and get Reimagi-Crates. These have NFTS made by AIs. They are also the only way to get new guns and perks. You have to trade the NFTS for them. Of course you can get these Reimagi-Crates by playing the game and it will only take 36 days of grinding to get a single one.
Also please be aware that you have to buy the seasons pass to play at all. It costs 39.99$ and every week will be it’s own season (progress will not be taken to new seasons, so you can feel the pride and accomplishment every week).
Oh, you are angry for the 5th time in a row about our game not being playable or being player unfriendly? Sorry, you already bought the game years before launch like a fucking idiot and we will do the bare minimum just to get away with it. And we will do it again. And again. And again. Because we know, you will come back every single time. You sad joke of a human being 😘
"including a single-player campaign from Halo veteran Marcus Lehto's new studio. A multiplayer experience is also on the way from DICE."
Thats news to me. Thats going to be weird.
Reimagining...well you rebrand the solution and and if that fails rebrand the problem
I am still annoyed that 2042's bog standard BF launch (buggy piece of shit more or less killed it.
Yeah, the game was barely playable. That is "normal" for BF games and has been true since at least 3 (I am pretty sure I remember a retail copy of 1942 being massively broken but can't be arsed to verify). But whereas other franchises or companies have their defenders (I still don't understand how Ubisoft convinced "gamers" to advocate that Ubi MP games are going to be horrible at launch but amazing a year later...), BF mostly sets off one of the last remaining fanboy wars as the CoD and CS and OW/Valorant crowds needed to go hog wild on The Enemy.
I forget which podcast it was (might have been Bombcast? Although I think Danny O'Dwyer was also pretty sour on 2042 at launch), but I'll (sadly) always remember the conversation. Your bog standard "hosts shit on how horrible Battlefield is" by basically pointing out all the fundamental issues with Conquest that have existed since someone tried a pub game on 1942. And then one person pretty much lost their mind with "Yeah. Of course Conquest is shit. It has always been shit. That is why you play Rush instead. Rush basically fixes every single problem Conquest has and is actually good without having a full group of players on comms". And the response was basically "Well, if the mode was bad it shouldn't be in the game. So this game is really shit because..."
And... after about a year of patches, 2042 was REALLY good last December. The specialist system felt genuinely good and was the best balance since BC2 (I hate the emphasis on making medics losers with SMGs. Give my girl an LMG!), albeit with horrible menuing. And then we brought back the class system in a way that mostly just improved menus while ruining balance...
I dunno. It is clear Battlefield just has no place in modern gaming. The BF crowd mostly became milsim sickos or migrated to CoD (which added vehicles?). So the crowd left who want a "slightly realistic" shooter with a focus on combined arms is REALLY small. So Dice need to find ways to broaden that which... mostly just gets the crowd who don't want to deal with vehicles or long range combat or whatever. While ALSO pissing off the small faithful. Battlebit is doing a good job of being "milsim-light" but that game is fully dependent on people "overlooking problems" because it is an indie game. So time will tell how long it lasts and how long matches are still fun where everyone is joking around rather than getting sweaty.
And just because it IS EA's "We fucked up so bad that governments got involved with our lootboxes" Dice: The battlepass gets a lot of crap. But it was probably one of the best in the industry. The actual gameplay features (new weapons and I think specialists?) were all part of the free version and you could grind those out just by playing the game casually for a week or two at the start. Or a day or two near the end when you have so many backlogged challenges that you are getting like five ranks just for running 10 meters. The paid version never at all seemed worth going for but... that was Dice's problem, not mine.
Players have been getting less and less patient with disaster launch and thus hated the game which is known for disaster launches. A few games get away with it but since Cyberpunk or maybe even Fallout 76, the general concensus is that a broken game is not worth the time, not even if it gets better later. Games that get away with it usually have some saving grace, like Jedi Survivor being playable but having unplayable performance on PC. Even then, it pretty much lost the PC crowd. BF 2042 was unplayable at launch on every platform, had no redeeming qualities and it even tore out core parts of the game, like the class system, in favor of systems that can be indefinitely monetised. In a game that costet AAA money.
The only reason Ubisoft is getting away with the "it'll be good later" thing is that a) they invented it in the AAA space with Rainbow6Siege and b) they actually stick to these games for a long time. EA gave 2 years for Star Wars BF2 to sort its shit out, put out a new release of the game with all the cosmetics in it and the the next week announced that they no longer support it. Neat. Meanwhile, Ubisoft has not only stuck with R6S, but also developed a new anti-cheat system so it doesn't die to cheater and are still sticking with it. Another Ubisoft title, For honor. The game was okay at launch but playercount wise it was DOA. Yet, the game is still getting updates and new content regurarly 5 or so years later. THAT is the difference. EA dips on the first sign of losing money while, for all the things I despise Ubisoft, I gotta give props to them for sticking to their games for long time.
Also, Battlebit has shown that BF has a place in the modern gaming, EA/Dice just refused to just make a BF game for the past almost decade. They made something that resembled BF with WW1 and WW2 paint, then a piece of turd, but not a single BF game.
There has been this narrative of "Gamers won't accept buggy releases" since the 00s when coverage of games began to extend past the review (because prior to that: Reviewers expected games to be broken in pre-release and never talked about it after).
Its a load of nonsense and always has been. Because, as you yourself justified it
. Games that get away with it usually have some saving grace, like Jedi Survivor being playable but having unplayable performance on PC.
and
they actually stick to these games for a long time
Which is the real thing. It doesn't matter how buggy a release is. What matters is how much people like the company behind it.
Which, like I said, is kind of the secret to Battlebit. It had a MASSIVE launch because... Battlefield is fun as hell and different types of FPS players/streamers can still migrate their skills over. But, because the Battlebit Devs are a small team and it "looks indie", people cut it a lot of slack. Which, again, translates to acceptance.
It's probably a thing where it's cyclical of how much people are accepting of broken releases based on parameters like 'when was the last huge broken launch?' and the current generation who didn't experience broken launches sunddently entering the gaming space.
EA can fund Neebs Gaming / Hank and Jed for new Battlefield Friends season and get them to advertise new game through it and I’ll pay attention
Once again they aim for something that looks unpromising. I hope they drop the single player, come to their senses and make something closer to bf4. They should know better.
I’ll once again throw in my hopes for a fantasy battlefield.
My other, separate hope is for a Battlefield game that rewards squad play even when the players in question are not amazing crackshots. They’ve aimed for that many times, but generally I only see campers and lone Rambo wolves win these games.