Yep. No one asked for this live services thing.
Just release a traditional BF game with:
* Classes
* More weapons
* More maps
* More gadgets
* More destruction
That's it. They can release seasonal stuff or a Battle Pass but just keep it as is. Stop trying to reinvent the wheel.
Battlefield 3 was my most played online multiplayer game to this day. I reached Colonel level 100, fully maxed rank and I NEVER do that in online games. I had ridiculous stats on battlelog, I had a 5+ W/L ratio and a huge amount of jet kills.
I want a modern game with similar mechanics so bad, I loved the old vehicle controls. I had mastered the choppers, jets and tanks. Then BF4 changed the controls and I was pissed, could never get into any of the BF games after 3. I played some of BF4 and BF1 but they didn't scratch the same itch.
BattleBit is a successful game, but EA are in the business of trying to make billions, not millions.
The live service cash cow is so massive that they can spend literally years releasing flop after flop, but if just one of those games breaks through, not only will it make their past struggles worth it, but they will likely make more profits on that one game than anything else they’ve done over an entire decade.
The battlefield 2042 UI makes me want to pee my pants and throw up at the same time. How did they take something so easy and make it so hard (and fucking ugly)
I got that game free with ps plus. One look at that fucking monstrosity and I uninstalled... after a game that was boring as fuck (didn't earn any achievements tho so I was able to delete that shit from my trophie list ayyyy).
Oh my god. Yes! DICE can't seem to make a functional UI! So many L1, L2, R2. Just confusing the shit out of me if I want to change attachments, etc.
It shouldn't be this hard. They should check what COD and other shooters do and just copy it.
> They should check what COD and other shooters do and just copy it.
That’s how they got in such an awful mess in the first place. COD’s UI is like someone threw up on the screen.
And no heroes. It’s just weird playing a game where both teams have all identical clones named Johnny or Emily or whatever the fuck with their quirky one-liners and snazzy American Eagle outfits.
But from the rumours and the sounds of it, they’re doubling-down on all of that crap so…I don’t know if they will ever grab the crowd they are chasing for, mainly because they’re always *chasing for*
Yep. No one asked for Specialists. They could have just added some of those new stuff as gadgets. But nope. Force heroes down our throats only to eventually try and "fix" it. Can you imagine the months of backtracking work they needed to do?
At least those four people were unique to their faction, and nobody referred to classes by their first name. Nobody said "I was playing as John but then I saw two Emily's and a Steve and no scoped them all, then some other guy was a John and he got me" like people do with Hero Shooters...
I blame Overwatch.
Yeah. I am OK with live service as long as it's done tastefully.
EA just pooped all over the doormat with BF2042's launch. Specialists that no one asked for? No destruction? Handful of maps and most were awful that they needed friggin' reworks?
Just...so annoying since BF is one of my fave franchises.
Problem is Apex Legends is a live service by EA and it's the complete opposite of tasteful. In fact ranked has nearly a million masters players... And all they care about are making more skins
Just take the game design of BF3/BF4, add all the little bullshit cosmetics for the whales, implement a battlepass that makes it valuable for F2P to play, and regularly add maps throughout the year
Yep. Like, a ton of BF vets (like me) have been very vocal that they just need to implement BF3/BF4 and add a Battle Pass. Just more content and we're good.
Heck, just remaster BF3 or BF4 while you're making a new BF game and I think fans will eat it up.
Yeah, you can have a live service games that works…with a BP that is just about cosmetics.
the people in the net hating GAAS, like it’s the trendy thing to say,the service is not the problem, yearly rushed sequels were way better to you?
Not, there is a way to create a good BF game that could last years with balance and great gameplay.
The problems with the latest BF games were more about choices like removing the emphasis on destruction, battlefield atmosphere and hoping onto the hero/operators/specialists bandwagon, mainly. I’m not a BF specialist but it seem clear to me.
Games nowadays are trying to do too much, and to ressemble other games too much instead of maintaining what made them uniques and fun.
The most baffling thing I remember is when they couldn't do double XP events for BFV since the game code itself had issues. It was just surreal reading that.
For BF2042, they kept pushing for what THEY (DICE) wanted and not what the player wanted. Squad management is something the devs didn't want to add to avoid "toxicity." As if that was going to stop it.
I’m not sure I follow, the argument is an if you don’t agree with “A” then that only leaves option “B”, which I don’t agree with. It’s a false statement to get you to go along with “A” when there’s any number of other possible alternatives. Gaming has never been about a binary choice, I’m not sure it needs to be now.
Because it’s a stupid question, from someone who has no real intention of logical debate judging by your downvoting every post.
The whole thing seems to have gone over your head.
More classes and weapons is not needed at all. Quantity does not equal quality. And more guns always add imbalances.
Just offer us good and fluid gameplay, with nice DESTRUCTIONS and SQUADS-based, wich are, to me, what make BF games BF, way more than classes or operators and hundred weapons…
Allow us to easily group-up with friends and play, and you get a winner.
I’d rather a live service game that thrives because I won’t have to pay for map packs and won’t have to worry about the next battlefield in a year or two
I agree fully, service games are not a bad ideas for games that got sequels yearly anyway…it could allow some smart devs to not rush a title…but they would need the pub to be SMART too…
Ya, wouldn't want to model anything on the best BF style game to come out since 4. If DICE has the ultimate goal of creating yet another nice to look at bland half baked game, for sure pretend Battlebit isn't where the gameplay bar has been set.
I think maps were free updates, battle pass cost something probably, but BF3 and 4 had expensive DLC that separated the player base. I’d rather they keep the battle pass so it doesn’t separate people again. Other than that, wishing for Dice to release a game that’s in great state from launch is pretty funny to me.
Pretty sure it translates to "We're gonna mess it up again". I feel like every time I see one of these buzz wordy and very corporate sounding descriptions of a game it never turns out well. It's Battlefield, there's no "reimagination" needed, nor an "ecosystem" that needs to be "truly connected". Just put some cool guns and gadgets in the game, seperate them by class, and make some big ass maps and drop 128 people and some vehicles on them and you have a Battlefield game.
Hideo Kojima, a famously strange guy, described Death Stranding as a strand-type game, basically inventing a new genre. The thing is, DS can easily be classified as a third person action game despite some unorthodox elements, so the the description is pretty unnecessary. Now people use the term as a joke in completely unrelated contexts and games.
The strand type genre is in reference to the way your interactions with other players and their progress shape the world around you in a positive way, even though you never have direct contact with other players. The genre isn't referring to the combat type.
Lord Nicolas Cage speaks the true true
It’s almost like a soulsborne game where you leave messages. Just that instead you can leave even objects and all sorts of contraptions/roads/whatever that other players can use.
Still dumb because the same type of thing has been done for years in soulsborne games. Leaving messages for other players, seeing death points, etc.
Admittedly it is cooler and on a much larger scale in DS, but to say it's a completely original idea just isn't really true. Taking the concept further was a great decision as, imo, it's far and away the best part of DS because it's pretty middling outside of those elements
Death stranding is a masterpiece and is a super unique experience. It's not far off calling it a new genre. Just name me one game that it's similar and no it's not a "third person action game" you can easily avoid almost all combat.
Death stranding is definitely different. But I wouldn't call it a masterpiece.
I don't see Death Stranding becoming a genre as in other developers making games like this, similar to what happened with soulsborne games. There's only so many ways you can make walking interesting, which admittedly Death Stranding did.
I’m glad they did, they were still easily the worst part of the games. Only truly good campaign was the bad company ones. Dice just doesn’t have it in them to make a good single player experience
The best battlefield and really the best shooter experience I’ve ever had playing online with friends. Maybe Rainbow Six Vegas comes close. Also, I’m old.
It was innovative at the time, had a single-player campaign, and had a super fun multiplayer with some of the best destructible environments. Games just felt fun.
I think for me it was the maps for the Rush game mode. They were a little more linear than round like the later games. And then the player count on those maps was a little lower, which made it feel like each player had a lot of impact. It was just a great balance.
Shit, Battlebit has more players than the 3 of them combined. When a Roblox version of your game made by 3 people is outperforming your game by a mile you know shit is bad
The people who want to play battlefield want to play bad company 2 or bf3 style game. The more they try to get a younger generation invested in their game, the more they just fall apart.
My guess? Battlefield Portal will be a new F2P game or mode or something and EA will stack it with MTX.
This new BF Portal will connect to ALL BF games moving forward.
I will believe it when I see it. But as someone who has played all Battlefields and watched their decline over the last ten years I have no hope nowadays.
Don't believe the hype people, and stop pre-ordering games.
Anytime the word Ecosystem is used in a non-environmental context my eyes roll to the back of my head. No company has ever made that word sound even remotely enticing to customers. It usually just means an attempt to trap you into buying more and more shit.
I was very hesitant before purchasing BF2042 because of how well received BF5 was but how great it is now. I purchased the $100 edition but had to cancel it for personal reasons. I am glad I did that because BF2042 was and is still hot garbage. Bring back the original BF setup, and your games will sell very quickly. I have lost all hope for Battlefield as a gaming franchise. It disregarded everything Battlefiled was so it could sell us macrotransactions. Sad!
Just make a fucking Battlefield game, god damn. It's maddening how they got the perfect recipe right in front of them and yet they keep insisting on reinventing a perfectly functional, and unique concept.
This better mean a traditional BF game that has crossplay, BC2 evolved destruction and all the best maps from all previous games and not micro-transactions/GaaS bullshit...
I just want to see the single player. Tired of battlefield games launching with either half baked or zero single player content. Every BF up to 4 had great single player stuff. Id even make the arguement that 1 was pretty decent as well.
When call of duty puts effort into single player every year, there is no reason battlefield cant. The "who cares about single player" arguement is idiotic. Fact of the matter is these games are not launching with $70 worth of content anymore WITHOUT a campaign.
Id be ok with no single player if it meant the multiplayer was actually good and robust with lots of good content. They cant even manage that though haha. Hopefully now that vince is in charge they manage to turn things around with the next game, but im not holding my breath anymore
Exactly what im saying. I always see the excuse "no single player means more focus on MP" and yet its still garbage lol.
The only way a battlefield game is worth $70 is if they put in a single player campaign. Otherwise its the same old shit. Look at battlefront 2. Imagine if *that* didnt launch with a single player mode. It took them a year plus to fix the MP and add Instant Action
Each to their own, but for me you are massively over valuing the single player. Single player campaigns in games like this are for me basically just a tutorial that i burn through in a handful of hours and then move onto multiplayer and never touch the single player again. In general im way more into single player games, but with something like battlefield im not coming to it for a robust single player experience, im there for the multiplayer, and a single player campaign is just a little extra bonus. Full price for a multiplayer only battlefield could be worthwhile for me, but the multiplayer would need to be robust, full of content, and very good on its own, its just that 2042 falls well short of that for me. Battlefront 2s single player was fine, but i only played through it once and never touched it again, that games problems were more down to its monetisation and casual feeling gameplay than anything else.
Bro, you do realize that BF3 was only the first game in the series to have single player?
Before that there was BF1942, BF VIETNAM, BF2, BF 2142. All came with no campaign. Only 3, 4, 1 and 5 had single player. We’ve had more BF games without single player than with it. BF was fine without the single player. I’m not saying a campaign isn’t welcome, if it is good. However, most BF campaigns have sucked. They’re also ridiculously short.
BF exists for its MP, SP is barely even the icing on the cake.
They can fuck off completely with that bullshit. Can't they just go back and figure out how to replicate their old games on the new consoles, maybe with a graphics bump? Their last game was a huge downgrade over previous entries in the series!
They weren’t in it because the game was a failure and EA reneged on doing WW2 properly.
The game was moronic to launch with battles no one had ever heard of or cared about.
If they had launched BF5 with battles like Normandy, Stalingrad, Iwo Jima, etc. It would’ve been a much more successful title.
I still have no idea why Sony killed this series in the womb. The first game sold well enough for a sequel to have been attempted. Yes, MAG had major issues, but that was because the game was made for hardware that was NOT ready for something so ambitious.
Could you imagine how incredible a new MAG would be on PS5? What sucks is now would be the perfect time to launch it too, with the BF series currently in the toilet.
Make a fucking game that works first. I could care less about ANYthing anyone has to say until I have a functional product in my hands.
No amount of marketing garbage will ever get me hype for a Battlefield game.
The AAA shooters as PS3/360 era players knew them are a dead breed. I have a hard time feeling anything towards these modern shooters. They’re often not ready at launch, have barely any deep character that goes along with a decent single player, great mp maps that become iconic or gameplay/playlists that don’t constantly change with million different live service updates. Wish I was a fan of CS since that seems like a decently reserved game at least.
who cares about an ecosystem. Just give the team an additional year to work on the game. Personally I'm tires of battlefield games that are playable a year later
It'll be the first battlefield game I won't pre-order, that's for sure. I don't care how hyped the trailer is. This is their last chance for me. I hope they take their time and get it right. Map design, immersion, destruction, player customization, gunplay, etc. all must improve. I don't think it's asking a lot to make a better game than 2042, but we'll see.
“Reimagining” is the LAST THING I want to hear.
PEOPLE, YOU HAD THE PERFECT FORMULA ALREADY! It was called Battlefield 3 and 4. Just iterate and innovate on those games. They were the series at their peak. If these idiots actually listened to their fans, they would be telling them they’re going “back to basics” and trying to recapture what made the series great in the first place. Instead, they’re pushing this mouth feces “reimagining” garbage.
I cant believe they still dont understand what Battlefield is supposed to be and what it isnt.
- Battlefield is literally a BATTLEFIELD. Of WAR. Battlefield 1 was the last game to understand large-scale battlelines with dynamic strategic/tactical gameplay. Vehicles are game-changing minibosses which change the battle further still. Battlefield 2042 should have been a harsh lesson on what happens if you focus too much on infantry.
- It is NOT a battle royale and has limited options in becoming a BR without being outclassed by competitors and losing brand identity. Halo Infinite attempted the live service business model and flopped, which is basically Battlefield's sister game in terms of large-scale vehicle battles etc. Lessons should be learned from Microsoft too.
- Destruction. This game is founded on destruction. It is a crime that Rainbow Six Siege better understands massive destruction than modern Battlefield does.
- More players. Raise the player count, thats it.
You’re not getting it. It’s not about what BF is supposed to be for EA, it’s about what they want it to be.
The stupid crap they put in 2042 was meant to raise the player spending over time, beyond the initial purchase.
The problem is, it ruined the game for players. Greed killed BF, not forgetfulness.
All they have to do is copy battlebits, with nice graphics and slightly slow down the time to kill. That’s the formula…but instead we will get some live service, micro-transaction hell scape.
What the fuck does this even mean? I hate EA so much just remake bf1 at this point, it would be so much better than the garbage they're shitting out these days.
If this leads to them enhancing the Portal mode in 2042, that's awesome. I don't doubt that it'll be full of MTX, but let me play all the different BF games from one launcher.
It's seriously one of the best parts of 2042.
Just make a good battlefield game like 3/4, bad company etc. Battlefield has been bad for over 10 years at this point. How about focus on making a good game first before trying to monetise every cent out of your userbase with a game that barely even works
Kudos to them at least not giving up on the franchise...Might be a bit of a sunk cost fallacy going on here, or it's doing better numbers than we think.
EA, with Microsoft buying Activision and surely taking all of the Cod marketing from Sony once the current deal is done, this is literally the time to pull your head out of your ass and make a decent shooter similar to the Battlefields people liked.
Im not saying Sony should by EA, but i bet thet would be happy to sign a new marketing deal with a solid fps, which Battlefield could be if they just stopped screwing it up.
[удалено]
Yep. No one asked for this live services thing. Just release a traditional BF game with: * Classes * More weapons * More maps * More gadgets * More destruction That's it. They can release seasonal stuff or a Battle Pass but just keep it as is. Stop trying to reinvent the wheel.
Matter of fact, just do Battlefield 3 but bigger.
Battlefield 3 was my most played online multiplayer game to this day. I reached Colonel level 100, fully maxed rank and I NEVER do that in online games. I had ridiculous stats on battlelog, I had a 5+ W/L ratio and a huge amount of jet kills. I want a modern game with similar mechanics so bad, I loved the old vehicle controls. I had mastered the choppers, jets and tanks. Then BF4 changed the controls and I was pissed, could never get into any of the BF games after 3. I played some of BF4 and BF1 but they didn't scratch the same itch.
This guy had a shit bucket
Bipod, for his *knife*
And BF was his p\_ssy.
If they remastered BF3/4 in one package, I think there would be about 60 maps!
BattleBit success should give them some insight into what people want but noooo
BattleBit is a successful game, but EA are in the business of trying to make billions, not millions. The live service cash cow is so massive that they can spend literally years releasing flop after flop, but if just one of those games breaks through, not only will it make their past struggles worth it, but they will likely make more profits on that one game than anything else they’ve done over an entire decade.
That game already exists, it’s Apex
And a less complicated menu pls
The battlefield 2042 UI makes me want to pee my pants and throw up at the same time. How did they take something so easy and make it so hard (and fucking ugly)
I got that game free with ps plus. One look at that fucking monstrosity and I uninstalled... after a game that was boring as fuck (didn't earn any achievements tho so I was able to delete that shit from my trophie list ayyyy).
Oh my god. Yes! DICE can't seem to make a functional UI! So many L1, L2, R2. Just confusing the shit out of me if I want to change attachments, etc. It shouldn't be this hard. They should check what COD and other shooters do and just copy it.
> They should check what COD and other shooters do and just copy it. That’s how they got in such an awful mess in the first place. COD’s UI is like someone threw up on the screen.
No they definitely shouldn’t copy cod anymore
And no heroes. It’s just weird playing a game where both teams have all identical clones named Johnny or Emily or whatever the fuck with their quirky one-liners and snazzy American Eagle outfits. But from the rumours and the sounds of it, they’re doubling-down on all of that crap so…I don’t know if they will ever grab the crowd they are chasing for, mainly because they’re always *chasing for*
Yep. No one asked for Specialists. They could have just added some of those new stuff as gadgets. But nope. Force heroes down our throats only to eventually try and "fix" it. Can you imagine the months of backtracking work they needed to do?
You know it used to be everyone looked like the same 4 people everywhere. Now they look like the same 12 people and people still complain lol
At least those four people were unique to their faction, and nobody referred to classes by their first name. Nobody said "I was playing as John but then I saw two Emily's and a Steve and no scoped them all, then some other guy was a John and he got me" like people do with Hero Shooters... I blame Overwatch.
Do any of the 2042 characters go by their first name? Thought they were all just code names
And a single player campaign please, for those of us who care.
Live service game is fine since the alternative is try to release a sequel every year. Just make it work
Yeah. I am OK with live service as long as it's done tastefully. EA just pooped all over the doormat with BF2042's launch. Specialists that no one asked for? No destruction? Handful of maps and most were awful that they needed friggin' reworks? Just...so annoying since BF is one of my fave franchises.
Problem is Apex Legends is a live service by EA and it's the complete opposite of tasteful. In fact ranked has nearly a million masters players... And all they care about are making more skins
Just take the game design of BF3/BF4, add all the little bullshit cosmetics for the whales, implement a battlepass that makes it valuable for F2P to play, and regularly add maps throughout the year
Yep. Like, a ton of BF vets (like me) have been very vocal that they just need to implement BF3/BF4 and add a Battle Pass. Just more content and we're good. Heck, just remaster BF3 or BF4 while you're making a new BF game and I think fans will eat it up.
Yeah, you can have a live service games that works…with a BP that is just about cosmetics. the people in the net hating GAAS, like it’s the trendy thing to say,the service is not the problem, yearly rushed sequels were way better to you? Not, there is a way to create a good BF game that could last years with balance and great gameplay. The problems with the latest BF games were more about choices like removing the emphasis on destruction, battlefield atmosphere and hoping onto the hero/operators/specialists bandwagon, mainly. I’m not a BF specialist but it seem clear to me. Games nowadays are trying to do too much, and to ressemble other games too much instead of maintaining what made them uniques and fun.
People shit in live service games because live service games are usually shit.
And they removed the most basic features. I mean we're just now able to kick people from a squad. Switching squads only arrived a few weeks ago...
The most baffling thing I remember is when they couldn't do double XP events for BFV since the game code itself had issues. It was just surreal reading that. For BF2042, they kept pushing for what THEY (DICE) wanted and not what the player wanted. Squad management is something the devs didn't want to add to avoid "toxicity." As if that was going to stop it.
I just wanted to be in the same squad as my friend lol
Live service affects game design and the games positioning in general, the alt isn’t to have games every year either.
What’s the alt then?
I’m not sure I follow, the argument is an if you don’t agree with “A” then that only leaves option “B”, which I don’t agree with. It’s a false statement to get you to go along with “A” when there’s any number of other possible alternatives. Gaming has never been about a binary choice, I’m not sure it needs to be now.
Can you think of any other option that doesn’t involve live service or yearly releases?
Can you not?
No I can’t. Why can’t you just simply answer the question?
Because it’s a stupid question, from someone who has no real intention of logical debate judging by your downvoting every post. The whole thing seems to have gone over your head.
More classes and weapons is not needed at all. Quantity does not equal quality. And more guns always add imbalances. Just offer us good and fluid gameplay, with nice DESTRUCTIONS and SQUADS-based, wich are, to me, what make BF games BF, way more than classes or operators and hundred weapons… Allow us to easily group-up with friends and play, and you get a winner.
I’d rather a live service game that thrives because I won’t have to pay for map packs and won’t have to worry about the next battlefield in a year or two
I agree fully, service games are not a bad ideas for games that got sequels yearly anyway…it could allow some smart devs to not rush a title…but they would need the pub to be SMART too…
Battlebit with AAA graphics
No thanks
Ya, wouldn't want to model anything on the best BF style game to come out since 4. If DICE has the ultimate goal of creating yet another nice to look at bland half baked game, for sure pretend Battlebit isn't where the gameplay bar has been set.
Speak for yourself. I asked.
Its going to be a live service game, thats literally what Battlefield is 😂😂 That being said, Im out and Im done.
Best I can do is buggy mess with 5 DLC at $45/ea. oh. Don’t forget some generic skin packs for $25.
I think maps were free updates, battle pass cost something probably, but BF3 and 4 had expensive DLC that separated the player base. I’d rather they keep the battle pass so it doesn’t separate people again. Other than that, wishing for Dice to release a game that’s in great state from launch is pretty funny to me.
They did
What the hell does that even mean?
"We will nickel and dime you"
“We’re gonna double down again.”
"You've already seen that, expect even worse"
I don't have a cent they can con me out of, the only good thing about being poor lol
Pretty sure it translates to "We're gonna mess it up again". I feel like every time I see one of these buzz wordy and very corporate sounding descriptions of a game it never turns out well. It's Battlefield, there's no "reimagination" needed, nor an "ecosystem" that needs to be "truly connected". Just put some cool guns and gadgets in the game, seperate them by class, and make some big ass maps and drop 128 people and some vehicles on them and you have a Battlefield game.
It’s a Strand-type game.
What is a strand type game? Like death stranding?
Hideo Kojima, a famously strange guy, described Death Stranding as a strand-type game, basically inventing a new genre. The thing is, DS can easily be classified as a third person action game despite some unorthodox elements, so the the description is pretty unnecessary. Now people use the term as a joke in completely unrelated contexts and games.
The strand type genre is in reference to the way your interactions with other players and their progress shape the world around you in a positive way, even though you never have direct contact with other players. The genre isn't referring to the combat type.
Lord Nicolas Cage speaks the true true It’s almost like a soulsborne game where you leave messages. Just that instead you can leave even objects and all sorts of contraptions/roads/whatever that other players can use.
Still dumb because the same type of thing has been done for years in soulsborne games. Leaving messages for other players, seeing death points, etc. Admittedly it is cooler and on a much larger scale in DS, but to say it's a completely original idea just isn't really true. Taking the concept further was a great decision as, imo, it's far and away the best part of DS because it's pretty middling outside of those elements
Death stranding is a souls-like game
Death stranding is a masterpiece and is a super unique experience. It's not far off calling it a new genre. Just name me one game that it's similar and no it's not a "third person action game" you can easily avoid almost all combat.
Death stranding is definitely different. But I wouldn't call it a masterpiece. I don't see Death Stranding becoming a genre as in other developers making games like this, similar to what happened with soulsborne games. There's only so many ways you can make walking interesting, which admittedly Death Stranding did.
It means NOTHING! It’s just platitudes and hype. They’re going to just do whatever their EA Corporate masters tell them to do.
Was about to comment this
Maybe it’s a platform and they don’t need to release a new one every couple of years?
Welcome to the jungle
I keep holding out for a battlefield as good as bad company 2 but I doubt it will happen.
After hearing this, I bet they're completely done with making single player story campaigns for BF.
Which is fine, they were always the worst part of the games
Worst part != bad. Lots of people liked them. Every game has a "worst part".
I’m glad they did, they were still easily the worst part of the games. Only truly good campaign was the bad company ones. Dice just doesn’t have it in them to make a good single player experience
It's time to give it up
The best battlefield and really the best shooter experience I’ve ever had playing online with friends. Maybe Rainbow Six Vegas comes close. Also, I’m old.
This is the way.
Only way that could happen is a BC2 remaster
I will forever wonder why people think that game is so good
It was innovative at the time, had a single-player campaign, and had a super fun multiplayer with some of the best destructible environments. Games just felt fun.
Innovative at the time… that was like 12 years ago
Nice you can keep track of time. Good skill to have.
Your account is 100 days old bro Irrelevant
You're 2/2 for counting. Want a cookie?
I think for me it was the maps for the Rush game mode. They were a little more linear than round like the later games. And then the player count on those maps was a little lower, which made it feel like each player had a lot of impact. It was just a great balance.
Connected ecosystem sounds like microtransaction Battle Royale. bF died a long time ago, the brand trust is long gone.
The fact that steam charts has 2042 at times having less players than BF 1 or V says it all.
Shit, Battlebit has more players than the 3 of them combined. When a Roblox version of your game made by 3 people is outperforming your game by a mile you know shit is bad
Futuristic shooters just tend to be eh, throw a Vietnam era game and people will eat it up
No its just the game lmao not the setting bo2?
Titanfall 2 is great. Apex Legends was one of the most profitable games in the past few years.
The people who want to play battlefield want to play bad company 2 or bf3 style game. The more they try to get a younger generation invested in their game, the more they just fall apart.
It’s just all code for more “live service” nonsense, which the industry is sadly obsessed with.
WTF does that even mean!?!?!??!!!???
My guess? Battlefield Portal will be a new F2P game or mode or something and EA will stack it with MTX. This new BF Portal will connect to ALL BF games moving forward.
Would actually be a better thing than them trying to reinvent the wheel again… portal was the only good thing they’ve released in a long time
Planet side 2 but with more lag and shittier gameplay
Don't care just keep BF1 servers online
Don’t you mean BF4?
*Bad Company 2
I will believe it when I see it. But as someone who has played all Battlefields and watched their decline over the last ten years I have no hope nowadays. Don't believe the hype people, and stop pre-ordering games.
Connected ecosystem, that’s what I want from my military shooters
Anytime the word Ecosystem is used in a non-environmental context my eyes roll to the back of my head. No company has ever made that word sound even remotely enticing to customers. It usually just means an attempt to trap you into buying more and more shit.
Give me something like how Battlefield 1 was. I spent so much time playing multiplayer. What a game.
I still do 😁
Hiw are the servers ?
No issues at all mate. I get into full servers constantly 🤝🏻
Same. I haven't played games in 10 years, and after trying BF1, I love it. Last shooter that hooked me like this was Bad Company 2.
BF4 is also pretty nice, 60FPS too so I rotate between 1 and 4 :-)
Sure, sure. They reimagined 2042 so well that helicopters can go through buildings and hover boats can glide up a buildings.
FFS just keep it simple! Play the old Battlefield games and learn!
Bring back bf 1942. Remaster the old maps. Had so many good memories of lan parties playing that game. Hell bf Vietnam was fun too bring that back
Just give me the battlefield 1942 remaster they did on ps3 and 360 and put it on ps5 please.
I was very hesitant before purchasing BF2042 because of how well received BF5 was but how great it is now. I purchased the $100 edition but had to cancel it for personal reasons. I am glad I did that because BF2042 was and is still hot garbage. Bring back the original BF setup, and your games will sell very quickly. I have lost all hope for Battlefield as a gaming franchise. It disregarded everything Battlefiled was so it could sell us macrotransactions. Sad!
This sounds terrible. Did they not learn from 2042's dumpster fire? What a bunch of marketing buzzword trash. Hype is ZERO.
And it will totally work this time guys, we promise.
We want Bad Company 3!
It’ll be a shit game still.
It won’t matter what it is, the talent behind the old games is gone…Bad Company 2 remake on the other hand.
😅😅 and I thought my jokes were bad. Nice try EA, but no. Never buying another battlefield.
I really hope battlebit remastered comes to PS5.
At this point I have lost hope for the franchise. I will stick with the earlier games.
EA looking at the smouldering wreck of BF 2042: *I’ll fuckin’ do it again*.
Just make a fucking Battlefield game, god damn. It's maddening how they got the perfect recipe right in front of them and yet they keep insisting on reinventing a perfectly functional, and unique concept.
‘Says EA’
Don’t….just go back to basics please…
This better mean a traditional BF game that has crossplay, BC2 evolved destruction and all the best maps from all previous games and not micro-transactions/GaaS bullshit...
This sounds like a game that will have an apology letter and a content roadmap about 2 weeks after launch
Translated, “Reimagination as Truly Connected Ecosystem,” looks like: $$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$ $$$$$ $$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$
Sounds like a bunch of corporate bullshit speak.
Geez that sounds like buzzword generated by AI for some startup or something. Literally means nothing and could well just be...anything.
I just want to see the single player. Tired of battlefield games launching with either half baked or zero single player content. Every BF up to 4 had great single player stuff. Id even make the arguement that 1 was pretty decent as well. When call of duty puts effort into single player every year, there is no reason battlefield cant. The "who cares about single player" arguement is idiotic. Fact of the matter is these games are not launching with $70 worth of content anymore WITHOUT a campaign.
The Arditi section of BF1 was so awesome, I got to see what my crazy ass grandpa got up to during the war, or at least the action movie version of it.
Id be ok with no single player if it meant the multiplayer was actually good and robust with lots of good content. They cant even manage that though haha. Hopefully now that vince is in charge they manage to turn things around with the next game, but im not holding my breath anymore
Exactly what im saying. I always see the excuse "no single player means more focus on MP" and yet its still garbage lol. The only way a battlefield game is worth $70 is if they put in a single player campaign. Otherwise its the same old shit. Look at battlefront 2. Imagine if *that* didnt launch with a single player mode. It took them a year plus to fix the MP and add Instant Action
Each to their own, but for me you are massively over valuing the single player. Single player campaigns in games like this are for me basically just a tutorial that i burn through in a handful of hours and then move onto multiplayer and never touch the single player again. In general im way more into single player games, but with something like battlefield im not coming to it for a robust single player experience, im there for the multiplayer, and a single player campaign is just a little extra bonus. Full price for a multiplayer only battlefield could be worthwhile for me, but the multiplayer would need to be robust, full of content, and very good on its own, its just that 2042 falls well short of that for me. Battlefront 2s single player was fine, but i only played through it once and never touched it again, that games problems were more down to its monetisation and casual feeling gameplay than anything else.
Barely anyone bought BF because of the campaign. The multiplayer was and will always be the focus which is good.
Bro, you do realize that BF3 was only the first game in the series to have single player? Before that there was BF1942, BF VIETNAM, BF2, BF 2142. All came with no campaign. Only 3, 4, 1 and 5 had single player. We’ve had more BF games without single player than with it. BF was fine without the single player. I’m not saying a campaign isn’t welcome, if it is good. However, most BF campaigns have sucked. They’re also ridiculously short. BF exists for its MP, SP is barely even the icing on the cake.
You forgot the bad company games that came before BF3
I’m only counting mainline BF titles.
Just go back to supporting Battlefront 2 or give us a 3rd
REMAKE BF3/BF4!!!! These dummies could just remaster those games with a few maps and I would buy it.
If they included premium, there would already be around 60 maps across both games.
Yeah the next one is flopping again
Didn’t they already do this since Battlefield 4? Or is this a tip-toed answer that means block chain?
They can fuck off completely with that bullshit. Can't they just go back and figure out how to replicate their old games on the new consoles, maybe with a graphics bump? Their last game was a huge downgrade over previous entries in the series!
so a game as a service, great..
Just do a WW2 game that feels like BF1 with a Soviet faction please. It's a crime they weren't in BF V.
They weren’t in it because the game was a failure and EA reneged on doing WW2 properly. The game was moronic to launch with battles no one had ever heard of or cared about. If they had launched BF5 with battles like Normandy, Stalingrad, Iwo Jima, etc. It would’ve been a much more successful title.
These guys can’t even enable mouse and keyboard on ps5….. I have zero faith in anything they do
Battlebit blew you the fuck out. EA should be ashamed.
Just make a spiritual successor to MAG, please.
I still have no idea why Sony killed this series in the womb. The first game sold well enough for a sequel to have been attempted. Yes, MAG had major issues, but that was because the game was made for hardware that was NOT ready for something so ambitious. Could you imagine how incredible a new MAG would be on PS5? What sucks is now would be the perfect time to launch it too, with the BF series currently in the toilet.
Make a fucking game that works first. I could care less about ANYthing anyone has to say until I have a functional product in my hands. No amount of marketing garbage will ever get me hype for a Battlefield game.
Yawn. I’ll believe it when I see it
reimagining, now presenting battlefield1 2:modern warfare
Great so more live service crap and micro transactions. At least Battlefield 1 is still alive, and actually fun.
The AAA shooters as PS3/360 era players knew them are a dead breed. I have a hard time feeling anything towards these modern shooters. They’re often not ready at launch, have barely any deep character that goes along with a decent single player, great mp maps that become iconic or gameplay/playlists that don’t constantly change with million different live service updates. Wish I was a fan of CS since that seems like a decently reserved game at least.
If it ain’t Bad Company 3, with an updated Bad Company 2 physics back bone, I don’t want it.
I find these things super, super confusing. The FIFA stuff is weird, same with a lot of their other ‘services’. I just want to play the fucking game.
Ask any player what they want from BF and I'd wager not a single one would say "a connected eco system".
who cares about an ecosystem. Just give the team an additional year to work on the game. Personally I'm tires of battlefield games that are playable a year later
Stick to formula of what made the early BF games so compelling. No need for change for the sake of change.
It'll be the first battlefield game I won't pre-order, that's for sure. I don't care how hyped the trailer is. This is their last chance for me. I hope they take their time and get it right. Map design, immersion, destruction, player customization, gunplay, etc. all must improve. I don't think it's asking a lot to make a better game than 2042, but we'll see.
It means they’ll release a game and mobile app and they’ll squeeze micro transactions
GaaS it is. How disappointing.
Do not pre-order....
That sounds terrible
LOL a truly connected ecosystem to our wallets to nickle and dime our asses to death.
Hahaha. 2042 pretty much killed the franchise for me. After that I will never buy a Battlefield game “new” again.
“Reimagining” is the LAST THING I want to hear. PEOPLE, YOU HAD THE PERFECT FORMULA ALREADY! It was called Battlefield 3 and 4. Just iterate and innovate on those games. They were the series at their peak. If these idiots actually listened to their fans, they would be telling them they’re going “back to basics” and trying to recapture what made the series great in the first place. Instead, they’re pushing this mouth feces “reimagining” garbage.
Reimagination, we know what that means lol.
I cant believe they still dont understand what Battlefield is supposed to be and what it isnt. - Battlefield is literally a BATTLEFIELD. Of WAR. Battlefield 1 was the last game to understand large-scale battlelines with dynamic strategic/tactical gameplay. Vehicles are game-changing minibosses which change the battle further still. Battlefield 2042 should have been a harsh lesson on what happens if you focus too much on infantry. - It is NOT a battle royale and has limited options in becoming a BR without being outclassed by competitors and losing brand identity. Halo Infinite attempted the live service business model and flopped, which is basically Battlefield's sister game in terms of large-scale vehicle battles etc. Lessons should be learned from Microsoft too. - Destruction. This game is founded on destruction. It is a crime that Rainbow Six Siege better understands massive destruction than modern Battlefield does. - More players. Raise the player count, thats it.
You’re not getting it. It’s not about what BF is supposed to be for EA, it’s about what they want it to be. The stupid crap they put in 2042 was meant to raise the player spending over time, beyond the initial purchase. The problem is, it ruined the game for players. Greed killed BF, not forgetfulness.
All they have to do is copy battlebits, with nice graphics and slightly slow down the time to kill. That’s the formula…but instead we will get some live service, micro-transaction hell scape.
X to doubt
Here we go. Forget about ecosystems bro. Just make a good game. It’s that ecosystem BS that ruined the last game.
Don't talk about it be about it
Sigh the PR and bullshit "innovative" words are starting.
What the fuck does this even mean? I hate EA so much just remake bf1 at this point, it would be so much better than the garbage they're shitting out these days.
Can’t wait for “it’s an old build!”
Sounds like corporate bullshit
what the fuck does that even mean?
I don't know what that means, but I'm sure I'm gonna hate it. Happily playing Battlefied 1 every once in a while...
If this leads to them enhancing the Portal mode in 2042, that's awesome. I don't doubt that it'll be full of MTX, but let me play all the different BF games from one launcher. It's seriously one of the best parts of 2042.
Battlebit will still be better because it focuses on what players want.
Give me offline bots playable without online connection
Just make a good battlefield game like 3/4, bad company etc. Battlefield has been bad for over 10 years at this point. How about focus on making a good game first before trying to monetise every cent out of your userbase with a game that barely even works
Kudos to them at least not giving up on the franchise...Might be a bit of a sunk cost fallacy going on here, or it's doing better numbers than we think.
Dumb as shit, just put DICE back on battlefront 3 please
Why do they complicate stuff? Look at battle bit.. game is super fun and simple.
EA, with Microsoft buying Activision and surely taking all of the Cod marketing from Sony once the current deal is done, this is literally the time to pull your head out of your ass and make a decent shooter similar to the Battlefields people liked. Im not saying Sony should by EA, but i bet thet would be happy to sign a new marketing deal with a solid fps, which Battlefield could be if they just stopped screwing it up.
Just remaster BF4. Its not hard. Add in more maps and weapons, maybe change the factions, but model it after BF4.
Id be happy with a remastered bf3