Battlefield General - Discuss the series here

The Last Stand said:
I take it official multiplayer details will be revealed on July 31st. This is a guess; I take it because of the negative reception from 128 player matches from 2042's Breakthrough mode, they'll stick to the tried-and-true 64 player match count. I hope the server browser returns.
Click to expand...
The issue with 128 is that the maps 2042 had were poorly designed to support that many players. They just thought "more players = need bigger map", failing to see that players would have to sprint 10 minutes to get anywhere, and chokepoints became the go to answer for "I want action".
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Plumber's Kokoro Wish, Scarface1, Total Annihilation and 3 others
The Last Stand said:
I take it official multiplayer details will be revealed on July 31st. This is a guess; I take it because of the negative reception from 128 player matches from 2042's Breakthrough mode, they'll stick to the tried-and-true 64 player match count. I hope the server browser returns.
Click to expand...
I think they will back off from the 128 player count thing but I'm still doubtful that they will return the server browser.

These retards always manage to find one thing to fuck up, even if they get other things right.

It's tradition for them at this point.
 
  • Agree
  • Optimistic
Reactions: Scarface1, Total Annihilation, Miller and 2 others
I haven't seen any elements where the player is allowed to change the sex of the soldier. I want to see how EA tackles that if they get pushback.
 
Powerhouse of the Cell said:
I think they will back off from the 128 player count thing but I'm still doubtful that they will return the server browser.
Click to expand...

It just doesn't work for a game like Battlefield that has many modes. It works for a Battle Royale where there's literally just the one mode.

The game will just die because if it isn't fairly instant no one wants to wait because there's no clue if there's anyone else even waiting. Just look at COD, people just gravitate Nuke Town or whatever meme map because they know they'll get a match.
 
Screamer_2 said:
It just doesn't work for a game like Battlefield that has many modes. It works for a Battle Royale where there's literally just the one mode.

The game will just die because if it isn't fairly instant no one wants to wait because there's no clue if there's anyone else even waiting. Just look at COD, people just gravitate Nuke Town or whatever meme map because they know they'll get a match.
Click to expand...
This whole thing makes me sad because it's really starting to feel like combined arms games are basically dead at this point.

Battlefield and all the other games and their developers that tried to emulate it all completely blew it.

Battlefield 2042 killed the Battlefield franchise, when all hoped looked lost, battlebit came into the scene. All those months during the game's hype were fun but of course the developers decide to fuck up by completely abandoning their playerbase and the game slowly but surely died.

And then when it died, then came Delta Force, the next "Battlefield killer" of course it was hyped up too and everyone was saying how it was going to "replace Battlefield" like they said about Battlebit. But then it turns out the developers were engaging in shady practices like secretly implementing SBMM in their games and denying it.

And now we end up back to square one.

Thess past few years have been horrible for us fans of combines arms FPS games.

Seems like we will really never get a game lile old Battlefield ever again, at least not for a very long time...
 
  • Feels
  • Agree
Reactions: Scarface1, 74164978231, WhoBusTank69 and 3 others
Powerhouse of the Cell said:
I think they will back off from the 128 player count thing but I'm still doubtful that they will return the server browser.

These retards always manage to find one thing to fuck up, even if they get other things right.

It's tradition for them at this point.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't be surprised that the game launches with no server browser. Depending on how much interest and sales it can get, will determin if they "add" back in features the Battlefield community wants.
Perhaps they'll add it to the next game to appears the players, but I'm already huffing as much copium as I can right now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Last Stand and WhoBusTank69
Powerhouse of the Cell said:
This whole thing makes me sad because it's really starting to feel like combined arms games are basically dead at this point.
Click to expand...
It was killed because of the power fantasy of combined arms being cancelled out by balance and ensuing imbalance by way of trying to appease all three over the other two they share the map with.
Even if you get it just right players get more time with the equipment than the soldiers represented in-game, optimization and accepted losses are understood, the gameplay loop is solved, stagnation sets in.

As an aside, Battlebit allowing modded servers to take over regular updates wasn't a bad concept because it had been done in older games with middling success, but the no-lifers today want absolute consistency and letting any rando run a server with weird and unfamiliar shit is antithesis to what they want in modern game design.
 
BF6.webp
 
  • Informative
Reactions: likeacrackado, The Last Stand, Total Annihilation and 2 others
Even if Battlefield 6 turns out good, the highs from the franchise have long waned IMHO. The last great Battlefield I know of was Battlefield 1. 1 had the advantage of showcasing a war rarely explored in media coupled with being thematically visceral in portraying nations in conflict without a good or bad adversary.

What does Battlefield 6 have going for it? Modern conflict where America is in shambles? MW2 and MW3 did that before. Large scale combat? The Modern Warfare reboot did that, along with Battlefield 3 and 4.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
  • Feels
Reactions: Scarface1, Birdbonks, Powerhouse of the Cell and 3 others
The Last Stand said:
When has Battlefield's campaign become combined arms? Last I remember was Battlefield 3 where you're a co-pilot for a jet.
Click to expand...
BF3 also had tanks, BF4 had naval and tank sections, BF1 had Aerial and Tank campaigns, and BFV had a tank campaign although I haven't played it.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: The Last Stand
Blackstar said:
BF3 also had tanks, BF4 had naval and tank sections, BF1 had Aerial and Tank campaigns, and BFV had a tank campaign although I haven't played it.
Click to expand...
Then how would Battlefield 6 have combined arms "going for it" if Battlefield did it before?
 
Actually I fucked it up. A lot of these missions were entirely isolated and not combined arms since they didn't include different types working together. The only actual examples I can think of are the tank missions where you're in tanks working with infantry.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: The Last Stand
Blackstar said:
BF3 also had tanks, BF4 had naval and tank sections, BF1 had Aerial and Tank campaigns, and BFV had a tank campaign although I haven't played it.
Click to expand...

Remember the ads for BF3? "Is it real, is it Battlefield?" and they'd play footage from the tank and the plane mission.

I think I did one mission from BF1 but was put off because it was just the Mount Grappa map from MP and so was uninteresting.

If I can recall, I think I was put off BFV's MP because they did shit like make alt history of a Mother and Daughter team taking out Germans heavy water. When that's not what happened at all. The real story was a bunch of men and actually quite interesting. They flew into the area on single use glider planes. Hide out on mountains and shit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back