MrJokerRager
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2019
Battlefield General - Discuss the series here
- Thread starter Nazi vegeta
- Start date
-
🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2019
Technically yes but I think the population took a hit shortly after it was added to Steam because it's old, a la Bad Company 2.
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2013
So far the leaked stuff is looking pretty nice, but I'm really just wanting good gameplay and multiplayer since I don't trust the singleplayer to be any good.
I liked Bad Company 2's campaign the most since its freedom of movement and atmospheric look juxtaposed against Black Ops's on-rails bullshit at the time. Battlefields 3 and 4 were good attempts, but were let down by soulless characters and a story that felt poorly defined.
Battlefield 1 was short and chopped up into smaller segments, and that worked against it. It was like a collage of game demos rolled into one product.
I liked Bad Company 2's campaign the most since its freedom of movement and atmospheric look juxtaposed against Black Ops's on-rails bullshit at the time. Battlefields 3 and 4 were good attempts, but were let down by soulless characters and a story that felt poorly defined.
Battlefield 1 was short and chopped up into smaller segments, and that worked against it. It was like a collage of game demos rolled into one product.
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2019
3 was fine, what it lacked in character from bc2 it made up in atmosphere. trailer was hype enough I could even excuse the dupstep theme.
I remember more from hardline's story than 4 tbh (besides shanghai going dark because it was a cool setpiece). imo they were on the right track with 3, which also felt it was the last time dice actually put in any effort.
bf1 was surprisingly solid and I still can't comprehend how they managed to pull that off after the shitshow that was 4. it really must have been the B-team while dice was choking on each other's dick doing battlefront.
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2013
I agree the trailer looked good. 4's was okay too, though the underwater windscreen shot was a bit overplayed imo.
3's story was a mixed bag for me. It didn't follow much unique for its time, yet the gradual decline of video game stories has improved it in retrospect, and there was nothing clearly bad with it minus the ridiculous end segment (even if I liked fighting through a train). It's just it was competing directly against CoD at the time, and Activision had a better handle on what made their campaigns work.
Besides the start, I remember there was a fight on an aircraft carrier (twice?) and you had the dilemma of choosing whether to send the Chinese girl or Irish to die.
Whilst it was obviously a glorified tutorial, I think they would've been better served having a more somber story that captured the gloom of WWI. It is *the* setting where you can legitimately kill off people with mustard gas in your No Russian moment. Instead of having one Aussie clean the entire Gallipoli peninsula, maybe take some inspiration from the movie of the same name where the main character charges at the Turkish defences only to be dakka'd and fading to black on his moment of death. From the stories in the game itself, I liked the tank crew one the most.
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2019
out of curiosity I watched the bf4 trailer later (and hardline too, but that one's... "ok").
it's an interesting comparison how dice can't help jerking themselves off, first leading with the major awards they got for bf3, than calling it "a DICE game" (boy did that age poorly, not only at this point but already at bf4's launch), only for the trailer to show me a chinese women, irish (if you were lucky enough to remember who that's supposed to be) getting full nignog, random bits and pieces of the plot without rhyme or reason with the intention to be "cool" and make me curious, among spastic mishmash of random cuts. I watched the trailer AND played the campaign and I still hardly remember anything about it even now.
and it was the point the theme went full retard.
volume warning
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2018
I also remember the level where you get into a flooded section of the carrier and there is a bug that can block the progression and they never fixed it.
Another thing I hated that was in both BF3 and 4: your squad mates deal zero damage to the enemies. You see them shoot at them but they do nothing. This was way more noticable in BF3.
There's a funny bit in the prologue when Irish is driving in the street of Shanghai, the NPCs are running in all directions, some of them clip through the vehicle.
Screamer_2
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2022
When talking about Battlefield single player, there was that Medal of Honor: Warfighter single player campaign. Which was done by DICE and was pretty decent.
Those 2010 and 2012 MoH games were interesting. The single-player campaigns and multiplayer for those games were done by different teams in different game engines. For 2010, DICE did the MP in Frostbite and it was basically BC2 but Afghanistan and was really good. The SP was in Unreal (I think) and it was okay but the MP looked so much better.
Then for 2012, DICE did the SP in Frostbite and at the time it look great and I recall was pretty decent for that kind of game at the time. Yet the MP was done by Danger Close, in Unreal and was just shit compared to the previous game. Even looked worse than the previous game.
The differences between the engines used for each mode was massive. Basically, different games.
I keep thinking I should do a replay of BF3, maybe 4. BC2. Even all the COD because I haven't played a SP campaign in so many years. No idea why, just fell into mindless MP.
Those 2010 and 2012 MoH games were interesting. The single-player campaigns and multiplayer for those games were done by different teams in different game engines. For 2010, DICE did the MP in Frostbite and it was basically BC2 but Afghanistan and was really good. The SP was in Unreal (I think) and it was okay but the MP looked so much better.
Then for 2012, DICE did the SP in Frostbite and at the time it look great and I recall was pretty decent for that kind of game at the time. Yet the MP was done by Danger Close, in Unreal and was just shit compared to the previous game. Even looked worse than the previous game.
The differences between the engines used for each mode was massive. Basically, different games.
I keep thinking I should do a replay of BF3, maybe 4. BC2. Even all the COD because I haven't played a SP campaign in so many years. No idea why, just fell into mindless MP.
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2020
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2019
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2022
EA clearly wants to fucking kill dice, hory shieet.
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2018
Wait, isn't Battlefield 6 releasing around the same window as GTA 6? 100 million, yeah right. Battlefield 6 will be lucky to a couple million at launch.
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2018
You know it's bad when they want players instead of a number of copies sold.
Given Bioware's recent failure, EA expects DICE to bring them more money than usual.
Screamer_2
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2022
I live in some shit hole country, maybe I am out of touch with what the youth play. Fortnite or whatever but FPS games seem so dead. I load up any recent Battlefield or Call of Duty's and they aren't all that popular. Yet in the 2000s and 2010s. I could always load up any COD or BF and find plenty of people playing at any time of the day.
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2019
You have to remember that zoomers flock to the free to play games instead, and parents buy them fortbux or whatever because it costs as much as toys would anyway. There's also the problem that you can't see server counts and socialization in modern FPS games is just dead by design.
Screamer_2
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2022
That is something I was thinking about. I loaded up a COD from a few years ago and just have to click to find a game. Roll of the dice and get some high ping server.
I was playing COD4 on and off for years after it released and the server browser definitely helped. Even still most of the Battlefields still have a server browser of some sort and aren't very populated. Even 2042 isn't all that populated.
Another factor with the click to instantly play approach is that people won't seed servers. I'll open up BF1 and there'll be a server with 10 in queue, and a server with 3 people. People won't join the populate the new server.
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2018
I'm sure that could be inflated with EA Play. EA is just setting DICE up for failure. Their last two Battlefields weren't received well from their fanbase. Even so, Battlefield was always less popular than Call of Duty from its heyday.
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2018
BF1 is also known for having a server browser that works half the time.
It's a shame that they will never go back to the player-owned server model. All the focus is on making sure that people buy a Battle Pass and level up as slow as possible.
Indeed. As for CoD, I have no intention of playing their future games, I am done with the Fortnitification of CoD.
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2018
I'm not against trying out Battlefield 6. It's clear that what the developers strive to create differ from what the publisher and higher ups expect from the final product. Ultimately, we, the consumers, will decide whether the game is worthy of growth.
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2024
Man, I want to know what those EA execs are smoking. Must be some pretty crazy shit. The franchise has been in terminal decline since Battlefield 1, and that was what, 9 years ago? They keep fucking with the formula and are shocked when people who like Battlefield don't buy Battlefield because its not Battlefield anymore.