As long as the game is still fun, I really cant complain. BF games are still fun, I havent got the latest one yet, I am stuck on other games right now, but you have to say they still have a decent formula…
I dunno, I put a lot of hours in 3 but it wasn’t -that- great to be honest. Plus they nerfed my play styles and it just became a spam fest, so I lost interest. Tried 4 in beta but it did not grab me at all. Haven’t even bothered with BF1.
The price of games just keeps going up and the quality struggles to stay the same. I refuse to pay $80 CAD for a game I’m likely only going to be mildly satisfied by, and then shell out even more for DLC.
That being said, obviously the series continues to be well-liked. It’s just not my thing anymore.
I dunno why…but watching videos of that rapid pace gameplay makes me anxious. 
2 Likes
The battlefield formula is getting very stale. BF1 would have been a great game if everyone were running around with bolt actions and the tanks were as slow as molasses. The pacing of games seems in a WW1 setting just feels wrong, as opposed to Titianfall where it fits well. I was hoping that the battlefield formula was going to be transplanted to Star Wars in Battlefront (which its perfect for) but alas they messed that up as well.
1 Like
I think that’s my huge philosophical problem with Battlefield 1. They warped and molded the setting to match the well-established/worn-out Battlefield gameplay (depending on your perspective) instead of the other way around.
In an alternate reality there’s a version of BF1 where they decided they were going to run with the elements of World War 1 as far as they could take it. Everyone gets bolt action rifles. Machine guns require at least two players to carry around an operate. Melee combat has an expanded and interesting system that makes trench-clearing brutal. And so on.
Go play Verdun and then imagine what they could have done with AAA-levels of funding.
1 Like
So as part of the game’s uber authenticity you can see the 8mm Lebel or 7.92 Spitzer rounds you’re feeding into your ridiculously out of place semi-auto. They’re honking massive. Then you hit someone and they just scamper off at a full sprint like they were stung by a BB or a particularly aggressive mosquito. Again, it kills immersion.
2 Likes
Don’t anyone hold back now…
lol
LOL like so many FPS games. OH HERE HAVE 20 BULLETS. WAIT COME BACK.
Then you get the one lucky dude who seems to be able to pop people with 2 bullets and everyone calls him a hacker.
good times.
I’ve always thought of the BF series as being ArmA for Dummies…or at least, for Those With ADHD. The last semi-decent title in the series was BF3. After that, it definitely started moving more toward twitch gameplay and away from the more tactical experience. The high-water mark for me was Bad Company 2. It just had the right mix of everything, it kept the action focused on small unit tactics backed up by combined arms. BF3 tried to go big, and I applaud it for being ambitious, but it felt much more unwieldy. The writing was on the wall when they released the confined-spaces map pack that literally was just pure COD mayhem. Some people are into that. I’m not one of them.
What bothers me about these titles is that the games we used to buy was an honest experience you could have all by yourself and then there was the added value of multiplayer, so you could play with friends. Today, they expect me to pay full price (and given the propensity to DLCs, plus some) for a game that only has a cursory nod to single-player gaming and the vast majority of the game is geared toward online play. AI, at least believable AI, is hard to code, I get it. Developers have figured out that with online play, someone else can provide the artificial intelligence without them having to spend money on it.
Games like DCS and ArmA even do this because they’re obviously centered around an online experience with only a half-hearted nod to what used to be an integral, and worthwhile, part of gaming. Games used to tell stories, and good ones, but like movies, we’re seeing a deserted wasteland of imagination. Now, you buy the game and you’re expected to fill in the blanks yourself. That’d be great if it gave you time t…oh, wait, that guy halfway across the map just killed me. Let me spawn to the next thought…oh, damn, he got me again. Looks like I’m penned in like cheap veal and he’s about to…yep, did it again.
I’m so sick of the Spawn-Run-Die gaming trend that my purchases are getting fewer and far between. I spend most of my time with Project CARS, FSX, and SF2. I’d love a remastered flight sim title or two, like Jane’s F-15, but I know the chance of that happening ranks right up with me being selected pope. CAP2 was supposed to be my heir to TAW and EF2K, but it’s getting kind of quiet over there. This is how bad it’s gotten, I was excited,actually excited about LEGO Undercover getting remastered and being freed from the prison that is the Wii U to be sold on Steam and the PS4. That’s sad.
Hang on, Battlefield was never a good single player experience, the developers even admitted that with Battlefield 2, stating the bots were just an afterthought for 1 and they tried to improve the dummies a little for two. Didn’t do too much given the open space of battlefield though.
Only with 3 did they focus on a single player experience which wasn’t very good at all.
This! It’s a shame too because battlefield was one of the first games to model bullet penetration.
The two Bad Company games were the first serious foray into single player, but otherwise essentially correct. BF1942 and BF2 had single player in that there were bots that somewhat resembled game play.
Also I would not say Arma is abandoning single player. The main campaign was the most ambitious and functional since OFP, and while the reception to the expansion campaign was mixed, I appreciated what it was trying to do. All this from a company that bold face tells you their goal is to provide a sandbox for players.
It’s a game. A great one, but still a game. The messaging and hud stuff helps keeps teams who are worlds and languages apart focused on the mission. It’s true that 10 percent will wander aimlessly like I did for a week while another 2% just want to make everyone else miserable. But most use those tools to work together on the objective. These gadgets are un-needed and unwelcome in a game like ARMA because, there, all players are on comms and follow a generally more professional approach to getting the objective. Also in ARMA, the action is lighter. It is very possible to play for an hour and never die. In Battlefield, even the best players die several times in a match. Its just the way its paced.
I liked BF2 but then they threw away everything I really liked and then came that Origin thing so I was out.
1 Like
Seems like Battlefield is a controversial subject around here. 
I started playing Battlefield back in the BF 1942 days. I borrowed it from the library and only got to play it a little. I got BF2 towards the end of its lifecycle and mainly played against bots, as I was on low speed dialup. I thought it was an okay experience, but as I didn’t get to play MP a lot, I didn’t fall in love with it like some others around here.
I ended up getting Bad Company 2 and really started liking the genre. I thought the SP story was good and the MP was fun. I thought the menu system and stats tracking was a bit cumbersome. I was able to get together with some of the folks at SimHQ and we played a bit of MP, which really made the experience more interesting than lonewolfing it.
By that time, I was really into those types of games. When BF3 came out, I preordered it and picked it up at Best Buy at midnight and took three days off of work. Over at SimHQ, Magnum set up a private server and many SimHQers joined up for awhile. We even had closed server events where the server was populated by only SimHQers. We were able to do more teamwork. I think the game mode determines run and gun. Conquest, Domination and TDM lend itself to more randomness, but with Rush, more teamwork is needed to be successful. I logged around 600-700 hours in BF3.
BF4’s launch was an unmitigated disaster. So many crashes, lost points/rank, etc. It took a long time, but BF4 is good now. There are so many beautiful maps, weapons, etc. I have about 350-380 hours into it. I play with friends occasionally, which makes it more interesting, but nothing like the organized teamplay when I played BF3.
I basically skipped Hardline and Battlefront.
I have BF1 and I like it, but with qualifications. I don’t like the lack of diverse weapons, overpowered units/tanks, etc, etc. Graphics and sounds are superb. I’ve been basically playing BF1 by myself with random teammates, so the gameplay is a bit lacking.
I would imagine if we got a group of us BF1ers together, we might have more fun together.
I don’t know why people are expecting sim-like qualities from Battlefield. I think it was supposed to be a little more realistic than CoD, but not by much. Clearly, EA/Dice were trying to go after the CoD market from BF3 going forward.
Having said all that, anybody with BF1 interested in having a game night?
4 Likes
I think one thing that has not been mentioned here is that graphics wise battlefield games are some of the best looking. I think BF1 may be the best looking game out there. I know it doesn’t compensate for much but it is a win for them.
2 Likes
I’m interested, only got to play a tiny bit with teammates during the open beta, been pugging it ever since, but honestly, other than a few random terrible teams, seems like most people by this point have got the idea, so hasn’t been too aweful. Although got some rather terrible sides earlier today, but did finally get to blast folks with the main guns on the Dreadnaught, that was good for the old K/D at least.
But yeah, I’m up for a game whenever, it’s good fun.
And something even I must bear in mind, sometimes things are really popular and sell very well for good reason.
Battlefield 1 “realism”:
5 Likes
I liked the Battlefield games a lot. I think I’ve had them all. 1942, vietnam, BF2, BC1, 1943, BC2, BC2:Vietnam, BF3, BF4, Hardline and BF1. I tried BF2: Modern Combat at a friends’ place, but console MP wasn’t big back then anyway. I tried BF F2P for some time, but I realized it was just BF2 packaged as a free to play, pay to win game. I never touched battlefield heroes, didn’t look like something I’d like.
I guess I am one of the few around here who genuinely liked the Close Quarters expansion for BF3. Sure, it’s hallway and coridor shooting, and I can imagine not everybody likes that. But I felt the maps had been well designed, especially in the vertical. You could get up and down places and that made it more interesting for me. Sure the random spawn position didn’t feel right, but it also prevented things from getting bogged down.
For me this stands in contrary to other close quarters style maps, like Locker (BF4) or Metro (BF3 and 4). Here, everybody gets funneled into 2 or 3 lanes, it’s hardly interesting and looks more like something you’d expect to see in WW1 than modern combat. Just waves of soldiers going at it with each other.
Nowadays every map ships with a conquest domination mode, that is supposed to represent the playstyle as was seen in the BF3 expansion, but I’ve yet to see a map that comes anywhere close to what those 4 BF3 maps felt like.
I can agree with some of you that BF1 feels like it’s the least realistic game in the series. With semi-automatic weapons being so widespread and the fact that you actually have to unlock a bolt-action rifle that doesn’t actually have a scope. But I also like it for what it is. The less accurate weapons bring engagements a little closer, and you no longer have to worry about taking 6 bullets to the skull from an M16 from halfway across the map.
Used to play it with a group. Was a lot of fun.
1 Like