-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Battlefield games were much fun in the past
- Thread starter PaypayTR
- Start date
That literally isnt possible on most conquest maps of BF1. Now if youre talking about battlefront2, then yes. Its one chokepoint after another because the game mode "galactic assault" was designed that way.
In BF1, if you play "conquest" this isnt an issue. In fact, it has some of the best BF maps ever.
I really liked Battlefield 4 - but I think we had the most fun with the first Bad Company game.
Battlefront 1+2 are better than the Battlefield games though. I really like the more arcadey approach and it's Star Wars.
Battlefront 1+2 are better than the Battlefield games though. I really like the more arcadey approach and it's Star Wars.
Your complains have no consistency and are all over the place:
• You complement big maps of previous BF games, but then hate big open-areas in new maps.
• You want memorable maps, but then levolution or all the historical landmarks mean 0 to you.
• You want teamwork, but your version of teamwork is 5 snipers sitting on the rock.
• Really? No reason to play Medic? Which map is that? What about the way BF1 nerfed snipers: scope position, rare one-shot kills, fast movement speed. Noobs play scouts because you get kills, people who do objectives play medics because you can be way more useful reviving and killing at the same time.
• Which class doesn't have a distinct weapon style in BF1? You have SMG/Shotguns, LMGs, automatic/semiautomatic rifles and sniper-rifles. All the gadgets different across classes.
• You want map design, but you also want to be able to destroy everything with drones/shells and make it a barren-open field.
• You don't understand the role of fog/sandstorm: it is there to change the game. Planes and scouts have to completely change their playstyle during those events.
• You don't want clusterfuck, but then you want narrow chokepoints in Rush.
• You don't want clusterfuck, but then destruction is what you like.
• You provide 0 arguments about the movement system: animations are bad, prone is bad. What is bad about it? Being able to vault/climb onto things? Being able to move more fluidly across the terrain? Being able to sacrifice the mobility advantage for the reduced target size while laying on the ground?
• You want simple, just pick up and guess what? This is what EA wanted too.
• The part about the weapon unlocks being frequent is just bullshit. You don't even unlock weapons in BF1 automatically. EA tossed the entire attachment system in favor of 2-3 version of the same gun.
• The part about windows is also bullshit. BF1 has key open buildings which have strategic value, many of large palaces/block buildings don't have interiors. The destruction applies to the small-medium buildings with interior only, you cannot destroy obstacle/path buildings.
Pick something. Be consistent.
• You complement big maps of previous BF games, but then hate big open-areas in new maps.
• You want memorable maps, but then levolution or all the historical landmarks mean 0 to you.
• You want teamwork, but your version of teamwork is 5 snipers sitting on the rock.
• Really? No reason to play Medic? Which map is that? What about the way BF1 nerfed snipers: scope position, rare one-shot kills, fast movement speed. Noobs play scouts because you get kills, people who do objectives play medics because you can be way more useful reviving and killing at the same time.
• Which class doesn't have a distinct weapon style in BF1? You have SMG/Shotguns, LMGs, automatic/semiautomatic rifles and sniper-rifles. All the gadgets different across classes.
• You want map design, but you also want to be able to destroy everything with drones/shells and make it a barren-open field.
• You don't understand the role of fog/sandstorm: it is there to change the game. Planes and scouts have to completely change their playstyle during those events.
• You don't want clusterfuck, but then you want narrow chokepoints in Rush.
• You don't want clusterfuck, but then destruction is what you like.
• You provide 0 arguments about the movement system: animations are bad, prone is bad. What is bad about it? Being able to vault/climb onto things? Being able to move more fluidly across the terrain? Being able to sacrifice the mobility advantage for the reduced target size while laying on the ground?
• You want simple, just pick up and guess what? This is what EA wanted too.
• The part about the weapon unlocks being frequent is just bullshit. You don't even unlock weapons in BF1 automatically. EA tossed the entire attachment system in favor of 2-3 version of the same gun.
• The part about windows is also bullshit. BF1 has key open buildings which have strategic value, many of large palaces/block buildings don't have interiors. The destruction applies to the small-medium buildings with interior only, you cannot destroy obstacle/path buildings.
Pick something. Be consistent.
I loved BC2, but the peak for me was BF3. BF4 was downright awful in my opinion, even when people say its a BF 3.5, I always disagree. The maps were terrible, the weapons sucked and felt less "punchy". BF3 has great maps, really good weapon feel and Rush was perfect.
BF1 is a really cool BF game, graphics are beautiful, maps are meh due to them trying to make each map capable of all game modes.
BF3 was perfect, especially with rush... And the campaign was great too, come at me haters!
BF1 is a really cool BF game, graphics are beautiful, maps are meh due to them trying to make each map capable of all game modes.
BF3 was perfect, especially with rush... And the campaign was great too, come at me haters!
Bad Company 2 is the best battlefield for me.
The maps were EPIC. Africa Harbour, Atacama Desert, Nelson Bay etc. SO GOOD!
I swear they don't make em like they used to. Thinking back is really making me sad because no game nowadays has ever given me that same feeling.
Please DICE remaster BC2! Just upgraded the graphics don't touch anything else. I would be there day 1
The maps were EPIC. Africa Harbour, Atacama Desert, Nelson Bay etc. SO GOOD!
I swear they don't make em like they used to. Thinking back is really making me sad because no game nowadays has ever given me that same feeling.
Please DICE remaster BC2! Just upgraded the graphics don't touch anything else. I would be there day 1
Eh, BF1 is fantastic, as much as I liked BC2. A new BC with BF1 graphics/engine would be awesome though.
Battlefield 4 is so good. Over time, they turned a bad game into one of the finest FPS experience ever made.
I really never liked the BC games because the destruction turned every game into a clusterfuck, Conquest is garbage in those games, and I hate Rush period.
BF1 got worse with every single patch.
I really never liked the BC games because the destruction turned every game into a clusterfuck, Conquest is garbage in those games, and I hate Rush period.
BF1 got worse with every single patch.
Peak Battlefield:
I like most of the games, but I think it'd be a toss-up between Battlefield 2 and Battlefield 3 to me. 2142 was a cool idea I'd love to see explored again, though.
I like most of the games, but I think it'd be a toss-up between Battlefield 2 and Battlefield 3 to me. 2142 was a cool idea I'd love to see explored again, though.
Right there with you. Not only was BF1942 far and away my favorite, the Desert Combat mod was also amazing. It seems like I liked every BF game less and less. BF2 was my break point. Locking stuff up as unlockables destroyed the fun for me. Plus, never felt DICE was any good with aerial balance. So the modern age just allowed them to go nuts with the worst feature of their games.
There is several other reasons, such as map design (main one) and all the maps being made for rush that made those intense moments more common in bc2 than later games. But i honestly think one of the reasons people forget is the "heavy" controls, that made it much harder to aim properly than later games. You could pull off things in that game that would get you instantly killed in battlefield 1 because of the higher fps/more responsive/easy to use controls. (i am strictly talking about consoles here). I personally prefer having complete control, even if i loved bc2 in other ways. I guess that heavy feel made it more exciting in some way, like riding a wild horse or something.
Have you seen the terrible russian DLC for BF1? Just a flat land with some wind mills... i was like "wtf is this shit".
Map quality really dropped the ball over the years in almost every DICE game since BF3
Yeah this series taking a huge quality dive post bad company has been pretty disappointing. BF1 is so bad. I was looking at the BF stats from BF2-4 and they all have over 200+ hours and BF1 has less than 13 hours played. I don't understand why they went in that direction at all. The weird behemoth comeback trash, map design with the the "hey look at that" mentality, worst aerial vehicle controls in the series and so much more. The game is such a turn off. Also what's with this terrible seriousness they added with this game? I don't know what to expect for the future of the series but I aint particularly excited for it.
Battlefield 2 is one of my favorite games ever. I haven't played much after that but I love the jankyness of the PC beginnings of the series.
Can't say I agree. BF1 is fantastic and almost as great as BC2. And I don't get the points about bad map and game design and too many weapons, because BF1 has none of that (except for Suez).
Yeah, same. There are definitively some I enjoyed less but they've all been good and fun games.
I heard Hush by Deep Purple on the radio this weekend and immediately thought of BF:V, flying in the Huey with the radio cranked. Such a fun game. Totally captured the Apocalypse Now vibe.
BF42 is still the GOAT for me because it did so much of what I always wanted from shooters/sims.
BF42 is still the GOAT for me because it did so much of what I always wanted from shooters/sims.
Sorry but BF1 has NOTHING to do with BF3 and BF4, wich are great games.
BF1 is basically a reskinned Battlefront... ugh, what a waste.
BF1 is basically a reskinned Battlefront... ugh, what a waste.
I agree.
BF1942 will always hold a special place in my heart - I think it is the most fun I've ever had in a 64-player shooter.
The maps were great - El Alamein, Wake Island, Coral Sea. Dogfighting and bombing in the old planes (using a joystick) was a blast. Vehicles felt great - jeeps, tanks, APCs. Even piloting the battleships and carrier felt worthwhile. The teamwork was there too. Pure fun.
Not to mention all the old mods -- Eve of Destruction, Desert Combat, etc...
I think when people complain about the new games they just really miss the overpowered aircraft and veichles of previous games and making it unfun for people who didn't want to stand in line. BF1 is the best Battlefield game ever.
BF1's still pretty good and pretty fun, I'm just tired of this period in time for shooters. I want to get back to modern warfare in BF and COD. Honestly though, I think Hardline was such an underrated BF game that got so much flak for no real reasons. People wanted BF5 and went back to BF4 which was a shame because the game was fun and the game modes were great, but the BF community is so stuck on "conquest and only conquest" it kind of ruins the growth of battlefield as a game.
One guy is complaining about the choke-point map design.
Another is agreeing with him by complaining about the open-field map design.
Galicia has enough terrain: trenches, craters, windmills, canals, train-wreck to cover your movement if you path correctly. 3 trucks, 2 horses, 1 armored car, 2 planes. If you spawn the russian cars, 14 people can be in ground vehicles, 2 on horses and 6-8 in the sky para-dropping. How about using the tools which the map gives you instead of playing assault on every map expecting the same playstyle to work, maps are literally begging people to use different playstyles and tactics in BF1.
Battlefield 2 was the best for me and Bad Company 2 was the last Battlefield game I enjoyed. I don't know what they changed in the next games but it just doesn't feel as fun and interesting to play BF anymore.
I think I had the most fun with BF Vietnam, I fucking loved that game. I skipped everything else up to BF4, which I lost an entire year to. BF1...I think I've played a dozen rounds total, the lack of customization and shitty maps just made it a chore to play.
Can't say I agree with the premise 100%. Mostly because Battlefield BC2 to me is pretty bad and where the series took a huge misstep. That's where the maps were awful.
Bad Company is super dumbed down with terrible and meat grinder focused map design. Other BF's(Save some BF3 maps) are not.
Gunplay was better on console then previous entries yes, but 3 and 4 have continued to build upon that and surpassed it.
But in general the level design of BC2 for Conquest was awful. Small maps with almost always three control points and almost always near each other. Meaning most of the map space was pointless empty and the game encouraged more meat grindy gameplay, not spread out battles like BF1-2. The conquest points were always close to each other, almost hilariously as if DICE was afraid players would not find the battle. Which is actually most likely true. The BC games also took out the flow of combat and how important conquest points where. Since you could no longer lose your home spawn and therefore lose the game, conquest points weren't as important and teams had less focus to actually think about control points. It was simply go to whichever one wasn't yours, often in a straight "rush" like way. Also in general the maps lacked interesting environments or unique control points. There wasn't a battle over a TV station with several ways to get to control point often leading to really intense stand offs on the roof and in the stairway almost at the same time. Most of the control points were simple plots on the map. Boring and unexciting. Even the big map with the most control points is rush like with all it's control points lined in a linear fashion.
Destruction was better, but it's lessened focus in BF3-4 doesn't take away from those games better maps and better conquest gameplay.
As an assault player in 3-4 guns feel unique. I often switch between the M-16 and the AUG, and the bulldog and so on. Plenty of guns I wouldn't use sure, but plenty feel different and I switch often. Same for the DRMs in 4.
I hate Metro and it's like in 3-4, but I dislike every conquest map in BC2 so it doesn't matter. The DLC for 3 was better than the base. 4's maps were all fantastic.
I doubt modern games will ever get to the dense and verticalality of BF2 maps. Thats not how games or done, but BC2's maps felt so lackluster. And the rumor here spells of a similar focus and as someone who likes big conquest and big maps, this sucks.
Bad Company is super dumbed down with terrible and meat grinder focused map design. Other BF's(Save some BF3 maps) are not.
Gunplay was better on console then previous entries yes, but 3 and 4 have continued to build upon that and surpassed it.
But in general the level design of BC2 for Conquest was awful. Small maps with almost always three control points and almost always near each other. Meaning most of the map space was pointless empty and the game encouraged more meat grindy gameplay, not spread out battles like BF1-2. The conquest points were always close to each other, almost hilariously as if DICE was afraid players would not find the battle. Which is actually most likely true. The BC games also took out the flow of combat and how important conquest points where. Since you could no longer lose your home spawn and therefore lose the game, conquest points weren't as important and teams had less focus to actually think about control points. It was simply go to whichever one wasn't yours, often in a straight "rush" like way. Also in general the maps lacked interesting environments or unique control points. There wasn't a battle over a TV station with several ways to get to control point often leading to really intense stand offs on the roof and in the stairway almost at the same time. Most of the control points were simple plots on the map. Boring and unexciting. Even the big map with the most control points is rush like with all it's control points lined in a linear fashion.
Destruction was better, but it's lessened focus in BF3-4 doesn't take away from those games better maps and better conquest gameplay.
As an assault player in 3-4 guns feel unique. I often switch between the M-16 and the AUG, and the bulldog and so on. Plenty of guns I wouldn't use sure, but plenty feel different and I switch often. Same for the DRMs in 4.
I hate Metro and it's like in 3-4, but I dislike every conquest map in BC2 so it doesn't matter. The DLC for 3 was better than the base. 4's maps were all fantastic.
I doubt modern games will ever get to the dense and verticalality of BF2 maps. Thats not how games or done, but BC2's maps felt so lackluster. And the rumor here spells of a similar focus and as someone who likes big conquest and big maps, this sucks.
You're completely right OP Battlefield 1942, 2, and BC1 are some of my favorite games of all time and now the series doesn't even register any more.
Let me guess you liked getting a helicopter and just slaughtering everyone by circling points? BF Vietnam helicopters were way over powered.
OP
OP
Controls movement and animation system is big change between battlefield 3 and bad company2
BF2 had a feature that hasn't come back to my knowledge...
1 player could go into RTS mode and give orders, drop supplies, drop artillery, UAV's, etc...
Controlling real people in an RTS type environment was pretty awesome.
Only problem is that the player would have to go hide to do all this, still, if used in the in the sequels, it could have been fleshed out more.
1 player could go into RTS mode and give orders, drop supplies, drop artillery, UAV's, etc...
Controlling real people in an RTS type environment was pretty awesome.
Only problem is that the player would have to go hide to do all this, still, if used in the in the sequels, it could have been fleshed out more.
BF1942 was quite an experience when I first tried it out. Actually went out and bought a joystick specifically to become a better pilot... ended up being a dumb idea. Couldn't get the hang of it. The Desert Combat mod was also pretty great.
BF2 was the peak for me and, less so, I enjoyed Bad Company 2 on the PS3.
BF2 was the peak for me and, less so, I enjoyed Bad Company 2 on the PS3.
yep, all while blasting "Flight of the Valkyries". Great game. It was my first intro to Battlefield.
Because there is A LOT of console players who fell in love with BC2.
It is not a proper BF game though, even Hardline is more Battlefield than BC.
The series lost it's soul when they made BCs. 3 is boring, and 4 was so console-y in the beginning that it hurts. In the end they made 4 better with proper PC-centric things. Still not enough. 1, again, is made with consoles in mind.
In my opinion console and PC FPS games shouldn't be mixed. Both platforms have their strenghts, and it is difficult to cater to both audinces.
And we lost mods because of consoles. It was a very convenient reason to drop mod support, the one things that made BF so phenomenal.
EDIT. I miss the Veteran perks they had for a while, I have every PC BF (1 is missing, need to lose 5kg weight still). It was nice that DICE gave us long time fans a bone. I bet it changed because new generation didn't play the great Battlefields so they would've felt left out.
Yep, Battlefield 2 was the GOAT for me. This whole WW1/WW2 hype is really hurting BF1 imo, map design is terrible and is just way less fun then the more modern games.
Hopefully they will do a BF5 or BC3 next time, BF1 is just not enjoyable to me.
Hopefully they will do a BF5 or BC3 next time, BF1 is just not enjoyable to me.
Actually I never really played much actual multiplayer. Me and a group of friends would start private rounds and spend hours finding creative ways to kill each other with the various vehicles and C4.
BF2 is definitely the peak of the series. Seems people are still playing going by their subreddit which is good to see. Hopefully forever.
BF4 has a Commander mode, the player doesn't exist in the game. You can even play from a tablet.
Problem is if you weren't doing that it was not fun and that is why people generally agree that is the worst one.
That's cool, glad it came back in a way...
If you had a good Commander, and squads followed orders, you could just dominate.
Hope it comes back in future iterations.
How was it in BF4?
Honestly after Bad Company 2 the series went down hill for me.
BF3 was decent after all the DLC
BF4 less so
Hardline had a better story at least but still garbage
BF1 lost my interest from the beta alone
BF3 was decent after all the DLC
BF4 less so
Hardline had a better story at least but still garbage
BF1 lost my interest from the beta alone
Bad Company 2 was my favorite largely because that was where the game peaked in terms of environment destruction.
Battlefield 1 has a lot of improvements that make it difficult to go back to previous games in the series though.
Battlefield 1 has a lot of improvements that make it difficult to go back to previous games in the series though.
Absolutely nonsense. Why should there not be prone? Especially when cover is destructible, it's important to be able to shield your body from incoming fire, and in a lot of situations simply crouching just doesn't cut it. And before anybody says, "Oh, but no prone means less camping!" - the very OP has a .gif debunking that. Hell, herds of camping wookies was practically a meme in the BC2 community.
Allow me to add some explanation, then.
Features/complexity added in the Frostbite Battlefield titles:
- destruction
- Rush
- weapon customization
- vehicle customization (e.g. completely ridiculous crap like Active Protection in BF4)
- weapon ballistics
- suppression
Features/complexity lost in the Frostbite Battlefield titles, no particular order:
- Commander mode (barring a half-assed implementation in BF4)
- Conquest variants (just about every CQ map in BC2 onward is Head-On only, with just a few maps built for other types like CQ: Assault, but they're only available in DLCs, and so of course they die out soon after release)
- prone (BC/1943)
- squad leader (when anyone in a squad can spawn in on anyone else and all the SL does is mark points, then the position may as well not exist)
- stamina system
- non-regenerating health/lasting damage
- battlefield awareness (that is, the inclusion of 3D spotting, killcams, audiospotting, minimap death skulls means the player is less encouraged to be aware of their surroundings in favor of simply letting the game do it for them)
- highly specialized classes/kits (you can argue that 2142 started the trend of the diluted 4-class system, but BC2 took it to another level and it's been more or less crap ever since)
- large-scale, vehicle-focused map design (of course such designs exist in modern Battlefield games, but in general, and especially in BC2, map design has shifted towards smaller, more congested layouts focusing more on infantry combat and featuring fewer vehicles)
- limited vehicle ammunition (though BF1 achieved a pretty decent compromise)
- Conquest ticket bleed (specifically in BF1)
The Refractor-era Battlefield titles were not perfect, but they were certainly designed more around the series' strengths - teamwork through specialized classes and hierarchical coordination, large-scale maps with emphasis on vehicles - than the Frostbite games. It was abundantly clear that EA heavily marketed Bad Company 2 towards the Call of Duty audience and that DICE designed the game to be much more accommodating for those same players than previous titles. There has been some improvement in terms of re-adding depth to the gameplay with the subsequent mainline games, but on the whole, nothing approaches what was achieved with the classic PC titles.
I would put down a hefty wager that most people (not everyone, but most) who consider BC2 one of the best games in the series never played the PC titles, maybe didn't even hear of them before jumping aboard the series. And, well, yeah, makes sense that BC2 would be widely enjoyed if it was designed to appeal to as many people as possible.
BF2142 was the peak of the series. It improved on all the issues of Battlefield 2 but unfortunately futuristic settings werent recieved well. Bad Company was ok, but they were really proper Battlefield games. The recent entries BF3 BF4 BF1 went from mediocre to straight up bad with the latest title.
They seem to be putting cinematic feel over actual gameplay. And thats why we have Battlefield 1. Its a pretty terrible FPS when you actually look at it. Terrible maps, terrible balance, terrible vehicles, terrible gunplay and worst of all the most awful shitty version of Conquest to have ever existed.
Nope this is a terrible and uninformed comment if you had played the Battlefield seried in its entirety you would know that so much depth and complexity was lost when Battlefield moved from Refractor to Frostbite.
They seem to be putting cinematic feel over actual gameplay. And thats why we have Battlefield 1. Its a pretty terrible FPS when you actually look at it. Terrible maps, terrible balance, terrible vehicles, terrible gunplay and worst of all the most awful shitty version of Conquest to have ever existed.
Nope this is a terrible and uninformed comment if you had played the Battlefield seried in its entirety you would know that so much depth and complexity was lost when Battlefield moved from Refractor to Frostbite.
Same. Every single game since BC2 has just been more downhill from what made that game fun.
