Battlefield V

sir doris said:
Personally I'm really looking forwards to this, I bought BF3 because some friends said to buy it, then I needed to by the pass to play the DLC, which I didn't do, so I never played it again. Then when BF4 came out I bought that because of firends, really liked it but hated the fact that the better players with all the experience also had better weapons etc. like WTF? My mate who played loads and levelled up had a thermal scope which highlighted other players, basically a wall hack in any other game. At that point I gave up on it. I wanted to enjoy the demo of Battlefront, but that was the same so I never bought that, and of course the same went for Battlefront 2, which I was desperite to play. Having limited time and funds to spend on gaming means that all these P2W games are pointless to me, no matter how "good" they are. So I'm really excited about BFV, and my firends are all onboard.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's a bit interesting. Back when I was playing the BF games (BF 1942, BF Vietnam [oh crap I forgot to put that in the list which means BF2 isn't the second game in the series, WTF?], and BF2) at LAN parties, we spent hundreds of hours playing those game even though there was no progression.

Nowadays, it's difficult for a multiplayer arena game (like COD or BF) to succeed and retain players without progression, which often means that people that play the longest have advantages over newer players. I've seen a lot of streamers comment that without some form of character progression they aren't interested in multiplayer games.

Regards,
SB
 
Silent_Buddha said:
Yeah, it's a bit interesting. Back when I was playing the BF games (BF 1942, BF Vietnam [oh crap I forgot to put that in the list which means BF2 isn't the second game in the series, WTF?], and BF2) at LAN parties, we spent hundreds of hours playing those game even though there was no progression.

Nowadays, it's difficult for a multiplayer arena game (like COD or BF) to succeed and retain players without progression, which often means that people that play the longest have advantages over newer players. I've seen a lot of streamers comment that without some form of character progression they aren't interested in multiplayer games.

Regards,
SB
Click to expand...
While that makes sense, as someone who's played CS since Beta 0.5 I find that really sad.
 
Bludd said:
There's no progression in PUBG and Fortnite (AFAIK) and people play those a lot.
Click to expand...

There is progression per match similar to MOBAs (which many think of as RPG character progression in 30-60 minute chunks of time). Quite a bit of it. For fortnite it's in the form of weapon stat upgrades via loot piñata's, in PUBG it's in the form of looted weapon modifications. All of that layered on top of the random nature of weapon drops/finds. Fortnite goes one further by introducing color coded rarity of drops, tapping into MMORPG and Diablo style loot progression.

That in game progression fuels part of the addictive component of those BR games.

The old BF games and old arena shooters in general had no power progression. While you could get different weapons, all weapons had static parameters (damage, rate of fire, bullet spread, etc.).

I imagine that PUBG and Fortnite would lose much of their player bases if weapons were all static as in old Battlefield games.

Regards,
SB
 
Silent_Buddha said:
There is progression per match similar to MOBAs (which many think of as RPG character progression in 30-60 minute chunks of time). Quite a bit of it. For fortnite it's in the form of weapon stat upgrades via loot piñata's, in PUBG it's in the form of looted weapon modifications. All of that layered on top of the random nature of weapon drops/finds. Fortnite goes one further by introducing color coded rarity of drops, tapping into MMORPG and Diablo style loot progression.

That in game progression fuels part of the addictive component of those BR games.

The old BF games and old arena shooters in general had no power progression. While you could get different weapons, all weapons had static parameters (damage, rate of fire, bullet spread, etc.).

I imagine that PUBG and Fortnite would lose much of their player bases if weapons were all static as in old Battlefield games.

Regards,
SB
Click to expand...
Seems like we have different definitions of progression. I'm talking about XP and talents and specialisations, not gambling with loot boxes.
 
Yeah progression I've always defined as affecting your profile or character across multiple games, not whatever is happening within the confines of a single game. Otherwise Counter Strike could be considered to have "progression" by virtue of money carrying over and buying new weapons within a match.
 
Yeah, I can see that, but having followed MOBAs for years, most people consider that as character/player progression and is a large part of the attraction of MOBAs. PUBG and Fortnite tap into that game by game progression as well.

Again, try to picture Fortnite with Zero in game progression like old Battlefield or COD games.

Regards,
SB
 
Silent_Buddha said:
Yeah, I can see that, but having followed MOBAs for years, most people consider that as character/player progression and is a large part of the attraction of MOBAs. PUBG and Fortnite tap into that game by game progression as well.

Again, try to picture Fortnite with Zero in game progression like old Battlefield or COD games.

Regards,
SB
Click to expand...
Well Fortnights Gold modes seem to be pretty popular at the moment where all the non Legendary weapons have been removed.
 
if the progression is not too annoying, it could be good enough. Like for example in BFBC2 where the starter stuff is still good.

anyway, I'll probably won't get BF V as there's already rumors for bfbc3.
 
So far everything they've revealed in terms of gameplay changes sounds great. Skill-based shooting, more of a focus on squad mechanics, new animation systems, better physics, foliage that responds to player interaction, getting rid of spotting, getting rid of full health regen etc. They're going back to a skill-based game, which will probably lead to a slower more tactical game. Hopefully the respawn loop is dead, but that means they need to get rid of the RNG deaths to things like artillery and planes that can carpet bomb you.
 
Yeah it does. Really need a new GPU!

WTF is with that last scene and the circle of fire? How is that even possible?
 
That trailer looks really good. Should have been the reveal trailer.

Last seen is probably the Battle Royale mode and their take on the constricting map.
 
Nice trailer, although again, it does not represent true ingame action. It's staged to look massive and impressive.

I hope that BR mode will be great. The franchise was ready for it tech-wize for a long time, they supported very big maps, vehicles and 64 players since the original Battlefield 1942.
 
Silent_Buddha said:
There is progression per match similar to MOBAs (which many think of as RPG character progression in 30-60 minute chunks of time). Quite a bit of it. For fortnite it's in the form of weapon stat upgrades via loot piñata's, in PUBG it's in the form of looted weapon modifications. All of that layered on top of the random nature of weapon drops/finds. Fortnite goes one further by introducing color coded rarity of drops, tapping into MMORPG and Diablo style loot progression.

That in game progression fuels part of the addictive component of those BR games.
Click to expand...

At least PUBG felt like a fresh start with each new game. Eventually you have to start making decisions about what weapons you carry and what you're willing to leave behind.

The old BF games and old arena shooters in general had no power progression. While you could get different weapons, all weapons had static parameters (damage, rate of fire, bullet spread, etc.).

I imagine that PUBG and Fortnite would lose much of their player bases if weapons were all static as in old Battlefield games.

Regards,
SB
Click to expand...
Weapons upgrades and customization is very big part of the PUBG gameplay though. The wrong scope can screw up your aim (or at least for me). Case in point: couldn't stand any scope beyond a 4x, but there were legitimate points where I'd swap out a 4x for a simple dot or even iron sights. Right tool for the job.

BF2 on the other hand without weapon upgrades (just kits) more or less kept classes separate and cohesive. Players had specific roles, each with it's own nuances. Like any game, achieving the best or high score was a goal, and an accomplishment, but really only could be done with squad and teamplay. Then you had aspects of uncertainty like a less robust spotting system that only communicated enemy position in the on-screen map, not to your player view. Squad mechanics were tied to an actual squad leader who was vulnerable. That meant requiring strategy, leadership, planning and more thoughtfulness, than a squad of four who can all spawn on eachother like there's no tomorrow.
 
Open beta starts on the 6th, and earlier for people that pre-order.

While morons are complaining about historical accuracy, I'm just looking at footage and wondering why all of the shadows look like they're crushing black at the same time that the light is overly bright or blooming everywhere. Image composition is pretty terrible. They need some new art direction that results in a game where you can actually see things around you. Game looks massively better when it's overcast or foggy.
 
Scott_Arm said:
While morons are complaining about historical accuracy...
Click to expand...

Now it's more about how EA/Dice handle criticism from the fanbase ... btw. because pre-orders are weak, game was delayed and EA's chief creative Patrick "don't buy" Soderlund was "departed" from the EA.

I wasn't interested in WW2 shooter anyway, but after this I wouldn't buy BF5 solely on principle.
 
Last edited:
novcze said:
Now it's more about how EA/Dice handle criticism from the fanbase ... btw. because pre-orders are weak, game was delayed and EA's chief creative Patrick "don't buy" Soderlund was "departed" from the EA.

I wasn't interested in WW2 shooter anyway, but after this I wouldn't buy BF5 solely on principle.
Click to expand...

I don't care. There are gamers that raise a stink about puddle downgrades in Spiderman, so I'm fine with devs shit-talking dumb "fans".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top