By - Terminator_GR
I was noticing this the other day, BF1s sound design alone elevates it above all other Bfs. The minute details and the passion with which some of the dialogue was recorded, even the hilariously grim soft calming announcer lady, all brilliant. The vision for the series needs to go back to this same level of effort. I would understand skins and character model mtx if the characters actually sounded serious gritty and cool, instead we get angel does it again!
Like the Martini Henry - sounds like a fucking cannon!
The only reason I use that gun lol.
Or like how the Lewis gun sounds so different in a trench or a confined space than when your out in the open
Little touches like that are just awesome imo
My favorite was when they added the "cha ching" sound when you killed someone in V. Yeah, there you go, you guys fixed it all!
To be fair that cha ching sound really fucking does something for me lmao
One aspect of BF1’s sound design that I love is when a teammate gets killed by an explosion near you, and when their body goes flying, they are yelling until they hit the ground. Perfectly timed
Immersion to the max right there
Its lovely. Also on that note, when an explosion goes off near you and your guy is saying something, the voice becomes deep and muffled to immitate tinnitus. Such a small detail but all of it added up goes a lonng way
YEEEEEEEEEEEEEOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGG \*slams into the ground\*
It definitely was something extra with the sound design studio then. I know they went to meet up with Ian from forgotten weapons and got to try all the guns the were using in game. The immersion was next level. Must say star wars battlefront had really good sound design as well but something happened after that.
The downfall was trying to appease the streamers/youtubers. Their complaints and "ideas" resulted in the shitshows of bfv and 2042.
I also notice this in age of empires 4. It feel and plays like a MOBA instead of fucking age of empires.
Bigger, emptyer, super competitive. All for streams to look better. And it kinda make the game look unfinished and bland.
> age of empires 4
I completely forgot about that game. I didn't even finished the tutorial (l have thousands of hours AoE and AoE2. 3 maybe a hundred). Sucks man.
I was super hyped. I played 7 skirmishes and i was cured lol
They can try to defend themselves by saying that DICE doesn't listen to them all they want, that's simply not true.
While it obviously doesn't work like "Levelcrap just said something that would make a normal person's brain melt away, let's work that into the next Battlefield!!!", they clearly listen to the content creators and care for their opinions.
It's a problematic situation - you also can't just listen to the pro gamers, all they want to is to have the most precise aim, no bullet spread and the fastest movement where they can abuse the character models - at this point, just play arena shooters... oh, but then you wouldn't be able to spray down weak players.
Totally agree. V should have built off BF1 and been an atmospheric WW2 game.
Yessss so much dude
I wish Dice would have actually made BF1 but WW2 :(
Yes, exactly. Take the famous battles of world war 2, use the same narrative based operations, DLC that covers the different theatres of war and battlefield 5 has the atmosphere and gameplay that everyone clammered for.
Except EA/ Dice went with the female soldier with terminator arm and it was all downhill from there. Battlefield1 screamed immersion into world war 1, battlefield 5 had nothing to do with the history of world war 2 other than the guns and locations.
The gun selection is so fuuuuuucking awfully in bfv.
They used all super rare guns that handle like lasers.
It's just wired.
I was so disappointed in how poorly the Thomson handled in V after that being my go to gun in so many other WWII games....
STG44 was lackluster too
Muh gunplay tho
I dint even got that far. The FG42 was a total joke in the game. Really sad to see it go to waste
I didn't have a real problem with the gameplay mechanics of V and I think that's why they tried to tinker with TTK and all that crap. They could have made things better and tried to, but it never worked right.
The real problems I had were how washed out the colors were and the poor map design. When 3/4 of your deaths come from someone you never had a chance to see it doesn't really matter about the mechanics and "gunplay"
U forget the boring ui. The Horrible performance. Limited destruction. Cramped ore way to open maps. Forced engagements cos the maps suck. Wasted stationary weapons.
The build cover mechanics are horrible. If everything is build u get a decent chance to defend a point. But 1 grenade destroys 6 rows of sandbags.
So u basically always running the open.
To me a lot of that is the poor map design. There's no helping the Africa maps on V. They're fucking trash. And the destruction was trash across all the V maps (there was like one house in arras you could destroy lol...)
But think about this:
You're defending on the third sector of Monte grappa on the enemy's second or third battalion... They get a zeppelin and you get to rebuild the sandbag fortifications on B. Engineers can rebuild the doors on the bunker the same way that they can fix the turret gun. They can put the logs and sandbags back to defend B from the attackers.
With good maps, those things could work well. It's just a goddamn shame we never got that with those trash maps and trash colors
Exactly. U should not build up a point from scratch to begin with. But in BF1 u slowly destroy the map. So cover gets less to it's more Easter to take points. Or harder.
Does dammaged building and stuff carried over to the next round in grand operations?
Honestly in V there wasn't enough destruction for me to notice. See, eg, the two Rotterdam maps that really should have just been one map
what limited destruction you talking about? way too open maps? horrible performance? we were playing different games
Well the performance is slightly better now. But for example the first Africa map there's not a lot of cover. Or destruction.
And in Rotterdam or the other city map with the church u can beat destroy annything that helps u weaken the enemy capture points
I don’t have a long history with the Battlefield franchise like most on here. My poor skills mean I’m very much a casual when it comes to any FPS, and so many of them feel generic. But BF1 was different, and that hooked me. The unique historical setting caught my attention, but the gameplay, the narrative elements, the juxtaposition of having horses and tanks on the same battlefield, that satisfying sound when you ring up a kill, bayonet charging, the immersive graphics and sound resonated with me that I hadn’t experienced since the OG Star Wars Battlefront games. It’s one of the rare games that made me want to stick with it and try to “git gud”.
OG Battlefront 1 and 2 FUCKING DESERVE REMAKES. Easily 2 of the best games I've ever played
Man do people HATE the random bullet deviation. I don't think it's THAT random myself, and I like it. It make you have to anticipate your shots depending on if you're moving or not and where the recoil of your gun is after your previous shot. To me, it rewards skill and experience way more. For every kill you think you should have had, the ones where you correctly anticipate the shots trajectory are that much more satisfying.
I still stand by random deviation being appropriate for the game. It's the first world war: armies of green conscripts went into that conflict with cloth caps, horses, and no idea what enemy machine gun fire could do. Given that, and the fact some of the guns in the game don't even use smokeless powder, while others rattle and shake and throw casings out vertically, I'd expect the average soldier to experience some bullet deviation.
And heck, if you know what you are doing good accuracy is actually possible. Friend of mine gets a good 30% accuracy with the MP-18 for example, despite the "randomness" to it, he's still wicked consistent.
You can be effective with hipfirinf an SMG. V and 2042 you're SOL of you don't aim on each and every gun
Gamers when they realize you can’t shoot guns like a laser in real life and you need to time your shots.
Do they really hate it? I have never heard anyone complain about bullet deviation- it's not like you can expect all weapon types to be perfectly accurate anyway. Sniper rifles have pretty much perfect accuracy, medic rifles shoot fine, and machine guns with bipods down are laser beams. If anything I find that it's too easy to shoot accurately, enough so that going prone under fire just makes you easier to hit, instead of smaller target = less likely to get hit. Especially for snipers. If you go prone, you're toast, because movement is the main thing that can actually save you if you have no cover.
> Do they really hate it? I have never heard anyone complain about bullet deviation-
The majority of the Battlefield Community during Battlefield Vs lifetime *hated* bullet deviation like you wouldn't believe. A lot of that hatred was born out of miscommunication, false information and generally a lack of understanding of game mechanics. Granted, a very significant portion of that was also DICEs fault for failing to explain said game mechanics.
I personally think it's hilarious. The BF Community has always tried to paint itself as being "better than CoD," yet they ended up welcoming a mechanic that's at the core of CoDs gunplay with open arms, and this is coming from someone who plays both franchises regularly.
Oh is that mainly in BFV? I'm not sure I understand. All I know is that the weapons in BF1 have some element of spread, and spread increase with sustained fire, etc, but that has been standard for Battlefield games for a while
> Oh is that mainly in BFV? I'm not sure I understand.
Well, BFV was where the major change from a traditional spread system to a "recoil-as-spread" system took place. A lot of the hatred for spread started during BF1s lifetime, when DICE decided to significantly change how spread worked compared to BF3/4 in a way that eliminated the tap-fire META at the time, and now required players to have good, slightly thoughtful shooting habits to get the most out of their weapons. However, a combination of dumb YouTubers, DICE, and players with bad habits whining about "rAnDOm BuLLet dEViaTiOn" caused a river of salt that eventually led to the crapshow that was BFV.
> All I know is that the weapons in BF1 have some element of spread, and spread increase with sustained fire, etc, but that has been standard for Battlefield games for a while.
Indeed, however this is also the part where I blame DICE for not explaining their mechanics adequately. There are a few vague tooltips in the game about spread increase over sustained fire and the like, but there's pretty much nothing that shows actual numbers, or how exactly spread is influenced by movement, suppression, etc. For information like that, you often had to rely on (competent) YouTubers, or 3rd Party sites like Symthic (now Sym.gg) that broke down the numbers and showed the spread profile for certain weapons. A well-developed tutorial level that demonstrated and explained spread mechanics, as well as other aspects of multiplayer gameplay, would've greatly helped in educating the playerbase, and there probably wouldn't have been *as much* negativity in regards to spread.
Movement. Yeah. Exactly. The focus on bf1 wasn't being able to aim perfectly, but the ability to move in a changing environment that challenged you in every moment. To make the battlefield feel more like a real battlefield they intentionally made us focus on awereness raher than spray and pray or run and gun.
I agree that random deviation is fine but you are talking about something completely different. Bullet drop, etc. is not random deviation. Random deviation is where your bullet moves slightly off from its set trajectory in a *random* direction, so it is impossible to "anticipate" or "correct for" it.
Except that you can "correct for it" in a sense by taking steps to make sure that your spread doesn't become out of control. This can be done by pacing your fire rate, not strafing excessively, being aware of the strengths/weaknesses of your weapon/variant, etc.
These are also things that DICE has failed repeatedly to explain to their playerbase.
> taking steps to make sure that your spread doesn't become out of control
This is way too much mental effort for your average Battlefield influencer to understand how bullet spread works. Let's just instead invent new terms that sound like a little child that's learning english came up with them (random bullet deviation, I would prefer to see some random biblical deviants) and chant it like a mantra every time we fail to kill someone...
I like random bullet deviation in regards to suppression but hate it under normal circumstances. This is pretty much how insurgency has handled it between their various games. In BFV suppression is meaningless since it doesn't cause any deviation. However nonetheless I'll still take that over general weapon spread.
Imagine The battle of Stalingrad on a BF1-like battlefield V
Fun I haven't had since cod 2, that's what I imagine
100% agree. I played 2042 a couple weeks ago and was shocked at how shit it was compared to BF1.
It'd sad cause the same could've been said for modern warfare, then cod screwed over the player based with cold war and vanguard. I can't even play them cause the data packs don't download properly
I'm one of those idiot who bought Vanguard (at discount). Did you try and play Warzone? I didn't play Cold War.
I tried warzone but I don't enjoy battle royals. After bf5s version I quit trying. It's the same thing just different guns.
Thanks for the heads up. I wasn't aware it was BR. I'll scratch that one off my list. Darn.
There's still a normal cod game. Warzone is just the free br. Some of the gun play is good and I enjoyed the duels mode
Seems like whenever a series hits a peak it immediately drops in quality for the next releases or even future updates, I too mostly enjoyed modern warfare but then it just got worse and worse, and as of right now (they might have fixed it idk) the game is unplayable because Warzone integrated code that wasn’t designed for mw
To be fair, that's kind of the inherent definititon of a "peak." If it doesn't go down afterwards, then it's not a peak, it's just one data point on an increasing slope
Yeah, just feels like too many of them go down a little too quick, sometimes quality feels like a cliff not even a peak
Honestly, loved Cold War's campaign. Multiplayer started bad and got worse though.
MW was promising at first, but as soon as they launched Warzone it was clear that it wouldn’t remain good for long.
BF1 is one of the best games imo, a masterpiece.
Also it represented those countries soldiers who are overlooked in those English whitewashed WW1 movies. WW1 was a clash of empires not just of countries. So it was actually the British Empire which fought and they recruited soldiers from all corners of their empire.
Like the millions of Indians who fought in the war. They literally gave the medic class of the British army. And also India was forced to pay so much tax during that time which damaged them that it pushed them more on the path to getting independence from the British.
What the role of Aussies and Kiwis were there in the war. How much they contributed and where they fought. When u play in Achi baba, the soldiers have an Aussie hat.
We also learn so much on where the battles were fought and how important they were. And in operations, we get a cute alternate history on what would happened if this side had won rather than the other side.
They got so many things right. It wasn't woke at all. They took actual historical events and perfectly infused it into their game.
Absolutely agree. The spirit of diversity in Battlefield 1 was much healthier and respectful (and much better implemented) than in Battlefield V.
There has never been, to my knowledge, a AAA video game featuring Turks or the Ottoman Empire, unless maybe you count Europa Universalis. But the amount of love put into BF1 shows in how, even though it’s historically *inaccurate*, it feels incredibly *authentic*. I really feel like a foot soldier of an Empire, and that visceral rush at the start of a game instills patriotism and tells me something about what it must have felt like to have been there. And I’m Greek - it takes a lot to make me want to fight for the Turks! There will never be another game like it.
I'd absolutely count various total wars
I love that the scout class in the Tsar DLC is the Women's Batallion of Death
Except they forgot the Canadians, and way over featured the Americans.
they really didn't overfeature the US though. The US is only in 2 maps of multiplayer (ballroom and argonne) and the operation comprising them, the prologue for singleplayer, and in the airplane war story (where it was just one American in the RAF). And mind you, all of this was in the base game - none of the DLCs featured the Americans at all. I was actually hoping we would get Belleau Wood as a third American map in the Apocalypse DLC
And then they doubled down on microtransaction BS
I agree with most of your points, but I’ll say this: I did MUCH prefer the movement system in BFV. Running, jumping, and climbing all felt much more fluid and crouch-running was a feature that I think added to the dynamism by allowing you to remain partially in cover while still maintaining decent momentum.
I like the gunplay in BF1 better (yes, even the sweet spot) EXCEPT for the bloom. Going from a system based on random visual dispersion to one of plottable recoil added an element of skill to something that had once been luck: the guns in BFV aren’t ‘lasers’. They only seem like lasers because the person operating them has invested enough time and practice into them to learn how to predict and control their recoil. I think any move from luck to skill is an improvement.
I liked the concept of Fortifications (not aid or ammo stations), because BF as a series has always had a problem with destruction. While it can be fun at times, it also means that if a match lasts even a middling amount of time, the map very quickly becomes denuded of cover. And while that’s not a problem on certain maps where the topography itself can provide cover, I think I can speak for everyone when I say Sinai and Suez could definitely have been improved by allowing you to rebuild structures that have been leveled.
Aaaaaaand I think that’s it. Those are really the only things I think BFV improved on. Which ain’t much.
I do agree about the fortifications, and really it made more sense in BF1 where the whole point was trench warfare.
I played a little of BFV and I agree, crouch running and fortifications were two wise additions to the game. It'd be cool to have that in BF1.
Literally just burst and play to your range. I like how you need to take positioning and burst timing into account for your gunplay as well, adds more dimensions to it. Meanwhile plannable recoil is just boring imo, i dislike CS:GO for that reason too.
Fortifications are dumb as hell, but rebuilding structures is based.
I’m not sure I follow your last point. You want rebuilding in the sense of rebuilding the house fully, rather than sandbagging the ruins?
Yes, just rebuild the building, similar way to how you repair bridges in Bf2 and in Bf4s Dragon Valley remake. Half-assing back your cover with fortification is pretty stupid imo, best just rebuild the whole thing in its entirety.
Eh, personally, I prefer the sandbags. It adds some realism, but also it means destruction still has *some* lasting effects.
Like more often than not destroying map flow and making defending objectives harder than it needs to be, no thanks.
I don't think the immersion-bros would like that. Fuck solving issues, it's not realistic, we don't want it!
Burst-fire is definitely the right answer. There’s the added benefit of it being more realistic to how automatic guns are used in real life. With the exception of medium/heavy machine guns, most automatic guns were intended to be fired it bursts to maintain accuracy in all but the closest of quarters.
I could not disagree more about fortifications. I think that was one of the best things they could have added and they help to bring such a new dynamic to the game and can really change the outcome of a match.
Why do you think they are dumb as hell?
Personally speaking, I always felt like Fortifications were nothing more than a distraction that only served as a nuisance to competent players. Playing as team-focused Medic equipped with smoke grenades? A pile of sandbags can literally stop you in your tracks. Playing as an Assault that's trying to get an angle on a vehicle? Well, if you come across a fortification that's blocking your ideal route, you now have to waste at least one explosive to get through, which can make the difference in killing a tank, *especially* if you don't have an Ammo Crate/station nearby (because the Battlefield community didn't like it where good players could take down a vehicle with a combination of map awareness, vehicle knowledge and good positioning).
I also hated that emplaced weapons had to be built, and I *really* hated that the Support was the only class that could build them. Just using an emplaced weapon is already a big risk, because any competent player will see it as a big "free kill" sign. Now, only one class could build a weapon that can make a big difference in successfully defending a position (and that specific ability was also not very well communicated by DICE), and that was typically at a significant risk to the user, a risk that would greatly increase if it's on a map where a platform or other items have to be built *first* before you can build the actual gun. And if those extra bits get blasted, they have to be rebuilt all over again. There was nothing wrong with having emplaced weapons that would self-repair/reappear after a set amount of time in previous games.
Were Fortifications more realistic? Sure. Were they actually good for gameplay? I would definitely say no.
I respectfully disagree! The reasons you listed in the first paragraph are exactly why I enjoy them. It brings in this dynamic that makes the game different and forces you to act accordingly.
I’m in between on the stuff in the second paragraph. Sometimes I wish other classes could build emplaced weapons but I think just having support do it makes sense and probably balances it out. Otherwise everyone could just constantly spam repairing/building them, never giving the other team a break from them.
Cuz they don't change the outcome of matches, and patching up a building with shitty fortifications < just fixing the damn building.
I think you can argue that trenches and sandbags provide cover, they can really help defend or flank an objective, anti-tank things slow down vehicle access, and weapons like MGs and PAK 40s provide a huge defense against infantry and tanks.
This opinion is personal but building the types of fortifications they have seems more “realistic” than rebuilding a whole building.
Agree. They had everything lined up. But they forgot to pull the trigger. Seriously tho.
They could've even just changed a few textures, skins for the guns, put wings on the zeppelin and called it a new generation glider from 2042 and added a pulse laser weapon to a few tanks.. all that would've taken 1 month of dev.
It would've been better than 2042.
BF1 is the best multiplayer shooter I’ve played. Better the CoD and the story line and everything was amazing, it brought the e horrors of WWI to light and was beautifully made
Why are you speaking in past tense? If its any consolation there are still ripping matches and it feels like a bunch of "new" players have either returned or are starting to discover exactly what I think you mean, namely: BF1 is the gold standard and a high water mark that perhaps only EA/DICE could surpass. What some people might be feeling (i am speaking for myself) is the loss of key staff in shake up that seemed to follow the BFV launch. I will keep saying it until it happens or find another franchise but all they need to do is release full mod tools. Let the community make the next BF idea for free. Meanwhile BF1/V rockbut need new maps.
The loss of key staff actually started in BF1's time. Karl Magnus Troedson and Patrich Bach left when BF1 was finished in 2016. Deep down I knew then that DICE would never be the same again.
Don't forget Behemoths
>It had fantastic gunplay (random deviation is better than the laser guns of BF5)
You have that the wrong way around. BFV has random recoil and the most recoil out of any battlefield game. BF1 has spread and large amounts of visual recoil. BF1 does have better gunplay but not for the reason you suggest
BfV overall still has much higher baseline accuracy than Bf1 due to lower spread values combined with overall similar horizontal recoil values (vertical recoil is stupid high though, ran out of mousepad frequently with SARs), but it also has no real way of improving your accuracy by bursting or doing anything other than just aim gudder.
Yes but the point I'm getting at is the gunplay in bf1 is skill based while in bfv, no matter how good you are, random recoil can and will screw you over sometimes. BFV has a much better movement system to compensate. It's a pick your poison when deciding which infantry gameplay you prefer.
Oh yeah definitely, there is no growing in bfv. Patterns aren't significant enough to matter for the most part, just pull down and be grumbled cuz they are annoying.
Honestly OP might be the first person I’ve ever seen agree with the use of random bullet deviation
That's cuz OP is smart and is capable of managing spread like a smart person can.
I still fire up Battlefield 1 from time to time. The game is almost a perfect war game to me. At least once during every session I ask myself "What the hell happened?"
It’s the Highlander of FPS.
Was on board until you mentioned "forced woke trash." Like c'mon having diverse characters in your game is a good thing for the industry as a whole
Expecting Diversity on a ww2 game is stupid. It's like expecting a Jew fighting on the German army or a woman fighting on the IMPERIAL JAPANEASE army.
BF1 did it right, since the White Army at the time did have woman fighting as snipers. No one would complain if we had woman snipers in a Soviet dlc in bfv.
WW2 was very diverse, but yes, historical accuracy matters and that's what people found jarring when it came to BFV and the whole roll out. But the reaction was a little OTT, hence why it got so much media attention.
I don't think it's stupid to showcase the World aspect of WW2, but I think BF1 does it so well, with the inclusion of Indian and African soldiers who had a massive part to play in both wars. I believe there were 2.5m Indian soldiers who fought for the Allies in WW2 and having them represented in an authentic manner would have worked out so much better.
I remember plenty of people taking issue with the black german scouts of BF1…
I recall some of that, too, but was very mild. I understood the Black German scout as a representation of Germany’s warfighters in their African colonies.
Now the Austro-Hungarian Black scout just didn’t make any sense to me.
It was actually the cavalry class that was black for Austria. It was a reused asset from the German cavalry class (which was also black), since Austria had no maps in base game with cavalry, and later received them in TSAR. Very stupid but it came down to the devs reusing assets rather than a seriously weird portrayal of the Austrians. meanwhile the germans had not one but two black classes, which I found quite odd
Most of the people that had issues with it probably though ww1 Germany was Nazi.
OP referred to many multiplayer games apparently having it though, not just BFV.
And people did complain at first about female snipers in BF1.
Let me Reiterate. No one who actualy studied ww2 history would complain if we had Woman snipers or pilots in an Soviet DLC.
I think he means that they did it In a way so that it was still historically authentic. I have no issue with women in BFV but it's far from authentic, along with a lot of the stuff in that game.
Still love BFV just as much as 1 though.
Not defending those who talk about "woke" shit, but I always found it funny that you still couldn't play as a black person in the wermacht. Pick a lane.
I'd complain more about the endless shitty skins with gas masks because they were too lazy to animate new faces while there was never any actual use of a gas mask in V, unlike where it was integral in 1
His words were spot on and ought to have been even more harsh, taking into account the despicable behaviour of the devs during BFV's development.
Remember [that dev who talked](https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/12/17453728/ea-women-in-battlefield-v-backlash-response) about being influenced by the thought of explaining the controversy to his thirteen year old daughter about the prospect of not being able to play as a girl (in general as opposed to only as Soviets) in a game about **the Second World War**? Also game is rated PEGI 16 / MA15+ lol
**ADDENDUM:** *I always think of this from now on when I play the first-time cutscenes... Solemn respect much? What happened to "honouring the memories of the fallen" as opposed to treating the theme like Fortnite and paving it with contemporary politics?*
Remember their justification for their actions essentially amounting to "women should be in the game just for the sake of it, this is the way it is from now on, we're so brave for standing up to the protests of mean fans, and anyone who dislikes it fuck off and play another game, this is franchise no longer for you YOU BIGOT REEEE"?
Remember [this mockery of the fans](https://i.imgur.com/wTnNcSb.jpeg) at the launch party? Remember when [they literally censored the words "white man" from the chat](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PI0KgDPmMI)? Who even does something like that?!
Every Battlefield after 1 feels like it was made half by hard-working devs trying their best and half by creative design staff sabotaging everything. I'm not taking lessons on "tolerance" and "racial harmony" from hateful idiot devs and childish confused fans who make false equivalences between funny gameplay and political trash.
When BF1 came out there was definitely some uproar about there being black Germans lol
"Forced woke trash"
Go outside and touch some grass mate. If you see women irl, it stops feeling unrealistic to see them in video games.
You people have become incredibly tiresome. No, those of us who disagree with this shitty forced diversity are not racists, sexists, homophobes, intolerant etc. Stop it.
Oh no I touched a nerve and hurt some feelings. Explain why jumping out of a bomber so you can run and gun on top of blimps is fine, but a woman in a game is too unrealistic, I'm curious. There's a thousand things unrealistic in any war game, but nobody's buttblasted about it unless there are characters that aren't white guys. Why?
If you didnt have 1st grade reading comprehension, you would realize he was saying the diversity in bfv was done like shit. Bf1 had black, indian, female and aussie soldiers but it was done in a way that was still historically accurate
And battlefield never does the hurry up and wait, or the die coughing like a Covid patient parts of wars. Why is "realism" only ever a sticking point when there is a character that isnt a straight white dude? 🤔
Edit: Angry downvotes and not answers. Keep up the gamer moments.
I never gave a shit about that aspect but, to be fair, it's a lot easier to put female soldiers in a WWII game if you have soviets in it
If you didn’t have 1st grade reading comprehension, you would realise he said it’s something “we see in so many games.” He doesn’t specifically mention BFV in that paragraph, and BFV itself isn’t ‘many games’.
Titanfall 1 was the first to use narrative elements in multiplayer I think, also saying "forced woke trash" just because there where women in the game is odd. otherwise you are correct on all the other points.
Yasss qween you fight for the nazis on the front line
Slay qweeeen 💅💅💅💅
**Go Woke, Go Broke! Every time!**
When your company starts hiring people based on "diversity" and "gender equality" and not competence, you will fail because you forgot the very thing that makes anything great. **It is Meritocracy!** You hire the best regardless of anything else based on their competence and merit. And it at the end the whole team is all white males, so be it, and if it is not, so be it too. The only thing that matters is competence. It is sad that woketards have destroyed so many movies, games, etc. forcing their unnatural ideology on people.
Plus when you have a battlefield full of women running around, you turned it into a fantasy game and not a game that tries to emulate a realistic war.
Was with you until you just *had* to include “woke trash”… like dude, remove that “”insult”” from your vocabulary because it’s just immature as fuck and shows what kind of person you are. “Can’t have women in my hyper realistic vidya game!” Who cares if they do dude, it’s a video game, it’s fake, it’s not a milsim, it’s meant for fun. Think about the implication here, you hate the “wokeness” but what does that mean? It means you hate **not** being ignorant.
Fools are mad that there's a woman in the game, cause that's too unrealistic, yet happy it's a WW1 themed shoot em up instead of a realistic die-of-Tuberculosis Simulator.
WW1 where everyone ran around with machine guns and snipers would run around scoping people from a mile away without even kneeling. Plus horses are ridable bullet sponge sniper mounts.
That stuff existed in the war. It's basically "World War One but silly" or a cool Alternate Universe take. It's a fun new way of experiencing an authentic "essence".
Battlefield V was fake to the core. Why couldn't we have had a World War II version of BF1, and why do fans insist on defending it? It could have been game of the century.
Slightly off topic but a sanitarium sim might work as a niche game
"Woke" is a sarcastic label, meant in a derogatory sense. Immaturity is the incapacity to comprehend the crux of our issue with the path the Battlefield franchise, and by extension the gaming industry as a whole, has been taking. The only person hating anything here is the devs hating their political opponents, which is why they did such disgusting acts like [this](https://i.imgur.com/wTnNcSb.jpeg) and [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PI0KgDPmMI). How can this conduct be justified?
Random deviation is fine, especially in Bf1 where good players can optimize hitrates and easily get good accuracy, it just punishes bad play a lot which isn't helped by the lack of good tutorials.
It's my favorite FPS ever. It made me care about a mostly forgotten conflict. I wish the servers weren't hacked to shit on pc.
Servers are still mostly fun on xbone
I wish my ps4 did more than just turn off after the loading screen. Its my favourite game since socom 3 and the ps seems to hate it. From what ive seen im kinda happy bf is going to die with that one for me
Random deviation is and always will be anathema to good shooter game play.
Only if you are too bad to learn how to manage it. Random deviation is used in nearly every shooter to date to balance things, Bf has been using it for years. BfV just obscured its presence by turning it into unmanageable recoil, and every single battlefield has had some form of it.
"it's only bad if you're bad" is a poor argument, especially here because you can't "manage" a random system, that's why it's fucking random in the first place. Random deviation ruins recoil compensation, it makes shooting inherently inconsistent and puts a cap on mechanical skill. It takes the moment your precision and skill as a player can shine the most and muddies it to shit. It's akin to playing a racing game where your brakes have random power every time you go into a corner, it stops being about your skill and makes the game more about luck and completely shits on those who'd otherwise have the skill to make long rapid shots.
It's a cone whos size you can control. Cone smaller than enemy and you guarantee a hit, it's not rocket science. Position yourself better or burst more appropriately and you'll guarantee hits, it's not like the game will randomly decide to make you miss.
Problem is even inside that cone you can still miss. Say instead of putting a 4rnd burst into a dudes chest, 1 actually lands where I'm aiming and the other three fly over his shoulders thanks to deviation. Whatever skill I had in my aim and recoil control becomes moot because the game randomly decides where my bullets get to go. It's a shit mechanic, always has been a always will be.
That's untrue, if your cone is smaller than your target there is literally 0 chance of missing. If you're missing then your cone is larger than the target you are shooting at, thus giving you the chance to miss. Make your cone smaller, either by reducing the range you engage at or by bursting properly, whichever one is appropriate.
You've so utterly missed the point I'm unsure if you're trolling or just solid bone from the jaw up.
News flash, you need to do both. If you miss because you didn't manage your spread, you blew it. If you manage your spread but don't manage your recoil, you blew it. You got to combine both skills in order to succeed in Bf1, one doesn't magically invalidate the other, but you need to be good at both in order to succeed.
If you lack the skills to manage your spread, all the recoil control in the world won't magically save you, and that goes both ways, gotta learn to control recoil in order to make your spread management matter.
This! This perfectly articulates my feelings about the Battlefield franchise
True except random bullet deviation
Learn to burst and play to your range.
i'm playing it again right now lol
I wish they make more of it, even more dlcs, id buy them.
sad that dice degraded against the background of themselves cause both bf 5 and bf 2042 have only one competitor and it's all bf games before. Paradox, because bf 2042 is the worst battlefield, but it's the best shooter of 2021. Maybe Bf 5 is not that bad in technical part, but everything else is fucking horrible
BF1 was too much quality and not enough money grabbing.
People pay 20-50 for shitty skins so why make the effort when you can grab fast money.
they just went overboard with 2042 expect next bf to be better to calm the customers and the following one to be worse with more MTX.
Yeah I love BF1, played it for hundreds of hours on Xbox and now have also racked up hundreds on PC as well. Honestly my favourite fps of all time. I tried getting into BF2042 and have played to level 40+ but I keep going back to BF1.
Battlefield situation reminds me of game of thrones when you make a perfect series only to destroy it at the end ,, it’s really sad because i very much agree with what you wrote in the title and its also sad that the ppl who made bf1 can’t see it , they only need to make bf1 the standard.
Great post - fully support it!
This is true
*Has not had.
It has sadly been downhill ever since. They’ve covered every possible scenario, from current setting to world wars and futuristic wars, I don’t think there is any juice left in the Battlefield series, well, there’s always Bad Company 3.
Bring back the old days
The gunplay was not better in BF1. It was the best in BF3. Lost me immediately at that opinion lol
Agreed, BEAUTIFUL game
I was expecting BFV to be more of the same but WWII, it kinda is but it doesn’t reach the same potential because DICE shot themselves in the foot repeatedly. There’s the Pacific which is like a brief glimpse into what we should have got from the start only for them to shoot themselves in the foot again with a ttk change nobody wanted or asked for.
And if BFV was repeatedly shooting themselves in the foot, 2042 was blowing both their legs off playing with explosives.
Last game they truly put passion into
Ah, the damn skins. That's where I put the blame.
Tbh bf1 also had woke trash character selection. Black snipers fighting for the germans
I agree with almost all of that, but would differ (or add) that BF1 was the last BF where there was a workable balance between squad play and rando play. It wasn’t exactly a level field, but if you were smart and reasonably competent you could compete against functioning squads.
DICE didn’t say this overtly, but several features/mechanics of BF5 were specifically designed to reward squad play even more lavishly/punish lack of squad play even more harshly. (Attrition, no suppression, squad revives, spotting mechanics, stronger vehicles while removing essentially all the anti-vehicle capability of two out of four classes.) That massively backfired and the large majority of games with a functioning squad on one side turned into curbstomps as a result.
BF2042 (aside from its many other faults) was essentially a reaction to BF5’s failure to force more squad play through punitive measures. BF2042 swung to the other end of the spectrum where everyone can lone wolf to their heart’s content because you can access to whatever playstyle you want within every “specialist.”
100% agree that BF5 should’ve been just a BF1 reskin. Thing is, IMO that avenue is still open. Why? Because it’s clear already that 2042 is a catastrophic failure. I’d bet a large chunk of money that 2042 will be abandoned by DICE/EA once they have met the absolute minimum level of content. This however leaves them (like BF5) without a current successful game and with nothing in the development pipeline. Ergo they are again way behind the curve.
They NEED a successful return to BF’s roots, and moreover they need it soon and with minimum resources. Reskin BF1 for WWII, develop some new maps while staying away from BF5 map content. You could have that game out in a year, year and a half tops. Make some money, and smooth things over with the fanbase. Maybe even do another BF1 DLC. I’d pay money for that RIGHT NOW.
Only complaint i have for bf1 is there should be more weapons/weapon modifications.