Jump to content

Battlefield 6


lapal_fan

Recommended Posts

47 minutes ago, dubbs said:

The open beta is available today and tomorrow I believe.   Will be good to have a proper look at this.  Interested how it plays compared to 5 which I wasn't a fan of. 

I'm quite interested in it also. I've always preferred these games over the CoD games anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My experience from the beta has been incredibly underwhelming so far. Game feels like it needs a 6 month delay to be honest.

After playing the Halo and BF betas back to back, the Halo beta was far more polished and fun. This BF beta is a complete jank fest and what's included barely works. So disappointing. Looks like DICE will be releasing another game in a completely broken state. The one month delay isn't enough to fix this. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PieFacE said:

My experience from the beta has been incredibly underwhelming so far. Game feels like it needs a 6 month delay to be honest.

After playing the Halo and BF betas back to back, the Halo beta was far more polished and fun. This BF beta is a complete jank fest and what's included barely works. So disappointing. Looks like DICE will be releasing another game in a completely broken state. The one month delay isn't enough to fix this. 

That's disappointing to hear although I guess that's the point of betas.   It's just a shame DICE have a reputation for putting out games before they are ready. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, dubbs said:

That's disappointing to hear although I guess that's the point of betas.   It's just a shame DICE have a reputation for putting out games before they are ready. 

Yeah, they claim that the beta build is a "couple of months old" but even so, there's a lot of work to be done in just a few months. Can't see it launching in a good state, though hope i'm pleasantly surprised. 

The bones of this game are really good, but it's a complete mess in places. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Currently downloading it.  Looking forward to giving it a blast of possible over the weekend.   Will be interesting to see the feedback and replies to that from DICE.  If its a bad as it sounds surely they can't release it in such a poor state again 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, PieFacE said:

My experience from the beta has been incredibly underwhelming so far. Game feels like it needs a 6 month delay to be honest.

After playing the Halo and BF betas back to back, the Halo beta was far more polished and fun. This BF beta is a complete jank fest and what's included barely works. So disappointing. Looks like DICE will be releasing another game in a completely broken state. The one month delay isn't enough to fix this. 

I was in one of the many closed technical tests over the last few months and my main feedback always ended with "this game isn't ready to launch". It's a shame to see that the game is still a complete mess given that open betas are glorified demos, they're marketing tools at best these days. 

I think at £60+ for a multiplayer only game, Battlefield 2042 is going to struggle. You mentioned Halo which is in better shape, but it's also free to play for the multiplayer. Maybe some people would rather pay £60+ for an inferior product, but I imagine most will settle for the free one assuming they have an Xbox, or a PC. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The new class/operator system is a complete mess too. One of the great things about Battlefield was the teamwork that the class system introduced. If someone had the medic symbol their head, they could give you health. If someone had the assault symbol above their head, they could give you ammo. If someone has the engineer symbol above their head, they can repair your vehicle. With the new operator system in 2042, all of that goes completely out the window and medics have rocket launchers etc. It makes no sense. Battlefield as a whole definitely loses something that made it "Battlefield" with the operators. Though, i'm sure they'll make EA **** loads in Battle Pass shit. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't expect performance to be great on PS4 but it's close to unplayable. Gameplay decisions and bugs aside the framerate feels awul, and there's a tonne of input lag which makes it feel like you're playing on a 200ms+ ping.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, PieFacE said:

Were the Battlefront games buggy af too? 

The first one was stable but lacking in content. I don't think you could say it was broken.

The second one wasn't "broken" either from a technical point of view....but it was basically one of those "free" mobile games where you have to pay for all the best gear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Battlefield 3 had severe balance issues upon launch (USAS with Frag Rounds statistically beat EVERYTHING else in game), but it didn't take them too long to fix those issues, although I remember 1 update where they accidently had an underbarrel shotgun (the M26) having EACH pellet the same damage as the collective damage should have been :lol:  that was fun for a while.

Battlefield 4 had the difficulty of launching on the PS4/XBOX1 gen, as well as the PS3/360 gen AND PC.  It was ALMOST very broken, but it was NOT smooth at all.  My personal experince wasn't too bad, but I had friends who'd regularly get blue screens etc whilse playing.

Battlefield 1 was the best launch.  Everything was settled, no ps3/360 gen to worry about, it was just current gen (at the time) and PC.  It's my favourite game (between Bf1/Bf3 tbh).  I played it last night :) 

BFV was ok a launch too.  The problem with BfV was the whole "woke saga" leading up to it.  Due to the OTT reveal of a woman with a fake arm and cricket bat.  Then one of the marketing execs came out and said "if you don't like it, don't buy it" which put a lot of the neck beards backs up.  The issue with BfV was the battle royale mode was not made to be free-to-play, and it launched badly (terrible loot design) which they tried to fix and did eventually, but with things like Apex out there were only a few hundred playing it - plus the main game had a small following compared to Bf1/4/3 so after the Pacific came out (which was really good tbh) the studio/EA lost faith in it and pulled EVERYONE onto 2042.. 

Then Covid happened whilst the core of 2042 was being developed, then you had the head guy from Apex join DICE, then you have DICE looking at Warzone and thinking "I wanna piece of that pie (player wise)" and has been mentioned... It seems Battlefield (the franchise) has lost a lot of what made it so special (to me), which is classed based identity. 

BfV also very much struggled with monetisation of skins.  Skins didn't matter before BfV because you chose a class.. That class had a certain look and you could identify them at a glance on the battlefield.  Were you badly wounded and needed help on Bf1? Go find a guy with crutches.  Need Ammo on Bf4?  Go find the guy with a balaclava and ammo pouches all over him.. 

The skins in BfV meant you could have a Japanese fighter pilot woman in Rotterdam during the blitz.  You saw/see loads of her - on all maps.  The customisation on BfV was also largely stopped after a while, there were plans for some really cool looking tank skins with leaf camo etc, all got cancelled, but the artwork is found easily.  

We were meant to see maps from the Eastern front, but because of dwindling player numbers, it all got cancelled. 

Bf2042 see's specialists introduced and again, little by little, we see ideas pinched from other titles and brought into Bf where they don't quite fit.  The latest video of specialists shows us a woman with a visor who can see through walls... That's incredibly powerful and I guarantee you'll see 100 of 128 players being that one character.. Leave wall hacks to Bloodhound in Apex.. Don't bring it to Battlefield..

Leave the systems as they are/were.

Sorry for the long post, but after spending 1000's & 1000's of hours playing it, with diminishing returns (after Bf1), you get a bit misty eyed.

TLDR: Bf has lost it's identity chasing player count from other titles, which has never worked.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll admit that I'm not the biggest Battlefield fan. I used to be a huge Battlefield fan back in the Battlefield 2 days, but I slowly fell away as the series introduced more and more gimmicks.

Battlefield 2042 set off alarm bells very early on in testing, when I noticed that the gunplay was pretty much lifted from Modern Warfare (2019), once I noticed that, I started playing like it was Call of Duty. In doing so I noticed the fast sprint which has an animation identical to MW (2019), I also noticed the slide which is identical. Once I noticed all of that I knew that this game would not satisfy Battlefield fans. This is Modern Warfare (2019), but worse in many ways. Call of Duty has "operators" which are unique characters with their own unique look, but these are mainly a vehicle for microtransactions. Yes, Call of Duty has tried to give those operators special abilities in the past, but it didn't work and was dropped for Modern Warfare (2019). It feels weird to me that DICE would be so inspired by another game, yet would somehow make their game worse as a result. 

Call of Duty fans are not going to play Battlefield just because it plays like Call of Duty. Just like Battlefield fans didn't play Call of Duty when Modern Warfare (2019) had large 64-player maps filled with tanks and helicopters. I totally understand that DICE, or EA might be frustrated that Battlefield is always second best sales wise. I totally understand that it must be frustrating to see Call of Duty outsell Battlefield every time they go head to head, but selling your identity down the river is not the way to beat Call of Duty. All DICE have done is turn off Battlefield fans, while Call of Duty fans will just buy the newest Call of Duty like they always do.   

Edited by Daweii
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
1 hour ago, dubbs said:

Its this or COD and neither have had great reviews.  Both seem like a work in progress. 

Both games are also long running franchises that don't inspire people in the same way they used to. Battlefield 2042 is Battlefield 12. Call of Duty: Vanguard is Call of Duty 18. Even one of the best Call of Duty games in a decade Modern Warfare (2019) only got 81/100 on opencritic. I think there is a cap on the kinds of scores that these games are going to get as time progresses. Granted Battlefield 2042 isn't great, neither is Vanguard, but I am sure that Modern Warfare 2 (2022) will not set the world on fire even though it's probably going to be the best CoD in years. The longer a franchise goes the more apathetic reviewers seem to get. 

I think as long as you go in with lower expectations then both games are probably pretty fun. If you like FPS games in general then they both deliver on that even if some of the trimmings aren't quite there, or the balance is a bit off. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â