Men_in_Boxes
Snake Oil Salesman
If Andrew Wilson offered you a high paying job to "improve the legs of future Battlefield games", how would you go about doing so?
A.Romero
Member
I'm going to be honest man, I'm 41 and I've never played on a higher than casual level (despite the huge amount of hours). I'm not sensitive to a lot of the stuff the community complains about.
However, to me, Battlefield is about the right mix between simulation and arcade. I also play Squad and Hell Let Loose and I enjoy them. I don't play CoD at all but I have played a few SP campaigns over the years (they are quite the spectacle!)
To me these aspects are important:
- Big battles (I'm one of the few people that liked 128 maps in 2042)
- A good mix of vehicle types and number (IMO you need at least a pair of each so you can do some interesting tactics when there is coordination)
- I prefer the faceless soldier approach so basically I wouldn't mind if every time I spawned it was a different character (Heroes didn't do it for me)
- I'm in the unlocked weapons camp, to me gadgets and perks are sufficient differentiators
- Full price release (but please, make it decent from the beginning not the usual catastrophic launches)
- A good physics engine ( I had a blast back in the BF2 days making tanks fly with C4)
- Any mechanic that encourages squads to focus on an objective and follow the squad lead are a hit in my book (for example what BFV did)
- I enjoyed the commander side in BF4, including playing that role with a tablet
- Private servers seem to be a good thing but not a deal breaker for me, I don't mind playing with randos
- A variety of weapons (although I've never unlocked them all)
- Destruction and levolution
I know these are very high level aspects, I can't comment on stuff like TTK. I felt it was good in BF6 but it seems a lot of people didn't like it. The only BF I didn't like was Hardline and never got to play Vietnam. I have liked them all for different reasons.
However, your questions is how to improve the game's legs and for that you need to appeal to all demographics, specially the younger ones. From that perspective it is important to consider what the mass market likes now:
- Easy to play, hard to master
- Focus on mobility
- A deeper building aspect (maybe having to build certain things in order to access the vehicles or to improve them?)
- Even players that can't shoot shit (like me) should have something they can be good at in the game (support, anti tank, building defenses, etc)
- Seamless connectivity using whatever the player wants for comms (Discord, integrated VoIP, etc)
- Streaming features and highlight auto recording (I liked this aspect from BFV)
- Heavy social aspect (gamehubs, social network integrations, a web profile and things like that)
- Battlepass and cosmetics (Live service in general)
- A free F2P component (but not necessarily a PUBG mode but maybe scaled back conquest maps for people to get hooked and jump into the fully paid aspect)
I think BF is in a werid spot because it is beloved by older gamers like me but has no chance surviving by just seeking that market segment. Newer generations don't really care about it and are fine playing Apex, Warzone and Fortnite and older generations aren't that invested in the features that make those games popular.
For me personally its ultimately the large maps and combined arms battles that make Battlefield what it is. I can play a great Battlefield map for hours and never get bored of it, and thats exactly what I would do especially during the early days of the series. I have vivid memories of staying up late playing BF2 with my cousin and our mutual friends and we never got bored. Some nights we would just play 24/7 Strike at Karkand servers for hours and the map remained completely entertaining because It was the perfect combination of open, but also tight. Chaotic, but also a controlled chaos that wasn't overwhelming or like it relied on 'lanes' to funnel you into the action. It was just sublime.
STARSBarry
Gold Member
Actually...
They dont like that people are playing the game and realising its shit. Remeber when EA said "dont buy our game" the 2042 community wants people to leave so they can play with bots to farm XP easier.
IbizaPocholo
NeoGAFs Kent Brockman
Luipadre
Member
I really wanna see the bigger maps. Wonder when they gonna start the marketing and releasing more footage. Probably mid september. Excited to see the changes and polish from beta
Last edited:
Sethbacca
Member
Only a 2 hour window? Jesus, these queues are gonna be wild.This means leaks are coming and we will see the bigger maps
Luipadre
Member
No it wont because its a smaller scale invite only test.
Sethbacca
Member
Ahh my b then. I thought it was a small open beta event or something.
Last edited:
KyoZz
Tag, you're it.
Oh shit the mortar
Edit: love the node to the ban hammer with the anti-cheat lmao
Last edited:
Avid Reading Horse
Member
Yes yes, nothing but cheaters and unfair menu options in PC world. Turn off the crossplay and enjoy your Console Utopia!
Is wide screen an advantage tho? ASking as a pc gamer who doesn't pay attention to this stuff much these days.
I didn't think it was years ago but haven't kept on top of it.
RyanEvans21
Member
I think that motion sensor mine.Oh shit the mortar
Edit: love the node to the ban hammer with the anti-cheat lmao
Pakoe
Member
You have a wider FOV, if you count that as an advantage then yeah.
Avid Reading Horse
Member
Esports professional here. I play 360 FOV and one single pixel vertical resolution. That way I can focus on what's really important (HFOV) and tune all the garbage out.
rodrigolfp
Haptic Gamepads 4 Life
You can see more of the battlefield, so...
sorry i always make fun of people doing human google so i googled and read up on it a bit to get some idea of where it's at.
It doesn't sound like anything has changed except more official support. And i was reminded you need more horsepower to run it and hud might be far right/left lessening advantage. MIght be able to see thigns first, but I knew people turned up FOV on normal monitors already to see more stuff. I tried it a few times but never liked it. Just low settings and low res to get nice responsiveness game was always the way to go.
Maybe wide screen just makes turning up fov more palatable.
I ignored wide screen long ago because it looked like a headache early on while support was in its infancy. But now I'll go back to sleep on the topic for another 5+ years.
It doesn't sound like anything has changed except more official support. And i was reminded you need more horsepower to run it and hud might be far right/left lessening advantage. MIght be able to see thigns first, but I knew people turned up FOV on normal monitors already to see more stuff. I tried it a few times but never liked it. Just low settings and low res to get nice responsiveness game was always the way to go.
Maybe wide screen just makes turning up fov more palatable.
I ignored wide screen long ago because it looked like a headache early on while support was in its infancy. But now I'll go back to sleep on the topic for another 5+ years.
Avid Reading Horse
Member
Official support pretty much means that you have some sane HUD behavior/options at those extra wide resolutions. Even games that don't support ultra-wide resolution are generally very easy to mod in order to do that, anit-cheat concerns notwithstanding.
Ultimately it's personal preference. If you want to understand FOV more intuitively literally look out a window. Get closer and farther away. Notice how if you are super far away you see a very small slice of the outside world, whereas if you touch your nose to the glass you can see almost 180 degrees? That's FOV. Think of your screen as the window into the game world. The 'correct' FOV setting is the one that gives the same perspective as a real window. The game doesn't change how it renders based on how close you are to the screen (there is software/hardware that can track your head position for this purpose but it's really out of scope for the average video game). So if the FOV in the game is wider than what it would be in the real world, you get that weird warping as you get closer to the edges that just doesn't look right. If the game FOV is too narrow you get that too zoomed in feel that makes you want to hurl. Basically the same thing as if you tried to walk around in real life wearing binoculars.
Consoles generally are expected to be played on the couch, a long distance from the screen, and thus a low FOV setting. PCs are expected to be played close up, so even though the screen is physically smaller, it takes up a larger portion of your field of view. Therefore, you want a higher setting.
For competitive purposes people tend to play with higher FOV, as you said, you can see more. It makes your apparent mouse sensitivity less (i.e. the same mouse movement results in the screen moving fewer pixels for the same number of in-game degrees of movement). But, it makes everything smaller on your screen. It's a trade-off. Personal preference.
Akin to having a wider window. If you really want, there's nothing stopping you from using an ultra-wide resolution on a regular widescreen display. Just use letterboxing and sit closer. You're just not making full use of your screen's resolution at that point.
I did an SLI triple-wide (3x16:10) back when Bad Company 2 was the newest Battlefield. Aside from not being able to push the framerate I wanted, it was pretty cool. But yeah the HUD was difficult to work with being in the far sides of my side monitors. But lots of games were completely unplayable without modding, and the mod scene wasn't as robust as far as making it actually easy to patch in correct FOV for ultra-wide type setups.
clarky
Gold Member
Got a link my man? Seems big enough to me?
Last edited:
clarky
Gold Member
Last edited:
Represent.
Represent(ative) of bad opinions
What would that be like? Still No Ray Tracing, what eatures are we looking at here?
Seems big enough to me. Looks like its around twice the size of Lib peak?
Nearly all the flags are laid out in a straight line to encourage the 'tug of war' chokepoint based gameplay that is already a focus on the other maps. Its not open ended enough to really give off the BF sandbox feeling.
clarky
Gold Member
I dunno, im not in labs. I liked what I played so far, so they will get my cash come October.
I know its a dirty word around these parts but this is why I like live service games. More maps will come at a fairly decent clip and they can bring back old favourites if needed. I'm not worried about the maps at all.
People should be more worried about them sorting out Rush because it played like shit in the Beta.
Last edited:
KyoZz
Tag, you're it.
30 minutes of gameplay on Mirak Valley
Men_in_Boxes
Snake Oil Salesman
Mirak Valley...one of the three "big sandbox" maps...looks like that?
S0ULZB0URNE
Member
Which I prefer.The Firestorm layout leaked and compared to BF4 it looks like a good amount of the playable space was shrunk down....
bighugeguns
Gold Member
Does it matter if there's a freaking map editor available? Second I heard that the maps became an instant non-issue.Mirak Valley...one of the three "big sandbox" maps...looks like that?
Last edited:
Men_in_Boxes
Snake Oil Salesman
I never play the custom playlists in games.
I expected there wasn't any big maps. I mean they were shrinking maps in 2042 after it released. Half the kids play Breakthrough (Operations before that) aka Conquest dumbed and shrunken down. lol.
Last edited:
RaptorGTA
Member
The Firestorm layout leaked and compared to BF4 it looks like a good amount of the playable space was shrunk down....
im good with this change.
It looks like they increased the size of the base area to restrict base graping. Seems like the lower section of the map lost some area but I am fine with the layout overall.
R6Rider
Gold Member
Seems okay to me too, but I'd have to play to get a better judgement.
Avid Reading Horse
Member
INC
Member
Hmm this map size shit is getting odd tbh
Especially as a remake map being smaller........
Tbh most of the surrounding of firestorm was dead ground, apart from the large hill. But still.....weird
Guess Dice really do prefer to cater to non fans of BF games and cater to the infantry players, which is annoying because there's loads of infantry only games, but 1 really BF games
Oh well....ill have nothing and be grateful for it
Especially as a remake map being smaller........
Tbh most of the surrounding of firestorm was dead ground, apart from the large hill. But still.....weird
Guess Dice really do prefer to cater to non fans of BF games and cater to the infantry players, which is annoying because there's loads of infantry only games, but 1 really BF games
Oh well....ill have nothing and be grateful for it
coachmcguirk91
Member
Full game of conquest on Mirak Valley. Map looks good. Environment is much more open than anything in the beta
Last edited: