Support NeoGAF

[Shut0wen]

Yeah. The maps do suck..they need to release a Map called "retarded" and make it interesting.

They are just too open, which is fine if there are alot more smaller buildings, bushes or trees but there isnt, which is wouldnt be surprised if player count was max 60 but nope its 120 shit show

 

[nani17]

 

[Kings Field]

They got me for the ultimate edition of 2042 on launch. When I finally get around to suing these devs , they’re top priority for that fucking scam.

Blee dat playa

 

[chromhound]

I have been let down for way too long to believe them

 

[SmokedMeat]

I think Star Wars fucked everything up. They messed it up so badly with the P2Win shit, that they spent years trying to correct it. Those years ate into the development of Battlefield, which then released in an anemic state. Once again they apologized and spent years trying to make it what it needed to be.

It’s been a shit cycle they haven’t been able to break.

 

[ComputerBlue]

Battlefield portal should have been what brought the franchise back, instead they fucked that up too, I have zero faith in the next game, and I’ve liked all of them to some degree.

 

[Thanati]

They need to get back to player caused destruction and get away from that set piece stuff. Bad Company 2 was the most fun I've ever had with a BF game and you could destroy almost everything. Yeah they weren't in cities with sky scrapers but that was fine with me.

I think this sums it all up.

 

[Rocco Schiavone]

BF isn't hard to fix.

Just remake Bad Company 2. Listen to your fans you dipshits at EA

Listen to your fans??

EA on Battlefield 5 Controversy: "If You Don't Like it, Don't Buy it"

EA's Patrick Soderlund says he's fine with BF5's critics not playing his game.

www.gamerevolution.com

It's more about an agenda these days than selling games people enjoy.

 

[Crownttano]

The only hope I have currently is in David Sirland Tiggr

With David at DICE LA and help from Visceral (Hardline 2015) they really improved BF4 game play wise and net code after it's garbage launch from Sweden

 

[The artful mincer]

Has a game had better destruction tech than Red Faction Gurellia?

If a game has I haven't played it

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Why is destruction good?

Why do you guys care about it?

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

And it still would not matter

 

[Sybrix]

LOL

Heard it all before…pre-2042 all this was said then.

All bullshit, don’t believe the lies.

 

[cash_longfellow]

Do you guys remember the leaks pre 2042? That one clip with the building toppling and the face expression test? How we were told that 2042 would have the biggest destruction engine before any real marketing started?

Yeah, don't expect anything of the new BF

Yep…did true long-term fans really dirty with 2042. That was the last time I preordered a game, and I will never buy another Battlefield at launch or until it proves itself. Hopefully every one else who got duped again will do the same.

 

[YOU PC BRO?!]

DICE are sadly no longer capable of making a compelling Battlefield game. They are activists now. Making an authentic Battlefield experience is no longer as important to the business as pushing a certain ideological perspective.

BFV - Alan Kertz aka Demize99 - Design Director at Dice said the following (2018 comment):-

I knew this was going to be a fight when i pushed for female soldiers in Battlefield. I have a daughter, and I don't want to ever have to answer her question of "why can't I make a character that looks like me* with "because you're a girl."

I fundamentally feel to my core this is the right way and I will find myself on the right side of history-

And I think many people will play the game despite their reservations. And maybe lear something about either history or themselves.
That is part of the making games art.

Alan Kertz later left Dice in late 2020. Of course he takes no accountability for the failure that was BFV. He has nothing but excuses (2021 comment):-

It’s hard to salvage a game which was so divided internally on what it should be, especially coming back from parental leave after being away the entire main production period.

I gave it a direction. Not everyone liked it and not all of the direction was achieved. That’s life.

Battlefield 2042 launched in October 2021, DICE of course doubled down on the current day messaging. The star attraction being a non-binary They/Them pronoun pushing ambiguous black specialist called 'Sundance'. No, I'm not kidding.

Frustratingly, the incredibly talented developers that were around for the launch of BC2 and BF3 are long gone. Even once the most progressive ideological proponents of 'current day' leave in the form of Alan Kertz, they continue to push the same woke nonsense. Like many studios, they have been completely co-opted by modern progressivism. That 'current day' has taken root in a realistic online war sim is simply absurd. Do these people not know the target demograph? Sadly, no amount of destruction vfx in game will be able to expunge the damage that's been done to this once great franchise. Until the developers acknowledge their past missteps, regretfully - nothing will change.

 

[TransTrender]

I came here to post this.

These guys are busted and are completely unable to execute on a technical level.

 

[NeoGiffer]

Not interested if I can't do this in the lobby after a loss.

Spoiler

 

[winjer]

I came here to post this.

These guys are busted and are completely unable to execute on a technical level.

Exactly. The people left at Dice don't have the skill to do anything similar.
All we have to do is look at The Finals, to know where the people that made the destruction of Battlefield are now.

 

[DaciaJC]

Alan Kertz later left Dice in late 2020. Of course he takes no accountability for the failure that was BFV. He has nothing but excuses (2021 comment):-

I didn't realize he had left DICE, but I'm glad to see it. He was an awful influence on Battlefield going all the way back to BC1, one of the lead designers who oversaw the CoDification of the series.

 

[Spyxos]

Zero trust in a new Battlefield game. No matter how great the new trailer will look at first, I'm definitely not going to buy it on day 1.

 

[Phase]

All they'd have to do to bring BF back:

-modern setting, updated graphics, *improved destruction
-use BF3 as a framework for everything - weapons, progression, game modes, UI, class system etc. and add some unique weapons, vehicles, and gadgets
-include old popular maps, create some new maps
-have server browser and allow custom servers

Voila. Guaranteed hit that would sell well and even entice old players to come back.

 

[AzekZero]

I don't know if the Battlefield core audience even exists anymore. The diaspora either don't game anymore or found homes in other games/franchises.

I actually think DICE's best shot is another Star Wars Battlefront game. I wasn't a fan of the games but a lot of folks seemed to like them. Its a big audience that would probably come back if DICE come back swinging.

 

[Chronicle]

Good!

 

[Fatmanp]

Believe it when I see it. Destruction has gone down hill since BF3\4.

People should be more bothered about this being the first BF under Vince Zampella. He might end up having it like CoD\TF\Apex gameplay wise.

We are going to be slide hopping everywhere ffs

 

[Rocco Schiavone]

BFV - Alan Kertz aka Demize99 - Design Director at Dice said the following (2018 comment):-

I knew this was going to be a fight when i pushed for female soldiers in Battlefield. I have a daughter, and I don't want to ever have to answer her question of "why can't I make a character that looks like me* with "because you're a girl."

Dude is your daughter even old enough to play this game??

How can the community ask for authenticity in a WWII game??(Sarcasm)

F******* idiots.

 

[poppabk]

Dice already had great destruction way back in Bad Company 2

Yeah, just give me the next iteration of this type of destruction.

 

[EDMIX]

Destruction in BF1 and 5 was absolutely fine. Their focus should be on what made the BF franchise popular.

I mean, by default the destruction in BF 2042 is better, as in regarding BF1 and BF5, you did not have tanks going 100% thru structures....in BF5 you could only go thru a portion, like the sides of one or something like this.

It was fine in BF1, got better in BF5, got even better in 2042. Objectively, it has progressed with each BF as there seems to be a misconception on this feature.

Saying it will be more realistic or more detailed or better imho is Moot.

That is generally how its been with the BF titles and this sounds more like what we expect vs a claim.

Yep, to this day BF2 is still the peak of the series. Destruction has plenty of downsides, it certainly looks cool and can be fun to engage with but there will always be trade-offs. My concern with this focus on "industry-leading" destruction is that it might come at the expense of the actually important pillars of Battlefield: well-designed maps, well-designed classes, good Conquest mechanics, and thoughtful implementation of vehicles.

^ I've had this discussion before while playing BF years ago with gamers who played a lot of the series. Its not that wild imho. I love being able to destroy a lot of the map to achieve something, but I do also understand some level of competition and balance in the respect that the design and layout of the map must also still be able to be intact

So i get the design argument and I get why the map designers always had certain things that could not be destroyed in the BF series to create a balance.

(Yes BF MythBusters, you could not fucking level 100% of any BF game lol)

2042 has destruction though. Since launch.

Lacking compared to many of the previous titles, but still there.

I don't even know if I can say its lacking, merely that the amount of static structures in terms of ratio is not the same as some of the other maps due to having some of the largest maps in the series.

I think this is where many confuse the 2.

Every BF has more complex destruction by default, I think it is the ratio of objects that can be destroyed or not that maybe is what many are talking about, so I think when people say lacking, they merely mean the amount isn't to the same ratio vs no destruction or less or something like this.

It's more about an agenda these days than selling games people enjoy.

The deep lolz, you probably shouldn't play The Finals then, that is literally where that guy went....

 

[fersnake]

I mean, by default the destruction in BF 2042 is better, as in regarding BF1 and BF5, you did not have tanks going 100% thru structures....in BF5 you could only go thru a portion, like the sides of one or something like this.

It was fine in BF1, got better in BF5, got even better in 2042. Objectively, it has progressed with each BF as there seems to be a misconception on this feature.

Saying it will be more realistic or more detailed or better imho is Moot.

That is generally how its been with the BF titles and this sounds more like what we expect vs a claim.


^ I've had this discussion before while playing BF years ago with gamers who played a lot of the series. Its not that wild imho. I love being able to destroy a lot of the map to achieve something, but I do also understand some level of competition and balance in the respect that the design and layout of the map must also still be able to be intact

So i get the design argument and I get why the map designers always had certain things that could not be destroyed in the BF series to create a balance.

(Yes BF MythBusters, you could not fucking level 100% of any BF game lol)



I don't even know if I can say its lacking, merely that the amount of static structures in terms of ratio is not the same as some of the other maps due to having some of the largest maps in the series.

I think this is where many confuse the 2.

Every BF has more complex destruction by default, I think it is the ratio of objects that can be destroyed or not that maybe is what many are talking about, so I think when people say lacking, they merely mean the amount isn't to the same ratio vs no destruction or less or something like this.



The deep lolz, you probably shouldn't play The Finals then, that is literally where that guy went....

wtf is that? the swan?

 

[Esca]

I just want to blow shit up in a tank again like in towns and such. Bad company 2 <3

 

[Rocco Schiavone]

I mean, by default the destruction in BF 2042 is better, as in regarding BF1 and BF5, you did not have tanks going 100% thru structures....in BF5 you could only go thru a portion, like the sides of one or something like this.

It was fine in BF1, got better in BF5, got even better in 2042. Objectively, it has progressed with each BF as there seems to be a misconception on this feature.

Saying it will be more realistic or more detailed or better imho is Moot.

That is generally how its been with the BF titles and this sounds more like what we expect vs a claim.


^ I've had this discussion before while playing BF years ago with gamers who played a lot of the series. Its not that wild imho. I love being able to destroy a lot of the map to achieve something, but I do also understand some level of competition and balance in the respect that the design and layout of the map must also still be able to be intact

So i get the design argument and I get why the map designers always had certain things that could not be destroyed in the BF series to create a balance.

(Yes BF MythBusters, you could not fucking level 100% of any BF game lol)



I don't even know if I can say its lacking, merely that the amount of static structures in terms of ratio is not the same as some of the other maps due to having some of the largest maps in the series.

I think this is where many confuse the 2.

Every BF has more complex destruction by default, I think it is the ratio of objects that can be destroyed or not that maybe is what many are talking about, so I think when people say lacking, they merely mean the amount isn't to the same ratio vs no destruction or less or something like this.



The deep lolz, you probably shouldn't play The Finals then, that is literally where that guy went....

I never played The Finals. Don't know what game this is.

 

[chessy_08]

Give us server side destruction 1/4th as good as the finals and I'll give it a try

 

[systemr123]

I mean, if the PS3 could manage destruction, relatively simply, why can't these consoles? PS3 bf always had a supporting wall that couldn't be destroyed, but everything else did, and then replaced by an after collapse animation, covered by smoke etc.

The difference is that they had good devs at that time, not the lazy entitled danger hair half human type we do now, that complain about having less knitting classes during work times and maybe not unlimited soda.

 

[Hudo]

EA should make Titanfall 3 instead, where DICE can serve as an assistant studio to Respawn, making assets etc.

 

[delfrickintree]

DICE are sadly no longer capable of making a compelling Battlefield game. They are activists now. Making an authentic Battlefield experience is no longer as important to the business as pushing a certain ideological perspective.

BFV - Alan Kertz aka Demize99 - Design Director at Dice said the following (2018 comment):-

I knew this was going to be a fight when i pushed for female soldiers in Battlefield. I have a daughter, and I don't want to ever have to answer her question of "why can't I make a character that looks like me* with "because you're a girl."

I fundamentally feel to my core this is the right way and I will find myself on the right side of history-

And I think many people will play the game despite their reservations. And maybe lear something about either history or themselves.
That is part of the making games art.

Alan Kertz later left Dice in late 2020. Of course he takes no accountability for the failure that was BFV. He has nothing but excuses (2021 comment):-

It’s hard to salvage a game which was so divided internally on what it should be, especially coming back from parental leave after being away the entire main production period.

I gave it a direction. Not everyone liked it and not all of the direction was achieved. That’s life.

Battlefield 2042 launched in October 2021, DICE of course doubled down on the current day messaging. The star attraction being a non-binary They/Them pronoun pushing ambiguous black specialist called 'Sundance'. No, I'm not kidding.

Frustratingly, the incredibly talented developers that were around for the launch of BC2 and BF3 are long gone. Even once the most progressive ideological proponents of 'current day' leave in the form of Alan Kertz, they continue to push the same woke nonsense. Like many studios, they have been completely co-opted by modern progressivism. That 'current day' has taken root in a realistic online war sim is simply absurd. Do these people not know the target demograph? Sadly, no amount of destruction vfx in game will be able to expunge the damage that's been done to this once great franchise. Until the developers acknowledge their past missteps, regretfully - nothing will change.

What a flaming pussy lol .. why is he anywhere near a game about war and tactics and chaos and violence. One day his daughter will kick his ass for not raising her like a man should. Girls need strong dads, and battlefield needs chad developers

 

[Putonahappyface]

Battlefield 2042 already had very good destruction effects - it destroyed the franchise.

 

[EDMIX]

EA should make Titanfall 3 instead, where DICE can serve as an assistant studio to Respawn, making assets etc.

no.

TitanFall 3 likely still being made, but I see zero reason for this to be a "instead" thing

Doesn't really make sense...

wtf is that? the swan?

lol I like the wild, out there style of the game, but I do find it funny that many overlooked a lot of the um....questionable things in The Finals and simply didn't put the connection together that it was done by the BFV guys lol

I never played The Finals. Don't know what game this is.

New Free To Play MP game made by some of the ex DICE guys....the ones that said "don't like it, don't buy it" from BFV crew. lol

The difference is that they had good devs at that time, not the lazy enti

Yea...soooo that has nothing to do with that. Dear god, lets keep the conversation about the tech involved with this instead of this whole triggered crying thing man.

The destruction in each BF has progressively gotten more and more complex by default, as in the destruction in BFBC2, is more complex then from BFBC1. From BF3, BF4, BF1, BFV and 2024, it has gotten more complex.

From pre-scripted, to physics based, to weapon penetration based on material, to tanks damaging buildings based on movement, to going thru buildings 100% thru.

As someone that has played all the BF titles, I can very much confirm that is a progressive upgrade objectively, as in each game is adding more and more and its getting more complex. I don't now if I can say any title had a step back in this regard.

This is not debating the idea of some bluehaired person talking about things they thing make moral sense in BFV lol This is telling you the fucking thing you are talking about was never actually downgraded or had much if any steps back.

if the PS3 could manage destruction, relatively simply, why can't these consoles?

? Can't? Based on what? Like...objectively provide evidence to show us something on PS3 was done with any BF, that is doing something the new ones can't..... I've heard this myth more times then I've seen it proven and it seems that most who don't even actually play this IP keep spreading this weird myth about those titles.

 

[Hudo]

TitanFall 3 likely still being made, but I see zero reason for this to be a "instead" thing

Well, I don't see DICE being competent enough to make a decent game by themselves. So instead of closing the studio, they can still serve as an support studio and developers of the Frostbite engine.

I mean, EA demoted Criterion to a support studio, even though Criterion's last games were pretty good. So I dunno why EA keep DICE around but turn actual good studios into support.

 

[EDMIX]

Well, I don't see DICE being competent enough to make a decent game by themselves. So instead of closing the studio, they can still serve as an support studio and developers of the Frostbite engine.

I mean, EA demoted Criterion to a support studio, even though Criterion's last games were pretty good. So I dunno why EA keep DICE around but turn actual good studios into support.

I mean, their last several games still moved millions of units, so this just sounds like exaggerative hyperbole. I don't see anything here suggesting they'd be a support studio

I also have nothing against ReSpawn, but they are not making anything even near as massive or as complex as a BF title lol Its why they even fucking made Titanfall, that is the type of thing they do best and I think it'd make sense to just have both team stick to where they work best at.

Even as bad as 2042 turned out, the game is literally still amongst the best selling BF titles.

Battlefield 2042 Has Second-Best Launch In Series Despite Poor Reception

Trailing behind 2011's Battlefield 3.

screenrant.com

I mean, with this same logic, how many times should Call Of Duty had failed? lol Be like "only the 3rd best selling Call Of Duty, seems like da studio be closed down" and or "why doez day keep dem around" lol

This simply isn't it man.

It would take a massive fucking flop, like best of nothing, zero records broken, topping zero charts or something in order for that to even be in the conversation, shit it would need to happen like several times lol Look at MGS Survive, we are talking about a massive, massive flop, yeeeeeeet MGS3 remake happening, rumor of MGS1 remake.

I don't think some of you understand what it really takes to kill an IP, it can't just be your feelings regarding a title you didn't like, it must objectively be some record low numbers, non-chart topping stuff back to back to really see that occur.

So when EA sees a game out of the gate have a stronger launch then BF4, BFBC1 and BFBC2 COMBINED in sales, its really, really hard to pretend as if this is the one that will kill em.

BFV didn't even chart near the top, yet they made 2042.....yet you think 2042 would stop them from making another BF despite it being more successful for them?

So...I just don't see it. I think you'd need back to back to back flops OBJECITVELY in order to see them either shift a team or focus on a different IP. Look at how they treated Medal Of Honor, that at least is a good example of what EA would do in a situation like that to use as a template or something.

So we'll likely see TF3, BF (what ever the fuck they call it lol), APEX2 etc side by side.

 

[bender]

Yeah ... Except for Battlefield 1942, Battlefield Vietnam, Battlefield 2...

I miss this era of Battlefield so much.

 

[EDMIX]

I miss this era of Battlefield so much.

Portal 2 must be a priority for the next BF lol

AT ALL COST!

I want more options to change different settings. I would love a BF that was just all the maps and all the weapons from the whole series in this alternate universe.

That would take a long time to remake so many of those maps though

 

[Jesb]

I want destructible environments where it’s not always gonna be the same result.

 

[tr1p1ex]

WAs my fav franchise. I finally quit without buying 2042. But really was out of there earlier. I got BFV but not until it was dirt cheap. And barely played it. BF1 was fine in many ways...except the UX like unbalanced matchups, too much dead time, ring around the rosie musical flags, BF homework, and more. BFV was terrible. It wasn't that fun to play unless you wanted to hide in the weeds. And 2042 was terribly unfinished.

I really only liked BF4 because I got into a side mode - Obliteration. That was some fun if you played the objective. But they gave up on that. Even tho they said it was great fun in the office. And that's another thing - they always make these new modes and then send them out to die. What's the point of that? It seems like a waste of development.

They really need to feature different modes and rotate them so they get played. Otherwise what often happens if people play the lowest common denominator. And gamers have the patience of a gnat so they aren't to join a server with only a few people and thus new modes die out. And that's another huge flaw in the UX. How many times in the past few games do they put you on servers with almost no players. Or I remember a small team mode in BFV and a few times teams would be like ~7 vs ~1. And iirc don't think you could even switch teams.

I mean if teams are that uneven ...a few players should be allowed to switch teams. Even better the server should make the teams even automagically.

All that stuff was horrible. I lump it all under the UX category.

In my mind they don't work on that stuff because it isn't easy to sell like prettier graphics or 300 different assault rifles.

 

[Inviusx]

They have no trends to chase this time. BR is played out and nothing has replaced it. They should focus on what made Battlefield the king of its genre for so long and get back to basics. I think the world is ready to return. COD is spinning its tires, Fortnite is its own thing off to the side that has its own dedicated fans, Destiny is dead and e-sports feels like it's fallen off a cliff. Return to your roots and remind us why Battlefield ruled for a decade.

 

[Halo is Back]

I mean, by default the destruction in BF 2042 is better, as in regarding BF1 and BF5, you did not have tanks going 100% thru structures....in BF5 you could only go thru a portion, like the sides of one or something like this.

It was fine in BF1, got better in BF5, got even better in 2042. Objectively, it has progressed with each BF as there seems to be a misconception on this feature.

Come on bro, Destruction in 2042 is nearly non-existent. BF5, 3, and 4 did a much better job of balancing destruction between spectacle and impact on gameplay.

 

[KaiserBecks]

They need to get back to player caused destruction and get away from that set piece stuff. Bad Company 2 was the most fun I've ever had with a BF game and you could destroy almost everything. Yeah they weren't in cities with sky scrapers but that was fine with me.

I agree, BF4 was dope though. Either way would be fine. What’s more important to me is that they should add some weight to the weapons and scratch that on the fly gun modding bullshit.

 

[Kupfer]

I miss this era of Battlefield so much.

Battlefield 2 Project Reality Mod was peak Battlefield.

 

[Gp1]

BF isn't hard to fix.

Just remake Bad Company 2. Listen to your fans you dipshits at EA

Fixed for ya

 

[EDMIX]

Come on bro, Destruction in 2042 is nearly non-existent

^ can you prove this?

I mean holy shit, you don't think its weird I'm saying all this or?



Sooooo I'm going to say this yet again...

All the BF's by default have a more complex destruction mechanic then the last. That wasn't a fucking "non-existent" thing in 2042, this by default was the most advanced compared to the last titles.

So....I get 2042 did a lot of things wrong, I don't fucking think telling folks a god damn tank going into a structure 100% with physics is now the thing they don't want in the next BF series.

Where on Earth was the last BF titles doing something more complex then this?

Do you have actual video proof of this mysterious epic BF title that no one was fucking seen before or?


Soooooo when they are making this statement about the next having the most realistic destruction, I don't think that is bullshit or just a claim, I'd argue that is the one area they have done well in title after title in regards to objective advances making that concept more advanced. So I don't think most even know what the fuck they are talking about regarding this subject, as someone that put literally thousands of hours in this whole series, I generally play in between entries, like playing BF4 while playing BF1 or BFV while playing BF4 or 2042 while playing BFV etc and I'm telling you I know the difference from title to title cause I played more then enough to realize some of the game can do something and some of them can't based on how that concept has advanced.

Which means I can go thru a house with a tank in 2042, I can't in BF1, I can go through part of a house in BFV etc

Cauuuus I fucking play the whole series, thus know the statement I'm making is a factual one regarding how the entries have progressed. It has always been an additional, progress, more complex thing as each title has released, it has never been massive step backs like you can blow a hole in a wall in 1 game, yet can't in another

or you can destroy a roof in 1 game, but the next you can't.

That has never happened in BF. By default each one that follows is doing something the past titles cannot.

So I don't think the statements being made about the next BF sound like a wild claim, factually, that is how the BF series has progressed in that area, if anything it sounds moot. Like a given.

https://battlefield.fandom.com/wiki/Destruction#Pre-Frostbite_Engine

So you can see yourself how that concept has advanced each title.

 

[Xtib81]

What I really hope we get in the future is debris that stays on the ground. Even in the finals, when you destroy a wall, all the debris disappears immediately. Talk about immersion..

 

[Starbuck2907]

2042 has become a pretty fun game. The destruction is lacking though. There is destruction but the big maps and the way the structures are designed often make it a secondary feature. Blowing a wall out isn’t exactly mind blowing tech anymore.

In the past couple of games, they made the mistake of thinking huge maps and high player counts were more fun than crazy amounts of destruction.