——The Official Battlefield 6 Thread——

They need to find developers who've actually played the BF series of games before and understand how it works.
It was quite evident in BF2042 that none of them had played before. I think every map got a rework as they just didn't play well. That's a basic misunderstanding of what makes BF good.
 
RevBillyG said:
They need to find developers who've actually played the BF series of games before and understand how it works.
It was quite evident in BF2042 that none of them had played before. I think every map got a rework as they just didn't play well. That's a basic misunderstanding of what makes BF good.
Click to expand...
I quite liked 2042 after the first year - but 100% agree with this, it felt like the game was designed by people who never understood what made BF games so enjoyable to play.

It only took a few hours of playing at launch to realise that not only were the maps way too big, they were also just so sparse and poorly stitched together. It's a small thing but the lack of cover between points meant you were essentially forced into running smoke grenades at all opportunities. At least in games like BFV where you had open areas you could at least crouch sprint through the fields that had some cover on them.

Had the maps / structure of the maps been better, I think it would have masked a lot of the games wider issues with the lack of classes/characters/weird voice lines etc.

I also really think 128p modes were not the way to go, 64p just played better in every instance.
 
I'm still playing BF2042 (over 700hours) and still quite enjoy it. I, personally, do like some open maps. I miss the BF2,3,4 massively open maps at times.
 
t2na said:
I quite liked 2042 after the first year - but 100% agree with this, it felt like the game was designed by people who never understood what made BF games so enjoyable to play.

It only took a few hours of playing at launch to realise that not only were the maps way too big, they were also just so sparse and poorly stitched together. It's a small thing but the lack of cover between points meant you were essentially forced into running smoke grenades at all opportunities. At least in games like BFV where you had open areas you could at least crouch sprint through the fields that had some cover on them.

Had the maps / structure of the maps been better, I think it would have masked a lot of the games wider issues with the lack of classes/characters/weird voice lines etc.

I also really think 128p modes were not the way to go, 64p just played better in every instance.
Click to expand...
I couldn't believe the completely missing fixed weapons in each POI. If you were running assault or even an Engineer with the wrong Loadout and a tank rocked up to your POI as you were capping it there wasn't a single thing you could do except withdraw and run away. Or die. Every POI in 3 and 4 and to an extent One and V had some sort of stationary weapon that you could use. Many in 3 or 4 had missile launchers to take on vehicles. 2042 doesn't even have fixed LMG's.
 
Last edited:
RevBillyG said:
They need to find developers who've actually played the BF series of games before and understand how it works.
It was quite evident in BF2042 that none of them had played before. I think every map got a rework as they just didn't play well. That's a basic misunderstanding of what makes BF good.
Click to expand...

I get the feeling and it's rife in modern gaming that their just making the games the suits want you to play, which is why they're always chasing dead or well - filled niches and trends.

The fish rots from the head, and of course you combine that with massive studios of yesterday, who are just studious in name only, and you get endless AAA slop.
 
Last edited:
MissChief said:
The thought is it's a conscious decision to try and sell more skins.
Click to expand...
Yeah does sound like it, people are more likely to buy weapon skins if they can use the weapon with any class, who cares if it ruins the game right? The enhanced abilities you get for using a class signature weapon sound pretty mediocre at best. Support class is going to be a campers wet dream and I don't like the sound of assault being able to carry 2 primary weapons....
 
Hate getting my hopes up for this but as a veteran BF player i cant help but hope against hope.
Lets be honest BF1 was/is casual mode BFV is just meh as is BF 2042.
Its not been BF since BF4 :(
 
Last edited:
Cully said:
Hate getting my hopes up for this but as a veteran BF player i cant help but hope against hope.
Lets be honest BF1 was/is casual mode BFV is just meh as is BF 2042.
Its not been BF since BF4 :(
Click to expand...
You are no longer the demographic for EA the franchise of old is dead. R.I.P
 
MissChief said:
New Battlefield Labs report came out today:
They're sticking with the 'no weapons fixed to classes' idea again. :mad::( Which just muddies the point of classes completely. I also don't like that Support does healing and ammo.
Click to expand...

Well that’s my hopes dwindled for this game. If they can’t understand the basic logics of what makes BF great then I give up.
 
Combat Fighter said:
Well that’s my hopes dwindled for this game. If they can’t understand the basic logics of what makes BF great then I give up.
Click to expand...
There is some semblance of good news though! Currently closed beta has two modes running, class locked signature weapons, and open, classless weapons to see what people prefer. There are rumours of an open beta coming around the 12th of August as well, with both options available too. It will be interesting what the masses choose to play.
 
Combat Fighter said:
Well that’s my hopes dwindled for this game. If they can’t understand the basic logics of what makes BF great then I give up.
Click to expand...
Do we really think limiting certain weapons to classes is absolutely vital to BF? I think there are so many more important things that make a BF game great than just restricting what weapons are available to who.

I understand the nostalgia of limiting what weapons specific classes can access but I've never felt like it made a notable improvement to gameplay because an engineer can only access smgs or shotguns, or recon can only access sniper rifles.
 
Yaayuh! said:
Yes. :P
Click to expand...
Why do you think that? I'm just keen to understand why class restricting weapons seems so important to some people, not trying to be deliberately annoying!

It doesn't help with forcing team work, the rest of the class kits do that (i.e. defibs vs. repair tools vs. ammo crates etc.) - so it should be more about creating clear differences in the kit for each class vs. the weapons available.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom