*** The Official Battlefield 5 thread***

HazardO said:
The squad system is a PITA. bf1 at least allowed platoon join, and if a platoon squad wasn't full it would do it's best to switch you into it. Now it's back to SWBF1 but with 4 slots. The game is not (whatever DICE say about it being a priority) designed for a squad of friends to play together easily. EA have had too many complaints from casual players being destroyed by a team with an organised squad on it (I don't mean mil sim role-players, I just mean a competent squad playing together with VOIP.). A significant number of their customers have no wish to co-operate or co-ordinate with friends (or can't) so despite the "We want you to play it with your friends" platitudes, the deck is deliberately stacked against. Our platoon has had a lot of flak from pub servers and even EA hosted Friday night battlefield games where players have left going "Oh no it's those hackers again". Kudos to EA_Atic who runs the show for seeing us as we are (A group of enthusiastic, non potato, no cheat fans).

Battlefield for a long time has tried to walk a fine line between being a proper squad/team game where without the squad/team you're screwed, and being an accessible game. Squad seems a great game but requires significantly more social investment to succeed, because it has even more focus on squad/team play in a "harder core" environment. Squad isn't pulling the same number of players not because it's not a brilliant game (especially given the budget vs DICE) but because people don't have the time or patience to invest in gitting gud. The easiest way to attract the larger casual market is to make it extremely difficult for good groups of players to get repayment for their time investment and farm noobs.
Click to expand...

Indeed! (Good wall of text :D)
 
God, ranking up the Churchill tank is like pulling teeth, it's like you're in control of a 30 stone Sumo with 2 broken legs.
 
HazardO said:
The squad system is a PITA. bf1 at least allowed platoon join, and if a platoon squad wasn't full it would do it's best to switch you into it. Now it's back to SWBF1 but with 4 slots. The game is not (whatever DICE say about it being a priority) designed for a squad of friends to play together easily. EA have had too many complaints from casual players being destroyed by a team with an organised squad on it (I don't mean mil sim role-players, I just mean a competent squad playing together with VOIP.). A significant number of their customers have no wish to co-operate or co-ordinate with friends (or can't) so despite the "We want you to play it with your friends" platitudes, the deck is deliberately stacked against. Our platoon has had a lot of flak from pub servers and even EA hosted Friday night battlefield games where players have left going "Oh no it's those hackers again". Kudos to EA_Atic who runs the show for seeing us as we are (A group of enthusiastic, non potato, no cheat fans).

Battlefield for a long time has tried to walk a fine line between being a proper squad/team game where without the squad/team you're screwed, and being an accessible game. Squad seems a great game but requires significantly more social investment to succeed, because it has even more focus on squad/team play in a "harder core" environment. Squad isn't pulling the same number of players not because it's not a brilliant game (especially given the budget vs DICE) but because people don't have the time or patience to invest in gitting gud. The easiest way to attract the larger casual market is to make it extremely difficult for good groups of players to get repayment for their time investment and farm noobs.
Click to expand...

This isn't a 'Battlefield' game though. It may be called 'Battlefield V', but it's really 'Call of Battlefield Duty'.
 
Colonel_Klinck said:
BF3 was the best gun play of any of the BF series. I saw a comment from a dude on YouTube saying the gunplay felt more like BF3. God I hope that is true. All I've wanted is an updated BF3, that game was near perfect.
Click to expand...


BF3 came out like 5 minutes ago, i can understand wanting remasters or remakes of a game but bf3? MOH:AA is something i'd love to see a remake of seeing as it's 16 years old now.
 
Amazing how it's 2018 and yet you can't join a friends server if their squad is full... I actually miss battlelog sometimes, which is really saying something.
 

Mack's reviews are very hit and miss, but he's entertaining nonetheless.

Funnily enough, he gave BF1 a thumbs-up, despite it being a step backwards from past iterations. BF5 is a step in the right direction, and will get better with time.
 
Played thru the single player and am very dissapointed, its a bug fest with stuttering cut scenes, floating enemys and comedy shadows but this was almost to be expected.

Mp however is a different story all together, performance is fantastic hit reg seems good but the games just cod with a bf skin, with a constant spawn - run to a then run to b then back to a etc etc etc much the same as bf1.

Dissapointed, but after bf1 (which was a huge pile of detritus) and a boring beta i wasnt expecting much
 
Mark1989 said:
I thought battlefeild 1 was ***** in every aspect, bad company 2 is the best with 3/4 being awesome too imo.

What's people's view here on 5? Is it like 1 but tweaked or is it generally totally different?

If it's like one ill pass
Click to expand...

For me its the match making, its utterly terrible trying to join a game that your mates are in if they are in a squad. That and the likely hood that actual rent-able servers are unlikely to ever appear.
 
Gerard said:

Great to see AA is ineffective to say the least, and a pin point accurate third person bombing reticle....
Click to expand...

That totally sucks. They will have to change something there, if someone who doesn't know what he is doing can fly about with impunity can you imagine how bad it will be when the pros have mastered it down to a fine art?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom