That is a pretty big looking map, and it seems to have a lot of interiors and verticality to mix things up.
Still iffy on the amount of content, but I'm feeling a little better about the maps themselves.
battlefield 5 goes full sjw - badass woman with prosthetic hand in ww2, sure...
- Thread starter Nazi vegeta
- Start date
-
Sister services, email, and search will continue to be negatively effected by the attacks. I made a thread to talk about it, if you're into networking.
Still iffy on the amount of content, but I'm feeling a little better about the maps themselves.
I don't mind too much if the game has few maps so long as those few maps are really, REALLY good.
iceteayo
kiwifarms.net
Game looks cool concept wise but holy fuck is the hero class shit pissing me off more than it needs to. According to Dice they said people picked their class more on weapon than gadgets which yes people did but they typically lost. Weapon Restrictions and Classes in general were a sense of balance (I have a good infantry killing weaponry but cant take on tanks)
They’re trying to remove the concept of trade offs from the game entirely and let people who are too dumb to plan ahead have fun while making poor choices. I hear people say we need this on-the-go adaptability because the maps are bigger and you’ll switch load outs in different areas. But why would you be staying alive longer? If the map is twice as big as a bf4 map, and has double the players, it has the exact same player density as the previous game. The true answer is that retards need to be given crutches that aren’t even really crutches since sweats have access to the same features.
The literal Battlefield Hero shooter Battlefield Heroes had fucking classes with weapon restrictions/specific gadgets and abilities for fucks sake yet people say the removal of them in 2042 is a much needed change for freedom? Man fuck off why are Battlefield fanboys like this?
They’re trying to remove the concept of trade offs from the game entirely and let people who are too dumb to plan ahead have fun while making poor choices. I hear people say we need this on-the-go adaptability because the maps are bigger and you’ll switch load outs in different areas. But why would you be staying alive longer? If the map is twice as big as a bf4 map, and has double the players, it has the exact same player density as the previous game. The true answer is that retards need to be given crutches that aren’t even really crutches since sweats have access to the same features.
The literal Battlefield Hero shooter Battlefield Heroes had fucking classes with weapon restrictions/specific gadgets and abilities for fucks sake yet people say the removal of them in 2042 is a much needed change for freedom? Man fuck off why are Battlefield fanboys like this?
they could've done that just the same, alt-history is a thing. fuck I much rather see a proper AAA dieselpunk battlefield than "bf4.5: remember 2142?" edition (and I've played naval strike, I know how that's gonna end)
that's dumb (it's dice, it was to be expected), especially when they later on heavily diluted the weapon pool so you can have almost every type on every class anyway, after which it came down to the gadget depending what you wanted to do. the weapons were just an utility at that point for the most part.
this reeks like the same shit of MUH COUNTERPICKING a la overwatch that was copying tf2 without understanding what makes it work.
it's even more retarded in battlefield, because there are roughly 2 types of players: the first one getting dunked on by a tank, respawns and keeps running into the meatgrinder, the second one switching class, BTFO the tankwhore, and then switches back. that kind of "adaptability" has been in the game since the fucking first game, and the only people that clamor for it are the same dipshits that won't use it, because "no, someone else change to X to counter Y, not me".
map and team size is a retarded argument too when the average battlefield map is a hot turd and your average team is less organized than roaches when the light turns on.
zoomers and unironical cod-kiddies. you could see it around IW when the meme-push finally bore fruit with"cod is for kids, battlefield is what all the cool dudes play!", after bf heavily pandered to them (which incidentally also meant pandering to consolebabbies since that was where almost everyone played it, which on top of dice' incompetence of understanding what made conquest work caused shit-tier conquest layouts due to hardware limitations).
now any suggestion that goes above "cod with vehicles" is met with "just play arma if you want a milsim faget", because apparently there can be only one type of arcadey boots-on-the-ground fps or have it require even an ounce of effort.
For me the dumbest part is how shockingly current year it all looks. 20 years in the future and we're still running around with Apaches, Hinds, Little Birds, and "lol this gun is so tacticool" rifles? Be inventive, be somewhat futuristic at least.
I think this is pretty realistic for just 20 years in the future to be honest, I wouldn't expect military tech to be much advanced beyond what's depicted in the game.
Sci fi that's set too soon and is too futuristic is a pet peeve of mine, remember Black Ops 2 which was set in 2025 and it's vision of the future is laughable today, there's also Deux Ex: Human Revolution which was set in 2027 and I'm pretty sure the future's not going to be like that (although to be fair Deus Ex could be seen as an alternate future, with the divergence point being 2000 when the first game released, not 2011 when HR came out)
2042's more realistic approach is one thing that's interesting about the game to me, if you want to go crazy have it be set 50 or 100 years in the future.
I'm not talking about the tech itself so much as just the aesthetics. Like the Apache. Why is that a thing 20 years from now? Or the Little Bird which I believe has already largely been replaced, especially in a hot combat zone like that? We already had a potential replacement for the Apache in the 80's with the Comanche. I mean, no need to go all "woo super-tech", but having things look noticeably different from current year isn't a big deal to ask, and going back to the 80's drawing board for inspiration isn't hard, since that's where things were headed before the end of the Cold War killed all those large-scale R&D projects.
EDIT: To actually get a cohesive argument, I'm suggesting DICE look at the radical innovative concepts we had during the 80's, and then find a way to merge them with the current slow iterations of the existing gear we had then.
iceteayo
kiwifarms.net
Battlefield needs competition and no COD doesn’t count I’m talking about an actual casual combined arms FPS. We used to get the clone or two but they all seemingly died.
That's the most realistic part of the game. The USMC only now just retired the Cobra AH-1W that's been in service since 1986 and was an upgrade from the -1J that's been in service since Vietnam.
You have no idea how long the military keeps around some of this shit, they were still using APCs from Vietnam in Afghanistan. Lots of REMF units are still using M16A2s.
EDIT:
For a further look at reality, small arms themselves have barely advanced much past the 1960s. We're still using the AR and the Russians are still using AKs and the advances to them in the past 60 years have been relatively minor. There has been no other small arms on the planet in constant military usage for that long.
Last edited:
Explain the jet-powered Osprey replacement they showed off that looks like it was one of Farida Malik's rides, then. Because I don't see why that would get replaced before the Apache. You're not wrong that the weapons of war in actual 2042 are almost certainly going to be bland and boring, but you can't have the cyberpunk jet tilt-engine VTOL's and rocket-assisted vehicle airdrops while keeping in the modern day stuff without some serious aesthetic clashes.
Explain it? DICE. They don't know their heads from their asses. The last time they actually did something new was Cops and Robbers and that didn't last long.
Miller
kiwifarms.net
Not only that but each class had a distinct playermodel, so it was easier for you to know who was the bigger threat from a relatively safe distance. Now with BF 2042 it's going to be like [current year] CoD, a bunch of heroes holding random weapons and wearing wacky uniforms from the Battle Passes.
The only "futuristic" stuff from the trailer seems to be a grappling hook
I wanted some near-future Battlefield. I don't care about tornadoes in a big city or a random sand storm in Dubai, that's not why I play BF. DICE couldn't even come up with an interesting setting. Russia as the enemy? Really?
Na, they showed off a few shots of what looked like a jet-powered Osprey with some fancy stabilizers on the tail and a redux of the F-22 did some flybys.Not only that but each class had a distinct playermodel, so it was easier for you to know who was the bigger threat from a relatively safe distance. Now with BF 2042 it's going to be like [current year] CoD, a bunch of heroes holding random weapons and wearing wacky uniforms from the Battle Passes.
The only "futuristic" stuff from the trailer seems to be a grappling hook
I wanted some near-future Battlefield. I don't care about tornadoes in a big city or a random sand storm in Dubai, that's not why I play BF. DICE couldn't even come up with an interesting setting. Russia as the enemy? Really?
wasn't dice, that was visceral. it also had far better maps and modes (even their metro clone was actually good) with a good re-iteration on the design - for example there was only one sniper and it wasn't the "sit in the back and go 5/25" variant. I'm still convinced if EA would've sold it as bf5 or mainline game it would've had more success (people play shit like 4 and V after all), but asking 60 bucks + premium pass for what most conceived from the start as bf4 dlc was pure idiocy, all while bf4 still got major support (due to dice sweden almost driving the franchise into a wall)
what's the point then tho? it's only 2041 to reel in suckers that think dice sweden will manage to follow 2142. if the future looks like contemporary tech, why even bother?
not saying you have to go full balls to the walls future with laserguns everywhere etc, but I want a bit more effort than slapping a name on the game that looks like the ps5 version of bf4 to invoke nostalgia and sell via "remember the last time battlefield was good"?
plus I find it even more hilarious that cod cucked dice again with cold war (cold war gone hot was pretty much always in the top three of scenarios people wanted to see when the topic came up) to the point it feels activision pays more attention to the battlefield "community" than dice or ea itself, and literally all those retards can come up with is blops 4 with vehicles...
Did any of you know that Battlefield was originally pitched to Nintendo as a Gamecube exclusive?
www.nintendoworldreport.com
Battlefield on the Gamecube. What would that look like?
Battlefield Could Have Been Exclusive to GameCube - News
Unfortunately, it never got past the first line because Nintendo had no online strategy.
Battlefield developer DICE pitched Battlefield as a GameCube exclusive to Nintendo, according to Penny Arcade's Jeff Kalles (and former Nintendo of America employee) on our 2nd Annual Live Podcast Telethon for Child's Play.
Apparently, despite Nintendo's love for the initial pitch, it never got past the gatekeepers because Nintendo had no online strategy in place.
It is worth noting that developers routinely pitch publishers all the time, and Nintendo was likely part of DICE's rounds when they were making Battlefield. Still, imagine if Nintendo had the force of Battlefield to build an online infrastructure around.
You'll be able to hear the whole segment, which featured Kalles, Site Founder Billy Berghammer, Totally Rad Show's Jeff Cannata, and former Planet GameCube staffer Rick Powers, in the next few days.
Battlefield on the Gamecube. What would that look like?
Similar threads
