Jump to content

Battlefield V


Mysteryman
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'm sick of shooting at pixels(far away opponents) in battlefield games. Bfbc2 had just the right scale of map and player count so that gunplay was always fun and impactful. There was always 1 chopper.. 1 tank or 2 sniper spots to counter against. It was kinda like overwatch.. but military. Battlefield nowadays has become like an uncontrollable sensory overload of sorts with really bad framerate and a chore with controller. In BF1 the best mode for me was 32 player operations.. but then they removed it in favour of its 64 player variant which was a chaotic mess- imagine 64 players fighting on the area the size of "1" rush checkpoint. 

 

Dont have high hopes from this one either.. they will just make it bigger and more chaotic with buildings falling on my head and air baloons crashing in my face, because marketing. f**k off.

 

Bring back Bfbc!

 

/rant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, mango_man said:

 

Bring back Bfbc!

 

/rant

I hope they don't really. It'll only be bfbc in name and I'd hate that. It's over. 

 

Of course when it does I'll get suckered into it and I'll be disappointed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mango_man said:

really bad framerate and a chore with controller.

 

How is that a game problem? If your system isn't good enough, then that's how it's going to be. 

 

It's always a chore to play a shooter with a controller. 

 

In BF1 the best mode for me was 32 player operations.. but then they removed it in favour of its 64 player variant which was a chaotic mess- imagine 64 players fighting on the area the size of "1" rush checkpoint.

 

Because everyone cried that 32 is too little. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Joe Cool said:

 

How is that a game problem? If your system isn't good enough, then that's how it's going to be. 

 

It's always a chore to play a shooter with a controller. 

 

Because everyone cried that 32 is too little. 

Its a game problem if it runs at a sub par and jittery 30-40fps with screen tearing on the platforms it sells most copies on and has the highest playerbase in(Ps4+X1). If your biggest market segment cant access your game at the standard quality of smooth 60fps or even a smooth locked 30fps then its not worth it. No matter how many buildings crash into a glitchy rubble of traversal nightmare or ships and trains wreck havoc with a gazillion smoke and fire effects, or how many number of players are running around the map. Either limit the scale of the game itself or sacrifice the graphics and game elements to give a smooth gameplay experience. 

 

As for controllers.. no its not always a chore with shooters. Its not a chore if you dont have to try and shoot at tiny pixels 500m away from the barrel of your gun with the inaccurate right analog stick and the whimsical autoaim. Add to that variable fps and its proper torture.

 

Again you might say that its my problem but its not.. its a problem of accessibility of all standard console players who are also the game's biggest target consumers! You might not fully understand what I am saying because you may not have played PVP shooters on consoles with a controller, but all these little things add up and can either make or break the entire experience in PVP. 

 

Thats where BFBC2 succeeded. Even BF3 to some extent. And Overwatch. Even COD franchise by the same metric. Btw, I am strictly talking consoles here.

 

P.S. I think 32 player operations was removed because of matchmaking problems and the ever shrinking playerbase.. also it wasnt searchable in server browser till recently which made it worse. 32 player operations was really good as it had a comprehensible amount of chaos, action and strategy.

Edited by mango_man
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, mango_man said:

Its a game problem if it runs at a sub par and jittery 30-40fps with screen tearing on the platforms it sells most copies on and has the highest playerbase in(Ps4+X1).

 

Because that's the max console hardware can take it...  

 

6 minutes ago, mango_man said:

 Either limit the scale of the game itself or sacrifice the graphics and game elements to give a smooth gameplay experience. 

 

So people can complain more? Saying PC got large scale, we should also get one? Cry about a downgrade? etc,.

 

3 minutes ago, mango_man said:

As for controllers.. no its not always a chore with shooters. Its not a chore if you dont have to try and shoot at tiny pixels 500m away from the barrel of your gun with the inaccurate right analog stick and the whimsical autoaim. Add to that variable fps and its proper torture.

5

 

It always is. 

 

Not sure how suddenly sniping 500m away makes it an extra chore when Battlefield games were always big and 500m is common. 

 

Quote

Again you might say that its my problem but its not.. its a problem of accessibility of all standard console players who are also the game's biggest target consumers! 

 

Millions will disagree but sure. If it was a "common" problem, the PS4 wouldn't be the strongest Battlefield base at the moment. 

 

5 minutes ago, mango_man said:

Thats where BFBC2 succeeded. And Overwatch. Even COD franchise by the same metric.

 

You are talking as if Bad Company 2 / Battlefield 3 didn't have issues on consoles. It was just less populated than it currently is and hence it was less noticed. 

 

Overwatch and CoD are closed quarter shooters with less visually appealing and hence they perform well. Make it a large scale battle and you can compare. 

 

Quote

Even BF3 to some extent.

 

What? Battlefield 3 had some of the BIGGEST maps in the series. 

 

From the looks of it, you seem to want CoD/OW style in Battlefield. That's what the series doesn't want. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Joe Cool said:

Because that's the max console hardware can take it...  

And so a game, every game, should be designed so as to either give a near stable 60 or atleast smooth 30.. scale, scope and graphics must come second. In PVP. 

 

12 minutes ago, Joe Cool said:

So people can complain more? Saying PC got large scale, we should also get one? Cry about a downgrade? etc,.

If thats what it takes. Or else design for the largest playerbase which also happen to have the least hardware horsepower and handicapped accessibility with controllers.

 

15 minutes ago, Joe Cool said:

It always is. 

 

Not sure how suddenly sniping 500m away makes it an extra chore when Battlefield games were always big and 500m is common. 

 

 

It is not chore when you are shooting at medium to semi-long ranges with a controller. But beyond that its a problem of hardware limitations- that how tiny your opponents' hit box is and how much of a fine adjustment the right analog stick allows you to make while firing.. no matter how skilled you are. 

 

23 minutes ago, Joe Cool said:

Millions will disagree but sure. If it was a "common" problem, the PS4 wouldn't be the strongest Battlefield base at the moment. 

Millions will disagree with the fact that its a jittery 40fps mess? Or with the fact that shooting long distances with right stick while in that 40fps mess is a problem? Or the fact that when the building fell on shanghai in bf4 it became glitchy to traverse that area? The degree to which they may or may not care about it can vary depending on their ignorance or apathy. 

 

25 minutes ago, Joe Cool said:

You are talking as if Bad Company 2 / Battlefield 3 didn't have issues on consoles. It was just less populated than it currently is and hence it was less noticed. 

 

Overwatch and CoD are closed quarter shooters with less visually appealing and hence they perform well. Make it a large scale battle and you can compare. 

I said 'thats where they succeeded'- In the 'metric' of a balanced scope and scale for their game so as to have the maximum and smoothest accessibility on their biggest platforms. I never said the bfbc2s and bf3s didnt have their own problems.

 

May be this super large scale glitch-mess of a 'buy a super pc u pleb'.. 'oh look that building fell so cool'.. '64 player chaotic war sim'.. is a not good idea for consoles after all. With its hardware limitations and controller handicaps and what not.

45 minutes ago, Joe Cool said:

What? Battlefield 3 had some of the BIGGEST maps in the series. 

 

From the looks of it, you seem to want CoD/OW style in Battlefield. That's what the series doesn't want. 

I said BF3 'to some extent'. To elaborate i meant some of its smaller maps like grans bazaar.. op metro etc.

 

Do I think med to med-long range pvp shooters are the most accessible with controller and console horsepower limitations with respect to balance in graphics-fps-gameplay? YES. 

 

Does that mean long range MP shooters should not exist? No. It means they need to do it in a better way by either sacrificing graphics or scope of the game- so as to have a smoother and manageable experience for their biggest consumer base. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, mango_man said:

I said BF3 'to some extent'. To elaborate i meant some of its smaller maps like grans bazaar.. op metro etc.

 

Do I think med to med-long range pvp shooters are the most accessible with controller and console horsepower limitations with respect to balance in graphics-fps-gameplay? YES. 

 

Does that mean long range MP shooters should not exist? No. It means they need to do it in a better way by either sacrificing graphics or scope of the game- so as to have a smoother and manageable experience for their biggest consumer base. 

3

 

All the OP maps released till date for BattleField have been pointless meat grinders good for gaming the system and get fat chunks of XP payouts. The gameplay on almost all of them devolved into a terrible struggle over the central flag or spawn camping. 

 

Problem is most people do not have a metric of understanding or defining medium range combat? What is medium-range combat for you? Games like BattleField do not help either. 

 

Onto the last point, I would love you to define what scope of BattleField must be reduced to turn it into a large-scale TDM mode. I mean BattleField 1 pretty much did that and we got wonderful player retention going on. Graphics will be updated (incrementally, or generationally) because hey easiest to show that in promo material so yeah! that ain't changing either. 

9 hours ago, mango_man said:

And so a game, every game, should be designed so as to either give a near stable 60 or atleast smooth 30.. scale, scope and graphics must come second. In PVP. 

1

 

Hehe! Dream on. If scale and scope are to be scaled back, all we will end up with is an itinerant bland soup of Overwatch and CoD clones.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ALPHA17 said:

All the OP maps released till date for BattleField have been pointless meat grinders good for gaming the system and get fat chunks of XP payouts. The gameplay on almost all of them devolved into a terrible struggle over the central flag or spawn camping. 

Op metro was just 12 v 12 players on PS3(or was it 32.. cant remember correctly) and so very manageable. There were some chokepoints near central flag but due to lower player count it infact wasnt that bad. In Rush mode it was better specially on 1st and 4th Mcoms IIRC. Cant speak of PC.. might have been a nightmare with 64 players. Again, dont hold my 'bf3 did well to some extent' line so closely.. bfbc2 was where the scope and scale of the game felt JUST RIGHT for us controller and underpowered hardware console plebs trying to awkwardly aim with our right sticks.  

 

2 hours ago, ALPHA17 said:

Problem is most people do not have a metric of understanding or defining medium range combat? What is medium-range combat for you? Games like BattleField do not help either.

So you really have to understand the problems of right analog stick aiming- to understand how pathetic aiming at long distances and shooting at single pixel sized far away enemies can be. There are deadzone and acceleration issues.. sometimes games dont have the simple option of varaiable sensitivity when zoomed in(D2 for example).. nor do they compensate for that by a default setting.  There is so much more that I cant explain and you wont fully comprehend unless you have logged in 100s of hours with controller PVP shooters. 

 

So yea.. its not like game designers are oblivious to this. But unless it isnt 'bigger and more crazier' than the last game its not good enough for marketing. But the pity is all that big sope and war sim scale happens at the cost of gameplay and realtime drop in fps. Add to that blurry textures.. bad draw distances and anti aliasing and you have got a nauseating experience FOR ALL OF THEIR BIGGEST CONSUMER BASE. As I said.. most people be may be apathatic or ignorant to all this but then again most people are oblivious to intricate thought anyways and will just shrug and move on.

 

2 hours ago, ALPHA17 said:

Onto the last point, I would love you to define what scope of BattleField must be reduced to turn it into a large-scale TDM mode. I mean BattleField 1 pretty much did that and we got wonderful player retention going on. Graphics will be updated (incrementally, or generationally) because hey easiest to show that in promo material so yeah! that ain't changing either. 

I dont want large scale TDM. I want a smooth gameplay experience. A game design and scope of battle that is based in the reality of current gen consoles' horsepower and controller limitations. Which also happen to be their biggest consumer segment. So good business logic wants it too. 

 

You are right in saying high fidelity 40fps jittery graphics and buildings falling into a glitchy rubble is STILL better for marketing than 'this is the best experience we could muster for our biggest market segment'... but hey one can hope that logic prevails. And in anycase, just because a wrong thing wont change doesnt mean we cant still point out its absurdity.

 

2 hours ago, ALPHA17 said:

Hehe! Dream on. If scale and scope are to be scaled back, all we will end up with is an itinerant bland soup of Overwatch and CoD clones.   

That is just not true. The fact that something like Overwatch happened is proof.  If you were to write the same line before overwatch released you would have just cited CSGO or Seige in place of it with COD- to make your point. But then Overwatch would have happened.. foreever expanding the gamut of possibilities for PVP shooters. Creativity thrives in limitations. But if you want me to invent the next big thing to prove this point I wouldnt be here writing this paragraph. 

 

So yea, if games like BF wont serve their biggest consumer base based on their hardware limitaions- with a smooth and better thought out gameplay experience, then its all upto marketing  gimmicks and the hype train to sell copies.. but lose players post release, which is never good. 

 

 

Edited by mango_man
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

That is just not true. The fact that something like Overwatch happened is proof.  If you were to write the same line before overwatch released you would have just cited CSGO or Seige in place of it with COD- to make your point. But then Overwatch would have happened.. foreever expanding the gamut of possibilities for PVP shooters. Creativity thrives in limitations. But if you want me to invent the next big thing to prove this point I wouldnt be here writing this paragraph. 


So yea, if games like BF wont serve their biggest consumer base based on their hardware limitaions- with a smooth and better thought out gameplay experience, then its all upto marketing gimmicks and the hype train to sell copies.. but lose players post release, which is never good.

7

 

ROFL NCc75bY.gif NCc75bY.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mango_man said:

That is just not true. The fact that something like Overwatch happened is proof.  If you were to write the same line before overwatch released you would have just cited CSGO or Seige in place of it with COD- to make your point. But then Overwatch would have happened.. foreever expanding the gamut of possibilities for PVP shooters. Creativity thrives in limitations. But if you want me to invent the next big thing to prove this point I wouldnt be here writing this paragraph. 

2

 

Dude, Overwatch built on a ton of prior hero shooters which had all gone out of fashion by the time it rolled around. Also, if Overwatch would have been by some no-name developer, good luck trying to find its mass appeal. 

 

Rainbow Six Siege had released in a much worse condition compared to Overwatch or BattleField and only with UBISOFT's obstinate backing of the studio has it reached where it has. Creativity does not thrive in limitations if that was the benchmark Destiny would still be on top of the charts these days. It is not. 

 

Stop trying to introduce some 'nebulous' change in the franchise because it does not fit your idealised appeal. I stopped playing BattleField after 4 because the game has not even tried to evolve, it is just a retexture with a thematic veneer painted on top of it. The game is dead, EA is going to ride it out till it collapses just like Medal of Honor and yeah! No amount of you wanting tweaked controller dead-zones, redone 'scope', scaled back 'graphics' is going to bring it back. 

 

Oh! And on the count of poor control support, it is bad enough on PC that I do not want to imagine how it plays out with a controller. 

1 hour ago, mango_man said:

Op metro was just 12 v 12 players on PS3(or was it 32.. cant remember correctly) and so very manageable. There were some chokepoints near central flag but due to lower player count it infact wasnt that bad. In Rush mode it was better specially on 1st and 4th Mcoms IIRC. Cant speak of PC.. might have been a nightmare with 64 players. Again, dont hold my 'bf3 did well to some extent' line so closely.. bfbc2 was where the scope and scale of the game felt JUST RIGHT for us controller and underpowered hardware console plebs trying to awkwardly aim with our right sticks.  

 

So you really have to understand the problems of right analog stick aiming- to understand how pathetic aiming at long distances and shooting at single pixel sized far away enemies can be. There are deadzone and acceleration issues.. sometimes games dont have the simple option of varaiable sensitivity when zoomed in(D2 for example).. nor do they compensate for that by a default setting.  There is so much more that I cant explain and you wont fully comprehend unless you have logged in 100s of hours with controller PVP shooters. 

 

 

So, #NEXTGEN is not so #NEXTGEN after all. :giggle:

 

Seems like a perennial marketing problem that you guys face. 

Edited by ALPHA17
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, ALPHA17 said:

Dude, Overwatch built on a ton of prior hero shooters which had all gone out of fashion by the time it rolled around. Also, if Overwatch would have been by some no-name developer, good luck trying to find its mass appeal. 

I am talking of consoles only. How many times do I have to repeat that lol. There was nothing like TF2 and others on consoles... PVP wise. Nothing as polished and refined and well executed as Overwatch. I keep forgetting you and Joe know none of the intricacies of gaming on consoles or its shooter PVP side. 

 

47 minutes ago, ALPHA17 said:

Rainbow Six Siege had released in a much worse condition compared to Overwatch or BattleField and only with UBISOFT's obstinate backing of the studio has it reached where it has. Creativity does not thrive in limitations if that was the benchmark Destiny would still be on top of the charts these days. It is not. 

Why are you spewing general knowledge like its making a point?  We all know Overwatch was not a new thing(but was on consoles pvp scene)... and seige was fked up in the start. My point was that creatives CAN figure out new or better ways to design amazing pvp games based on the limitations of their biggest consumer segment's hardware-WITHOUT making them clones of COD and OW.  Whether that happens through inspirations from prior games (OW with TF2 n the likes) or with constant evolution after a f**ked up release(Seige).  Come on man.

 

Just as a reminder AGAIN, I am talking strictly from the perspective and for the benefit of standard Console players.

 

57 minutes ago, ALPHA17 said:

Stop trying to introduce some 'nebulous' change in the franchise because it does not fit your idealised appeal.

May be try and stop boxing me in the 'headless chicken runnner gunner' category and try to understand what I am saying?

I DONT MIND long range shooters IF they are done right at a stable framerate and clarity of visuals and gameplay design that is carefully created for the underpowered mass market console hardware and inaccurate controllers that literally enables said game to get made in the first place. I am not even saying such consoles are infact the right way to for gaming to thrive... may be PC is.. or something that hasnt been invented yet.. but since for now we are stuck with these puny consoles.. logic says build FOR IT. 

 

1 hour ago, ALPHA17 said:

Oh! And on the count of poor control support, it is bad enough on PC that I do not want to imagine how it plays out with a controller. 

 

So, #NEXTGEN is not so #NEXTGEN after all. :giggle:

 

Seems like a perennial marketing problem that you guys face. 

 

Controllers suck. But we are stuck with them till the next evolution in 'input controls for the couch' arrives.

 

This so called next gen is all about dlcs and loot boxes combined with some ridiculous marketing gimmicks that are runing core gameplay experiences for its largest consumer segment- console peasants. Atleast in the PVP arena.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, mango_man said:

I am talking of consoles only. How many times do I have to repeat that lol. There was nothing like TF2 and others on consoles... PVP wise. Nothing as polished and refined and well executed as Overwatch. I keep forgetting you and Joe know none of the intricacies of gaming on consoles or its shooter PVP side. 

2

 

Joe has a console now. Jokes on you. 

 

Anyway, I doubt BattleField is going to reach your promised land anytime soon. So not going to argue further. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, ALPHA17 said:

 

Joe has a console now. Jokes on you. 

 

Anyway, I doubt BattleField is going to reach your promised land anytime soon. So not going to argue further. 

Joe has a console since forever now. I already know that. But he is not into Shooter PVP and why should he be since he is already into PC MP which is obviously better and more precise. And even if he started controller shooter PVP now he will struggle a LOT.. some of it because of lack of practice with a conntroller and MOST of it because of the awkward right stick controls. He will struggle A LOT MORE in BF though with all its fked up frame rate issues and super long range combat and the extent to which all of its (un)manageable with the handicapped movement speed of the right analag stick and its imprecise fine tune adjustment. THATS my point. When a game's design, it big scope.. and marketing gimmicks combine and fail, becoming a chore because of the limitations and handicaps of the hardware it sells most on. I acknowledge the fact thats its 'just how it is'.. its stupid still.

 

Btw what joke? You or Joe or any PC PvP player for that matter, not knowing intricacies of a console+controller PVP experience was not meant as an insult. Just a fact, due to you people not having spent 100s of hours in said environment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...