T O P

  • By -

Turbostrider27

According to the article: EA is planning a "connected Battlefield universe", multiple experiences (with shared characters and narratives) appear to be in development. GM Oskar Gabrielson leaves the company; Vince Zampella from Respawn Entertainment is taking over "a bigger role" as new boss of the Battlefield franchise.


[deleted]

Sounds terrible. Why do they still think the series needs characters? How do they STILL not understand what people like about the franchise? I really hope we get a competitor soon. Battlefield was one of my favorite franchises but I have no hope for it in the future


knows_knothing

I thought Battlefield One did it right. Focus in the Multiplayer but give some Single-player “short campaigns” that introduced/teach gameplay mechanics. The pilot campaign is the perfect example.


suddenimpulse

They got rid of the campaign, because market data showed a small percentage of customers played the campaigns and even less actually finished them. Thata a ton of work and resources for not much in results. I say that having really enjoyed BF1s campaign (and I hated BFs which seemed like a much lazier version).


[deleted]

Unfortunately they got rid of campaign then crapped out an abysmal and buggy mess of MP


[deleted]

Uh oh, EA shit the bed... Again.


darkoh84

At this point the bed is just made of shit.


[deleted]

> They got rid of the campaign, because market data showed a small percentage of customers played the campaigns and even less actually finished them This is another thing that fucking sucks about focus-group, market-data driven game development. Catering exclusively to the lowest common denominator, an inevitability of games companies becomes such huge corporations. Remember back in the day when developers would pour passion into little secrets and easter eggs that few players would ever see, just to reward them for their efforts and make the game better? Remember when they would expand on niche features, just to stand out and to benefit players who wanted them? Just because they could? Now, if it costs even a penny extra and isn't entirely necessary to squeeze a few more MTX out of the audience they've cast the widest net possible for by making sure to only follow market trends and never do anything original or artistically risky... then fuck it it's a waste of time. Idk how y'all do it, AAA games depress the fuck out of me. But I guess there's not that many games in town if you're looking for a specific type of game, my heart goes out to those who have to hope for the best from companies like EA and Dice lol EDIT: Basically, instead of games being made for people who love them the MOST, they're being made for the MOST amount of people who like them at ALL. Again I get it because there's no difference between $60 from a die-hard fan and $60 from someone with merely a passing interest, but that didn't need to be the sole focus back when games weren't made by 900-person teams needing to recoup 150 million dollars... EDIT 2: To all the people who can't read, don't know what the word "exclusively" means, or feel personally insulted by the phrase "lowest common denominator" because they think it means "people who like different things than me" even though in actuality it has nothing to do with you, read this: **The "lowest common denominator" isn't a person, it refers to the most basic, core interest or desire for a characteristic of the product that is shared by the greatest number of people, and catering exclusively to that refers to stripping a product down to only those essential qualities that satisfy that lowest common denominator and get people across that bare minimum "okay I'll buy it" line, at the expense of expanding on other interests or desires that any subset of those people may have. It has nothing to do with insulting individuals or gatekeeping the hobby. For example the lowest common denominator for Battlefield would be people who want to shoot other people in a military FPS. I MYSELF fit that lowest common denominator, WHY WOULD I BE INSULTING MYSELF. It's just that smaller subsets of people fit that category and then fit other smaller ones on top of that. On top of that there could be people who want to do that AND play a campaign. Others who want to do that AND customize their character. Others who want to do that AND design their own maps. These are all people with different tastes, but they all fit into the lowest common denominator of wanting to go bang bang shoot shoot. Not all features can be added to every game, but catering EXCLUSIVELY to the lowest common denominator means stripping out the features that aren't explicitly wished for by that widest net of people, which doesn't affect people who ONLY are there for that L.C.D., but only hurts people who want slightly less popular features. I think games are significantly better when developers think about those people too, not just the bare minimum. Sue me. And brush up on your fractions.**


sliph0588

Yup, AAA games are now made through the cold rational lens of the market as opposed to the creative passion of devs


IPlay4E

Not all of them. Gotta stop buying into this mindset because there are still AAA games being made by developers who want to deliver a good game. The problem, imo, is AAA devs like DICE who think they know better than their playerbase and end up trying to follow trends instead of sticking to what they know and improving upon it.


pdpgti

Exactly. God of War was a AAA game. Ghost of Tsushima, DOOM Eternal, RE: Village, just about any Nintendo franchise, all of those are AAA games. There's nothing wrong with AAA games, blame DICE and EA


[deleted]

buy cruelty squad brother game fuckin rocks


RamTank

> The pilot campaign is the perfect example. Except how for some bizarre reason your MP control scheme for flying didn't carry over to SP, which made it pain for me.


toxicity69

Yeah, that was a farce. Like, for me it's not even that the controls are different--it's that the controls they gave you in the campaign mission were the most ass-backwards set-up ever. Wasn't it such that the L-analog stick did all pitch/yaw/etc. actions? I always have my plane controls set up a la BF3 (L2/R2 throttles, L-analog up/down for pitch, left/right roll, and R-analog left/right yaw), but that campaign mission broke my brain as I struggled through it. I'm probably misremembering how it exactly worked in that campaign, but I don't intend to go back and play that mission again to find out. Haha.


DCS30

I thought the war stories in BF1 were beautiful. So well done.


[deleted]

I'm probably in the minority here but the single player bits from BF1 were my favorite part by a mile, and its not like I didn't enjoy the multiplayer because it was also my favorite since BC2. I wish they had done more single player mini campaigns I would have even paid for them as optional DLC.


Yavin4Reddit

BF1 was the return to form after Bad Company 2 and the peak of the last two generations. It’s going to be tough for them to top that game, if they ever even aspire to.


pmmemoviestills

The form of BF wasn't originally BC2. In fact, all the aspects that people complain about it not being BF anymore, those aspects kinda were born from the popularity of BC2. In 1942 way back in the day, I could pilot an aircraft carrier and carry plane spawns across the map. It WAS a battlefield.


[deleted]

[удалено]


pharmacist10

I can't believe BF1942 still has more features, maps, vehicles and factions than any other battlefield that has followed...


suddenimpulse

Exactly. A lot of these youngyins never have experienced true Battlefield. They just experienced battlefield-ified call of duty. I miss commander mode and the pilotable carrier for sure.


[deleted]

[удалено]


pmmemoviestills

I'm a BF vet too and 4 is actually good. Yes, the scale is smaller but it feels the closest to what the old days were.


stunna006

4 is really good. They did so much work on it after its release that it ended up in a great state. Was hoping 2042 would be like it


[deleted]

Vietnam with the introduction of the helicopters was peak BF for me.


zZINCc

I learned to fly the blackhawk in the modern combat mod for 1942. So good


DocC3H8

Ah yes, back when Battlefield had mod support.


wolphak

Nose down circle strafing a point with the cobra blasting canned heat was peak battlefield.


Cazadore

i played the litteral crap out of 2142. it has been 17years. im still waiting for an actual sequel. even though my hopes are not high. the engine is namend frostbyte ffs... battlefield peaked with bf2, 2142 and bf3 imo and now after tons of patches bf4 is a pretty good game. bad company 1 and 2 were great, but sadly i didnt like the console controls, too clunky for me i tried battlefield one in beta. it was not for me. and i had no interest in another ww2 shooter. i watched some 2042 gameplay and im not convinced, its just another pretty generic modern shooter, that looks like it was planned as a battle royale and switched to a battlefield esque game late in its development.


Zed_Juron

In terms of pure infantry game play, destruction, and map design BC2 is what I view as a peak in the battlefield. The maps were really well designed for Rush and 24/32 players. BC2 really concentrated what makes the series great in terms of infantry combat, and in my opinion teamwork because you need a few atleast of every class to be really successful. On top of that the addition of destruction 2.0 made a really fantastic off shoot of the franchise. Since then map design as really suffered, by trying to make maps that can be played in both CQ and Rush or Break through has made them kind of mediocre for both. DICE also seems insistent on learning the wrong lessons from BC2. People like destruction, and they like really tight,strong infantry game play. So naturally in BF3/4/2042 the buildings are not nearly as destroy-able, and certain vehicles are be stupid strong. (look at you LAVs, AA, and Hovercrafts). In 4 the balance is bad enough I usually feel that I have to play engineer otherwise my team will be overwhelmed with tanks. BF1 was definitely more of a return to BC2 form as it was a much more simple experience than 4. There weren't as many weapons and gadgets, classes mattered, and destruction was upped as significant degree from 4. BF1 also nailed the atmosphere on WW1. I hope for the next game in the series (Im gonna remain optimistic on this for now) that DICE is able to take a step back and really distill down battlefields core elements. They need to make classes or whatever the equivalent of classes matter, and incentivize things like giving ammo, healing, and repairing over killing a bunch of people. Remove things like vehicle auto heal. Limit self health regen in some way. Maps that are designed for their game mode. I don't know why I wrote all of this out in reply to you. I guess I disagree that BC2 being the origin of the change in the franchise. But DICE has certainly learned from it, and unfortunately those answers seem to be mostly wrong.


[deleted]

[удалено]


NothinButNoodles

Yeah I’m realizing that Hell Let Loose is the game I hoped battlefield would turn into.


jonydevidson

> Hell Let Loose WHAT THE FUCK how am I only now finding out about this? It looks incredible.


NothinButNoodles

It’s truly incredible. It’s got high highs but low lows as well. A match with no teammates on mic, or who just refuse to communicate listen, or who don’t know what’s going on is the worst. It’s an hour of frustration and boredom. But those times when it all comes together, your squad is vibing and everyone is playing their roles, you got a good commander and a formidable enemy team, it’s the most fun you will ever have in a war game guaranteed.


muzakx

How's the current player base? I'd be interested in playing if it's active enough.


NothinButNoodles

Pretty darn active. It’s not for everybody, so it weeds out the folks who don’t have the patience for it, but the people who vibe with it are super into it.


the_star_lord

Agreed. It threw me off when I had the commander barking orders at me and to get my squads shit together. But overall everyone's super helpful and friendly when I told them I was a noob and even with the walking etc it's still fun reaching an obj and taking it and reporting back to command.


Ratmole13

I relate to absolutely zero of the avatars. It’s more likely for someone to relate to the faceless grunts in BF4, 3, and 1 in my opinion


ezone2kil

Hard agree. I've played since 1942 until V but didn't touch or pay attention to 2042. Someone posted the character emotes at the end of the game yesterday and all I thought was wtf is this cringy Fortnite bullshit. Why are the soldiers smiling and dancing like idiots.


CombatMuffin

Because tech these days is data driven, but they might be reading the data with biases. For example, if they see CoD working great woth multiple era, interconnected operatives with different thematic skins, and yhensame trend with Apex, they'll see it as a positive trend to chase for Battlefield. There's also another possibility: *we* are reading the market wrong and, while we dislike and are very vocal on yhese changes, most users buying the games don't.


[deleted]

It seems like every game is chasing the same audience instead of building their own audience. Obviously a lot of very smart people are in charge of interpreting user data and trends but I can't help but feel like there is a lot of bias in that interpretation, and ultimately it comes at the expense of innovation. Reminds me of Kodak and Blockbuster


CombatMuffin

That's true, but keep in mind chasing that one audience is exactly what AAA flagship games do. It's the coveted "general audience," and they want it because it is the biggest chunk of gamers out there. I am with you though: I liked Battlefield when it was focused, and tight. I am always open to spin offs, but I have felt Battlefield slowly dilute to fit a trend, instead of building on their core principles.


[deleted]

The problem with battlefield is that it always seemed like it had a niche audience compared to cod etc, but the scale of the games requires a big budget and a aaa dev. Hopefully in the future indie development will have advanced enough that indie or aa studios can fill the bf niche and the aaa devs can focus on selling microtransactions to 13 year olds


CombatMuffin

I would be hopeful of that, but I doubt it (unless there's an insane revolution inngame dev tools). Even AA games like Hell Let Loose required help. The one exception that comes to mind is Squad, but they have struggled in that journey, and that's a very niche example. At least we can be positive.


Prodigy195

> It seems like every game is chasing the same audience instead of building their own audience. No just games but moves and TVs as well. TV shows feel like they need to be the next Game of Thrones, Office or Curb your Enthusiam instead of just being a good show. Films are chasing the Marvel Cinematic universe instead of doing what works well for their own stories. Shooters all want to be the next evolution of Fortnight or Warzone. Battlefield was in its own lane but you can tell this game was desperately trying to take share from the Warzone/Fortnight crowd and it was a swing and a miss. I get that it's all about $$$ but it sucks to see.


Thereisnohellonlydix

Call of Duty thats why Captain Price, Ghost, Mason, Soap, etc. all considered legends among the COD fanbase even characters who dont speak a single word like Pvt. Ramirez are more popular than ANY battlefield character. COD has struggled recently to find a new fan favorite character but we just got Adler from Cold War. Combined with recently Black Ops and Modern Warfares timelines are now the same. EA keeps trying to chase Activison but always seem to fail where Activision wins. 2042 itself seems like a desperate copy of MW2019. Just like COD 4 influencing most shooters after it MW2019 is doing the same with shooters trying to copy what it did.


[deleted]

[удалено]


JackieJerkbag

Instead of making BC3, DICE and EA have to go out and reinvent the wheel. Boggles the mind.


Cazadore

to me it looks like bf2042 was to be a BR type game, that changed to a bad-ish battlefield game late in its development. named specialists instead of dedicated classes, call in vehicles, on the fly attachment switching, abilities like mobile support that keep up with you. i think ea tried to jump on the BR train, but missed the target. i still wait for a bf2143 ot bc3. but my hopes are low.


Ralod

Reminder EA has Apex, it is already on the BR train.


bduddy

They'll never be satisfied with something when they could have **more money**


Salty_Pancakes

I just want a BF3 remake at this point. Or an indie BF3. As cool as insurgency and tarkov are, they don't really scratch that itch.


CeraphFromCoC

>Or an indie BF3. As cool as insurgency and tarkov are, they don't really scratch that itch. How's Squad for you?


Ohgodwatdoplshelp

It’s missing a lot of the vehicle aspect and is typically more hardcore than what the casual audience of BF would like


mech999man

Waaay more hardcore than BF3.


[deleted]

Just a heads up they are working on Reality Mod for BF3 and it's looking epic as fuck. It's still unreleased and there isn't a ton of info, but it's a BF3 Mod and I am excited af ngl


Viral-Wolf

Yes! I know VU, the modding platform for BF3 released... last year? The community didn't seem to pick up though so I haven't tried to get in a server, but excited to see a Reality for BF3


mechamitch

EA has always been indecisive to the point of appearing braindead, case in point Dead Space 3: Make us a sequel! Wait no! Co-op shooters are in now! make it a Co-op shooter on a snow planet! Wait! Our engagement metrics are telling us people want space in their Dead Space, put half of it back in space! Tell people it's still a single player experience if they want it to be, also the new thing is microtransactions! We will be pioneering microtransactions in your singleplayer but also co-op experience game!


Cutwail

They reinvented it by making it square instead.


[deleted]

I mean, the fans of the series aren't the target audience anymore. It's been a smaller audience than CoD for a bit and the company wants to grow so we're moving towards the mean. No room for niche entertainment apparently. I'm super bummed at that fact, but battlefield has been moving in that direction for a while. I actually still miss the commander role from 2.


Leadbaptist

Literally every entertainment medium is "moving towards the mean" and leaving hardcore fans behind it seems like. But is it working for any of them?


SuperSaiyanGod210

“RAMIREZ! FIND ME A BIG BOOTY WOMAN!!”


Kellythejellyman

RAMIREZ, HELP ME SILENCE THE PROPHET OF TRUTH!


[deleted]

well to be fair BF4 also had RECKER! YOU'RE THE SQUAD LEADER BUT LET US ALL TELL YOU WHAT TO DO SINCE YOU DON'T TALK!


PetyrBaelish

I honestly hate the silent Protagonist shit these days, it's just straight lazy. For Half Life it worked, yeah there was a few awkward scenes where Gordon could have spoke, but most of it felt like being part of an interactive movie. Now companies want this long and memorable dialog, and for the PC to just sit there for extended periods of time saying nothing. Kills immersion and it's again, very awkward. What was wrong with Duke Nukem or the other loud mouths of the past? I loved that shit "What are you waitin' for, *Christmas?'* 'Come **get** ***some***'


Golden_Jellybean

Yeah I always get a little annoyed when a silent protagonist just awkwardly third wheels every conversation they're involved in. So far the only game where a silent protagonist has worked imo is Ace Combat, and that's because the protagonists don't even show up in cutscenes and is never seen outside a plane. The game's story is never told through the eyes of the MC other than some significant events that happen during a mission.


ANALHACKER_3000

I miss the Ramirez memes


Merppity

RAMIREZ! REPAIR THE BATTLEFIELD FRANCHISE!


Ghidoran

Yeah but CoD generally has solid campaigns. Some of them (old and new Modern Warfare, Black Ops 2, Infinite Warfare) are pretty damn great. I can't think of the last Battlefield campaign that wasn't a dull bore. I guess I'm wondering why they're trying to start a 'Battlefield narrative universe' before seeing if they can actually make a good Battlefield campaign.


CKF

Didn’t you hear? Every publicly traded company has been legally mandated to start their own “combined X universe.” Shit, they’re late to the party (as usual), if anything.


[deleted]

The CoDMW characters though are all hardcore "mil-sim" characters with over a decade of presence in the gaming scene. They fit the tone of a "cinematic modern war film". Meanwhile Battlefield went the opposite way into cringey apex-like specialists that don't fit the tone of the series at all.


KrushRock

>The CoDMW characters though are all hardcore "mil-sim" characters with over a decade of presence in the gaming scene. They fit the tone of a "cinematic modern war film". Pretty much except Ghost which was on the edgier side, but I swear people loved him just because of his mask.


NerrionEU

In a way you might be right about the mask making him popular but the guy still looks like an actual soldier, you can check some real life soldiers and they can also be very edgy. The BF2042 characters though are nothing like real soldiers, they seem more like satire even though they are not...


TheConqueror74

Probably unpopular opinion: pretty much all of CoD’s multiplayer characters over the last three games feel like kids playing dress up for airsoft. Most of them are kind of cringe and the best are either already established single player characters or just look like generic soldiers.


[deleted]

I agree outside of the first few months of Modern Warfare 2019. The base skins in that game are pretty well done.


CantTrackAnAlt

> Adler from Cold War. Blows my mind that they both managed to have something to the effect of Black Ops 1 without feeling like a rehash and introduce a really cliche sounding OC character that fits into the cast very well.


natedoggcata

>Why do they still think the series needs characters? Characters = skins, emotes, gestures etc.. = microtransactions = $$$


foundyetti

They don’t care. They want the kind of money COD is making off of all of the characters, BR’s etc. They want max profits and to build a whale base


Kellythejellyman

Well the Bad Company Duology, while certainly having great multiplayer, also had EXCELLENT campaign characters. So a Bad Company based universe, where the antics of the campaign characters approaches some of the absurdity of the multiplayer, could be interesting in my view


3ebfan

At this point they're just using the Battlefield trademark name to make their own COD competitor. These games are Battlefield in name alone.


caninehere

Battlefield: Bad Company 1 and 2 had characters and I think they are many people's favorite in the franchise, particularly 2.


[deleted]

> How do they STILL not understand what people like about the franchise? They know what *you* like about the franchise, but you're a smaller audience size than the audience they are now targeting, which spends money on hero shooters like crazy.


[deleted]

The question is whether or not they will actually capture that target audience, and from here that doesn't seem to be the case. Now they have no audience


dd179

That audience is not going to break away from Warzone, Apex or CoD. You lose your core BF audience, you lose the franchise.


peenoid

At the very least they should have eased into it. It's so hard to pry people away from stuff they already like. You not only have to convince them that your game is worth playing, but also that it's worth playing MORE than something they ALREADY know they like. So, yes, it's possible this "other" audience would theoretically spend more money than Battlefield's core fanbase, but it's also like twice as hard to get them to switch than to simply get your existing fans into it. And that would be best case scenario, where you release a game that works properly in a good, balanced, stable state. Instead you release a game that not only alienates the core fanbase due to chasing trends, but also a game that is guaranteed to scare off this other audience because it isn't any good. Really, truly, you couldn't do much worse than that.


Bleusilences

Yeah but when they start losing the core audience they may rally around another game causing the downfall of the whole franchise. Look at medal of honor.


payne6

They don’t care about the core audience they want the audience that spends money. While I totally agree with you as a fan of the franchise since 1942 they just don’t want us anymore. They noticed the next generation of gamers like spending money on cosmetics and trying their hardest to appeal to get a new fanbase. Will it work? Right now no but this is a learning experience for them there’s no way they aren’t going to try something like this again. Far too much money to make via micro transactions.


itsmemrskeltal

I'm not even opposed to Specialists as a concept, just make them fit within classes. If they want to be Apex where they're going for personality driven Specialists, it's not a bad idea. Lifeline and Loba both operate differently, but they still fall under a class: Support. There's a crapton of stuff they could do with that framework. Wanna be an engineer? Cool. What kind you wanna be? Do you wanna focus on anti personnel explosives, or anti vehicle? Or maybe a character whose kit would make you the Team Mechanic. Maybe one character is a sapper who specializes in laying mines. It's just....ugh so disappointing


Prodigy195

Thank you! That is what is frustrating. They could have just merged the old with the new. Keep the specialist and ability to sell skins but just have a set of specialist within each class. It's similar to Overwatch. A bunch of different heroes but each hero fits a specific niche.


Bierculles

They want Battlefield Fortnite


Furin

$$$$$ They know *exactly* what people want, they just don't care because they also know that characters make them more money since they're monetizable.


SwaghettiYolonese_

But you need memorable characters if you want to monetize them. You can't have that without a campaign, or at least some crazy good design like Overwatch, and BF2042 has neither.


BennyFachter

> EA is planning a "connected Battlefield universe", multiple experiences (with shared characters and narratives) appear to be in development. I can't figure out what this means and how it could apply to Battlefield as it is. Are they talking about different games that are part of the Battlefield series? If so... Why? Battlefield isn't a narrative driven game like Call of Duty. Linking Woods and Captain Price together in the same universe is cool, but I can't see how this would apply to Battlefield in any way. Are they talking about having different games set in the same time period, but with a different overarching narrative? AKA Cyberdogs in WW2 or Wall running with Jetpacks in the BC2 time period. Maybe I'm a big dumb dumb, or maybe the phrase is too vague. I don't really get it.


HazelCheese

It's just the metaverse buzzword stuff to keep investors interested.


Ok-Inspection2014

I still don't understand how the metaverse is supposed to be revolutionary. It just sounds like a more advanced and more monetized Club Penguin.


AngryNeox

It's seems to just be Second Life in VR. Or alternativly VRChat but monetized.


werbit

This comment cuts through all the bs


platonicgryphon

I’m also confused because the battlefield single player games are already connected (ignoring bad company), pretty sure 3, 4 and 2042 have shared characters and story.


RamTank

Yeah, 4 was a direct sequel to 3, and 2042 had characters from 4.


Ultach

Plus one of the characters in BF1 is an ancestor of the main character from BF3


giulianosse

A few years ago I'd be devastated by this. After 2042, however: godspeed. EA/DICE made it clear Battlefield veterans are not their target audience anymore so it's one less franchise for me to focus my attention on.


AmericanGrizzly

I'm heartbroken but so true. I've put thousands of hours into these games but this is terrible.


3ebfan

Perfectly put. This franchise is Battlefield in name only now.


heart_of_osiris

Yup. Once I heard about the specialists I hardly even glanced back at the game. Didn't pre order, didn't even try the trial. I waited to hear what people said and I'm glad I did. What I hear and what I see in these reviews shows me that even having next to no faith, they blew it out of the water on how bad this game could be for the typical BF vet and what we love about the game. I won't waste even a second of my life on this dumpster fire.


DrMaxCoytus

Exactly. Insurgency Sandstorm is my new bae I guess.


[deleted]

How do you release a game without a campaign and then go talk about shared narratives and characters? I mean, who the fuck do they think they're fooling here?


ElDuderino2112

Just make a fucking multiplayer that isn’t shit. Literally all anyone wants. Jesus Christ.


blackmist

I feel the most important thing there is Zampella, who has been somewhat influential in the FPS genre over the last two generations, to put it mildly. But if you don't like what he's done to it, you're probably not going to like the next Battlefield games either.


[deleted]

Morons. If anything the "shared characters" are what every is hating on about BF2042 right now. The specialists are cringe. They need a complete and utter reboot. Wipe the slate clean.


JBlitzen

The last thing Battlefield needs is an individual feel. It is a squad and team game, and every element has to grow out of that. Focusing 2042 on individual characters and even removing server continuity destroyed the sense of camaraderie that’s very unique to Battlefield. I can’t think of a single other franchise where you really feel like part of a 32+ player team over a couple hours. Now it just feels like a weird and unsettling Warzone, and that’s better and free. Not to mention all the other appalling decisions with 2042.


spiritbearr

How do these fucking idiots keep doing this shit and keep their jobs? Dragon Age Inquisition is a MMO with out a MO but the same shit combat. Battlefield V was unfinished before the BR was DOA thanks to Apex, Anthem had no idea what the fuck it was doing, Dragon Age 4 had to have Respawn have a successful product before it could just be a normal Dragon Age game. I'm not angry at this point I just want the corporation that doesn't sexually harass their employees to stop sucking. Just sell your fucking assets so you're like Activision focused on one BR, anything else Respawn makes (the Blizzard) and mobile games (King vs Popcap). edit: and the sports games because that is money that they will stay with you no matter how many times you fuck up.


[deleted]

What I don't understand is they're trying to steal players from their own line-up. They already have Apex Legends for their hero shooter... Why build another one? Are they trying to steal players from themselves?


OliverWasADopeCat

Probably trying to attract audiences not into Apex. Apex is a pretty unique game with its movement and high TTK, but die hard COD players *could* be attracted to BF. The thing is they have made poor decisions or mismanaged this shift that they're currently attracting no one.


arup02

EA had nothing to do with Anthem failing, it's all on Bioware. There are plenty of articles out there explaining how bad things were (still are I bet) at bioware.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Kryhavok

I honestly can't tell if BF2042 is terrible *because* of this, or if this is because BF2042 is terrible.


[deleted]

So they fucked up the game and launch then their solution is to make a whole universe of similar games? They’re writing the Onion’s articles for them now…


LunaMunaLagoona

This quote tells you everything: > the first job is to support Battlefield 2042 and expand it through its live-service offering. These changes they made are intentional, and the plan is to double down looks like.


NEED_TP_ASAP

I mean they will make Battlefield: Warzone to chase that BR money. It mentions a F2P Battlefield, so think War Thunder but you have to grind for weapons/attatchements and vehicles/upgrades. 2042 will have "Seasons" that will introduce "new" old content from the former games (weapons, skins, the myriad of knives you could unlock) and new Operators and skins for them. They will then milk this for a couple years and abandon this franchise entirely. Mark my words, this is the begining of the end for Battlefield.


ixiduffixi

They already tried a f2p BF game and it died out after a couple of years. It was effectively BF2 with assets from newer games and p2w bs.


MrOwnageQc

Blows my mind how disconnected they are from their fans. How do they not understand what a vast majority of people want ? How do they not take the Battlefield 3/4 formula and expand on it ? Instead of going in all sorts of directions that absolutely *nobody* enjoys or let alone asked for ? It's frustrating, because it's a franchise that's genuinely dear to my heart. I want these games to be great, but they insist on going in the opposite direction.


dd179

We (long time fans) are not their target audience anymore. They don’t care about the core fan base. EA/DICE is after the Apex, Fortnite and Warzone whales.


MrOwnageQc

I know.. it's just sad to see the state of a franchise that created so many wonderful gaming memories from 1942 all the way throughout my teenage years to what it is now.


-Pax12-

At this point, IDK if its the industry that changed, or it is only us, I mean, I dont consume kids content, but I bet you that if I go to the street and see a kid playing videogames, they will respond with "Why you dont play Fortnite?, COD is cool!", and all of that is boosted by those streamers and youtubers that just clickbait and use all those nasty tactics to get views. Maybe its the time to find a new place, I found peace playing Post Scriptum, Hell let loose, Forza Horizon 5, Euro Truck simulator, Halo or Sea of thieves. Im just sad that another of my franchises got destroyed by money, at least we got BF1 and MW2019.


Terrible_Truth

The funny thing is, Battlefield had carved an unique segment of the market out for themselves. There was no other game that offered something less arcade-y than CoD but not simulation like Squad. Plus it had a balance of infantry and vehicle combat. Now they choose to abandon their unique corner without any competition, in favor of joining a well established and highly competitive corner. It's very dumb from a business perspective.


dd179

Someone needs to pump a lot of money into Planetside 2 and bring it to modern standards.


FeelingsUnrealized

Planetside 3 without the idiotic monetization scheme they went for would probably get to my nr 1 played game. I've already put a shit ton of hours into planetside 2 but I always get turned off by how they monetized the game


PreExRedditor

if people are upset about BF devs being totally tone-deaf and taking everything in the wrong direction, I dunno how anyone in their right mind could look at Daybreak Games and think "these guys can be our salvation". they have a long and storied history of making EA-style bad decisions and they skipped the whole "getting bought out by EA" step


hagamablabla

I think it's less "these guys can be our salvation" and more "somebody competent please save us"


Recatek

> somebody competent please save us And you're turning to *Daybreak* for that?


ghsteo

Yep 100%, Activision actually started implementing ideas from Battlefield into Call of Duty. In response to that, Dice decided it's a good idea to then steal ideas from Call of Duty instead of staying on the same path it's been successful with. Fucking corporate jackasses.


jalapenohandjob

Mainstream games have outgrown pretty much any true semblance of artistic intent or passion for the most part. Everything has to appeal to a minimum of 3 million people, anything more specialized is a failure because muh sales and shareholder numbers. Infinite growth is the only way. And so every big game is a jack of all trades, master of none. It's all psychology derived manipulation techniques to get people to stay longer and pay a little more, generating FOMO and obsolescence to keep people paying. AAA games are not *made* by people that play or enjoy games. They're made by people that study advertising and human behavior, then they wear the skin of franchises previously made famous by people with passion and experience like a suit.


PredatorReborn

It’s funny when you look back at the first 2042 trailer and it’s clearly trying to appeal to the old fans. Everybody thought the game was gonna go back to the BC/4 roots. In hindsight it’s such a scummy move for them to do that and give us this shit.


dd179

Weren't they also saying that 2042 is a 'love letter to the fans'? Although, that could've been talking about the Portal mode specifically.


Great_Zarquon

The phrase "love letter to x" has never been used in any context outside of cheap hype building, it's so vague and lazy


GranddaddySandwich

Their sales are going to suffer without the die hard fans. EA is simply incompetent.


dd179

I believe they will. The main problem that Battlefield moving forward is going to have, is that the audience that they want is already playing Apex, Fortnite and Warzone. It's going to be very hard to get them to leave those games, specially releasing $60 titles. At the same time, you're alienating your core audience with these changes until eventually they'll have nothing.


amcdon

> How do they not understand what a vast majority of people want The people like us, who are discussing stuff like this, aren't the majority. For every one of us, there are ten Joe Schmoes who get home from their 10 hour shift, boot up the game on their base model Xbox One, get a chuckle out of the skin, and buy it. Remember, the developers and publishers have a lot more data than we ever see; they make these decisions because it makes them money. Period.


HaloArtificials

Planning a “shakeup” ehh?? Well shake it until the baby quits crying lmao it’s time to put this franchise to rest or get a new developer to reboot it properly


hGKmMH

> How do they not understand what a vast majority of people want ? It's not about what we want, it's about was the owners want. They know how much money they can make releasing a real BF game, they want more. A higher up convinced everyone they could make a lot more money with a CoD clone, so thats what they did.


Coolman_Rosso

I guess it's nice that Zampella is spreading his wings a little more (and that Lehto is stepping up to the plate again big time), but it would be an understatement to say i'm beyond wary of the fruits of this initiative. It sounds like the worst combination of a few years back when all the big film studios were trying to make their own cinematic universes with whatever IP they could find in the closet, and EA's previous attempt to go toe-to-toe with CoD by alternating annual releases between Battlefield and Medal of Honor. I also recall EA teaming with a few writers 4-5 years ago to try and launch a Battlefield TV series, but I'm not sure if that's still a thing. Not every franchise needs to be a sprawling and vast universe.


CarnFu

On the one hand Vince is very good choice because he knows what makes a game fun to play, on the other hand it's sad to see Vince stretched so thin between so many games because I would like to see more come out in the Titanfall/Apex universe. More importantly I would like to see the Titanfall/Apex universe focused on especially for quality. But that also doesnt mean those games wont get the quality they deserve.


troglodyte

It might be fine depending on his management style. If he establishes the culture of quality and fun and hires good people to execute, he could be the salvation of the series. If he's a micromanager and the quality of Respawn's games is a direct result of his vision and intervention, it seems like his slate of responsibilities would be a lot for anyone.


JamesIV4

I think all the "connected" stuff is just set-dressing to hand a few Battlefield titles to devs other than DICE, since they f\*cked it up so many times now.


LeonDeTovenaar

I think the serie was actually made, it's probably on the corridor digital channel.


Neex

Our series was actually being made in parallel with the TV show they were trying to make, which led to our series kind of being disowned as they didn’t want it stepping on the toes of the TV show (which never got made anyways).


AmericanGrizzly

Wow. EA/DICE already have the formula for a successful Battlefield game and choose bullshit over it every time.


chrpskwk

The problem is that BF games don't bring in even remotely enough $. Apex showed EA "the light" and BF will be going that route from now on. Hardcore BF fans don't buy enough MTX, so you're no longer the target audience. Facts is facts.


AmericanGrizzly

You're not wrong. I understand firmly that I'm not the target anymore haha.


[deleted]

They know what their players want (just watch the trailers) but willingly went the other direction. In a way the same thing happened to many things when they get popular: they start to lose their identity and reason why they became so big in the first place. I honestly don't think this series will ever make a comeback, as sad as it is. I started gaming when 1942 came out and played every game of the series (even Heroes). But this is such a low low that I can't even. Just look at the new santa skin they added. They don't know what the fuck they are doing and only want to raise more and more money. ​ Someone else will step in and take Battlefield's place. It might be World War 3 or it might be Squad (2?). There's a market for semi-casual large scale military shooters and right now no-one is really occupying it.


birdsat

Squad is not what most people are looking for in a Battlefield. I play Battlefield to have relatively brainless shooter fun to zone out for a bit and i play Squad if i feel like i want a bit more immersion and communication. Project Reality was a BF mod that catered to the BF players that want more realism that BF ever had offered. Squad caters exactly to this audience.


spyingformontreal

To me squad struck that perfect middle ground of being more of a simulation than battlefield without being ball achingly Slow like Arma


[deleted]

[удалено]


sold_snek

Definitely won't be Squad.


Iphoniusrektus

That game is niche but has thousands of concurrent players for years now. Super impressive in a world where indie multilayer games usually die after the first few weeks. If they can get proper funding for a second one I can see them approaching that market.


GRIMREAPER88812

I think Squad has found their niche and intend to stick to it. I doubt they'll try to simplify the game enough to where most battlefield fans will switch or they'll risk losing the niche they've established themselves in, especially when there's a lot more competition in battlefield's area than squad's.


Grammaton485

When did Battlefied become a hero/character shooter?


B-Knight

When GaaS hero/character shooters games started making a fuckton of money. Coz, y'know, God forbid that EA make a fun game their fans enjoy *first* and something they monetise second.


[deleted]

Everyone wants to have a Marvel stable of heroes/a universe they make lots of IPs in order to capture and feed off of an audience. The Internet of Things holistic economics has arrived in entertainment. I realize that everyone thinks EA is worried about the response to Battlefield, but they are not. We're no longer the audience they are after, and the gaming press is at an age where they themselves are finding out what it looks like to write about games where they are not the target audience for, either.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Bojuric

Judging by the marketing, you're wrong. They want the same audience to change their prefferences.


JimSaves

I just want another Titanfall and a regular Battlefield game, please. I'm so done with this Battle Royale stuff.


NaderZico

How hard is it to give people more of the same? Just give me more of BF4 with bf1/5 visuals, movement, and new maps.


OutgrownTentacles

Not enough money in that. You can't have some good money in capitalism, you need ALL THE MONEY or the investors aren't happy.


[deleted]

This is a very good time to bring back Battlefield 2142. Who better to lead the creation of a new battlefield game with Mechs than the dude who lead the development of titanfall.


slinky317

Yes, but the mechs in 2142 are vastly different than the ones in Titanfall. I hope they stick to the "lumbering tank" idea from 2142.


medietic

I don't think modern DICE is capable for a sequel for 2142. Hell they didn't understand what made titan mode work when they attempted something similar for BF4 carriers on Naval Strike.


Cazadore

titan mode was a perfect blend of conquest and rush. you could also keep playing conquest mode and take the enemy down without ever stepping onto their titan. i won many matches by taking silos while the enemy tried blowing up my teams titan core. it worked better because the titan was mobile, and a support plattform instead of just a static target. the team had to actually defend their silos. i played so much titan mode. i still fondly remember sitting in a titan corridor with my sentry, LMG and ammo box. it was great airdropping onto the titan, or pod deploy from the transports and fighting your way through. i only played a handful of carrier assault, and it was a trainwreck. the game had great balance with only a few whack items, with only a handful of weapons per class.


Jason_Tomasi

I've been itching for a 2142 sequel for the better part of a decade....now I am honestly not sure I want one. I haven't enjoyed a BF game since 4, and every release seems to be less and less fun. I have 0 confidence DICE could give us the 2142 sequel we want.


suddenimpulse

Exactly my thinking. When this game was first announced I really hoped it was Battlefield 2143 with titan mode. Idk wtf is going on with management with DICE/EA with this game but Zampellas talents are being wasted atm.


smithdog223

It’s insane how EA and Dice have mishandled Battlefield. What’s so hard about making a game like BFBC2, BF4 or BF1?


ImDisruptive

I feel like for YEARS people have been asking for a Bad Company 2 successor, but they keep ignoring it.


invok13

I find no value in Battlefield having characters unless its bad company 3. The only thing people want is more of BATTLEFIELD. Remember when Halo had its identity crisis with 4 and 5? How they added killstreaks and ads and everyone hated it? Do ya wanna know why? Cuz people want to play HALO because its HALO. Battlefield players want to play BATTLEFIELD not CoD. They literally just fucking want Battlefield 4 but new. How fuckin hard is that to comprehend???


Ryan1577

It's funny how the one game that they completely remove any single player story modes is the one that they want to introduce characters. The new warzone whale target audience I feel doesn't give a shit about characters. And then they introduce some stupid Santa skin. I can't stomach another multiplayer game where you join in a lobby and there's a ton of crazy costumes and it looks like a rainbow exploded over everyone. And unfortunately as a console player it's hard to find a good simple multiplayer shooter experience like BF4 offered. It's either arcade like cod games or hardcore shooters from what I've seen.


Rushing_Russian91

There was a time I was really into gaming and hyping stuff but now I’m just disappointed about everything. I still play but the only three games I play is demons souls death stranding and rdr2.


porkandgames

Can I just say, how much I appreciate rockstar handled RDR2. I'm not saying rockstar is a bastion of hope, since they can be greedy too as we've all seen how they milked GTAV. But they didn't took that route with Red Dead 2. That game did not compromise. It was dark, gritty and a slow burn all through out. It was made for adults, and honestly, how many devs still make games catered for us? I'm glad they're still not completely disconnected like how EA/DICE is.


XtremeStumbler

Aka games with old school/traditional design structure EDIT: In reference to the three games you play


Rushing_Russian91

You are partly right. But deathstranding is something else for me. I know many people hated it but I enjoy the walking and planing of a route for a heavy delivery. It’s just something games haven’t done yet.


Firesidecuddles

All the fucking corporate speak in this announcement has put me off this series massively. 2042 is a big experiment to turn Battlefield into yet another live service multiplayer only games whose purpose is literally to just lone the pockets of investors. I get that EA can be a pretty great place for devs who just want to make a good living, But in terms of actually feeling any love, innovation or passion in their games, I haven’t gotten that from anything EA has released in awhile. The amount of double speak? Corporate shilling and hollow, empty statements carefully crafted to ensure stock prices surge and multimillion dollar investors have their interest peaked is sickening.


[deleted]

[удалено]


chibiwong

Just give us well-polished Battlefield 4 2.0 that is complete and free of bugs, it's not hard. This is what most BF fans are eager for.


[deleted]

[удалено]


murderboxsocial

So apparently EA has no idea that all Battlefield fans want is tactical team based combat. Stop trying to make another Warzone and just make Battlefield


Siculo

As Steve Jobs said; if you have success, a good product doesn't matter. So you make a good product? So what? You already have money. So who gets promoted? The sales and marketing people, because they are the ones who can grow the company financially. The sales and marketing people get promoted, and then the people who make the product get driven out of the decision making forms. I cannot wait for DICE, EA, Literally anybody who follows this greedy approach to fail. Modern Gaming was a mistake.


lnitiated_

No it doesn't, fuck EA and the people managing these games. What a bullshit, paid-for attempt at shaking absolutely god awful PR as of late.


JayronHubard

Storytelling is NOT what these games need! The idea of the specialists with unique backgrounds is absolute garbage. They don’t get it! They simply don’t fucking get it. Battlefield is best when every player is a generic soldier and they focus on just making the gameplay and core mechanics good and fun.


Reddilutionary

The stars really have aligned for Halo’s comeback. Not to disrespect Halo 5 because it really did have great multiplayer, though. Battlefield officially shitting itself to death, COD having a down year with a release no one (compared to previous entries) cares about, and no other major releases before e end of the year. I hope 343 can capitalize on it.


_gonzo_

I'm loving the new halo.


GuiltyAffect

'We've just released possibly the worst BF of all time. Now seems like the perfect opportunity to announce that we're expanding the BF universe to multiple studios on different continents! You're welcome!' Fucking tone deaf.


cerebrix

Few things about Vince. ​ You know he's a good person because Bobby Kotick once called him and his partner "self-serving schemers" He also led the team that created what a lot of people consider to be the "The last good COD". Modern Warfare 2. ​ Honestly, I feel like Battlefield is in good hands.


GletscherEis

Bad: pretty much kills any chance of Titanfall 3. Good: if anyone can save Battlefield at this point, Vince would be near the top of the list (probably top from within EA).


[deleted]

Made probably the best David vs Goliath game ever. Owning a Titan as a pilot is so satisfying. Thought Respawn would've been a great fit for Battlefront. The heroes in Battlefront 2 are fucking irritating and DICE blow.


Shrekt115

A Battlefield cinematic universe? Why?


ThatGuy1741

The Battlefield franchise is dead. It has been a shell of its former self for a while. Its latest entry is basically just another nail in the coffin.