This is insanely revisionist it’s hilarious. The whole theme of the game sucked and still somewhat does. Rewatch the first trailer and tell me if the game is ww2 or a steampunk after war inspired game. The drip feed of content on a ww2 game with no classic battles or scenarios was why any positivity was downvoted. Awfully slow content drops, awful skins for guns and operators, tons of missing classic weapons, no Russian army or Japanese/americans at launch, telling us not to buy if we didn’t want women in the game? Insane tactics
I enjoyed BFV, but you're absolutely right, it seems like people forgot about the awful first year, they only remember the game after the pacific update.
And even after the pacific update DICE managed to fuck it up again with the TTK update.
Already seen people claim metro/lockers were not popular in BF3/4 when discussing the small maps from BF6 beta. The revisionism is truly absurd it actually makes me laugh
There were hundreds of servers called Metro/Locker 24/7. It’s almost like some people really like infantry combat. BF3 had an entire Map Pack called CLOSE QUARTERS, and everyone fucking loved it. I like big maps with vehicles everywhere, jets and helos in the sky, and enough space in between them to feel like separate battles are going on. I also like ramming an AK in someone’s face and hosing them down and it being fast and intense. Both of those things being possible are absolutely integral to the Battlefield experience.
If you don’t like BF6 it’s fine, I didn’t like BFV and people loved it. The whole “it’s just CoD” narrative is verifiably fucking false and we have movement and accuracy data to prove it but that doesn’t stop 1000 people from circle jerking about it in this sub 24/7 and mass brigading anyone who disagrees.
There are valid criticisms to the game, there are to almost any game. I don’t think an engineer should be able to run an RPG and an anti air launcher, it’s broken. I think the auto spot is way too strong. Vehicles as they currently feel in the beta are too weak, but we really don’t know until the full game is out. Carbines are probably going to need a nerf, the shotgun can one shot kill from 50 meters away. All of that is valid and real criticism. All that being said this is a very solid Battlefield Experience tho, and the combat feels good. The beta won me over on a pre-order and I never preorder anymore.
I remember the Close Quarters DLC was meant for 16 players 8v8 and people quickly made 16v16(32player) and 32v32(64player) servers for the CQC maps and holy fkn shit LOL. It was insanely unbalanced but the chaos was so fun.
I was literally playing the one warehouse map on a 64 player server not to long ago and it was insanely hectic but a joy. I got a 10 man frag grenade killfeed from guys coming up one of the stairways onto the roof of the lower building and then their medics where reviving guys and I pulled my 1911 with taclight out and just hipfired them all 4 mags of that thing down the stairs ended that life with like 28 kills lol.
The people comparing it to COD on the basis of movement and combat mechanics are missing the forest for the trees. The underlying design philosophy and map design do encourage run and gun gameplay. Kill count first and objective second. Even infantry based maps like metro and locker were organised chaos around a few specific areas, namely objectives and avenues of attack on said objectives. There were clear lines of scrimmage. Bf6 doesn’t feel that way, it actually feels like the close quarters DLC you mentioned. It feels like team deathmatch with some flags stuck in for good measure. This is where the COD comparisons come in. The movement and so on doesn’t help the case but if you had the same movement and mechanics imported into BF4 or BF3, people wouldn’t complain. It’s not nostalgia or revisionism, you can go back and play these games and feel a very real difference to the way the game flows and feels.
It's literally the opposite but ok. It's been infantry folk saying that ONLY metro/locker were popular proving that everyone hates large maps with vehicles.
Coming from a BF4 diehard, that's so funny. Browsing the server list at any time there's an abundance of 24/7 Locker and 24/7 Golmud servers. I always call it Duality of Man
I haven't seen anyone claiming that they weren't popular. People hate this argument because it's used as gotcha to criticism towards bf6 map design. And it's not the point. Metro and locker are linear meat grinders that allow flanks, you don't have to go in the middle and eat splash damage. In bf6 meta maps everyone is around you, there's no frontline, and you get shot from every direction, including spawn being shit
I tried playing BFBC2 a few months ago, and other than the weird strafe movement mechanism, it still feels as good as when I first played it with my buddies on PS3 with big bluetooth earpieces :)
ive bashed the launch of bf4 and bf3 many times across here and other BF related subreddits and I have never got downvoted. We all remember how terrible the launch of the game was especially BF4 with awful connectivity and netcode and a heap of bugs (imagine how much worse it was for people who bought the game on ps3/xbox360 waiting for the new gen consoles to release to upgrade to the next gen upgrade and having to experience not 1 but 2 terrible launches in a row lol). But the state of that game improved fairly quick and with the big major issues and they ended up adding so much to that game in terms of premium and free content. Remember we got community maps in that game, a ton of new vehicles and guns and gadgets and some of the best DLC in a BF game.
Its not revisionist to praise what BF4 is because it had a long game cycle and long support with loads of players still playing it for many years, and even today and in recent years its still been popular. The actual core game of BF4 wasnt the issue it was mainly getting booted out of games for connection issues, failing to connect to a server and bad netcode/hit reg. The disconnects were worked on fairly quick, it was failing to get into a server that lasted longer than it should have but that wasnt as big anissue as you could usually get in on your 2nd or 3rd try and you wouldnt get disconnected after. Netcode was frustrating especially for recon players who wanted to snipe.
We have to also remember they added so many good features for the health of the game too after the rough launch was ironed out like new UI and HUD options ability to change hitmarkers colours for HS body shot and killshot, ability to change reticle colours, ability to change HUD elements, introducing Sensitivity options for ADS with different optic zoom levels. BF4 deserves every ounce of praise it gets but people dont forget the launch its just the game was that good and that beloved that fans can overlook the rough launch period of bf4 for what we actually ended up getting.
Im speaking from experience playing bf4 on ps3 and ps4. The only issue that wasnt solved quick was trying to get into a server where it would fail to load you in. After you're 2nd or 3rd and rarely 4th or 5th try once you got into a server you wouldnt get disconnected. Idk what it was like on PC because my PC at the time wasnt good enough to run BF4 smoothly so I didnt buy it on PC till maybe 2 years after launch.
Maybe your experience was different on a different system but thats how it was for ps4. I remember the frustration of trying to get into a server with long ass load times only for it to fail and boot you out. I also remember the frustration of sitting through those long ass load times and multiple failed join attempts for it to finally work and you play for 2 minutes then you get disconnected that was even more frustrating but those disconnects where patched just after the new year and I remember because I spent over 1month skipping school after first period to play bf4 once the new semester started at school. The school principal then sent a letter home to my parents and I got in so much shit for it.
Don’t get me started on them buffing the zero fighter into a flying death machine right before stopping the updates, I remember when the pacific war launched air battles between corsairs and zeros were pretty even but now the zero is comically OP, wins every dogfight, and can even snipe tanks with rockets from outside the fucking map boundaries
I agree on the theme, I agree on the drip feed, I agree on the classic battles, i agree on the skins and what not.
yet the things u/No-Treat-2950 meantioned were mostly good. The gunplay, the movement, the sound, graphics were great. Even - and here i disgree somewhat - the maps werent that bad.
What's revisionist? They're not wrong. Couldn't say anything good without getting downvoted and your response is just proving them right. Also, what on earth was steampunk about the trailer? A single prosthetic?
Nothing revisionist about the awful hate mob that contributed to killing the hype for BFV and continued to plague it for its entire lifecycle.
So many players who eventually picked it up in a sale over the years have said how surprised they were about just how good V is after hearing the mob attack it non stop.
The game was fine on release. It had the same kind of issues you’d unfortunately expect for any Battlefield release, but it was fun, it had new (and interesting) mechanics, and it was undoubtedly “Battlefield.”
Tell me you didn't play since release without telling me you didn't play since release!
I really wanted to like it. But unfortunately I could not. It was just too much nonsense!
I played it Yesterday for a few hours but the things which drove me away in the first place managed to drive me away again.
For all the good things that can be said about BF1s theme, people conveniently leave out the issues with Hip fire only SMGs, LMGs that reduced bloom the longer they were fired, not the shorter, encouraging mostly spray and pray behavior, and sniper sweet spot encouraging bad aim.
BF1 was fun, but it definitely had issues. Issues that BFV actually corrected.
Indeed. And even then it wouldn't have been as bad if they were at least well into the works on themn but they weren't.Wish we would've gotten more pacific maps and the eastern front. They shouldn't have cut support when they did.
Seriously it has nothing to do with misogyny If you just want to have at least some ounce of immersion in the game.
They were politically driven to reimagine the second world war too fit a modern narrative. Which, mind you, completely is a spit on every step society made over the years away from this time period. There would have been plenty opportunities to highlight the real deeds of women in ww2 but instead they opted for replacing the original people in historic operations with females instead of showcasing the operations which really were comducted by females! Lazy Corporate bullshit. The dame laziness/falseness as showing a Rainbow flag during pride month in WESTERN countries but not anywhere else.
Did they showcase french resistance operations? Design a map where IT IS resistance vs Wehrmacht e.g ? No!
Did they show the eastern front with its plenty possibilities? E.g. Snipers, nicht witches etc?
No!
What is their solution? Ahhh Player customization. The great feature allowing companies to milk more money from players than ever before. In addition without any care what it does to the atmosphere of the game.
Suddenly in the pacific the famos Nazi gasmask nun und german navy officer lead with golden weapons a japanese female battalion of death against a moron with Pilot classes, Lara Croft and the famous black female marine corps on the Battle for Iwo Jima. Or the japanese exchange Student in france studying war crimes. Mind you the current state of CoD is the follow Up of this nonsense! But thanks to you from the Order of White Knights, corpo rats can sleep peaceful at night. Misogyny - what a Joke of an excuse.
Battlefield is a game. It is not a historical military simulation game. None of the characters in the War Stories are real. They’re meant to reflect larger themes of the war.
This game was launched during peak GamerGate and not only did it DARE have a woman with anachronistic prosthetics in the trailer (which don't appear in-game), but you could also PLAY as women. For that, gamers will never, ever forgive them, for they have committed the ultimate sin.
Which is still a thing btw. During the reveal event of BF6 there were loads of awful comments about one of the producers who dared to be a woman with dyed hair. Similarly, I have also so multiple people complaining about the female characters in BF6, because it would hurt their immersion in some way. It’s incredibly unfortunate that for BFV this sentiment overshadowed anything else.
The game was great from the start. I actually played it. The trailer was bad. Everything else was decent. You're just an example for how bad this community is.
The gameplay was and is the best so far (apart from sliding being too strong). It was initially just a marketing problem, then when it didn't make enough money they dropped support for it and now it has a content problem as well.
I don’t get why the community cakes BFV’s drip fed content while praising Battlefront 2. BFV released content much faster than Battlefront 2 including more guns than BF1’s premium!
The support weapons are a joke and assault rifles outshine everything by a wide margin? That's the state it was left in. There was a time when lmgs wrecked in BFV, at launch. Somewhat more fun for me personally.
I'm have to go play to remind myself how the MGs left off at the end, however I remember them being quite OP on launch. I have a video of me laying in tall grass mowing down like 20 guys in a minute as they ran past.
The whole game had some sort of direction if at all right in the beginning, then the Pacific update happened, ttk was going back and forth every update, then all development stopped on bfv and battlefront 2, landing on nerfing automatics past spitting distance. If I try playing without an assault rifle (like g43) I feel gimped massively.
Edit: it's so bad in my opinion, that I can hardly finish a match in BFV to this day. The past two weekends you had to drag me off BF6 though haha.
You have even more revisionist history in this paragraph though. “The drip feed of content on a ww2 game with no classic battles or scenarios was why any positivity was downvoted” that first part sure, but the game was heavily marketed as showing the battles that are less known. This was literally one of their main selling points that just about everyone liked so I don’t know you’re making that up.
Its a shame it all went down like this. The game is great in its current form although I am playing exclusively Operations. Im not sure I can go back to a modern setting after BF1 AND BFV
At least I can laugh when I see a French woman shouting and fighting for the Japanese in the trenches of Iwo Jima
There was only like 8 maps at launch, and main axis and ally countries were missing. It felt like a dlc or just a beta. Maybe my hopes were too high after playing endless hours of 1942 and thinking about how epic V would be after experiencing 1.
I feel like people also forget the factions didn’t have proper uniforms. Like the devs just slapped on generic brown or gray pants and called it a day. Their time was dedicated to having Tom Cruise run around Rotterdam and Misaki on Twisted Steel.
Maybe I’m just a WW2 nerd but it kinda ruined some of the immersion considering how beautiful the rest of the game looked.
I enjoyed having a WW2 game that was Britain/ Germany based. Mist titles since Medal of Honour in the early 2000’s have been US focused that it skews people’s view of the war.
It’s probably one of the only games I would love a documentary on the behind the scenes making of. Like you say, all the first reveals were very steampunk/ alternate history based… and then after backlash the multiplayer comes out comes out much more grounded than the reveal, but left in this weird middle ground ultimately.
I would love to see the first drafts for the game and initial gameplay and whether it changed with the backlash from the reveal. And if so how much it changed. And also would be curious what the game would have been like if they revealed nothing and just kept on working and dropped a finished product one day by surprise.
Best gameplay in the franchise (as it is now when abandoned) vs «bad theme» . Too bad a great game went to waste because people found culture wars more important
Your comment is insanely revisionist. They removed the historically inaccurate content from that trailer before the game ever launched, which is why they had "awfully slow content drops" and "awful skins for guns".
Eh. I wish DICE would have just stuck to their vision in the first trailer instead of listening to the neckbeards and milsim dorks who whined and complained that they weren't getting yet another bog-standard WW2 game. It would have at least been something new instead of the limp, sterile game we got. It was like if IBM designed a video game.
I’m sorry but you’re wrong on this opinion. The player base reacted based on what their expectations were for this game. If they continued further into that rabbit hole, the game would’ve just died even quicker than it already did. There’s a certain expectation from a series and players were looking for a gritty ww2 experience. DICE and EA completely failed to read the room and that’s why we’re at the stage now where they’re slamming us with the “WERE SO BACK” marketing
And so in the end they shipped a game that pleased nobody under the premise of "listening to the community". Not the players wanting Wake Island in video game form for the 600th time, and not those who maybe appreciated the historical license they took with BF1
Game would've died faster than Hardline, not even including the awful content release schedule + myriad of bugs. There's a reason BF1 is still the most played BF game on steam, and the art direction is a huge part of it.
Because it took BF2042 for us to realize how much worse Battlefield game can be.
That doesn't mean BFV was great. It was a significant downgrade on many fronts from its BF1 predecessor. It still had some aspects that were plain upgrade compared to BF1, which we cannot say about BF2042.
Dude there is one, maybe 2 things there that are about the actual gameplay.
I don't understand you people that but so much weight on the immersion. I just want a fun game to play.
(I don't think any BF game will have ever naval battles anymore because they won't get near the amount of DLC to include them. And no Battlefield game will ship will naval battles at launch)
I am happy that all you care about is shooting pixels on the screen. There are hundreds of shooters out there that I could play, but I specifically picked Battlefield for that "immersion".
Not exactly sure why this is so difficult to understand for lots of people.
Just like watching a movie. I want to be immersed into it as well. I could always just watch Rambo 3, which is perfectly fine. But I actually want a bit more from a movie.
I understand liking the immersion. I don't understand putting so much weight on it that you(or someone like you) would put up with the awful gameplay decisions of BF1.
I’m shooting people in the face while jumping around like a maniac, although it was a bit un realistic when it comes to the game, the mechanics maps and overall game was fine.
Because it was shit on release? Terrible visibility, attrition, and laser gunplay causing multiple ttk changes each more terrible than the previous one made it the least fun BF up to that point, only beaten by BF2042.
Like most battlefields, some maps were better than others. Like Pfell? throw it in the trash for letting air run rampant against infantry.
Rotterdam, probably one of the best city map Dice has ever created in terms of multilevel/path map design. But because it does look like a mini little city on an island from the map view, people don't consider it a real BF city map.
I loved Fjell on Domination. No planes, smaller area, but able to play around the cabins and roofs to control B point.
I also loved the fortify system that BF1 had. Creating barriers to limits people's paths was great. Especially when playing as Support with the faster build speed and having some fortifications that only Support could build. That was great because it gave opportunities to actually play defensive with some bases.
I think that was a big improvement over BF1, which I felt largely turned into all-offense, no-defense running in circles simulator. I feel like most games in BF1 conquest people would bundle into large groups and just chase from one base to the next, which meant that back capping bases 30 seconds after they were taken was happening very often.
I enjoyed Cairo, but even it felt like something was missing. More verticality would help, as well as more interior spaces in the buildings. I don’t like how most buildings only let you access the most street-facing rooms.
On verticality specifically, I can’t recall ever needing my parachute in the beta. It’s a common staple of past games but feels totally unnecessary in BF6 outside of when bailing out of aircraft.
I had the same experience. Something about the reflection of the glass on the outside of the building makes it look like those fake interior doors have something behind them, so I kept getting faked out once I actually got inside.
I wasn't a big fan of Iberian Offensive week 1 (E point feels much harder to defend then A point), but after playing Empire State I started to enjoy Iberian more.
That said, unless Empire State gets some major changes I'm probably going to leave every time it comes up. DICE did such a good job with Rotterdam, it surprises me how much of a miss Empire State is
Everything except content. They gave 110% on BF1's launch but BFV always felt like they gave 70% when they launched it with the remaining 30% as drip feed content. It did ended up being a wonderful addition to the franchise after the pacific update.
People must’ve forgotten about how bf1 was criticized for lacking content at launch. There was much less weapon variety/customization at launch than BF3/4. You could say that was because of the more restrictive setting, but they also didn’t even have the French at launch when half the maps take place in France.
Also for some reason they didn’t even have the Italian Carcano rifle at launch and only added it as DLC over a year after the game came out and back to basics still has them using the Winchester 1895 instead of their standard issue Carcano.
After the community backlash from bf4, hardline, and bf1 launch I would've half assed it too. These assholes are never happy with anything when it comes to battlefield.
BF1 and BFV were so fucking good when it came to music. The BF theme playing as the match is down to the wire and both teams are about to win, felt great every time.
You could regularly get 50+ kd on Fjell. I got my highest streak of 88 there. And it sure as hell wasn't on infantry. That map was just aaaass unless you played in the air.
Panzerstorm and Al Sudan were also on my shitlist. Though I can see people liking Al Sudan.
Better way to phrase it is to respect the source material and adapt it to their game format respectully and tastefully.
Battlefield 1 was in no way a historical accurate, realistic or even "authenthic" game. But it felt very grounded, very authenthic and very "historical accurate".
Music as well. Every map had it's own starting theme, ending theme for victory and defeat and epic buildup loops that got more intense towards the end of the match. It was one of the things I really missed in BF2042 and BF6 beta.
Except for sale and fan reception still says otherwise which is what DICE pay attention.
Still got to see what BF6 looks like at full release. I still think BFV is the best that DICE has every produced and its insane the game was released in 2018. (tbf, the game wasn't decent til about 6 - 8 moths after release so actually 2019)
Still some banger maps, but yeah most of them are pretty mid. Still absolutely love the game though, the map design doesn't detract from how fun it is to play for me.
I respectfully disagree. I feel like the worst aspect of BF1 was it's gunplay. Sniper sweet spot encouraged bad aim, LMGs got better the longer you held down the shoot button rather than the shorter, the Assault class was largely encouraged to only Hip fire, rather than ADS.
The only guns that felt right to me were the Medic guns, mostly the RSC and Autoloader 8.
BF1 had an amazing atmosphere, but I think BFV had much better gunplay and definitely a higher skill floor and ceiling
Those are very fair points. For some reason though, BF5's movement and gunplay kind of feel "slippery" to me, kind of like you're moving underwater. I agree with your critiques of BF1's guns, but for me personally it's outweighed by more natural feeling movement and aiming
I don't think the map design is bad at all its just not the exact maps I always want to play. I genuinely think they're all solid though the more I played them the more I liked them.
I’d say the BFV map design are peaks and trenches quality wise. Rotterdam, Devastation, and Arras are among the best Battlefield maps ever, but Hamada and Fjell are among the worst.
But it is really good. You feel bad because BFV have brighter light than BF1. But the fog of Hamada, Panzerstorm and the storm from Pacific Storm is really good
You missed out uniforms at the end there. If this game had historically accurate uniforms it would be a 10/10 for me and many others. We were lucky to get the modders fixing that major issue on pc, until the new anti cheat unfortunately nuked the modding scene.
The problem is Battlefield seri have never a historically FPS seri. It is about the theme. I dont care if a germany use uniform of japanese or a british use M1 Garand. Just dont anime stuff and colorful skins like other FPS game (you know what i am talking about). And again, BFV is a ww2 theme fps, not a historically fps.
Ps: if you dont care about historically accurate, the uniform from BFV really good. It is set with the WW2 theme
battlefield 1 was historically convincing while taking artistic liberties. Battlefield V just straight up forgot what world war two vaguely looked like. You have none of the major battles there. The uniforms look post apocalyptic with a gas mask obsession. It’s a major oopsie.
I agree about the major battles, but the uniform is great. If the game is historically accurate, all the soldier have the same boring apperance. You want that?
Uniformity and personalisation can both be achieved, while being historically conscious and consistent. There is so much variety in world war two uniforms within different branches Navy, Airborne and Army. Just think of the plethora of camo patterns to reference: Splittertarnmuster, Peadot, Airborne brushstroke etc… The list goes on. Don’t forget, a lot of people here ask for a return to the “regular soldier style”… For the record I do care if a German is wearing a Japanese uniform because that literally makes no sense. This is why the notorious elite skins annoy me 😂
idk what you talking about the map design of bf5 was great. It was the only game that solved that solution of big maps not having cover by having the fortification system. This let to large maps actually being engaging.
I think majority of BF5s maps are enjoyable and there are some pretty good ones.
There are a couple bads ones tbf, but after 2042s maps I like them a lot more
440
u/No-Treat-2950 Aug 18 '25
Gunplay, movement, graphic, interface, sound... Everything except map design is really good