The 2nd Battle of Arras, which was featured in BFV was significant because it helped the British get to dun dah dun. Hell, how many games have the Battle of Shanghai which was pretty massive and historically significant? It seems people only want what they see in films or put into pop culture rather than actual Battles that happened. Not every WW2 game needs every front or every "popular/iconic" front. DICE made the game specifically focusing on the British Battles, it was in their original statement about the game, but people demanded that they squash and mould the game into their own ideals, whilst disregarding the developers original vision. Games like Medal of Honor: Pacific Assault, Post Scriptum, Hidden and Dangerous 1+2 and other games did not have the Soviets, but never got the same response. There are literally hundreds of WW2 games out there that don't have specific fronts/factions and they never got lambasted as much as DICE did in regards to this.
I never understood this obsession with people saying BFV should have the Soviet Front and other Battlefields. Something was seriously fucking broken there. It's a difficult game to reflect on because it's home to a bunch of smart changes that I wish/hope would transition to Battlefield 2042, but it's also a game I tapped out of and have no interest in returning to, instead leaning back on Battlefield 4 and 1.īattlefield V also had the worst, most consistent cheating I've ever seen in a Battlefield game.
#BATTLEFIELD 1 VS BATTLEFIELD 5 UPDATE#
Namely the balance, inconsistent quality between all of its working parts, the map design, the state of bugs at a launch, and the flip flopping post-launch update changes to the damage model. The Pacific Update was the game at its peak, with the strongest map design and balance in the game thanks to more controlled distribution of spawn locations, capture progression, and vehicle availability.Īs a long time Battlefield fan I probably put more hours into Battlefield V than most, and there's plenty within the game I'll argue in favour of, but it's also probably the most consistently frustrated and disappointed I've been with a Battlefield game.
#BATTLEFIELD 1 VS BATTLEFIELD 5 SERIES#
It has maybe my absolute least favourite Conquest Large maps in the series most of them flow like absolute arse and have boring capture points. Shooting stuff feels very nice and when the combat comes together it's a blast, it's also beautiful and sounds great as per DICE's standard, but the balance feels exceptionally wonky and wrong. It feels like every facet of the game (map design, class roles, vehicle functions, weapon balance) were designed independently of each other by teams that never spoke. It's not perfect, but it's an amazing game and one of my favourites in the series.īFV's combat and damage model leans more towards sim-like sensibilities and balance, but the game as a whole is extraordinarily imbalanced and messy. And the general game feel, of shooting, moving, driving, doing anything, is beautifully responsive and satisfying. The audio/visual production is out-of-this-world and arguably the best DICE have done in the series. It has some of the best weapon and vehicle balance in the series, and generally fantastic Conquest Large maps. BF1's erosion of some of the sim-like class in favour of more arcadey combat soured me at first, but I feel worked very well within the confines of its direction and intention.
That being said, I lean towards BF1 pretty heavily. So I don't know what the player counts at the moment are. I cannot vouch for anything on Xbox as I'm on PC.
0 kommentar(er)
