Lucifers Beard
Member
You’re right, it’s not a bad game, it’s a fucking terrible game. A turd that won’t flush.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Vince Zampella (head of Respawn) is the put in charge of the Battlefield franchise by EA going forward
- Thread starter Boss Mog
- Start date
Ozzy Onya A2Z
Member
Not sure what you mean mate. Fallen Order came out 2 years ago. Yes Apex is getting updates regularly too. It's more the forward thinking e.g. fallen order sequel, TF3 (I want that campaign so bad). Respawn have been killing it, I don't know why you'd task a studio head to another studio/franchise and risk that wonderful formula at all.
ResetEraVetVIP
Member
Hyperbole…this is why I trust industry reviews…and metacritic, they are more accurate than the average user spewing this BS. Yes the game has problems but it actually is a fun game. It needs patches.
Last edited:
WhamBamThankYouMaam
Member
Played codename eagle. Played all the bf games. Haven’t even finished the ten hour trial. Unsure why, I just don’t start the game.
I think it lacks iconic points, in previous games you had certain points on the map that could be held and fought for. Now it just a mish mash. I don’t know.
I think it lacks iconic points, in previous games you had certain points on the map that could be held and fought for. Now it just a mish mash. I don’t know.
Kenpachii
Member
Yea maps are pretty bad.
Phunkydiabetic
Banned
Sounds great, now we just have to wait three or so years for another Battlefield
KyoZz
Tag, you're it.
We are progressing, step by step.
Soon: acceptance come on I believe in you!
A.Romero
Member
I mean that we know that there will be a sequel for fallen order:
Also that Apex is getting attention as you mentioned.
We also know for a long time that Titanfall wasn't in production a year ago (last time they talked about it directly from what I know):
"There’s nothing currently in development," Zampella told IGN
In short, the fate of all of those games was written before this change.
Apologies if I misunderstood you thinking you implied that those games were left aside in favour for BF.
WitchHunter
Banned
Yes, let's hope he has all the weapons at his disposal to get his way, and it's not just an empty title.
EDMIX
Member
? Well its likely cause he alone doesn't make those games by himself, he can run the BF series and still head other projects.... Think about what you are even saying, he was running things at ReSpawn while the did both Apex and Fallen order....did you not realize that when you posted?
So I think their studio will be just fine as he alone doesn't just make all things there, Fallen Order 2 is likely deep enough into development where his input has already shaped the game
Ozzy Onya A2Z
Member
Fair point mate.
I just don't want to spread a good thing too thin. Respawn/Vince have made some of my all time favourite games in the TF series, Apex & Fallen Order, I suppose I'm cautious about them shaking that up.
EDMIX
Member
I agree in terms of like the whole team, but the head of that studio helping at DICE can't be a bad thing and I think how great he is, he can only help such a great team like DICE in terms of design, future updates etc. I'd say his knowledge of the genre and industry needs to be used well as if this never happened, you'd hear many saying things like "WOW and they had Vince at EA ,yet never had him help DICE?".
I mean, think about it, over at Sony, Ubisoft etc its not unusual to have a head of one team, help out the head of another team etc, we usually like to hear that. I don't believe they would jeopardize the development of other titles to have him do this and I feel those games are in good hands if Vince feels they are in good hands. DICE's designers have so much freedom to change and alter BF from going from WWII to modern with jet packs, to mechs with 2142 to compete destruction with Bad Company, with risk comes a few flops sure but I hope Vince continues that risk type apporach as I feel some of the best BFs have been made taking those leaps vs playing it safe.
I need dem mechs in the next BF aka 2143 lol
S0ULZB0URNE
Member
BF games are 3 year projects.
That was before his involvement.
S0ULZB0URNE
Member
It already has this.
Shmunter
Member
If COD is 10/10 then BF is a 6.5/10. For my taste anyway.
S0ULZB0URNE
Member
Not for my taste.
I find Destiny 2,the Titanfalls and BF to have the best gunplay.
EDMIX
Member
Well it depends on taste tbh.
I feel BF has crisp gunplay and COD is more of a arena thing. I like the feel of measuring bullet drop, leading shots etc. To me that is more fun so I'm sure its a each his own type thing.
AJUMP23
nah, I'd say they are fine to continue updates and fixes as in the last 2 weeks we've gotten 2 updates that fix a whole lot and a 3rd update coming soon. I think he will focus on post launch content that is already being worked on that we'll see some time next year, so I'd say 3 years to fix this is a bit exaggerative. Lots of the issues that are even being talked about have been patched, are listed to be patched next or are easy fixes that are not a 3 year thing or something.Think about it like this, people wanted rush in the whole game, next patch will add Rush in Portal to all 2042 maps...
So if someone wants lets say specialist optional, the already are in Portal, move the checkmark and woooow its now optional in the whole game.
75 weapons in the whole game, but 2042 doesn't include the Portal guns? move checkmark
Most of what is being talked about doesn't sound like a 3 year thing, I think the community simply fucking exaggerates waaaaaaaaaaay too much.
Last edited:
Ozzy Onya A2Z
Member
Well one chef and many pies is better than too many chefs and one pie.
LOL @ the mechs in BF. They axed the titans in Apex and honestly it plays better without them. I did prefer TF1 over TF2 in that respect though. Mechs wouldn't be enough to get me into BF over Apex or Halo though.
Shmunter
Member
That's pretty much the crux of it
lmimmfn
Member
Wow, omg, it has Santa, ima need to buy this asap!!!"expanding the narrative, storytelling, and character development opportunities in the Battlefield series"
Oh and I want to meet the guy on the team that though "22 weapons in our game is enough, right?"
Is this your "certain type of players, not casual":
I've been playing BF since I was 15 and 2042 isn't Battlefield. It's R6 Siege meet Warzone with a little bit of recent BF elements added in the mix. It is a shitty entry and months of bugfixes won't change the core of the game, which is NOT a Battlefield.
Enjoy it, but don't come with this statement.
ResetEraVetVIP
Member
Accepting that a game can have problems and still be a good game…
Lucifers Beard
Member
It’s not hyperbole at all and you’re trusting industry reviews where most of their experience with the game was held by EA and the experience was tightly controlled by them then I don’t know what to tell you.
The games dog shit and deserves the absolute battering the majority of the gaming community is giving it. Fucking £70 for a broken piece of shit with 7 bad maps and half baked extraction game type. That’s without deep diving into the absolute bonkers design decisions that make no sense.
Dr.D00p
Gold Member
There's no doubt they're now after a new generation of gamers, who didn't really grow up playing the 1942 - Battlefield 4 era.
Men_in_Boxes
Snake Oil Salesman
Battlefield is going to need to figure out how to move on from 20 second gameplay loops and 15 minute matches.
That formula is going to have a hell of a time competing over the next 5+ years.
That formula is going to have a hell of a time competing over the next 5+ years.
Croatoan
They/Them A-10 Warthog
most matches last for 20-30 minutes though? I know because they are timed...lol.
manfestival
Member
Vince has been a champion loved his medal of honor and call of duty titles. Probably spent over 1000 hours on COD1. This man turns everything to gold. One of those few consistent names in the industry.
KyoZz
Tag, you're it.
If the game/server don't crash of course.
And then at the end of the match, go back to main menu to find a new game... because we can't stay on the serv. No automatic map change while we all stay on the server.
Because this is probably too hard to do and this wasn't in EVERY fuckin Battlefield right?
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
Vince in charge? The next BF game will be even closer to Apex and COD. LOL
Might as well call it: Battle Legends of Duty.
Might as well call it: Battle Legends of Duty.
Croatoan
They/Them A-10 Warthog
Oh dear child...
I have never had a server crash in game. I have had them not connect me though. The server browser should definitely return. You seem real butthurt about 2042, maybe go play something else?
KyoZz
Tag, you're it.
I'm not playing this game anymore, I put a few hours in it, it was shit, I uninstalled. Now I play Dishonored II/Halo/It Takes Too if you wanna know.
Anyway, first, act like a grown up person and don't call other "child" if you wanna be taken seriously
Second, you quoted me on the first page, then I responded and... you disappeared. You don't have anything to say?
Finally you don't have problem (well you do but whatever) ≠ there isn't problems.
Now I'm waiting your response on this.
Men_in_Boxes
Snake Oil Salesman
Yeah, it's probably more the 20 second gameplay loop that's going to have difficulty moving forward.
Lucifers Beard
Member
What a strange response. I’d be upset with BF2042 if I had paid the price EA are asking for. It’s clear that a huge amount of people are playing something else since the player base just fell on its face.
Decontamination Silo
Banned
Vince has great FPS instincts. I don't think he'll try to shoehorn Titanfall movement into BF. All anyone wants is BC3 and it really shouldn't be that hard to make. Destructible everything, killer audio design, simple server browsers and the classic game types. It's really not rocket science.
Croatoan
They/Them A-10 Warthog
have you played breakthrough? Lots of lengthy engagements in that mode if you are good. Conquest is in a bad state with this game honestly. The maps are too big and too barren. The map issues are less noticeable in breakthrough.
I know you are a big BR fan, how do you reconcile the 20 second engagements in those games? Are you wanting BF to become more arena like? Guess I am not sure how to fix your beef.
KyoZz
Tag, you're it.
You don't want to answer when someone has actual arguments?
I mean sure it's easier to just say "duh, you child me no problem"
Croatoan
They/Them A-10 Warthog
I didn't respond because you are just an over emotional child (and you type like one) and that "rebuke" wasn't worth my time. You put a few hours into a game? I put 100+ into it. I don't think BF 2042 is in a good place, I have been very critical of the game. When I rebuked your arguments initially you didn't listen to anything I said and doubled down on stupid...just like a spoiled child would.
I never said there weren't problems with servers crashing, just in my 100+ hours I've never had them, ergo they can't be that common. That said, the common server issues I got A LOT of and they were super annoying (unable to connect, or joining servers that wouldn't start).
I am not apologizing for DICE's mess but when I see bullshit being thrown around I am going to correct it. Saying BF2042 isn't a BF game because of superfluous features is just dumb. That doesn't mean I don't wish those features where in the game.
Last edited:
KyoZz
Tag, you're it.
Oh sorry my lord but you will learn that English isn't my main language. We can talk in French to see how you doing? I'm sure I have a lot of fun.
"Saying BF2042 isn't a BF game because of superfluous features is just dumb"
Like the number of weapons, squad management bad maps etc... all of that are MAJOR points that are concerning.
I guess this is why the franchise is going into so much shake up, because they nailed it right? People leaving DICE, this is because this game feels like Battlefield, right? And not like a rippoff of Warzone/R6 Siege? Right?
Men_in_Boxes
Snake Oil Salesman
So when I'm referring to "20 second gameplay loops" I'm referring to "spawning - run to action - engagement - death". If you're good, the loop lasts a bit longer. If you're bad, it may be a bit shorter.
Traditional style Call of Duty multiplayer always had the least interesting and shortest gameplay loop to me. Why it was wildly popular I don't know, but it looks like that's fading quickly now.
I also think in terms of engagements (time you spot or are spotted by enemy, to someone dying) BR has the longest, most interesting engagements. I've recorded numerous Fortnite clips where engagements last 3+ minutes because the game gives you longer distance engagements, higher TTK, and a wider variety of game mechanics to play with.
In Battlefield, CoD, Halo etc...the engagement time (spotting enemy to someone dying) is, I'm guessing, an average of ~3.5 seconds. In BRs, that number is way longer.
Right now, Battlefield is really struggling with drama and repetition. It lacks drama because death is near meaningless and player performance isn't tied to match outcome. Who cares if you got 5 kills in a row, it had very little impact on a 64 v 64 player match. It also looks pretty repetitive from the gameplay clips I'm seeing. Run towards action - shoot sh**.
The market has now grown up playing BR. Battlefield needs to figure out how the lessons of BR can fit into the Battlefield franchise. Right now, it's a war game that doesn't move players emotions.
PS: I'll check out some Breakthrough to see if they're headed in the right direction.
Last edited:
Croatoan
They/Them A-10 Warthog
I see and you make a good point. One of the things I dislike about 2042 is the 128 player matches. In 64 player matches a single player could wipe a squad and survive. In 128 player matches that same player can only kill 2 people before the 6 others down him. This is exactly what you are talking about and it is caused by the player count, breakthrough does not help this at all it just keeps you in the "action" more with less running.
A single good squad in 64 player battlefield can win a match. A single good squad in 128 player battlefield is mostly meaningless. The increased player count decreases the effectiveness of both a single player and a squad.
Battlefield's modes will never be able to do what you want them too as far as gameplay loop but 64 player maps will make it less frustrating and be the closest you can get while still keeping the choas (32 players is just too small imo).
128 players is just too much for the modes battlefield has and the gameplay it promotes.
Last edited:
And why would i post it here?