I'm an advocate of teamwork oriented games, but if you can't figure out how to make teamwork fun in your game then don't make a teamwork oriented game. This is a common issue in many games. Most players (in a mainstream title) will do whatever they want without consideration for the team, leaving it up to a small handful of more dedicated players to carry that team if they don't want to lose. If its not fun for those dedicated players, then they won't want to do that either. If nobody does it, then the games is fun for nobody. Teamwork actions should not be clunky, they shouldn't take away control from the partaking players, they shouldn't remove a player's agency to enjoy other aspects of the game, and they should absolutely not require a two-way interaction to carry out (not in a game as fluid as an FPS anyway). And that's just the baseline. Team Fortress 2 is probably the best example of how to do a class based shooter right. Most players were pretty clueless, and yet the design of the game somehow made it feel like they were still contributing somewhat, whilst also allowing a good solo player to feel like they were making a big impact on the game. And sure, that teamwork focus still wasn't perfect 100% of the time, but it was better than most. In 13 years I don't think any other game has come close to replicating that feel anyway (and certainly not Overwatch, for as many people try to compare the two). And this obsession with animating literally everything is sucking the fun out of many other games too. Rockstar is one of the biggest offenders for this. But in an FPS it ABSOLUTELY has no place. I don't want to watch my character do stuff, because I'm not watching a fucking movie. If there's an action I want to do, then I WANT TO DO IT. Ditch the overbearing graphical effects too please. If they negatively effect gameplay then they don't belong. Not to mention many outright make games look worse anyway (Chromatic abberation, for instance. The fuck is up with that?).
Plus, many other important facets of teamwork are ignored. If you ask a random BF player what teamwork is then they'll probably say something about reviving people, healing people, repairing vehicles, or giving ammo out. If they're an utter deviant then they might even tell you that they like to pilot a transport chopper and fly people around. But... even in a game where you literally just shoot people, teamwork can exist. And a coordinated team will continue to destroy one that isn't. The most important thing is communication. And that's the biggest thing a teamwork oriented game should try to push on its players.
R* toned back animations a lot in multiplayer during RDR2. In singleplayer I don't mind animations but obviously that depends on how much you are willing to grind stuff out which in itself is a design topic. What pissed me off about RDR2 single player is how it shoehorned you into every set piece possible even changing walking speed and directions for you to make shit feel more immersive. Unless my character's wounded or in a blistering blizzard I dont give a fuck about the cinematic experience.
@@lelele2289 Animations in single player games are fine for me so long as they're not repeated dozens or hundreds of times. They can be very annoying in open world games as a result of this, much less so in story driven linear experiences. Then again, the repetitive and often grindy nature of many modern open world games is also something I take issue with in general. But I just don't see the point in unnecessary animations either way. Many do much more to detract from my immersion (by taking away my control, and making me watch) than they do to improve it, most notably when they're repetitive as I've mentioned. Our minds are more than capable of filling in the blanks so to speak.
Ive found myself going back to bf3 despite the horrific hitreg and tickrate purely because the pew pew part is super fun and the maps arent designed by a 5 year old child. Modern shooter AAA designers have completely lost the plot.
@@jackobrien47 canals wasnt a bafly designed map. You had more than enough cover to navigate around with an AR, LMG, or sniper. If you wanted to use pdw's and shotguns then the crated area was for you. There's a reason it's the most popular tdm map in bf3 to this day.
I play Battlefield since BF1942. And i must say the best Teamwork oriented game was Battlefield 2. And the worst one is BF V. i thought after bf1 it can't get more worse. But it was a fatally mistake. To much hectic, you dont know where you are. You dont know where your squadmembers running. its a feeling like you are in a Hollywood action movie. Its not fun. Running. Die. Running Kill Die Running die. The whole f**** game the same. Its not Battlefield annymore. if i compare it with battlefield 42, there are worlds between. Battlefield V is produced to be a money making machine.
BFV was a dog chasing it's own tail. I once tweeted a reply about Battlefield V that it had too many chefs spoiling the broth. It got a like from somebody who worked for Dice funnily enough, which surprised the heck out of me.
The "True" non-ass-licking gamechangers, were the guys who was supposedly help Dice build a competitive Battlefield games beginning with Incursions and then moving forward, that of course also includes a better gaming experience for casual players. However we were never taken seriously. The whole experience of being a gamechanger felt like Dice was doing us a favour inviting us over to their fance office over in Stockholm and not the way around, us helping them from heading towards disaster. So... What did actually happen during the development of Incursions? Disagreements occurred and it was shocking to experience how little gamechangers have to say about pretty much anything. In desperation, some gamechangers started exposing some of the disastrous plans that producers planned to release/develop to the game on social media, just in the hops of saving the game. The collaboration between gamechangers and ea/dice didn't last very long and eventually gamechangers started getting kicked left and right. Bottom line is, gamechangers is just a title, they don't actually change anything. The issue lays heavily on the DICE/EA working culture. It's a mix of arrogance and too much pride and it has resulted the downfall of the Battlefield franchise.
@@scotch-wm6rr did he really say that? BFV has far ans away rhe wors anti-cheat on any game in recent memory, except for CS:GO faster it became free to play
I find it ironic that niche teamwork-oriented milsim-esque games like RO2/RS2 are more liberal in their concessions in playability over forced mechanics. This is what enables players to fulfill their roles in the first place, rather than having them do extra steps at no additional value. Кстати, отличный клип!
Yeah, in Red Orchestra 2/Rising storm an entire squad can throw smokes, use covering fire and be tactical and do a lot of work but a single player with a sturmgewehr/flamethrower and grenades can wipe them out
The thin that stuns me about dice's unwillingness to acknowledge a bad update is just how childish and egocentric it maeks them look. As a comparison a game I play a lot called Paladins releazied by Hi-Rez Studios, had a great niche product on their hands and were cultivating a dedicated audience that loved its core gameplay loop. Then Hi-Rez NEARLY killed the game by shipping a disastorous update called Cards Unbound which broke every single enjoyable aspect of the game. The community, rightfully so, said it was god awful and within 3 weeks or a month I cant remember exactly, the update was reverted entirely. ive never seen a dev pull back an entire major content update like that before or after, but at least they had the humility to recgonize a system that would kill their product.
Path of exile is also a great example. They have a league for 3 months with new mechanics that goes into the core game after the season ends. One season called synthesis and the player hated it so they didn't put it in the core game and said they will work on it to make it better. Now 1.5 years later they will release an updated version of it for the next league and it looks way better than the first time.
That's not the Hi-Rez I remember. I was a huge smite player during seasons 2-5, but I had started playing during beta. Major meta changes happened always in mid season updates instead of season changes. They never listened when the community asked for slowdown in updates. I was really good at smite and I had to spend hours every couple weeks reading the patchnotes to figure out how the meta changed.
I'm sorry, but why is there any mention of Bad Company series? Sorry, but when Bad Company came out they announced it was the final Battlfield game, but it had an amazing online playerbase so EA made Bad Company 2. That game IMO was the greatest online war experience. BF3 came after Bad Company 2 and was a little more like COD, bit whatever, the maps were superior, size wise and gameplay it was great. 4 was horrible on launch but got better, then a console change happened. Battlefield 1 was a fun experience. But I can understand how for most people the gunplay isn't fun for most classes and people playing them. I never played 5 just cause of negativity and seeing it wasn't taking off. I just hope the come back with a Bad Company 3 and bring it back to its glory days
@@slashismyhommie8182 By what MarbleDuck has said in the vid. Seems like the devs that made bad company don't even work for Dice anymore, and if that's true. I don't think I want the current devs to make a BC3, cause it'll just flop like BF5 did.
One thing BFV did do, was bring everyone into agreement. The game sucks for everyone (very inclusive!). I’ve never had full agreement with more people that I previously had debates with or counter viewpoints on regarding the franchise.
I honestly think the core gameplay experience of BFV is by far the best of the titles I have played (3,4,1,V). I mean it's just so fast paced and just way ahead of the older titles just in how smooth the game flows. I personally think the games flaws are mainly to do with the maps.
I enjoy the game. One of my most played games, and I enjoyed BF4, Hardline (the other black sheep), and BF1. I never played BF3 but I’m sure I’d enjoy it. I’ll admit V has some design aspects I despise (team reliance, tank camping, etc) but no game is perfect (unlike how Duck is calling 3 and 4 flawless games at their peaks). I think all those who hate BFV are just people who are so stubborn to change they bash a game without trying it properly, Duck might be different, he didn’t say how many hours he played. No one should be forced to buy a game, but trashing its audience, devs, and features despite playing few hours is a smooth brain move (not saying duck was like this, after all he didn’t say how many hours he put in to the game)
This was a major criticism of mine when the game released, BFV seems to be going through an identity crisis of wanting to be fornite, cod, pubg, and apex legends, with being a battlefield game only on the back of mind.
If they spent more than 1 single man-week on coop then I will literally eat my shoe. I am a developer myself albeit not a game dev but a programmer nontheless. That thing is worse than some mods I played in CS 1.6
Bad visibility was the exact reason why I refunded the game after a couple of hours. Just like you said I got frustrated with no being able to see anyone and getting killed from god knows where.
Sorry for the absolute wall of text here but you've touched on a big frustration of mine with the Battlefield community at large. Over the years I've come to despise the title people give themselves in the Battlefield community of "Battlefield Veteran". Not only is it absolute cringe but it's just a meaningless title people throw around to give their opinions more authority when it's undeserved. I played Battlefield 2 a ton, so much it probably fucked up my grades because I much rather play it than do homework and as a teenager I made a lot of bad life decisions. 1500 hours easy but the stats for that game are long gone. I'm constantly amazed at how other supposed 'veterans' of the series just gloss over how jank and bad BF2 was. Even better when they say that 1942 of all games is the best in the series, the one where you couldn't ADS and had to run for 10 minutes between control points with no cover. People act like it was a super tactical, realistic shooter, but if you go look at any high level play you'll notice people jumping all over the place, dolphin diving and hipfire spraying everyone down. I could honestly go on and on about the flaws in that game and how people misremember it. I suspect that most 'Battlefield Veterans' never actually played the games or if they did it was for an hour when their dad let them on the computer, but only bot matches. It's telling that even though you can go play BF2 right now on BF2Hub literally no one does. As you said they are catering too an audience that isn't there anymore but I'd like to add to that by saying that niche audience is already long gone to other games that did what BF2 did better. Squad, Arma, Post Scriptum, Hell Let Loose, Red Orchestra 2 and Rising Storm 2. All games that the fans of a more tactical experience have long since moved too. While anecdotal I know none of my old friends who play those now were even remotely interested in BFV returning to it's 'roots'. Are there things in the old BF titles that should be brought back? Absolutely. But Battlefield V didn't emulate anything from the old series that was **worth** keeping. DICE catering to MilSim dads who only ever played Hardcore but were somehow too shit to go play actual tactical shooters was the biggest smooth brained move in history.
Everytime I hear the word "Battlefield Veteran" I just laugh and ask them to describe the game. Cause the Battlefield 1942 and 2 I remember was not this perfect teamplay tactical base FPS game... no it was a chaotic moshpit of grenade spam and jumping around like an idiot. At high level play you had those "perfect teamplay" moments, but thats every battlefield TBH.
It feels refreshing seeing someone call out BF2 for what it is. The game is just too janky for me to enjoy it as much as I do with BF3 and BF4, the jets and helis especially are just too strong for a skilled pilot. And it isn't fun being grenade spammed on karkand along with claymores that you can't even shoot to destroy that explode at 5 feet. BF2 has some of its fun moments but I'd be lying if I said it was better than BF3 or 4, and it annoys me seeing neckbeards act like it was some holy grail of the FPS genre and the best game of all time and you're an idiot if you think otherwise.
@@osakaamd7131 You mean nowadays? Yeah BF2 and BF1942 and Vietnam + 2142; yeah but you should've probably expected that when they did Revive BF2/2142 launcher, yeah nade spam is a thing but... isn't also a thing anywhere else? Hello Destiny 2 would like you to hold their beer. The loadouts in that game were nade central too, MW2/MW3, at some points BF4 and BF1 were about the same. I should note that this "Attrition" is more like a miss conception, there was no real "attrition" in BF2 not like this... BFV, that's just silly and not necessary. The real difference was just 7 classes going down to 4 in later titles. You could still press a single button to get into a tank/get out (there was no animations), like in BF3/BF4 and btw the ammo catch the commander drop still gave you ammo/nades where as the BF4 one let you change your class which I was fine with, because it got boring being stuck on one class alone. Me personally, IDC about doritos or 3D spotting, whatever that's fine I did not mind this. But I don't think attrition was just solely the largest waste of time, it was the TTK really, why did they need to overhaul it 4 times in a row? That's 3 months they could've spent on something else --- too late now though at the end of the day; attrition, marketing team, the game changers, the TTK overhaul that wasn't necessary, whoever was heads at EA/DICE, game made everyone either move on or lose the trust of a solid BF game coming soon. To me, the really form of animation was probably Mercenaries Playground of Destruction and that was a similar game that came out in 2005, however they weren't overboard for everything as in BFV, I'm not even close to justifying that kind of decision as it wasn't what '05 and back BF was like, they went overboard with promises/didn't deliver on said promises and to top all off, too much time was wasted. There is no way hell BFV was ever optimized/balanced/going to get anti-cheat so unfortunate.
@@osakaamd7131 Then I think you were just too young to understand what was happening, even though I could when I was a kid. Here is simply the first video of gameplay I found on youtube when searching "BF2 gameplay" - No cherry picking done in any way, czcams.com/video/Rn9oQR5k8WE/video.html 8:43 sums up exactly why BF2 is held to such high regard, It's when he opens the map and you can see every spawned player on his team. What stands out to you? Every single last player with the exception of 1 dude in the middle of the map, is near a Squad leader fighting at or moving toward an objective, the game progresses slower as you move more methodically through the streets, people don't strafe left and right in gun battles, usually they crouch and take aim to unleash controlled burst fire. at 9:48 they've walked from the bridge and find themselves at an elevated position where the squad takes the time to engage the enemy at a range, not crazy maniac sprints up to them to gun them all down, you simply don't have the stamina to do it. (That's not to say people didn't sneak/flank, but it's not the same as the constant sprint assaults we see in modern titles, it was slower passed). It felt more meaningful to capture an objective because due to the simple fact that it takes longer to move around the map you end up holding it for longer periods of time (in BF4 you would often have teams literally circling the map continuously capturing what the enemy had just captured, points would often be held for mere seconds in BF4's version of Karkand). Because of this, and the fact that the squad leader would have a clear objective marked for you everything you were doing felt like it had a purpose behind it, and even if you zoned out, you could only spawn on your SL or on some flag. You could say the same for BF4, but the second you left one of those bases they would capture it again anyway so what's the point, and the reason for it in BF4 is because you can spawn anywhere(Squad/beacon) and move across the map very quickly due to unlimited sprint and smaller maps. We get to see an awful lot of grenade spam in this video, but that's the culture of the Strike at Karkand map, I've thrown plenty of nades in BF4/BF1 on the right maps. In BF2 like with the other titles different maps play very differently but I'd argue the difference is more severe in BF2, most wide open maps rarely had HUGE clusters of players because they were simply spread out more, but just like metro players tend to play 24/7 Karkand/jalalabad all the time and a lot of people going back for a look get to see that. Armord assault was epic You also had larger squads, 6 people. A squad of 6 people can really turn the tide of a match if your SL knows what hes doing. Your squad just has teeth to it, that goes a long ways. PS: No idea where you got the hip fire thing, hip fire in 1942/BF2 is completely unviable garbage. BF2 with insane random spread, and 1942 having insane spread after you sustain a little bit of fire. I would also point out that constant side strafing in gun fights which miraculously doesn't affect your aim is more prolific than dolphin diving ever was and IMO it's obviously worse. If someone jumps and dives I'm just going to track them to the ground and destroy them as they lie there, but constant strafing is just an unrealistic exercise to test your quake reflexes and it happens in basically every single last gun fight. Also BF2 fixed dolphin diving over a decade ago. But here is what it looks like on a different map. czcams.com/video/uV8KtCkqkT8/video.html The modern games have nothing on what we see here with respect to methodical/tactical game play and that's before we even get to the big maps with lots of vehicles which were my personal favorite though I probably spent most my time on jalalabad .. As for 1942, if you haven't played the many popular 1942 mods then you can't in anyway judge people for what they say about the game, because most of them are referencing one of those, namely Desert Combat.
@@FriezaReturns00001 If I were to sum up the recent games from bad company 2 and up I would do it as follows. 1. Sprint forward until you die, move move move. 2. Mostly ignore the intentions of the squad leader as you enjoy the admittedly awesome gunplay. 3. Just respawn and do it again.
This is my favorite video on the channel. Even if you don't upload very much anymore, the organization and presentation of ideas has come a really long way since 2014, and even since 2018. And as always I feel like I come away from the video smarter. Even if I don't agree with the content (though in this case I couldn't agree more). Thank you for making these videos all these years. The Battlefield community and even the FPS community would be incomplete without this channel.
I love Jackfrags and Westie, I watch a lot of their content. But sometimes, to hear them talk about a game... I feel, are they being payed to say these things?? As they have such a big audience.
They are paid. When they get flied to LA or Stockholm with travel expenses covered to participate in private showcases with exclusive infos and footage, that is called sponsoring and it's a form of retribution. They can tell you they're giving their honest opinion as much as they can, it's a lie. They will always tone it down to not lose their advantages. Ask Levelcap about it. How did it go for him when he criticized BF1? Yep, he didn't get invited anymore. Exclusive footage makes them lot of views, so lot of money. They can't afford to lose that, especially when their channel is all about BF like Westie's.
So there is a trade off with their content. It's going to be accurate in the sense that the information about how weapons work and info about what's coming out. But their opinions are not accurate at all. They have to lie or not share their true beliefs about the games because if they do they lose sponsorship. They're not necessarily paid by EA but they do fly them out and rent hotel rooms for them to do exclusive interviews and sneak peeks at upcoming projects but if they badmouth them (like levelcap did) they stop getting that special treatment from EA. So watching their videos, only listen to their videos about news and nothing about their opinions. They're all skewed because without kissing EA's ass, they lose views because the info they're getting is the same as everyone else's (just reformatted into a 10 minute video). You can sometimes hear it in their voices how they really feel. It's behind this fake wall but it's there.
I stopped watching Westie when he became a huge sellout with BFV. When you're paid to review a product, you'll get a less accurate review. When you get less accurate reviews, you get an incomplete product, which is exactly what BFV is and was.
well it was nice getting a healthy dose of reality after all the recent influencer videos hyping up the remake/reboot/return of battlefield hope i wont have to skip buying yet another one
Totally agree with everything you are saying. But, on top of all that. I class my self as a Veteran Gamer, going way back to the C64/Amiga days. Getting into PCs playing games such as, Doom/Unreal/CoD/MOH:AA etc. I was a member of a few awesome clans, a member of Clan Base, doing tournys. Back then there was a fantastic community, with regulars joining every night on our servers. Team play and fun was had by all (had some amazing nights). But EA, and the likes took away that community by not allowing Clans to have their own private severs. Not only that but if you're going to do an historic game, keep it true, don't reinvent the story, by taking away the heroism of the men that died/fought for our freedom (I'm talking about the SP level, in Norway >.< Telemark i think). Yes, women played a major part in, well, most wars. Either making, munitions, working farms and factories and so on. Some women where spies, Freedom fighters, resistance etc. But, forgive me if my histories a little sketchy. But, I don't remember women landing on the beaches in Normandy? Parachuting behind enemy lines on D-Day. WE all relate to WWII, for Normandy, Carentan, Foy, Bastogne, Stalingrad, Monte Casino and so on). Where did BF5 go?? That's where my dissapointment came, as with many of my old clan mates and friends. Who said for years, would BF WWII be awesome!! Bahh, rant over. I could go on. But this was NOT a WWII shooter
C64/Amiga/Clanbase, did all that as well, I went the quake route with clans etc. and after that landed on the BF franchise. To be honest. I still enjoy BFV. It is far from perfect, but as long as i can hang out with my friends and frag together im happy. But yeah, i do hope that BF6 has less bugs.
What you said about MW2 not being able to be released today is so incredibly true. There is no way the fun, powerful loadouts and strategies would have survived the complaint-first "everything must be balanced" attitude today. Says a lot that the game still has constant casual players 10 years later, when many more recent installments are entirely dead.
@Ceol I'd still rather have the unbalanced MW2 because if it is balanced then it loses it's purpose as to why it was MW2 in the first place. e.g. the integrity of MW2's loadouts was what made that game entertaining.
@Source Reserve So we're diagnosing people from comment sections now? Gotcha, you know, you can't tell me at the bottom of that essay you'd rather play x then say "lul its cheese broken". That makes you a hypocrite from the beginning as you are basically justifying current generation gaming for "balance" and I ask you: Do you want balance? Do you really want balance? Because people seem to forget that things will be broken, there will always be something broken that someone is going to complain about. QED, once you nerf the next best thing, people are going to find the next best thing until either everything is so similar. I'll remind you that you can't complain about broken shit from a game that came out 11 years ago, ask for it again (and we pretty much knew MW2 was getting a remaster) then complain months later about the game saying "hurr hurr game too balanced, not like the original". Seriously if you don't care about remasters why even buy it? Why even talk about it? Why even play it now? LIke these statements make no sense to me as you say I have nostalgia but k. Me, I could careless but I'm just letting you know that balance isn't all that's lived up to be these days and quite overrated. Want to cry for balance until the cows come home (and still not get what you want though), be my guest.
@Ceol ??? How is that hard to understand, I literally said that if you balanced MW2, it looses the reason it was MW2 in the first place; the crazy one man army loadouts, the back to back rpg/noob tubes, the double ump45s.
To sum up this 22 minute video: "Don't like it don't buy it" This right here was what immediately doomed the game in the first place. You don't ever say this to your consumers, ever. That's like me going to a restaurant and ordering a burger without pickles, and they just tell me I can't do that and if I don't like the way the burger comes, then don't buy it. Guess what, I would just take my business somewhere else. People had a right to be pissed about women being on the front lines in this WW2 video game when they hyped it up as the "most immersive and authentic WW2 experience to date". If they straight up said that this isn't meant to be historically accurate and didn't make any of those stupid comments insulting the fanbase, everything would have turned out alright.
Battlefield V feels like a game that attempts to relive the former "Refractor" era of gaming. Not realizing that times have now changed and expectations of player bases are much higher than the older games. Its identity in terms of gameplay makes it feel like some piss-poor milsim and cross between Battlefield and we ended up with this Frankenstein of a game that.. if I was being honest... doesn't feel fun. Playing solo 75% of the time and my entire gaming experience now relies on "Is my squad mate semi-competent enough to give me X/Y/Z" is not what the average joe wants to be dealing with when he gets home. Dealing with bad teammates who either sit at the back of the map with a sniper or refuse to give you a med kit is frustrating and running around with my pistol that somehow has more ammo than my fucking primary for whatever reason was infuriating. You cannot force teamwork to work in a game where it is the equivalent of winning the lottery to get a squadmate who knows what he is doing and not fucking about. DICE were literally handed the golden game after BF1 in terms of everything: A ww2 Battlefield game, yet the fuck it up for all the wrong reasons... They made a widely successful WW1 game... but fucked up a WW2 game they was so easy to make a success even the dumbest of Tripple A devs couldn't fuck up... yet here we are...
Seems like nobody knows that dice did not even develop bf2 but the modding team behind the mod bf1942 desert storm did. Dice just bought the dev studio and later fired them all. The seven class system might not have been the best, but due the medic class being the best you would always be revived support and engineer were close 2nd with sniper being third.
BF2 had a strong emphasis on teamplay and I still played the shit out of that more than I ever did BF3 or later. I think the issue is they tried to strong arm teamplay into the more CoD style gameplay that came after BF2 and it just didn't mix. I'd love to see something closer to BF2 with a much greater kit diversity (as in more than just 4 with borked weapon customization unlocks split over a million DLCs and behind stupidly grindy achievements) and a stronger emphasis on teamplay on a FUNDAMENTAL level as opposed to "pray the supply guy is paying attention and that your squad isn't all over the map or you'll be dead and out of ammo most of the match". If they want to draw back in the old team focused crowd they lost after BF2 they need to make the teamplay a core part of the game as opposed to simply stapling it onto a game it simply doesn't fit in.
@@systemhalodark I think that's one of the big things that splits the early fanbase away from newer BF titles so much, after Bad Company came out the series completely changed how everything played. I really think the best solution would have been to keep making bad company titles as a spin off and keep the mainline ones closer to BF2's style. Imagine getting the same charm and fun out of bad company with the more serious and hardcore squad-like gameplay from a AAA studio.
modern BF2 can be a good game nowadays, there is a market for hardcore shooters like Squad, Tarkov, Hell lets lose, etc. The problem is BFV is not game designed for hardcore audience, it got elements that make life of plebs hard and unfun while for hardcore players its not enought. It trully tries to be everyone battlefield, while the truth is sad - its nobody's battlefield. Add to this: tight deadline, forced swjs ideologies, chasing trends like BR mode, PR disasters. If they have remaster BF 1942 or BF2 as a good and modernised product it will work, but it won't be game that 12 years old gets for Christmas. MW2 is not enough for 2020? Good joke, lol, most fun, fast and exciting cod experience ever. If they had release MW2 remastered multiplayer it will kill playerbase of MW2019
You got it right on the first part, but not the second. Go back and play (or watch gameplay with a critical eye) MW2 and you'll see pretty quickly that it just doesn't hold up in 2020. MW2 appeals to niche players who want to recreate the feelings they had when they played MW2 as a kid. You'll never get that magical experience again, because you're not a kid. The vast majority of players buying games aren't trying to relive that experience, they want a game that's good in its own right.
@@MarbleDuck Thats way i wish that none of my favorite mp fps games come back as remaster. You have to keep building and evolving on its foundation. But, i have to say you are too harsh on BF2. I do exactly remember how clunky shooting was and dolphin diving and nade spam etc etc. But it was unique experience, so you cannot look from 2020 standpoint. Try that for first Doom also, if you were old enough to play it. No jump, no mouse look hell nobody knew you can play it with mouse, horrible shooting mechanics just take RL and keep fraging. But it was AWESOME!!! Anyway, BF2 was fantastic and fun game for its time. Anomations you mentioned. They are boring, but i think they were made to work with much slower ttk in mind.
As much fun as I had with MW2's multiplayer, I don't think it's something I would go back on. I would rather them remaster Black Ops 1 & 2's multiplayer instead.
After 5 hours of Bf5, which I just bought recently, I was absolutely stunned by it, but I didnt really know what was wrong. I switched classes, switched settings, switched perks, watched a bunch of "how to get better at...". Nothing could help me enjoy this game and prevent dying at least once every 60 seconds. The only thing I could think about I felt that the gunplay seemed off, just after alt-f4-ing my last game. But I coudlnt grasp the other flaws despite experiencing them in every single match. Everything was just too fast paced for me to, and I also have to blame myself not having the patience being a game tester. Especially not for something that I(!) have to pay for. Then I searched the internet what the game`s flaws are. And, hell no, it is not women or missing historical accuracy. Because I give a rats ass about how my ego looks and where he/she comes from in a BF game. Then I found your video. 22 minutes of satisfaction, and confirmation that this game is junk. At least for a gamer like me.
"Battlefiled V was designed for a playerbase that does not exist" That is the best way to describe this game, both in gameplay and the tone, story theme. With just a little less than 700 hours in the game, I can attest to that. For example it is terrible how much I depend when I fly to the team bellow to spot something for me to attack. The spotting mechanics were also shoved on the 2 worst classes too. Having to go back to an arbitrary point on the map to be able to use my guns and bombs/rockets again also caused more problems than fun
It was apparent the second I saw that Trevor fucking Noah was doing it. He was given a script and still fucked up with saying such things as “I really enjoyed Co-op from Battlefield 1” yeah a gamemode not even in the game.
Spotting makes planes extremely OP. The problem is not the lack of spotting, but lack of communication to the plane. How are you going to ask for air-support when you have no good features to do so with? You only have the text chat and that is only on PC. The best pilots still goes on 100+ killstreaks every game.
As someone who has played the BF franchise since BF:Vietnam, I think the game mechanically was in just about every way an improvement over BF1. But it might be true, modern gamers don't want team based games anymore. Not in a real sense. They want "multiplayer" to have as little coordination as possible. As far as the air-combat mechanics go, it';s a tough line to cross balance wise. Over the years people who have been mastering jets/choppers can absolutely decimate a game when the other team doesn't know how to deal with stopping a good pilot. So where does it make the most sense to add in the learning curves?
Enjoyable analysis, I tried BFV and had some good experiences with the player base and enjoyed the shooting and movement, I ultimately quit because after playing BF3, and 4, BF5 was frustrating and not fun. I also think that all along from BF4 through the other versions to this one the game was increasingly concerned with and prioritised resources into gimmicks and features that looked good in a press release rather than having resources focused on fun game play. It was such a bad experience and I am so disappointed I have to stop myself from ranting about all the things that bugged me, I think DICE mostly but EA by association is in a lot of trouble.
Great video Marble. Regarding older games and the standards today: I think there are indeed some exceptions. CoD4 with perhaps 1 small grenade nerf would certainly stand the rest of time. It’s remastering shows the incompetence of the developers behind it, not the originals’.
This is really interesting. I'm a BF2 modder and I made a singleplayer-focused mod called Heat of Battle. Singleplayer bots are obviously not very good at teamplay, so one of the first things I did was to double the starting ammo and add a regenerating health effect. I didn't think much of it at the time but now that you put it into words it makes total sense. And yes, speaking as someone who is intimately familiar with BF2 mechanics, vanilla BF2's infantry gameplay is complete and utter trash, which is why I made my mod to fix all of that :) I feel that it's a little unfair to blame the restrictive health and ammo on the broad camp of "teamplay tactical". They are often closely associated so it's understandable, but I feel like it SHOULD be totally possible to make a FUN teamplay tactical shooter without dumb health and ammo mechanics. (For example, I'm not sure when BattleNonsense advocated for restrictive health and ammo? Even if he did, that doesn't necessarily mean his other ideas wouldn't be good - although they could be examined through a more critical lens of course.) Curious if you've ever played Insurgency Sandstorm, another 'tactical' shooter which is almost dead that the devs are desperately trying to revive.
I have the heat of battle mod for Battlefield 2. Nice mod but true, Battlefield 2 is complete trash game in today’s standards. I played the game from 2007-2010 non stop before moving to bfbc2 and all I can remember from Battlefield 2 prime days is ”eNeMY iNFanTrY sPOtTeD and dying to grenades. Now it’s just good fun to jump to play some mods now and then and get a bit nostalgic but it doesn’t make it a good game in a long run.
@@SSaNNEE100 I think towards the end of BF2s prime. the game play did sadly gravitate towards nade spam. Especially in Strike at Karkand map. but before that nade spam wasnt really a huge issue and it was because the mechanics were so god awful that you could do stupid things with the game too. Some maps were also better designed and there were some small details that were well thought out.
First, thank you for a criticism of BFV that does not get into the launch trailer, politics, or anything Patrick Soderlund did or did not do or say. To be honest, all that stopped mattering very quickly. Second, thank you for acknowledging the plight of the gamer who plays BF in public games, without friends and mainly to relax and frag for funsies. I feel like this audience has no representation and has been mostly ignored since Battlefield Bad Company 2. While BF3, BF4 and BF1 were just damn well made games that gently compelled you to 'git gud' with the endorphin rush of success and achievement, BF5 was a steaming turd that was clunky, boring, difficult and disconnected the average gamer's fun completely from the experience.
First video I went back to after watching the BF 2042 trailer. As much as the trailer is calling to the "only in battlefield" theme that seems to being bringing back hope for the game. The reality should in this video is still present. To put it simply: With this new trailer DICE has my attention, but not my optimism. I am ready to be disappointed.
A friend recommended me this video and its honestly some of the best quality content out there on this game. But now I have crippling battlefield related depression becuase it sounds like this game honestly will never return to greatness, not with the current management in charge.
Bf2 was “unfun” really? It was incredibly fun because it was so difficult and frustrating. Granted, no it would not be well received today, it was a different era. The game was a revolutionary departure from anything else and the gameplay was the ultimate sandbox experience. I rarely played objectives and had a ball. Let’s not forget... the game was populated heavily right up ‘til the servers stopped being supported. Best game of the franchise, hands down!
@@wowdude999 Dude, you can still play Battlefield 2. Check out bf2hub.com. Also if you want a more fresh experience, try out Squad. It's more realistic, sure, but the experience is wonderful, the atmosphere is great and the community is kinda helpful. Join a squad, follow and listen to your squad leader, ask ANYTHING about the game and they will answer you, they will gladly teach you the game basics.
It wouldn't be received well today not because of its "dated" gameplay but because every game now needs to support lone wolf run and gun players. Gamers are 100% worse now than they were back in the day. I have no idea what this dude is smoking but when people complain about depending on randos online, they don't mean the squad mates you cultivated on dedicated servers back in the day they mean today's gamers who only understand "run forward and shoot enemy fast"
I feel like Modern Warfare 2019, say what you want about it, did a good job of doing what BFV wanted to do Modern Warfare’s animations and gameplay, at least for me, gives off a great impression of you being an elite soldier in a tactical environment which then made me almost want to roleplay and behave in a certain way. Whereas BFV just had no soul and it felt like just a bunch of toy soldiers and tanks slamming into each other for 20 minutes a match (and that is regardless of the garbage cosmetics at launch)
nah. mw2019 is a really really bad FPS for 2020 standards. There is no objective gameplay thus no teamplay, game is completely bug ridden, sandbox is non-existent, gunplay is just wrong, map design is horrible, spawns are extremely bad, game modes are badly designed, balance is completely broken, graphics are poor, visibility is insanely bad, sounds are good but sound engine is trash, killstreaks etc. are affecting the gameplay really really badly, cheaters are rampant, teamplay is not even a thing, tactics is not a thing etc etc.
Fast TTK in a Battlefield Game has never been a problem. Hardcore Servers in BF4 are still today populated by a loving audience. Fast TTKs lead to longer range shootouts and a higher emphasis on l tactics, clever thinking, use of cover, team work etc, instead of short range, hectic, aim focused madness, which a more tired player cant really follow . Being able to get 5 players whom you out flanked, with their back turned towards you with the same mag, is the most satisfying feeling ever.
Your incredibly well thought out analysis is the reason this channel remains in my subscriptions, the videos might not be regular but they're always a great watch. On the bfv topic I feel like EA executives have taken more direct control of DICE and are pushing out the passionate talent by primarily focusing on finances.
I used to play BF2 everyday when i got home from school. I can tell you now that the nade spam was frustrating at times, it didn't stop how fun the game actually was. When playing on strike at karkand, a majority of the players did play medic because it was easy to counter the nade spam which made it less frustrating. Also the kits were a lot more balanced so you found a lot of the time players would be willing to play the medic class or the engineer class. Today you find that in certain kits there are weapons that are far more OP than what they have in medic/engineer classes so you often find very few of them because of that. Its very sad to see such a great franchise be in the wrong hands. Im afraid to say BF6 is going to suck
Speaking of niches, did the leads forget that they've always had a thing called hardcore mode, where people who want to look at grasses move can, well, look at grasses move?
Accurate. I'd say there are a few good things from BF2 that they could use but that would require thinking and good execution. Attrition can be good, they just failed at implementing properly. The most annoying things for me in BFV are the animations for both infantry and vehicles + the terrible forced attrition. Awful 0 hard cover open wasteland map design is probably the biggest issue that contribute to the bad player retention. They have to fix all of this in the next title or we'll have another BFV. Obviously there's many other issue like bad mouse input, the game freezing for 3 seconds, overall not so good performance for those who don't play on the absolute best systems out there, asymmetrical vehicle balance, bad vehicle spawn system, TAA and like 150 more things. I would say this game just sucked for pretty much everyone. No one was pleased.
@miguelzaibatsu Sure, all the good players abused this but that's a minority. The pros are way more than the cons (of having the BF3 / BF4 system). Very and I mean very few people would do this. I'm talking top 0.1% players and that's if they can even be bothered. A game like Battlefield 3 (which was pretty massive at launch population wise) you'd basically see what you described like once in 5000 matches or smth like that. It was abused as hell in comp matches - we all abused it, but it wasn't a thing in pub. The current system is glitchy, inconsistent and creates massive imbalance problems. Some idiot spawns an AA vs a Tiger and your team just gets slaughtered. Predetermined vehicle spawns are superior because they take them into consideration for the overall map balance, whereas in BFV you have no idea what which tank your shitty teammate will spawn. This whole game is just a fucking mess. Can thank BF1 for bringing this terrible system.
Honestly I can say I agree with everything you said. There are some great and awesome people at dice but the leadership and decisions are running the who thing into the ground. I'd kill to have a more modern BF4 but with each decision made in BF5 it seems impossible. Sad really.
Every time I see a Duck video as such. And I watch the entirety of it, I always get depressed. Because I know your right, and truthfully and honestly if everything you said was true and Dev's that are currently working or that have left have said such things. There truly is no hope for BF6. When I first seen and heard of BF5 when it was coming out. I thought attrition and all that garbage sounded cool. Sounded fresh. But when you actually play it, it feels like hot garbage. I hated spawning in with 3 clips of ammo, to then go run to a ammo crate to get my full 6-7 clips I'm suppose to have. The whole dorrito thing is also stupid, if I wanted to have a more realistic experience I'd go play squad. This is battlefield, and ever since BFBC2 there's been dorritos. (I know bf2/2142 didn't have dorrios but I think the minimap showed them thou if u spotted them) I have been literally going back to BF3 and 4 to play my battlefield fix that I need. BF1 also has play issues that I just can't enjoy fully. Not to mention I can't stand WW1, well at least Dice's vision of WW1.
i like what duck said in one of his other videos, that doritos are a counter balance to how much more visually polluted games are today comparing the simple polygon's of bf2 to the blurry mess that is bfv I couldnt agree more with him almost every step bfv took was in the opposite direction of what made battlefield fun, trying to chase trends that have nothing to do with the franchise
@@RogerNbr when he said a counter balance to how visually polluted bfv is. Does that mean it would actually help to have them since how fucked they made visibility? If any battlefield game ever needed doritos. It's definitely bfv than any other in the franchise.
@@RogerNbr also now that I think about it. The last thing you said "chasing trends that have nothing to do with the franchise". What trends were they chasing from other games exactly? What recent fps has terrible visibility, limited ammo or "attrition", and flip flopping gun balance that can't tell what kind of identity it wants to be.(long ttk or short ttk. Because they didn't know how they wanted to go about balancing the weapons.)
@@Killa162 im guessing battle royales were the main inspiration since they had a popularity boom no doritos, harder visibility and scarcer resources were 100% trying to appeal to that genre, certainly pushed by some dumb exec
I've always said that BFV is an anti FPS, thanks to this video now I can safely say that it is THE anti FPS. Thanks for making the video marble. (p.s I giggled a little when KHT was looking at the nerd in the corner at 2:20 multiple times and didn't notice :D)
Watching this reminds me of what Pete Doctor from Pixar said, I'll summarize it. He stated that the older generation of animators lost touch and nearly killed animated films, when he became the head of Pixar, he did it to hire YOUNG animators, who are more in touch with CURRENT times, so that THEY can make films that relates to the current/younger generation. DICE, unfortunately it feels like and maybe it's a one off, has lost touch with what gamers not only want, but need from Battlefield. BF3 was DICE's magnum opus, it was animated amazingly, the graphics were shocking, and it really brought life back into Battlefield, it even brought console players over to PC just because of the graphics. Battlefield 4 came out, and it fixed issues that could have been fixed in BF3 (Why make a new game when you can work on the one that came out two years prior?). I also believe EA has (maybe sometimes but I can't really say yes or no because I don't work for any game development companies owned by EA) too much of a stronghold to get them to do what they (EA) wants/needs because of the investors. If DICE and EA were to stop and slow down, churning games does not mean money. BF3 was hyped up properly, and while it started off with bugs (None that I dealt with or remember), it turned out to be a really really fun game. What do gamers want now? I keep seeing BC3/BF2143, modern shooter (what's worse is that modern NOW is not modern like MW2). Yeah, we might see robo dogs in BF6, but that's because it's actually happening, were robo dogs a thing in 2009? No, they were not. DICE's leaders have lost touch with the communities that made up their games, EA has lost touch with their developers. Anyone involved who disagrees with what a developer is doing should step up and make themselves heard (I'm talking about you Quality Assurance). If BF6 sucks, I'm going to just... walk away from new BF games unless they're 7$. Also I know, don't pre-order, I'm not going to, but if I did it's my money, my choice.
Battlefield 2 is still my favorite BF, play it still to this day. Played the original, revive project, and now BF2Hub. I still regard it as the best. I will agree that its audience is more niche. I think it holds the same place/value as Squad or Project Reality do. With their niche audiences. EDIT: I see this video is meant for the people not like me. I love low TTK leaving me wondering where tf I died from. Multiple classes to force teamplay. Shit like Squad, Arma, Sandstorm and Post Scriptum. I am the niche audience.
I should make it clear that I'm not trying to tell anyone what they should/should not like :) This video is just about why BF5 didn't achieve commercial success, not why you personally should/not like certain mechanics. I like *relatively* low TTK, and think 225ms is probably a pretty good sweet spot for point-blank TTK. I do not think that you need class divisions to create teamplay, nor that teamplay should be forced.
Before i start my massive post which doesn't even address half of the disgusting faults i find with the battlefield franchise, and "war-games" in general - If you want an actual WW2 game you can purchase Post Scriptum. Its a much more realistic take on the conflict than Dice could ever make, and if you used to be a fan of Battlefield like myself, you won't be disappointed. I don't think many of the current fans know the real reason why the Battlefield veterans completely left. They'll go on about the problem we supposedly had with "wahmens", but at the same time outright ignoring the other, way more important worries and complaints that were out there from day one. The main issue lies not only in BFVegan, but in the Battlefield franchise overall. It has not developed in a way that would satisfy or benefit the immersion of the core fans that were with it from the beginning in at least 8 years or so. With today's improvement of game engines in general, we could have gotten an extremely realistic and immersive take on WW2, and i would have paid WELL for that chance. Your whole take on "freedom in a sandbox" goes completely against the concept of war at it's core in that regard. You see, it seems like every game in your opinion should be this "wee i'm free" experience that all the others are. Battlefield was never your kind of game. Go for fortnite or any of the other (literally) tens and tens of children's games that tries to create that type of instant gratification loop. Many of us who suffered through the past three titles only saw signs of effort in that very category, and NONE in the immersion or gunplay areas. Gunplay. The thing we'd probably disagree completely on. Gunplay (to me) should be reliant on how GUNS FUNCTION. Not on how easy you feel they are to virtually handle. Just by the popular take on gunplay i can tell that 95+ percent of gamers have never been to the range at all. They just don't understand what handling a gun actually entails. By now, we should have seen extreme developments in realistic reload times (ridiculously fast today), accuracy (waay too easy today), ballistics (highly oversimplified today), and damage (just embarrassingly low today). But we have gotten none. I want you to bring out your coolest airsoft toy, and see how fast you could actually reload it, does it even compare to the insane juggling your character does in today's video games overall? And where are the rare (but still prevalent) gun jams? Nowhere, because it wouldn't satisfy children. And that's where we get into the reason why video games as a whole are extremely monotone and unintelligent now. Because they must pander to the patience of the ignorant and monotone children that play them. Its very well put by Jim Sterling, as the companies are not satisfied making boatloads of money, they have to make ALL the money. If not they aren't satisfied. What angers me so in that regard is that DICE could without a doubt take the time, effort and money to make two games. One that focuses on the "free" 24 hour fuckaround you so enjoy, and one that is an actual war-game for developed minds. You don't seem to understand that war is a team effort, and your negative view on forced teamwork is detrimental to the ability to make a functionally accurate war-game. A good example of this would be today's cartoon-like operation of a machine gun. IRL a belt fed machine gun is categorized alongside other "force multipliers" like mortars and sniper squads. And they are deployed in teams (usually of three), because one man can NOT carry the gun, spare barrels and the ammunition needed for prolonged operation. And the time he would have to spend reloading, maintaining and maneuvering if unassisted is ridiculous. Also, when you're lying down firing a machine gun you have (mostly) no clue what is happening around you. Something seems to be making a lot of noise, you see? So the second and third man (the commander/assistant gunner) has to do that part for you. And YES, i know how these things could be easily implemented with the current engine running the game. The truth is war-gaming was sold out to ignorant kids spending their parent's money on bonus packages, skins and other crap that does not make the game function better at all. And the time and money spent making all the redundant parts of the games could be put to use in the making of two separate versions of them. But even if they have the funds and the time needed to do that, they won't. Because they wouldn't make all the money in the world in one release. I'm sorry but your "standards" have not grown, they are just skewed in the direction that "better" only means faster and easier.
While I don't necessarily disagree with you, I don't think battlefield is the type of game that should incorporate realistic machinegunner teams. Battlefield should be about teamwork. BFV had the right direction but the wrong idea. I don't think teamplay should frustrate the individual (to the extent of bfv) with ammo and health, but rather the team. Teamwork should be so powerful, that the team who does it will always win. Duck missed what made BF2 great. It wasn't the tactical gunplay or microteamwork like in bfv, but the actual teamwork. Squads that stuck together and actually helped eachother. I do find it funny that duck complains about forced teanwork, while showing footage of a game where your teammates are literally completely pointless aside from making flanking a little harder.
I don't agree with all your well discussed opinions but for me the real eye opener was Battlenonsense's play time. I think you can break this down to the virgin authoritarian 'muh team play' battlefielder and the chad libertarian 'remove reload animations' battlefielder
I don't know where marbleduck got that number from. In the review for bfv a year ago battlenonsense said he has played 45 hours of the game. It's still not a lot, but that was a year ago, and it's not 19 hours. Also he said in his review that he does enjoys bfv and thinks its the best frostbite battlefield.
If you told me 5 years ago that bf2 was bad, I would've laughed it off and called you an idiot. However, then I got a chance to play the game once more on Revive, and I got shocked by how bad it was compared to bf4. Aside from the overspecialised classes and the grenade spam, which you already mentioned, there are so many poorly executed or just outright awful game mechanics that it make me wonder how the game became even remotely successful. The gunplay is, with the exception of snipers, immensely frustrating, even once you get used to it. The random dispersion is excessive to the point that it’s practically impossible to hit anything if you're not lying down on the ground with the gun in semi auto mode. Limited sprint is supposed to make vehicles more valuable, but since DICE cranked it to 11, it made large maps borderline unplayable on foot. Vehicle balance is some of the worst I've ever seen. Ground vehicles are squishy and even tanks can be grenade spammed to death fairly quickly. Helicopters are tankier than most ground vehicles and all of their weapons do three times more damage than their bf4 equivalents do. Thanks to the ~400 meter render distance, you won't see jets coming until it's too late, so their only counter are other jets, and if someone steals your team's jet, congratulations, you just lost the match. Which brings me on to the last point. Spawnrape is almost unbreakable and happens often. There are no one-team-only zones, and there's no spawning directly into vehicles, so not only can the enemy roam freely in your only remaining spawn, they can do so in your team's vehicles. In retrospect, I wasn't looking at the game with rose tinted glasses, I was blind.
Sums it up pretty well snd speaking of helicopters in BF2 I have a funny story. I was in a tank and some enemies were about to take off in the helicopter, so I shot it with an explosive shell and I got a hitmarker. But the gunner fired a TV missile and my tank wss toast. "Best battlefield" my ass
To be fair the best and only video I've watched that pointed out all the major flaws. The best part about it was that it is levelheaded and analytic without fluff. Great work, I really do hope this gets a lot of traction.
Your comment about the animation team load made me remember the first time I loaded in the game, the running animations reminded me a a 10 year old WWII game...
Excellent video, and finally someone that addresses the real issues with the game rather that marketing/aesthetics as the only and most important reason the game failed. I say it as someone that played each iteration of BF I 100% agree that nowadays a BF2 with updated graphics would suck so bad. The reason I guess that I did like the game back then was the communities I played with that made playing alone experience non existent. Once the new frostbite BF came, it made playing alone way more enjoyable and I could still teamplay. Somehow people think that teamplay is undermined with the lack of strict mechanics. Ironically the games that have such heavy team reliant mechanics like say Overwatch they at least have some ladders and small gamemodes to match up with players with your skill, Battlefield is not that and never was that. Even Quake 2v2 has teamplay and does not have teamplay heavy mechanics at all. The only way to tolerate it is to play with friends, and to an extent on how limited maneuvers you can accomplish if you do not get the classes and resources available. Eventually you feel so constrained that it takes the fun out of it. And by punishing solo play so much backed up by "veterans" that are still around they end up doing some sort of weird gate-keeping and elitism kinda like "if you don't like the gameplay just adapt or don't play it", some sort of Söderlund maneuver and then ask why the game flopped. People cannot accept that there are things that need to evolve and why it should never go back, and pretending that BF is a niche genre nowadays is asking to be unpopular for the broad audience that came into the franchise. I'm ashamed I know lot of BF vets from refractor era that have this mentality, they end up playing so little of BFV and then move to more milsim FPS.
What frustrates me the most was me expecting BFV to be good in the beginning since BF1 was so successful....... and then the reveal trailer came out. What's even more frustrating is that we probably won't get a WWII battlefield ever again due to BFV. Because assuming DICE and EA are as arrogant and incompetent as they are, they're going to chalk up BFV's failure because of it being a WWII game. Which sucks because honestly I prefer shooter games of the WWII era over modern era ones. I've been itching for a good modern (as in made for modern consoles) WWII FPS game for years and BF1 delivered on that despite being WWI. And no, I don't consider COD WWII a good one because it was only made to build off of the success of BF1 and had a lot of issues in it that I didn't like and I don't have high hopes for Vanguard either.
One of the best feature of hardline was the option to press a button on a teammate medic or support and get healing or ammo, we need That on future battlefield games, like ffs i am a support main i am aways dropping ammo, but when i pick other classes i REALLY hate when supports dont drop ammo.
It was interesting to come back to this video after a while and sort comments by 'newest'. Of course it's a dumbass opinion to think BFV failed because there are women screeching during your matches, since that can't hold a candle to the variety of horrible gameplay design decisions that made it through testing on a rail, as you described, by hard nosed leaders who had their own vision and did not understand what makes a team shooter fun to the average player. That being said, it isn't illogical to acknowledge that many players were a little bit put-off from the very beginning by the fact that EA/DICE was spending so much dev time and pre-release PR time focusing on the modernized, historical revisionist/unrealistic elements of the game (such as the screeching women and cosmetics) RATHER THAN spending that time showing off things with much greater importance to the Battlefield community: elements of gameplay that would draw us in and really tease how great the gameplay was going to be (assuming they had a better creative direction and had such elements to show-off). The strange pre-release focus started people off with a bad flavor in their mouths, and the release then thrust them into a game that sucked the life out of being a casual shooter player with a life like work or school. The game did not respect the players' time at all.
I'm way late to this video, but man is it fantastic. It hits on all my criticisms and frustrations with DICE and why this franchise is getting to the point where it cannot be saved.
I think another important point that’s worth mentioning was the botched promotion of the game before it was even released. The idiotic multiplayer “gameplay” trailer that was heavily criticized when it was released combined with revisionist history for “modern” day standards along with the higher ups telling people that if they don’t like it then don’t buy it is really what what people not buy the game in the first place. Having such a reduced audience on launch and only making the situation worse over time with all the TTK changes was the writing on the wall for the game. EA and DICE basically reduced their audience from a franchise they owned all by themselves and are to blame for it.
Finally, your videos have popped back up for me. I subbed years ago and even clicked the bell but still this channel didn’t pop up. So happy. As for JackFrags, I knew when he was spewing that marketing bullshit that the game was going to be boring. There was nothing wrong with the health, ammo and revive features of BF3/4. Attrition was awful.
BF2 is pinnacle of BF series, so as DICE LA's fixed BF4. It was time when DICE back then knew what kind of game they want to make and which community to attract. After BFBC2, series turned into CODified mess (COD is not bad game series, but trying to be tactical FPS with run-n-gun supersoldier gunplay often made it unenjoyable).
when you played titles like BF2, BF vietnam, BF3, BFBC2 and you look at BF1/ BF5 right now; it's almost unrecognizable, it's closer to COD or Battlefront than anything else. I started playing BF a long time ago just to 'escape' from the big-Deathmatch spawn run kill die COD style in the first place. I still think the new engine introduced in Battlefront 'killed' the essence of the franchise, feels like no matter what they do, the size of the maps; everything feels like a big linear Deathmatch in this engine compared to others BF titles. If you were introduced to the franchise playing BF1 or BF5 all those things might not be a problem for you and I don't judge! But for old school players who felt in love with battlefield playing the old titles; it's a different style of game right now so you love it or hate it. Thats my lay shallow personal opinion
yep, always loved BF for being much more tactical than COD, you could turn the tide of the match being a lone sniper in a remote area of the map. (EDIT: sometimes without firing a single shot)
The way you complain about battlefield 2 is typical for the types of players that want to be the lone wolf. Nothing wrong with that but at the end of the day, battlefield is a team game. Battlefield 4 perfected the team play formula by adding field upgrade scores for following orders and playing as a squad. Simple as, reward the players individually that play as a team. The series has been over designed since battlefield 1, focusing on aesthetic versus good gameplay. The biggest indicator of this new direction is the way in which vehicles are chosen. On paper it looks like a great idea to pick whatever tank type you want at spawn but during actual game play the sand box is limited by not having over world active assets. Don't get me started on the stupid fucking animations from BF1 that got worse in BFV. I won't beat a dead horse against battlefield v, but remember if they only showcase the pretty graphics or eNviROnmEnT DeTAilS bROo then you know tht it's going to be a shit game. Too many designers adding useless superfluous detail, literally given busy work because the core game is shit. This will happen with battlefield 6, look at the ray tracing bro! It will be shit.
BFV doesn't actually make teamplay better, it just makes solo play worse. I'm big on teamplay and I love coming up with interesting strats, it's why I played comp BF4 when it still existed. So believe me when I say that I love teamplay. What I don't love is when a game makes itself inaccessible and a miserable experience to play solo. Make solo play good. Make teamplay better.
No matter how much fun BFV or 2042 is, i still find myself constantly coming back to BF4/BF1/BF3 simply because they're miles better, at a cheaper price
I disagree that DICE was chasing the older style of Battlefield gameplay to appease the longtime fans. Pretty much every long time Battlefield fan hated the game before it launched and that hatred was solidified when we got to try it. It was marketed like Fortnite. They even added battle royal. The trailer was ridiculous. It showed us Michael Bay like action and comic book characters. Noone was interested until we saw actual gameplay, and even that was quickly squashed when we saw how much of a clusterfuck the classes and weapons were and the stupid new mechanics. Couple that with all the virtue signalling SJW politics shoved into the game when people want to play a game to have fun, not make a statement. I have never talked to someone who played a game between BF1942 to BF2142 that enjoys BF5. We even had revive a few years ago get popular again to play it again for a while. It was still fun, this garbage game was not. It's funny how Battlefield 3 was the breakout, but in terms of design it was the most similar to BF2 compared to this with some more modern and standard for FPS mechanics added.
the reason i put so much time into bf3 and bf4 was because of its sandbox elements, sometimes I would boot up the game and go in a server and dick around with a friend and not really play the objective, or try to actually play the game in the dumbest way possible by just ramming jeaps with c4 into people. bf1 really felt like it removed a lot of the sandbox elements but it felt fun in its own right, but I didn't even put a quarter of the same amount of time into bf1 that I did into bf4, and bf5 looks like it has even less of those elements so I passed it off entirely.
I really hope you end up making a video about Battlefield 2042 at some point before or after it’s released. You’ve really made me revisit my thoughts on the Specialist & Plus systems. I’m quite hesitant to be excited about this title, and while I have been trying to keep my own bias in check that has led to my lack of enthusiasm so far, I do wonder if I’m just picking up on subtle problems of an ultimately broken game.
I'm an advocate of teamwork oriented games, but if you can't figure out how to make teamwork fun in your game then don't make a teamwork oriented game. This is a common issue in many games. Most players (in a mainstream title) will do whatever they want without consideration for the team, leaving it up to a small handful of more dedicated players to carry that team if they don't want to lose. If its not fun for those dedicated players, then they won't want to do that either. If nobody does it, then the games is fun for nobody. Teamwork actions should not be clunky, they shouldn't take away control from the partaking players, they shouldn't remove a player's agency to enjoy other aspects of the game, and they should absolutely not require a two-way interaction to carry out (not in a game as fluid as an FPS anyway). And that's just the baseline.
Team Fortress 2 is probably the best example of how to do a class based shooter right. Most players were pretty clueless, and yet the design of the game somehow made it feel like they were still contributing somewhat, whilst also allowing a good solo player to feel like they were making a big impact on the game. And sure, that teamwork focus still wasn't perfect 100% of the time, but it was better than most. In 13 years I don't think any other game has come close to replicating that feel anyway (and certainly not Overwatch, for as many people try to compare the two).
And this obsession with animating literally everything is sucking the fun out of many other games too. Rockstar is one of the biggest offenders for this. But in an FPS it ABSOLUTELY has no place. I don't want to watch my character do stuff, because I'm not watching a fucking movie. If there's an action I want to do, then I WANT TO DO IT. Ditch the overbearing graphical effects too please. If they negatively effect gameplay then they don't belong. Not to mention many outright make games look worse anyway (Chromatic abberation, for instance. The fuck is up with that?).
Plus, many other important facets of teamwork are ignored. If you ask a random BF player what teamwork is then they'll probably say something about reviving people, healing people, repairing vehicles, or giving ammo out. If they're an utter deviant then they might even tell you that they like to pilot a transport chopper and fly people around. But... even in a game where you literally just shoot people, teamwork can exist. And a coordinated team will continue to destroy one that isn't. The most important thing is communication. And that's the biggest thing a teamwork oriented game should try to push on its players.
R* toned back animations a lot in multiplayer during RDR2. In singleplayer I don't mind animations but obviously that depends on how much you are willing to grind stuff out which in itself is a design topic. What pissed me off about RDR2 single player is how it shoehorned you into every set piece possible even changing walking speed and directions for you to make shit feel more immersive. Unless my character's wounded or in a blistering blizzard I dont give a fuck about the cinematic experience.
Obsession with animations in singleplayer games is fine. Just provide an option to toggle it off/on like the Far Cry series does.
For RDR 2 I liked the animations but for a multiplayer shooter yeah that shit needs to be faster and I can agree to that.
@@lelele2289 Animations in single player games are fine for me so long as they're not repeated dozens or hundreds of times. They can be very annoying in open world games as a result of this, much less so in story driven linear experiences. Then again, the repetitive and often grindy nature of many modern open world games is also something I take issue with in general.
But I just don't see the point in unnecessary animations either way. Many do much more to detract from my immersion (by taking away my control, and making me watch) than they do to improve it, most notably when they're repetitive as I've mentioned. Our minds are more than capable of filling in the blanks so to speak.
Remember when Dice said they didn't understand why everybody liked Bad Company?
Big red flag.
The V wasn't the roman numeral for 5, it was the letter V....for Vagina.
Specifically Vaginas with robot hands.
John Doe hahaha I’m dying
@@John-X lmao
FunFact: Nearly noone like Bad Company... the community hated it...
@@adamwest9632 your on crack
Ive found myself going back to bf3 despite the horrific hitreg and tickrate purely because the pew pew part is super fun and the maps arent designed by a 5 year old child. Modern shooter AAA designers have completely lost the plot.
I think modern warfare campaign got modern right
*Looks at Canals*
Sure thing buddy
@@jackobrien47 canals wasnt a bafly designed map. You had more than enough cover to navigate around with an AR, LMG, or sniper. If you wanted to use pdw's and shotguns then the crated area was for you. There's a reason it's the most popular tdm map in bf3 to this day.
@@MrJabbothehut people who couldn't shoot or are blind hate that map
Just play BF4
It's weird to make your title card "THE FALL OF BFV" when it never really rose in the first place
I play Battlefield since BF1942. And i must say the best Teamwork oriented game was Battlefield 2. And the worst one is BF V. i thought after bf1 it can't get more worse. But it was a fatally mistake. To much hectic, you dont know where you are. You dont know where your squadmembers running. its a feeling like you are in a Hollywood action movie. Its not fun. Running. Die. Running Kill Die Running die. The whole f**** game the same. Its not Battlefield annymore. if i compare it with battlefield 42, there are worlds between. Battlefield V is produced to be a money making machine.
It rose for a little bit in War in the Pacific but fail again when TTK changed.
BFV was a dog chasing it's own tail. I once tweeted a reply about Battlefield V that it had too many chefs spoiling the broth. It got a like from somebody who worked for Dice funnily enough, which surprised the heck out of me.
The "True" non-ass-licking gamechangers, were the guys who was supposedly help Dice build a competitive Battlefield games beginning with Incursions and then moving forward, that of course also includes a better gaming experience for casual players. However we were never taken seriously. The whole experience of being a gamechanger felt like Dice was doing us a favour inviting us over to their fance office over in Stockholm and not the way around, us helping them from heading towards disaster.
So... What did actually happen during the development of Incursions? Disagreements occurred and it was shocking to experience how little gamechangers have to say about pretty much anything. In desperation, some gamechangers started exposing some of the disastrous plans that producers planned to release/develop to the game on social media, just in the hops of saving the game. The collaboration between gamechangers and ea/dice didn't last very long and eventually gamechangers started getting kicked left and right.
Bottom line is, gamechangers is just a title, they don't actually change anything. The issue lays heavily on the DICE/EA working culture. It's a mix of arrogance and too much pride and it has resulted the downfall of the Battlefield franchise.
a7san comment wallah
@@MarbleDuck Shokran Jazilan :D
@@MarbleDuck wait dude you speak arab ? Now that's a real surprise XD
Great vid duck! "The ones that don't understand Battlefield are now in charge"
When I heard tiggr & Co. Are out I knew this franchise is doomed😢
Tiggr, "we are doing quite well on the anti-cheat front." uh...
The franchise ain’t doomed
@@scotch-wm6rr did he really say that? BFV has far ans away rhe wors anti-cheat on any game in recent memory, except for CS:GO faster it became free to play
@@HeyRay07 yes, tiggr was very proud of the "anti-cheat" implementation - he'd even say so on reddit. i asked him that very question :) lmfao
I find it ironic that niche teamwork-oriented milsim-esque games like RO2/RS2 are more liberal in their concessions in playability over forced mechanics. This is what enables players to fulfill their roles in the first place, rather than having them do extra steps at no additional value.
Кстати, отличный клип!
Yeah, in Red Orchestra 2/Rising storm an entire squad can throw smokes, use covering fire and be tactical and do a lot of work but a single player with a sturmgewehr/flamethrower and grenades can wipe them out
I actually "switched" to the Red Orchestra/Rising Storm series after BF3 and imo it is the fun version of Battlefield.
Stockholm was responsible for Battlefront 1 and 2, then BFV. I have no faith in a Battlefield 6.
battlefront 2 is pretty good what are you on about
@@RogerNbr I believe the reason it is good because Disney put a gunpoint at EA and Dice heads....
Didn't they also do BF4? LA had to save the day
BF1?
Bf1 was horrible out the gate and dice la partially saved it.
The thin that stuns me about dice's unwillingness to acknowledge a bad update is just how childish and egocentric it maeks them look. As a comparison a game I play a lot called Paladins releazied by Hi-Rez Studios, had a great niche product on their hands and were cultivating a dedicated audience that loved its core gameplay loop. Then Hi-Rez NEARLY killed the game by shipping a disastorous update called Cards Unbound which broke every single enjoyable aspect of the game. The community, rightfully so, said it was god awful and within 3 weeks or a month I cant remember exactly, the update was reverted entirely. ive never seen a dev pull back an entire major content update like that before or after, but at least they had the humility to recgonize a system that would kill their product.
Fuck Hi-Rez.
Wow, that was fantastic!
OB64... i remember...
Path of exile is also a great example. They have a league for 3 months with new mechanics that goes into the core game after the season ends. One season called synthesis and the player hated it so they didn't put it in the core game and said they will work on it to make it better. Now 1.5 years later they will release an updated version of it for the next league and it looks way better than the first time.
That's not the Hi-Rez I remember. I was a huge smite player during seasons 2-5, but I had started playing during beta. Major meta changes happened always in mid season updates instead of season changes. They never listened when the community asked for slowdown in updates. I was really good at smite and I had to spend hours every couple weeks reading the patchnotes to figure out how the meta changed.
A brilliant and unrivaled analysis of Battlefield V's fundamental problems.
Hes a king for this analysis
Nickel too!? THE BF COMMUNITY LIVES!!!!!
Love your frag videos, made me want to play bf4 again.
I'm sorry, but why is there any mention of Bad Company series? Sorry, but when Bad Company came out they announced it was the final Battlfield game, but it had an amazing online playerbase so EA made Bad Company 2. That game IMO was the greatest online war experience. BF3 came after Bad Company 2 and was a little more like COD, bit whatever, the maps were superior, size wise and gameplay it was great.
4 was horrible on launch but got better, then a console change happened. Battlefield 1 was a fun experience. But I can understand how for most people the gunplay isn't fun for most classes and people playing them.
I never played 5 just cause of negativity and seeing it wasn't taking off.
I just hope the come back with a Bad Company 3 and bring it back to its glory days
@@slashismyhommie8182 By what MarbleDuck has said in the vid. Seems like the devs that made bad company don't even work for Dice anymore, and if that's true. I don't think I want the current devs to make a BC3, cause it'll just flop like BF5 did.
Oh my god you absolutely called it
One thing BFV did do, was bring everyone into agreement. The game sucks for everyone (very inclusive!). I’ve never had full agreement with more people that I previously had debates with or counter viewpoints on regarding the franchise.
I was surprised by the number of people defending bfV after its premature end became official recently
Hagen I enjoy the game to be honest
I honestly think the core gameplay experience of BFV is by far the best of the titles I have played (3,4,1,V). I mean it's just so fast paced and just way ahead of the older titles just in how smooth the game flows.
I personally think the games flaws are mainly to do with the maps.
I enjoy the game. One of my most played games, and I enjoyed BF4, Hardline (the other black sheep), and BF1. I never played BF3 but I’m sure I’d enjoy it. I’ll admit V has some design aspects I despise (team reliance, tank camping, etc) but no game is perfect (unlike how Duck is calling 3 and 4 flawless games at their peaks). I think all those who hate BFV are just people who are so stubborn to change they bash a game without trying it properly, Duck might be different, he didn’t say how many hours he played. No one should be forced to buy a game, but trashing its audience, devs, and features despite playing few hours is a smooth brain move (not saying duck was like this, after all he didn’t say how many hours he put in to the game)
I also enjoyed it.
2:21 did he really not see that guy?
Lol wtf
Unfortunately, I'm a T-Rex, my vision is based on movement 😂
He probably doesn't want to kill AFK players. I do that too.
I watched this video when it first came out, and thought about it again while trying 2042. It's just sad how on point you were, I miss this series...
This was a major criticism of mine when the game released, BFV seems to be going through an identity crisis of wanting to be fornite, cod, pubg, and apex legends, with being a battlefield game only on the back of mind.
pretty much this, they wanted to create a game that BF never was. A fast but tactical, arcadey but realistic, Hardcore but Casual Shooter.
They waste too much time and resources in firestorm, the"Co-Op" mode and 5v 5, which is a shame
If they spent more than 1 single man-week on coop then I will literally eat my shoe. I am a developer myself albeit not a game dev but a programmer nontheless. That thing is worse than some mods I played in CS 1.6
20:39 "like i stated at the beginning of the Vehicle"
:dddd
@@MarbleDuck That was a great test to see who watched it all :)
Welp just played the 2042 Beta and goddammit..... you're absolutely correct. Battlefield is kaput
Nah the beta was great. Did everything they should have realized after BFV
@@justthereed5593 🤣🤣🤣........
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@justthereed5593
Oh really?? Then why is everyone making a big deal out of Portal, if the base game is so good?
@@justthereed5593 list of clowns: you
Bad visibility was the exact reason why I refunded the game after a couple of hours. Just like you said I got frustrated with no being able to see anyone and getting killed from god knows where.
From a camping mmg player
@@markmatter5747 boomerfield v
Sorry for the absolute wall of text here but you've touched on a big frustration of mine with the Battlefield community at large. Over the years I've come to despise the title people give themselves in the Battlefield community of "Battlefield Veteran". Not only is it absolute cringe but it's just a meaningless title people throw around to give their opinions more authority when it's undeserved.
I played Battlefield 2 a ton, so much it probably fucked up my grades because I much rather play it than do homework and as a teenager I made a lot of bad life decisions. 1500 hours easy but the stats for that game are long gone. I'm constantly amazed at how other supposed 'veterans' of the series just gloss over how jank and bad BF2 was. Even better when they say that 1942 of all games is the best in the series, the one where you couldn't ADS and had to run for 10 minutes between control points with no cover.
People act like it was a super tactical, realistic shooter, but if you go look at any high level play you'll notice people jumping all over the place, dolphin diving and hipfire spraying everyone down. I could honestly go on and on about the flaws in that game and how people misremember it. I suspect that most 'Battlefield Veterans' never actually played the games or if they did it was for an hour when their dad let them on the computer, but only bot matches. It's telling that even though you can go play BF2 right now on BF2Hub literally no one does.
As you said they are catering too an audience that isn't there anymore but I'd like to add to that by saying that niche audience is already long gone to other games that did what BF2 did better. Squad, Arma, Post Scriptum, Hell Let Loose, Red Orchestra 2 and Rising Storm 2. All games that the fans of a more tactical experience have long since moved too. While anecdotal I know none of my old friends who play those now were even remotely interested in BFV returning to it's 'roots'.
Are there things in the old BF titles that should be brought back? Absolutely. But Battlefield V didn't emulate anything from the old series that was **worth** keeping. DICE catering to MilSim dads who only ever played Hardcore but were somehow too shit to go play actual tactical shooters was the biggest smooth brained move in history.
Everytime I hear the word "Battlefield Veteran" I just laugh and ask them to describe the game. Cause the Battlefield 1942 and 2 I remember was not this perfect teamplay tactical base FPS game... no it was a chaotic moshpit of grenade spam and jumping around like an idiot. At high level play you had those "perfect teamplay" moments, but thats every battlefield TBH.
It feels refreshing seeing someone call out BF2 for what it is. The game is just too janky for me to enjoy it as much as I do with BF3 and BF4, the jets and helis especially are just too strong for a skilled pilot. And it isn't fun being grenade spammed on karkand along with claymores that you can't even shoot to destroy that explode at 5 feet. BF2 has some of its fun moments but I'd be lying if I said it was better than BF3 or 4, and it annoys me seeing neckbeards act like it was some holy grail of the FPS genre and the best game of all time and you're an idiot if you think otherwise.
@@osakaamd7131 You mean nowadays? Yeah BF2 and BF1942 and Vietnam + 2142; yeah but you should've probably expected that when they did Revive BF2/2142 launcher, yeah nade spam is a thing but... isn't also a thing anywhere else? Hello Destiny 2 would like you to hold their beer. The loadouts in that game were nade central too, MW2/MW3, at some points BF4 and BF1 were about the same.
I should note that this "Attrition" is more like a miss conception, there was no real "attrition" in BF2 not like this... BFV, that's just silly and not necessary. The real difference was just 7 classes going down to 4 in later titles. You could still press a single button to get into a tank/get out (there was no animations), like in BF3/BF4 and btw the ammo catch the commander drop still gave you ammo/nades where as the BF4 one let you change your class which I was fine with, because it got boring being stuck on one class alone.
Me personally, IDC about doritos or 3D spotting, whatever that's fine I did not mind this. But I don't think attrition was just solely the largest waste of time, it was the TTK really, why did they need to overhaul it 4 times in a row? That's 3 months they could've spent on something else --- too late now though at the end of the day; attrition, marketing team, the game changers, the TTK overhaul that wasn't necessary, whoever was heads at EA/DICE, game made everyone either move on or lose the trust of a solid BF game coming soon.
To me, the really form of animation was probably Mercenaries Playground of Destruction and that was a similar game that came out in 2005, however they weren't overboard for everything as in BFV, I'm not even close to justifying that kind of decision as it wasn't what '05 and back BF was like, they went overboard with promises/didn't deliver on said promises and to top all off, too much time was wasted. There is no way hell BFV was ever optimized/balanced/going to get anti-cheat so unfortunate.
@@osakaamd7131 Then I think you were just too young to understand what was happening, even though I could when I was a kid.
Here is simply the first video of gameplay I found on youtube when searching "BF2 gameplay" - No cherry picking done in any way, czcams.com/video/Rn9oQR5k8WE/video.html
8:43 sums up exactly why BF2 is held to such high regard, It's when he opens the map and you can see every spawned player on his team. What stands out to you?
Every single last player with the exception of 1 dude in the middle of the map, is near a Squad leader fighting at or moving toward an objective, the game progresses slower as you move more methodically through the streets, people don't strafe left and right in gun battles, usually they crouch and take aim to unleash controlled burst fire.
at 9:48 they've walked from the bridge and find themselves at an elevated position where the squad takes the time to engage the enemy at a range, not crazy maniac sprints up to them to gun them all down, you simply don't have the stamina to do it. (That's not to say people didn't sneak/flank, but it's not the same as the constant sprint assaults we see in modern titles, it was slower passed).
It felt more meaningful to capture an objective because due to the simple fact that it takes longer to move around the map you end up holding it for longer periods of time (in BF4 you would often have teams literally circling the map continuously capturing what the enemy had just captured, points would often be held for mere seconds in BF4's version of Karkand). Because of this, and the fact that the squad leader would have a clear objective marked for you everything you were doing felt like it had a purpose behind it, and even if you zoned out, you could only spawn on your SL or on some flag. You could say the same for BF4, but the second you left one of those bases they would capture it again anyway so what's the point, and the reason for it in BF4 is because you can spawn anywhere(Squad/beacon) and move across the map very quickly due to unlimited sprint and smaller maps.
We get to see an awful lot of grenade spam in this video, but that's the culture of the Strike at Karkand map, I've thrown plenty of nades in BF4/BF1 on the right maps. In BF2 like with the other titles different maps play very differently but I'd argue the difference is more severe in BF2, most wide open maps rarely had HUGE clusters of players because they were simply spread out more, but just like metro players tend to play 24/7 Karkand/jalalabad all the time and a lot of people going back for a look get to see that. Armord assault was epic
You also had larger squads, 6 people. A squad of 6 people can really turn the tide of a match if your SL knows what hes doing. Your squad just has teeth to it, that goes a long ways.
PS: No idea where you got the hip fire thing, hip fire in 1942/BF2 is completely unviable garbage. BF2 with insane random spread, and 1942 having insane spread after you sustain a little bit of fire.
I would also point out that constant side strafing in gun fights which miraculously doesn't affect your aim is more prolific than dolphin diving ever was and IMO it's obviously worse. If someone jumps and dives I'm just going to track them to the ground and destroy them as they lie there, but constant strafing is just an unrealistic exercise to test your quake reflexes and it happens in basically every single last gun fight. Also BF2 fixed dolphin diving over a decade ago.
But here is what it looks like on a different map.
czcams.com/video/uV8KtCkqkT8/video.html
The modern games have nothing on what we see here with respect to methodical/tactical game play and that's before we even get to the big maps with lots of vehicles which were my personal favorite though I probably spent most my time on jalalabad ..
As for 1942, if you haven't played the many popular 1942 mods then you can't in anyway judge people for what they say about the game, because most of them are referencing one of those, namely Desert Combat.
@@FriezaReturns00001 If I were to sum up the recent games from bad company 2 and up I would do it as follows.
1. Sprint forward until you die, move move move.
2. Mostly ignore the intentions of the squad leader as you enjoy the admittedly awesome gunplay.
3. Just respawn and do it again.
This is my favorite video on the channel. Even if you don't upload very much anymore, the organization and presentation of ideas has come a really long way since 2014, and even since 2018. And as always I feel like I come away from the video smarter. Even if I don't agree with the content (though in this case I couldn't agree more).
Thank you for making these videos all these years. The Battlefield community and even the FPS community would be incomplete without this channel.
I love how a good chunk of the player base and some influencers have returned do bf1
And bf4
I love Jackfrags and Westie, I watch a lot of their content. But sometimes, to hear them talk about a game... I feel, are they being payed to say these things?? As they have such a big audience.
They are paid. When they get flied to LA or Stockholm with travel expenses covered to participate in private showcases with exclusive infos and footage, that is called sponsoring and it's a form of retribution. They can tell you they're giving their honest opinion as much as they can, it's a lie. They will always tone it down to not lose their advantages. Ask Levelcap about it. How did it go for him when he criticized BF1? Yep, he didn't get invited anymore. Exclusive footage makes them lot of views, so lot of money. They can't afford to lose that, especially when their channel is all about BF like Westie's.
So there is a trade off with their content. It's going to be accurate in the sense that the information about how weapons work and info about what's coming out. But their opinions are not accurate at all. They have to lie or not share their true beliefs about the games because if they do they lose sponsorship. They're not necessarily paid by EA but they do fly them out and rent hotel rooms for them to do exclusive interviews and sneak peeks at upcoming projects but if they badmouth them (like levelcap did) they stop getting that special treatment from EA. So watching their videos, only listen to their videos about news and nothing about their opinions. They're all skewed because without kissing EA's ass, they lose views because the info they're getting is the same as everyone else's (just reformatted into a 10 minute video). You can sometimes hear it in their voices how they really feel. It's behind this fake wall but it's there.
I stopped watching Westie when he became a huge sellout with BFV. When you're paid to review a product, you'll get a less accurate review. When you get less accurate reviews, you get an incomplete product, which is exactly what BFV is and was.
Don't know about Westie but Jackfrags never made it a secret that he's getting paid to promote most of the games he featured on his channel.
Westie is a shill for EA lol
well it was nice getting a healthy dose of reality after all the recent influencer videos hyping up the remake/reboot/return of battlefield
hope i wont have to skip buying yet another one
I agree with pretty much all you said, and I’ve said most of the things on Twitter and in videos (but with a more Dutch accent)
Danny... you are part of the problem
JuGoSfRj no he isn’t pepega
JuGoSfRj okay, how am I?
@@Zerbijan LOL, how come?
For you to even put your name and opinions next to Marble's is a joke.
Totally agree with everything you are saying. But, on top of all that. I class my self as a Veteran Gamer, going way back to the C64/Amiga days. Getting into PCs playing games such as, Doom/Unreal/CoD/MOH:AA etc. I was a member of a few awesome clans, a member of Clan Base, doing tournys. Back then there was a fantastic community, with regulars joining every night on our servers. Team play and fun was had by all (had some amazing nights). But EA, and the likes took away that community by not allowing Clans to have their own private severs. Not only that but if you're going to do an historic game, keep it true, don't reinvent the story, by taking away the heroism of the men that died/fought for our freedom (I'm talking about the SP level, in Norway >.< Telemark i think). Yes, women played a major part in, well, most wars. Either making, munitions, working farms and factories and so on. Some women where spies, Freedom fighters, resistance etc. But, forgive me if my histories a little sketchy. But, I don't remember women landing on the beaches in Normandy? Parachuting behind enemy lines on D-Day. WE all relate to WWII, for Normandy, Carentan, Foy, Bastogne, Stalingrad, Monte Casino and so on). Where did BF5 go?? That's where my dissapointment came, as with many of my old clan mates and friends. Who said for years, would BF WWII be awesome!! Bahh, rant over. I could go on. But this was NOT a WWII shooter
C64/Amiga/Clanbase, did all that as well, I went the quake route with clans etc. and after that landed on the BF franchise. To be honest. I still enjoy BFV. It is far from perfect, but as long as i can hang out with my friends and frag together im happy. But yeah, i do hope that BF6 has less bugs.
the slomo parts had me dying lmao
What you said about MW2 not being able to be released today is so incredibly true. There is no way the fun, powerful loadouts and strategies would have survived the complaint-first "everything must be balanced" attitude today. Says a lot that the game still has constant casual players 10 years later, when many more recent installments are entirely dead.
@Ceol I'd still rather have the unbalanced MW2 because if it is balanced then it loses it's purpose as to why it was MW2 in the first place. e.g. the integrity of MW2's loadouts was what made that game entertaining.
@Source Reserve So we're diagnosing people from comment sections now? Gotcha, you know, you can't tell me at the bottom of that essay you'd rather play x then say "lul its cheese broken". That makes you a hypocrite from the beginning as you are basically justifying current generation gaming for "balance" and I ask you: Do you want balance? Do you really want balance? Because people seem to forget that things will be broken, there will always be something broken that someone is going to complain about. QED, once you nerf the next best thing, people are going to find the next best thing until either everything is so similar.
I'll remind you that you can't complain about broken shit from a game that came out 11 years ago, ask for it again (and we pretty much knew MW2 was getting a remaster) then complain months later about the game saying "hurr hurr game too balanced, not like the original". Seriously if you don't care about remasters why even buy it? Why even talk about it? Why even play it now? LIke these statements make no sense to me as you say I have nostalgia but k. Me, I could careless but I'm just letting you know that balance isn't all that's lived up to be these days and quite overrated. Want to cry for balance until the cows come home (and still not get what you want though), be my guest.
@Ceol ??? How is that hard to understand, I literally said that if you balanced MW2, it looses the reason it was MW2 in the first place; the crazy one man army loadouts, the back to back rpg/noob tubes, the double ump45s.
" MW2 would not be successful today...MW2 has still a considerable fan base ". You are contradicting yourself. Make your mind up!
If people are frustrated with Grau/MP5 meta of MW and Warzone. Imagine the frustration of noobtubes, UMP45s, ACRs, etc, etc.
To sum up this 22 minute video:
"Don't like it don't buy it"
This right here was what immediately doomed the game in the first place. You don't ever say this to your consumers, ever. That's like me going to a restaurant and ordering a burger without pickles, and they just tell me I can't do that and if I don't like the way the burger comes, then don't buy it. Guess what, I would just take my business somewhere else.
People had a right to be pissed about women being on the front lines in this WW2 video game when they hyped it up as the "most immersive and authentic WW2 experience to date". If they straight up said that this isn't meant to be historically accurate and didn't make any of those stupid comments insulting the fanbase, everything would have turned out alright.
Battlefield V feels like a game that attempts to relive the former "Refractor" era of gaming. Not realizing that times have now changed and expectations of player bases are much higher than the older games. Its identity in terms of gameplay makes it feel like some piss-poor milsim and cross between Battlefield and we ended up with this Frankenstein of a game that.. if I was being honest... doesn't feel fun.
Playing solo 75% of the time and my entire gaming experience now relies on "Is my squad mate semi-competent enough to give me X/Y/Z" is not what the average joe wants to be dealing with when he gets home. Dealing with bad teammates who either sit at the back of the map with a sniper or refuse to give you a med kit is frustrating and running around with my pistol that somehow has more ammo than my fucking primary for whatever reason was infuriating. You cannot force teamwork to work in a game where it is the equivalent of winning the lottery to get a squadmate who knows what he is doing and not fucking about.
DICE were literally handed the golden game after BF1 in terms of everything: A ww2 Battlefield game, yet the fuck it up for all the wrong reasons... They made a widely successful WW1 game... but fucked up a WW2 game they was so easy to make a success even the dumbest of Tripple A devs couldn't fuck up... yet here we are...
You just repeated what he said in different words
Seems like nobody knows that dice did not even develop bf2 but the modding team behind the mod bf1942 desert storm did. Dice just bought the dev studio and later fired them all. The seven class system might not have been the best, but due the medic class being the best you would always be revived support and engineer were close 2nd with sniper being third.
I used to play support in bf3 because no one was handing ammo around,i fucking hated them for that
Nipaah~
Battlefield 5 feels like a milsim??? Na, its wayyy too arcady for that.
BF2 had a strong emphasis on teamplay and I still played the shit out of that more than I ever did BF3 or later.
I think the issue is they tried to strong arm teamplay into the more CoD style gameplay that came after BF2 and it just didn't mix.
I'd love to see something closer to BF2 with a much greater kit diversity (as in more than just 4 with borked weapon customization unlocks split over a million DLCs and behind stupidly grindy achievements) and a stronger emphasis on teamplay on a FUNDAMENTAL level as opposed to "pray the supply guy is paying attention and that your squad isn't all over the map or you'll be dead and out of ammo most of the match".
If they want to draw back in the old team focused crowd they lost after BF2 they need to make the teamplay a core part of the game as opposed to simply stapling it onto a game it simply doesn't fit in.
BF2 is really more the ancestor of Squad and Red Orchestra/Rising Storm than of the post Bad Company titles.
@@systemhalodark I think that's one of the big things that splits the early fanbase away from newer BF titles so much, after Bad Company came out the series completely changed how everything played.
I really think the best solution would have been to keep making bad company titles as a spin off and keep the mainline ones closer to BF2's style.
Imagine getting the same charm and fun out of bad company with the more serious and hardcore squad-like gameplay from a AAA studio.
modern BF2 can be a good game nowadays, there is a market for hardcore shooters like Squad, Tarkov, Hell lets lose, etc. The problem is BFV is not game designed for hardcore audience, it got elements that make life of plebs hard and unfun while for hardcore players its not enought. It trully tries to be everyone battlefield, while the truth is sad - its nobody's battlefield. Add to this: tight deadline, forced swjs ideologies, chasing trends like BR mode, PR disasters. If they have remaster BF 1942 or BF2 as a good and modernised product it will work, but it won't be game that 12 years old gets for Christmas.
MW2 is not enough for 2020? Good joke, lol, most fun, fast and exciting cod experience ever. If they had release MW2 remastered multiplayer it will kill playerbase of MW2019
You got it right on the first part, but not the second. Go back and play (or watch gameplay with a critical eye) MW2 and you'll see pretty quickly that it just doesn't hold up in 2020.
MW2 appeals to niche players who want to recreate the feelings they had when they played MW2 as a kid. You'll never get that magical experience again, because you're not a kid. The vast majority of players buying games aren't trying to relive that experience, they want a game that's good in its own right.
@@MarbleDuck I believe we eventually see MW2R multiplayer released, so the future should verify our theses.
@@MarbleDuck
Thats way i wish that none of my favorite mp fps games come back as remaster. You have to keep building and evolving on its foundation.
But, i have to say you are too harsh on BF2. I do exactly remember how clunky shooting was and dolphin diving and nade spam etc etc. But it was unique experience, so you cannot look from 2020 standpoint. Try that for first Doom also, if you were old enough to play it. No jump, no mouse look hell nobody knew you can play it with mouse, horrible shooting mechanics just take RL and keep fraging. But it was AWESOME!!!
Anyway, BF2 was fantastic and fun game for its time.
Anomations you mentioned.
They are boring, but i think they were made to work with much slower ttk in mind.
As much fun as I had with MW2's multiplayer, I don't think it's something I would go back on. I would rather them remaster Black Ops 1 & 2's multiplayer instead.
After 5 hours of Bf5, which I just bought recently, I was absolutely stunned by it, but I didnt really know what was wrong. I switched classes, switched settings, switched perks, watched a bunch of "how to get better at...". Nothing could help me enjoy this game and prevent dying at least once every 60 seconds. The only thing I could think about I felt that the gunplay seemed off, just after alt-f4-ing my last game. But I coudlnt grasp the other flaws despite experiencing them in every single match. Everything was just too fast paced for me to, and I also have to blame myself not having the patience being a game tester. Especially not for something that I(!) have to pay for.
Then I searched the internet what the game`s flaws are. And, hell no, it is not women or missing historical accuracy. Because I give a rats ass about how my ego looks and where he/she comes from in a BF game.
Then I found your video.
22 minutes of satisfaction, and confirmation that this game is junk. At least for a gamer like me.
Glad you found it useful :)
"Battlefiled V was designed for a playerbase that does not exist"
That is the best way to describe this game, both in gameplay and the tone, story theme.
With just a little less than 700 hours in the game, I can attest to that.
For example it is terrible how much I depend when I fly to the team bellow to spot something for me to attack. The spotting mechanics were also shoved on the 2 worst classes too. Having to go back to an arbitrary point on the map to be able to use my guns and bombs/rockets again also caused more problems than fun
It was apparent the second I saw that Trevor fucking Noah was doing it. He was given a script and still fucked up with saying such things as “I really enjoyed Co-op from Battlefield 1” yeah a gamemode not even in the game.
Spotting makes planes extremely OP. The problem is not the lack of spotting, but lack of communication to the plane. How are you going to ask for air-support when you have no good features to do so with? You only have the text chat and that is only on PC. The best pilots still goes on 100+ killstreaks every game.
As someone who has played the BF franchise since BF:Vietnam, I think the game mechanically was in just about every way an improvement over BF1. But it might be true, modern gamers don't want team based games anymore. Not in a real sense. They want "multiplayer" to have as little coordination as possible. As far as the air-combat mechanics go, it';s a tough line to cross balance wise. Over the years people who have been mastering jets/choppers can absolutely decimate a game when the other team doesn't know how to deal with stopping a good pilot. So where does it make the most sense to add in the learning curves?
10:38 those are some epic loadout names
holy shit LMFAO
I lost it when I saw Girthy Juul Rips
Tbh I really like the resupply points in bfv cause I remember sometimes in bf1 where I'd just spam request ammo/health
Exactly just dont take away ammo that part is stupid
Enjoyable analysis, I tried BFV and had some good experiences with the player base and enjoyed the shooting and movement, I ultimately quit because after playing BF3, and 4, BF5 was frustrating and not fun.
I also think that all along from BF4 through the other versions to this one the game was increasingly concerned with and prioritised resources into gimmicks and features that looked good in a press release rather than having resources focused on fun game play.
It was such a bad experience and I am so disappointed I have to stop myself from ranting about all the things that bugged me, I think DICE mostly but EA by association is in a lot of trouble.
to sum up this entire video. basically DICE did not have the tech
Great video Marble.
Regarding older games and the standards today: I think there are indeed some exceptions. CoD4 with perhaps 1 small grenade nerf would certainly stand the rest of time. It’s remastering shows the incompetence of the developers behind it, not the originals’.
13:18 games should feel like games. I can't stand all the damn animation locks in bfv
For me personally, it fails because of cheats, that EA does not do enough to battle
This is really interesting. I'm a BF2 modder and I made a singleplayer-focused mod called Heat of Battle. Singleplayer bots are obviously not very good at teamplay, so one of the first things I did was to double the starting ammo and add a regenerating health effect. I didn't think much of it at the time but now that you put it into words it makes total sense. And yes, speaking as someone who is intimately familiar with BF2 mechanics, vanilla BF2's infantry gameplay is complete and utter trash, which is why I made my mod to fix all of that :)
I feel that it's a little unfair to blame the restrictive health and ammo on the broad camp of "teamplay tactical". They are often closely associated so it's understandable, but I feel like it SHOULD be totally possible to make a FUN teamplay tactical shooter without dumb health and ammo mechanics. (For example, I'm not sure when BattleNonsense advocated for restrictive health and ammo? Even if he did, that doesn't necessarily mean his other ideas wouldn't be good - although they could be examined through a more critical lens of course.)
Curious if you've ever played Insurgency Sandstorm, another 'tactical' shooter which is almost dead that the devs are desperately trying to revive.
I have the heat of battle mod for Battlefield 2. Nice mod but true, Battlefield 2 is complete trash game in today’s standards. I played the game from 2007-2010 non stop before moving to bfbc2 and all I can remember from Battlefield 2 prime days is ”eNeMY iNFanTrY sPOtTeD and dying to grenades. Now it’s just good fun to jump to play some mods now and then and get a bit nostalgic but it doesn’t make it a good game in a long run.
Dude I absolutely love your mod
@@SSaNNEE100 I think towards the end of BF2s prime. the game play did sadly gravitate towards nade spam. Especially in Strike at Karkand map. but before that nade spam wasnt really a huge issue and it was because the mechanics were so god awful that you could do stupid things with the game too. Some maps were also better designed and there were some small details that were well thought out.
Oh man i died at those jackfrags parts.
He is a company man suit tie and shoes I cant rely on him to not hype a shit show
BF4 is the best game in the series imo. It's also the furthest back you can go without getting that "this game is old" feeling.
First, thank you for a criticism of BFV that does not get into the launch trailer, politics, or anything Patrick Soderlund did or did not do or say. To be honest, all that stopped mattering very quickly.
Second, thank you for acknowledging the plight of the gamer who plays BF in public games, without friends and mainly to relax and frag for funsies. I feel like this audience has no representation and has been mostly ignored since Battlefield Bad Company 2.
While BF3, BF4 and BF1 were just damn well made games that gently compelled you to 'git gud' with the endorphin rush of success and achievement, BF5 was a steaming turd that was clunky, boring, difficult and disconnected the average gamer's fun completely from the experience.
It was a part of its failure tho, you don't just shit on your fanbase and not expect it to harm anything.
First video I went back to after watching the BF 2042 trailer. As much as the trailer is calling to the "only in battlefield" theme that seems to being bringing back hope for the game. The reality should in this video is still present. To put it simply: With this new trailer DICE has my attention, but not my optimism. I am ready to be disappointed.
And with "Specialists" being the focus and no more class based gameplay....you weren't wrong to feel that way :(
A friend recommended me this video and its honestly some of the best quality content out there on this game. But now I have crippling battlefield related depression becuase it sounds like this game honestly will never return to greatness, not with the current management in charge.
Bf2 was “unfun” really? It was incredibly fun because it was so difficult and frustrating. Granted, no it would not be well received today, it was a different era. The game was a revolutionary departure from anything else and the gameplay was the ultimate sandbox experience. I rarely played objectives and had a ball. Let’s not forget... the game was populated heavily right up ‘til the servers stopped being supported. Best game of the franchise, hands down!
I played BF2 up until the servers got shut down. Many servers were still populated. If I could, I would still play. I've moved to BF4
@@wowdude999 Dude, you can still play Battlefield 2. Check out bf2hub.com.
Also if you want a more fresh experience, try out Squad. It's more realistic, sure, but the experience is wonderful, the atmosphere is great and the community is kinda helpful. Join a squad, follow and listen to your squad leader, ask ANYTHING about the game and they will answer you, they will gladly teach you the game basics.
It wouldn't be received well today not because of its "dated" gameplay but because every game now needs to support lone wolf run and gun players. Gamers are 100% worse now than they were back in the day. I have no idea what this dude is smoking but when people complain about depending on randos online, they don't mean the squad mates you cultivated on dedicated servers back in the day they mean today's gamers who only understand "run forward and shoot enemy fast"
No offence but if it’s difficult and frustrating you probably kick rocks all game.
I feel like Modern Warfare 2019, say what you want about it, did a good job of doing what BFV wanted to do
Modern Warfare’s animations and gameplay, at least for me, gives off a great impression of you being an elite soldier in a tactical environment which then made me almost want to roleplay and behave in a certain way.
Whereas BFV just had no soul and it felt like just a bunch of toy soldiers and tanks slamming into each other for 20 minutes a match (and that is regardless of the garbage cosmetics at launch)
nah. mw2019 is a really really bad FPS for 2020 standards. There is no objective gameplay thus no teamplay, game is completely bug ridden, sandbox is non-existent, gunplay is just wrong, map design is horrible, spawns are extremely bad, game modes are badly designed, balance is completely broken, graphics are poor, visibility is insanely bad, sounds are good but sound engine is trash, killstreaks etc. are affecting the gameplay really really badly, cheaters are rampant, teamplay is not even a thing, tactics is not a thing etc etc.
Fast TTK in a Battlefield Game has never been a problem. Hardcore Servers in BF4 are still today populated by a loving audience. Fast TTKs lead to longer range shootouts and a higher emphasis on l tactics, clever thinking, use of cover, team work etc, instead of short range, hectic, aim focused madness, which a more tired player cant really follow .
Being able to get 5 players whom you out flanked, with their back turned towards you with the same mag, is the most satisfying feeling ever.
Your incredibly well thought out analysis is the reason this channel remains in my subscriptions, the videos might not be regular but they're always a great watch.
On the bfv topic I feel like EA executives have taken more direct control of DICE and are pushing out the passionate talent by primarily focusing on finances.
I used to play BF2 everyday when i got home from school. I can tell you now that the nade spam was frustrating at times, it didn't stop how fun the game actually was. When playing on strike at karkand, a majority of the players did play medic because it was easy to counter the nade spam which made it less frustrating. Also the kits were a lot more balanced so you found a lot of the time players would be willing to play the medic class or the engineer class. Today you find that in certain kits there are weapons that are far more OP than what they have in medic/engineer classes so you often find very few of them because of that. Its very sad to see such a great franchise be in the wrong hands. Im afraid to say BF6 is going to suck
5 died because of a perfect storm.
1) woke schold marketing team
2) garbage game design.
Okay, but why is the game play shown on this video COD???
Speaking of niches, did the leads forget that they've always had a thing called hardcore mode, where people who want to look at grasses move can, well, look at grasses move?
Accurate. I'd say there are a few good things from BF2 that they could use but that would require thinking and good execution. Attrition can be good, they just failed at implementing properly. The most annoying things for me in BFV are the animations for both infantry and vehicles + the terrible forced attrition. Awful 0 hard cover open wasteland map design is probably the biggest issue that contribute to the bad player retention. They have to fix all of this in the next title or we'll have another BFV. Obviously there's many other issue like bad mouse input, the game freezing for 3 seconds, overall not so good performance for those who don't play on the absolute best systems out there, asymmetrical vehicle balance, bad vehicle spawn system, TAA and like 150 more things. I would say this game just sucked for pretty much everyone. No one was pleased.
@miguelzaibatsu Sure, all the good players abused this but that's a minority. The pros are way more than the cons (of having the BF3 / BF4 system). Very and I mean very few people would do this. I'm talking top 0.1% players and that's if they can even be bothered. A game like Battlefield 3 (which was pretty massive at launch population wise) you'd basically see what you described like once in 5000 matches or smth like that. It was abused as hell in comp matches - we all abused it, but it wasn't a thing in pub. The current system is glitchy, inconsistent and creates massive imbalance problems. Some idiot spawns an AA vs a Tiger and your team just gets slaughtered. Predetermined vehicle spawns are superior because they take them into consideration for the overall map balance, whereas in BFV you have no idea what which tank your shitty teammate will spawn. This whole game is just a fucking mess. Can thank BF1 for bringing this terrible system.
I really miss your content. It’s nice to see you posting some stuff more frequently
Honestly I can say I agree with everything you said. There are some great and awesome people at dice but the leadership and decisions are running the who thing into the ground. I'd kill to have a more modern BF4 but with each decision made in BF5 it seems impossible. Sad really.
this is why Jack Frags and Levelcap get tickets from EA to go to Sweden to play the new battlefield instead of MarbleDuck
They lose credit tho in gamers ur a company man that's what ur doing for money
Every time I see a Duck video as such. And I watch the entirety of it, I always get depressed.
Because I know your right, and truthfully and honestly if everything you said was true and Dev's that are currently working or that have left have said such things. There truly is no hope for BF6.
When I first seen and heard of BF5 when it was coming out. I thought attrition and all that garbage sounded cool. Sounded fresh. But when you actually play it, it feels like hot garbage. I hated spawning in with 3 clips of ammo, to then go run to a ammo crate to get my full 6-7 clips I'm suppose to have. The whole dorrito thing is also stupid, if I wanted to have a more realistic experience I'd go play squad. This is battlefield, and ever since BFBC2 there's been dorritos. (I know bf2/2142 didn't have dorrios but I think the minimap showed them thou if u spotted them) I have been literally going back to BF3 and 4 to play my battlefield fix that I need. BF1 also has play issues that I just can't enjoy fully. Not to mention I can't stand WW1, well at least Dice's vision of WW1.
i like what duck said in one of his other videos, that doritos are a counter balance to how much more visually polluted games are today
comparing the simple polygon's of bf2 to the blurry mess that is bfv I couldnt agree more with him
almost every step bfv took was in the opposite direction of what made battlefield fun, trying to chase trends that have nothing to do with the franchise
@@RogerNbr when he said a counter balance to how visually polluted bfv is. Does that mean it would actually help to have them since how fucked they made visibility? If any battlefield game ever needed doritos. It's definitely bfv than any other in the franchise.
@@RogerNbr also now that I think about it. The last thing you said "chasing trends that have nothing to do with the franchise".
What trends were they chasing from other games exactly?
What recent fps has terrible visibility, limited ammo or "attrition", and flip flopping gun balance that can't tell what kind of identity it wants to be.(long ttk or short ttk. Because they didn't know how they wanted to go about balancing the weapons.)
@@Killa162 im guessing battle royales were the main inspiration since they had a popularity boom
no doritos, harder visibility and scarcer resources were 100% trying to appeal to that genre, certainly pushed by some dumb exec
Now no one gonna bash bf 1 much after a shit show of bf5, with good for me because i play both bf4 and 1 unlike some modern war bias fanboy
Best video of 2020 already.
I've always said that BFV is an anti FPS, thanks to this video now I can safely say that it is THE anti FPS.
Thanks for making the video marble.
(p.s I giggled a little when KHT was looking at the nerd in the corner at 2:20 multiple times and didn't notice :D)
Watching this reminds me of what Pete Doctor from Pixar said, I'll summarize it. He stated that the older generation of animators lost touch and nearly killed animated films, when he became the head of Pixar, he did it to hire YOUNG animators, who are more in touch with CURRENT times, so that THEY can make films that relates to the current/younger generation.
DICE, unfortunately it feels like and maybe it's a one off, has lost touch with what gamers not only want, but need from Battlefield. BF3 was DICE's magnum opus, it was animated amazingly, the graphics were shocking, and it really brought life back into Battlefield, it even brought console players over to PC just because of the graphics. Battlefield 4 came out, and it fixed issues that could have been fixed in BF3 (Why make a new game when you can work on the one that came out two years prior?). I also believe EA has (maybe sometimes but I can't really say yes or no because I don't work for any game development companies owned by EA) too much of a stronghold to get them to do what they (EA) wants/needs because of the investors.
If DICE and EA were to stop and slow down, churning games does not mean money. BF3 was hyped up properly, and while it started off with bugs (None that I dealt with or remember), it turned out to be a really really fun game. What do gamers want now? I keep seeing BC3/BF2143, modern shooter (what's worse is that modern NOW is not modern like MW2). Yeah, we might see robo dogs in BF6, but that's because it's actually happening, were robo dogs a thing in 2009? No, they were not.
DICE's leaders have lost touch with the communities that made up their games, EA has lost touch with their developers. Anyone involved who disagrees with what a developer is doing should step up and make themselves heard (I'm talking about you Quality Assurance). If BF6 sucks, I'm going to just... walk away from new BF games unless they're 7$. Also I know, don't pre-order, I'm not going to, but if I did it's my money, my choice.
Battlefield 2 is still my favorite BF, play it still to this day. Played the original, revive project, and now BF2Hub. I still regard it as the best. I will agree that its audience is more niche. I think it holds the same place/value as Squad or Project Reality do. With their niche audiences.
EDIT: I see this video is meant for the people not like me. I love low TTK leaving me wondering where tf I died from. Multiple classes to force teamplay. Shit like Squad, Arma, Sandstorm and Post Scriptum. I am the niche audience.
I should make it clear that I'm not trying to tell anyone what they should/should not like :)
This video is just about why BF5 didn't achieve commercial success, not why you personally should/not like certain mechanics.
I like *relatively* low TTK, and think 225ms is probably a pretty good sweet spot for point-blank TTK. I do not think that you need class divisions to create teamplay, nor that teamplay should be forced.
Before i start my massive post which doesn't even address half of the disgusting faults i find with the battlefield franchise, and "war-games" in general - If you want an actual WW2 game you can purchase Post Scriptum. Its a much more realistic take on the conflict than Dice could ever make, and if you used to be a fan of Battlefield like myself, you won't be disappointed.
I don't think many of the current fans know the real reason why the Battlefield veterans completely left. They'll go on about the problem we supposedly had with "wahmens", but at the same time outright ignoring the other, way more important worries and complaints that were out there from day one.
The main issue lies not only in BFVegan, but in the Battlefield franchise overall. It has not developed in a way that would satisfy or benefit the immersion of the core fans that were with it from the beginning in at least 8 years or so.
With today's improvement of game engines in general, we could have gotten an extremely realistic and immersive take on WW2, and i would have paid WELL for that chance. Your whole take on "freedom in a sandbox" goes completely against the concept of war at it's core in that regard. You see, it seems like every game in your opinion should be this "wee i'm free" experience that all the others are. Battlefield was never your kind of game. Go for fortnite or any of the other (literally) tens and tens of children's games that tries to create that type of instant gratification loop. Many of us who suffered through the past three titles only saw signs of effort in that very category, and NONE in the immersion or gunplay areas.
Gunplay. The thing we'd probably disagree completely on. Gunplay (to me) should be reliant on how GUNS FUNCTION. Not on how easy you feel they are to virtually handle. Just by the popular take on gunplay i can tell that 95+ percent of gamers have never been to the range at all. They just don't understand what handling a gun actually entails. By now, we should have seen extreme developments in realistic reload times (ridiculously fast today), accuracy (waay too easy today), ballistics (highly oversimplified today), and damage (just embarrassingly low today). But we have gotten none. I want you to bring out your coolest airsoft toy, and see how fast you could actually reload it, does it even compare to the insane juggling your character does in today's video games overall? And where are the rare (but still prevalent) gun jams? Nowhere, because it wouldn't satisfy children.
And that's where we get into the reason why video games as a whole are extremely monotone and unintelligent now. Because they must pander to the patience of the ignorant and monotone children that play them. Its very well put by Jim Sterling, as the companies are not satisfied making boatloads of money, they have to make ALL the money. If not they aren't satisfied. What angers me so in that regard is that DICE could without a doubt take the time, effort and money to make two games. One that focuses on the "free" 24 hour fuckaround you so enjoy, and one that is an actual war-game for developed minds.
You don't seem to understand that war is a team effort, and your negative view on forced teamwork is detrimental to the ability to make a functionally accurate war-game. A good example of this would be today's cartoon-like operation of a machine gun. IRL a belt fed machine gun is categorized alongside other "force multipliers" like mortars and sniper squads. And they are deployed in teams (usually of three), because one man can NOT carry the gun, spare barrels and the ammunition needed for prolonged operation. And the time he would have to spend reloading, maintaining and maneuvering if unassisted is ridiculous. Also, when you're lying down firing a machine gun you have (mostly) no clue what is happening around you. Something seems to be making a lot of noise, you see? So the second and third man (the commander/assistant gunner) has to do that part for you. And YES, i know how these things could be easily implemented with the current engine running the game.
The truth is war-gaming was sold out to ignorant kids spending their parent's money on bonus packages, skins and other crap that does not make the game function better at all. And the time and money spent making all the redundant parts of the games could be put to use in the making of two separate versions of them. But even if they have the funds and the time needed to do that, they won't. Because they wouldn't make all the money in the world in one release. I'm sorry but your "standards" have not grown, they are just skewed in the direction that "better" only means faster and easier.
While I don't necessarily disagree with you, I don't think battlefield is the type of game that should incorporate realistic machinegunner teams. Battlefield should be about teamwork. BFV had the right direction but the wrong idea. I don't think teamplay should frustrate the individual (to the extent of bfv) with ammo and health, but rather the team. Teamwork should be so powerful, that the team who does it will always win.
Duck missed what made BF2 great. It wasn't the tactical gunplay or microteamwork like in bfv, but the actual teamwork. Squads that stuck together and actually helped eachother.
I do find it funny that duck complains about forced teanwork, while showing footage of a game where your teammates are literally completely pointless aside from making flanking a little harder.
I don't agree with all your well discussed opinions but for me the real eye opener was Battlenonsense's play time.
I think you can break this down to the virgin authoritarian 'muh team play' battlefielder and the chad libertarian 'remove reload animations' battlefielder
lol remove reload animations? we fallout now
XD
I don't know where marbleduck got that number from. In the review for bfv a year ago battlenonsense said he has played 45 hours of the game. It's still not a lot, but that was a year ago, and it's not 19 hours. Also he said in his review that he does enjoys bfv and thinks its the best frostbite battlefield.
Watching this after the BF2042 is surreal
If you told me 5 years ago that bf2 was bad, I would've laughed it off and called you an idiot.
However, then I got a chance to play the game once more on Revive, and I got shocked by how bad it was compared to bf4.
Aside from the overspecialised classes and the grenade spam, which you already mentioned, there are so many poorly executed or just outright awful game mechanics that it make me wonder how the game became even remotely successful.
The gunplay is, with the exception of snipers, immensely frustrating, even once you get used to it. The random dispersion is excessive to the point that it’s practically impossible to hit anything if you're not lying down on the ground with the gun in semi auto mode.
Limited sprint is supposed to make vehicles more valuable, but since DICE cranked it to 11, it made large maps borderline unplayable on foot.
Vehicle balance is some of the worst I've ever seen. Ground vehicles are squishy and even tanks can be grenade spammed to death fairly quickly. Helicopters are tankier than most ground vehicles and all of their weapons do three times more damage than their bf4 equivalents do. Thanks to the ~400 meter render distance, you won't see jets coming until it's too late, so their only counter are other jets, and if someone steals your team's jet, congratulations, you just lost the match. Which brings me on to the last point.
Spawnrape is almost unbreakable and happens often. There are no one-team-only zones, and there's no spawning directly into vehicles, so not only can the enemy roam freely in your only remaining spawn, they can do so in your team's vehicles.
In retrospect, I wasn't looking at the game with rose tinted glasses, I was blind.
Sums it up pretty well snd speaking of helicopters in BF2 I have a funny story. I was in a tank and some enemies were about to take off in the helicopter, so I shot it with an explosive shell and I got a hitmarker. But the gunner fired a TV missile and my tank wss toast. "Best battlefield" my ass
@@killerratchet1973 Haha oh jesus, I can actually feel your pain. I'll stick to BF4 then!
Oh and can you please put your BF4 videos back up, they are brilliant
To be fair the best and only video I've watched that pointed out all the major flaws. The best part about it was that it is levelheaded and analytic without fluff. Great work, I really do hope this gets a lot of traction.
Your comment about the animation team load made me remember the first time I loaded in the game, the running animations reminded me a a 10 year old WWII game...
Another Duck video? We've been blessed!
Excellent video, and finally someone that addresses the real issues with the game rather that marketing/aesthetics as the only and most important reason the game failed.
I say it as someone that played each iteration of BF I 100% agree that nowadays a BF2 with updated graphics would suck so bad. The reason I guess that I did like the game back then was the communities I played with that made playing alone experience non existent. Once the new frostbite BF came, it made playing alone way more enjoyable and I could still teamplay. Somehow people think that teamplay is undermined with the lack of strict mechanics. Ironically the games that have such heavy team reliant mechanics like say Overwatch they at least have some ladders and small gamemodes to match up with players with your skill, Battlefield is not that and never was that. Even Quake 2v2 has teamplay and does not have teamplay heavy mechanics at all.
The only way to tolerate it is to play with friends, and to an extent on how limited maneuvers you can accomplish if you do not get the classes and resources available. Eventually you feel so constrained that it takes the fun out of it.
And by punishing solo play so much backed up by "veterans" that are still around they end up doing some sort of weird gate-keeping and elitism kinda like "if you don't like the gameplay just adapt or don't play it", some sort of Söderlund maneuver and then ask why the game flopped.
People cannot accept that there are things that need to evolve and why it should never go back, and pretending that BF is a niche genre nowadays is asking to be unpopular for the broad audience that came into the franchise. I'm ashamed I know lot of BF vets from refractor era that have this mentality, they end up playing so little of BFV and then move to more milsim FPS.
What frustrates me the most was me expecting BFV to be good in the beginning since BF1 was so successful....... and then the reveal trailer came out.
What's even more frustrating is that we probably won't get a WWII battlefield ever again due to BFV. Because assuming DICE and EA are as arrogant and incompetent as they are, they're going to chalk up BFV's failure because of it being a WWII game. Which sucks because honestly I prefer shooter games of the WWII era over modern era ones. I've been itching for a good modern (as in made for modern consoles) WWII FPS game for years and BF1 delivered on that despite being WWI. And no, I don't consider COD WWII a good one because it was only made to build off of the success of BF1 and had a lot of issues in it that I didn't like and I don't have high hopes for Vanguard either.
One of the best feature of hardline was the option to press a button on a teammate medic or support and get healing or ammo, we need That on future battlefield games, like ffs i am a support main i am aways dropping ammo, but when i pick other classes i REALLY hate when supports dont drop ammo.
I've got some good news for ya...
It was interesting to come back to this video after a while and sort comments by 'newest'. Of course it's a dumbass opinion to think BFV failed because there are women screeching during your matches, since that can't hold a candle to the variety of horrible gameplay design decisions that made it through testing on a rail, as you described, by hard nosed leaders who had their own vision and did not understand what makes a team shooter fun to the average player.
That being said, it isn't illogical to acknowledge that many players were a little bit put-off from the very beginning by the fact that EA/DICE was spending so much dev time and pre-release PR time focusing on the modernized, historical revisionist/unrealistic elements of the game (such as the screeching women and cosmetics) RATHER THAN spending that time showing off things with much greater importance to the Battlefield community: elements of gameplay that would draw us in and really tease how great the gameplay was going to be (assuming they had a better creative direction and had such elements to show-off). The strange pre-release focus started people off with a bad flavor in their mouths, and the release then thrust them into a game that sucked the life out of being a casual shooter player with a life like work or school. The game did not respect the players' time at all.
Epic
I'm way late to this video, but man is it fantastic. It hits on all my criticisms and frustrations with DICE and why this franchise is getting to the point where it cannot be saved.
Fall of BF V ? To fall you first have to be on top. BF V was lying in the ditch even before release.
I think another important point that’s worth mentioning was the botched promotion of the game before it was even released. The idiotic multiplayer “gameplay” trailer that was heavily criticized when it was released combined with revisionist history for “modern” day standards along with the higher ups telling people that if they don’t like it then don’t buy it is really what what people not buy the game in the first place. Having such a reduced audience on launch and only making the situation worse over time with all the TTK changes was the writing on the wall for the game. EA and DICE basically reduced their audience from a franchise they owned all by themselves and are to blame for it.
Dice just Keep shot themselves Over and over again During Battlefield V lifespan
Finally, your videos have popped back up for me. I subbed years ago and even clicked the bell but still this channel didn’t pop up. So happy.
As for JackFrags, I knew when he was spewing that marketing bullshit that the game was going to be boring. There was nothing wrong with the health, ammo and revive features of BF3/4. Attrition was awful.
This video is extra omega very BASED
Absolutely agree with relying on the performance of your teammates coupled with limit health regeneration, these made BFV a truly terrible experience.
Playing Battlefield 5 feels like going to Walmart
How so?
Not like I like being at Walmart
Open game designer position? Get my boy marbleduck in there!
so he can quit like tiggr? lol
Would he even accept it?
Just look at poor drunkzz I don't think duck will...
This video should get more views. This is the analysis BFV needed.
Dice Devs: Am I so out of touch?
...
No. Its the players who are wrong.
this but unironically
What's worse about this whole situation is the shills that fully accept money to further their own gain at the expense of the gameplay.
I like how your discussing a bfv game whilst showing cod mw lol. Am hoping that bf 6 will go back to a more fun game along the lines of bf 3 & 4.
BF2 is pinnacle of BF series, so as DICE LA's fixed BF4. It was time when DICE back then knew what kind of game they want to make and which community to attract. After BFBC2, series turned into CODified mess (COD is not bad game series, but trying to be tactical FPS with run-n-gun supersoldier gunplay often made it unenjoyable).
finally a man who doesnt dig into the "depth of planning your next move" like they are an english teacher digging for thumbs ups
when you played titles like BF2, BF vietnam, BF3, BFBC2 and you look at BF1/ BF5 right now; it's almost unrecognizable, it's closer to COD or Battlefront than anything else. I started playing BF a long time ago just to 'escape' from the big-Deathmatch spawn run kill die COD style in the first place. I still think the new engine introduced in Battlefront 'killed' the essence of the franchise, feels like no matter what they do, the size of the maps; everything feels like a big linear Deathmatch in this engine compared to others BF titles.
If you were introduced to the franchise playing BF1 or BF5 all those things might not be a problem for you and I don't judge! But for old school players who felt in love with battlefield playing the old titles; it's a different style of game right now so you love it or hate it.
Thats my lay shallow personal opinion
yep, always loved BF for being much more tactical than COD, you could turn the tide of the match being a lone sniper in a remote area of the map. (EDIT: sometimes without firing a single shot)
The way you complain about battlefield 2 is typical for the types of players that want to be the lone wolf. Nothing wrong with that but at the end of the day, battlefield is a team game. Battlefield 4 perfected the team play formula by adding field upgrade scores for following orders and playing as a squad. Simple as, reward the players individually that play as a team. The series has been over designed since battlefield 1, focusing on aesthetic versus good gameplay. The biggest indicator of this new direction is the way in which vehicles are chosen. On paper it looks like a great idea to pick whatever tank type you want at spawn but during actual game play the sand box is limited by not having over world active assets. Don't get me started on the stupid fucking animations from BF1 that got worse in BFV. I won't beat a dead horse against battlefield v, but remember if they only showcase the pretty graphics or eNviROnmEnT DeTAilS bROo then you know tht it's going to be a shit game. Too many designers adding useless superfluous detail, literally given busy work because the core game is shit. This will happen with battlefield 6, look at the ray tracing bro! It will be shit.
BFV doesn't actually make teamplay better, it just makes solo play worse.
I'm big on teamplay and I love coming up with interesting strats, it's why I played comp BF4 when it still existed. So believe me when I say that I love teamplay.
What I don't love is when a game makes itself inaccessible and a miserable experience to play solo. Make solo play good. Make teamplay better.
No matter how much fun BFV or 2042 is, i still find myself constantly coming back to BF4/BF1/BF3 simply because they're miles better, at a cheaper price
Let's just hope that battlefield 2021 is going to be good as battlefield 3 and 4
I disagree that DICE was chasing the older style of Battlefield gameplay to appease the longtime fans. Pretty much every long time Battlefield fan hated the game before it launched and that hatred was solidified when we got to try it. It was marketed like Fortnite. They even added battle royal. The trailer was ridiculous. It showed us Michael Bay like action and comic book characters. Noone was interested until we saw actual gameplay, and even that was quickly squashed when we saw how much of a clusterfuck the classes and weapons were and the stupid new mechanics. Couple that with all the virtue signalling SJW politics shoved into the game when people want to play a game to have fun, not make a statement. I have never talked to someone who played a game between BF1942 to BF2142 that enjoys BF5. We even had revive a few years ago get popular again to play it again for a while. It was still fun, this garbage game was not.
It's funny how Battlefield 3 was the breakout, but in terms of design it was the most similar to BF2 compared to this with some more modern and standard for FPS mechanics added.
"Battlefield 2 was not a good game." *Hits dislike button.*
the reason i put so much time into bf3 and bf4 was because of its sandbox elements, sometimes I would boot up the game and go in a server and dick around with a friend and not really play the objective, or try to actually play the game in the dumbest way possible by just ramming jeaps with c4 into people. bf1 really felt like it removed a lot of the sandbox elements but it felt fun in its own right, but I didn't even put a quarter of the same amount of time into bf1 that I did into bf4, and bf5 looks like it has even less of those elements so I passed it off entirely.
I really hope you end up making a video about Battlefield 2042 at some point before or after it’s released. You’ve really made me revisit my thoughts on the Specialist & Plus systems. I’m quite hesitant to be excited about this title, and while I have been trying to keep my own bias in check that has led to my lack of enthusiasm so far, I do wonder if I’m just picking up on subtle problems of an ultimately broken game.
what do u think of 2042 now?
@@ohweezuschrist Hehe it sucked (relatively)