But saying this game is in a much better state now than early on would seem to make no sense considering it still has the same issues it had on day one.In terms of raw scope, Battlefield 5 is one of the year’s biggest games. We could see the repairs happening in BF4- there have been no such repairs to BFV which still has the same problems today it had at release. The DICE producer credited with that repair job quit DICE awhile back, apparently in frustration that EA/DICE was not making an effort to fix BFV the way BF4 had been fixed. BF4 was a disaster at release too, but they fixed BF4, took them over a year. But having to leave three or four servers before finding one where you can have some fun points to a seriously flawed game.īFV was a sales flop for good reasons, and EA pulled the plug because of that, the game was not bringing in enough revenue. So exactly what was improved, how is the game in a much better state?Īt times BFV can be entertaining, say when you manage to find a server where the teams are not massively out of balance, or a couple of those troll cheaters aren't there to spoil the round for everyone. BFV is still missing those core features. How many of those things have been fixed since?
When BFV launched it did not have team balancing, an effective anti-cheat for PC, good network performance or rented servers. There are things I would definitely change, but it's not enough to deter me from playing, or keep me from enjoying this game Arras, Devastation, Marita, Twisted Steel and Solomon Islands leap to mind And while it definitely doesn't have the best map pool, compared to other Battlefields, there are still a handful of them I fricken love. Being able to call in artillery and massive bomb strikes is really cool. The squad and fortification mechanics are done really well. And I know I'm not alone in thinking that. The gunplay, movement and destruction are the best ever in the franchise, IMO. Still though the game itself, especially now, plays really well. Hell no US army for a while and no Russian army.ever No D-Day, no Market Garden, no Battle of the Bulge, no Stalingrad, no Berlin, no Pacific (at least not for a good while). Then they made it even worse, by not even including the coolest parts of WW2. A lot of fans were wanting a modern BF this time around and were let down that it was WW2. They either never were to begin with, or they were and still did. Though if I'm honest, I never really believed most of the people who said they weren't getting it just because that guy said that. Which people seized on like few quotes I can ever remember. And then that idiot EA exec said "if you don't like it, don't buy it" before BFV launched.
That first trailer was a disaster piece that turned people off right away. So that bad sentiment trickled down to the lead up for BFV EA is always deservedly pretty hated, but the hate was at it's all time peek, post Battlefront 2's horrible pay to win/mtx model they where going with, before the outrage forced them to change course, the year prior. The reason I think it had such a bad rep early on is it also had a lot extracurricular stuff working against it launch time. At launch it had major issues, some of which were never really fixed. Though I DO get some of the issues people had with it. I'm a diehard Battlefield addict since Bad Company 2 and I actually like BFV a lot and still play it almost every day.
0 kommentar(er)
