Battlefield 1 is fondly remembered by many, but it's one of the biggest missed opportunities in the franchise.
For DICE to succeed with its next game, it has to return to the roots of the franchise. Atmospheric map design, clear and defined class-based gameplay, attention to detail, and total chaos. Battlefield 1 feels like every rock, every glint on your sniper rifle, every falling brick from a collapsing church, has been painstakingly considered. So much care went into the design of the game, from its soundtrack to its costume department. To stand a chance alongside the behemoths of Treyarch and Infinity Ward, DICE needs to recapture what made their old games so brilliant, otherwise it’s all over.
"DICE Needs To Recapture The Magic Of Battlefield 3 In The Next Game"
/Fixed
...on a serious note, DICE needs to remove the Battlefield name.
Eh, bfbc2 was the peak for me, only ad dogfighting and the accommodations that come with it. Every BF after that was such an unsatisfying progression system for weapons and gear for the classes, 90% of the guns feel exactly the same when you unlock them, just felt boring in comparison. Not to mention the gimped destruction as the series progressed
I found Battlefield 1 to be overrated. The gameplay was simpler and less strategic than its predecessors. Battlefield 1 did have a woo-factor, but the gameplay got repetitive faster than Battlefield 4 in my opinion.
If DICE needs to return to the roots of the franchise then why would they look at Battlefield 1? BF1 is overly simplified and streamlined. What DICE should focus on is Battlefield 3 and Bad Company 2. Those two games were the pinnacle of the franchise.
Daily Video Game writes: "There is a new digital game sale Amazon is offering for both Xbox Series X/S and Xbox One that heavily discounts several popular titles like GRID Legends, Mass Effect Legendary, Star Wars Jedi: Fallen Order, and more for Xbox owners right now!"
EA CEO Andrew Wilson admits that both Battlefield V and Battlefield 2042 underdelivered, but thinks they can right turn things around.
I feel foolish for trusting the launch trailer for 2042.
You knew what we wanted, but you couldn’t manage it in gameplay. So, you produced a misrepresentation of a launch trailer that swept up old fans, and then swiftly let us down.
You intentionally tricked us.
Scrolled through the article first sentence, last sentence of each paragraph, well not literally but it was a skim. I lost this author when he started comparing it to other games. Kept reading but I’m at odds with him.
How can one compare a setting from WWI with another game in another setting that has been replicated numerous times over and over again?
BF1 is a WW1 setting game. There isn’t exactly a game comparison for the technology and combat. The game takes place a century ago. Use what was ‘high tech’ for its time to the gameplay style of the same ‘high tech’ weapons your enemy has. It’s a WW1 game that takes place just a lifetime ago. Is it fun? Yes. Do you have lock-on weapons? No. Does your enemy have lock on weapons? Also no. Use your equipment on the battlefield just like your opponent has.
I didn’t play BF1 as much as 3,4 and 5. But I think the author couldn’t adapt to the gameplay warfare of a century ago very well, and wrote an article for clicks explaining that. Maybe he wasn’t the audience the game was trying to attract, and I can’t say I was either. But it was a fun and unique experience I’m glad I had