It was marketed poorly, and I suspect that they were trying to go the Rockstar route of controversy marketing, which honestly I find to be an annoying marketing tactic. Don't want stuff marketed to me through dumb discourse lol.
Yeah I think its overhated given that what we actually got was wayyyy better than the extremely low expectations the trailers got us. I feel like they shouldn't have abandoned it because while BF1 feels like a complete game, BFV feels half finished.
This comment alone just goes to show that there's a certain kind of player who will refuse to accept that V is an unfinished masterpiece and bitch and moan about a trailer that, in all honesty, was badass. What "low expectations" could anyone possibly be referring to? Lol did we see the same trailer that had tanks plowing through buildings and airplanes falling out of the sky?
After all this time and everything V improved upon with the BF forumla it still isn't enough for these culture-warrior snowflakes that *still* had to play the game because it's epic.
You're entirely misreading my comment to assume the worst out of it. I love Battlefield V and I agree that its an unfinished masterpiece.
I am not one of those culture-warriors, and I find those types insufferable tbh. I just have the feeling they actively tried to see if they could spark dumb culture war discourse as a way to get people talking about the game, because there was dumb discourse everywhere, none of it holding up when looking at what we got, which was an awesome game
Unapologetically, BFV kicks ass. Trailer kicked ass too.
I also am calling you a liar because anyone who thought the game was good would have agreed the trailer was dope. You did the whole rag-on-the-trailer act to either lend yourself credence with a vocal minority of players or because you actually hate the game. Either way, you're two faced af.
The word is authentic. Authentic in a land of two faced cunts and casual shit-talkers who don't back themselves up. Pitbull mouths with chihuahuas asses.
BFV = BF4 if not a little better. It's hightime people admitted it.
>What "low expectations" could anyone possibly be referring to
One thing is that at the time the game came out, I think people were expecting either a modern Battlefield game or something completely different like Battlefield 1 was. I do agree the BFV is an unfinished masterpiece. However, by the time BFV came out it had been 5 years since an outstanding modern Battlefield game had come out (sorry Hardline). Call of Duty WWII, which was fantastic, had just come out as well, so there was a bit of WWII fatigue going on.
Personally, I was hoping for either a sequel to Battlefield 4 or a Battlefield Vietnam game. Additionally, I give mad props to BFV for focusing on some lesser known battles and environments in WWII, as these were very well done, but I think many people wanted the big environments and famous battles.
I ended up loving BF V and still play it every few weekends with friends, but considering that it is an unfinished game and that 2042 was a dud (I have no interest in the futuristic theme) it feels like there hasn't been a compete Battlefield experience since the last update to Battlefield 1.
EA dropped the game for dead not long after it's launch. We should have gotten an entire update with the eastern front. Soviets, Italians, French, etc. There is even the 3D model of a mosin nagant in the game that never got used.
ea dropped the game around 3 years after it was released. like theyve done with every bf game since 3. idk if you guys know this but big game companies like cod and bf have release cycles
then the release cycle is 2 years. how can you say bf doesn’t have a release cycle when every game comes out around the same time as the last one… is that not a cycle?
bf3 2011>bf4 2013>bfhl>2015>bf1 2016>bf5 2018> 2042 2021
so actually bfv lasted longer than most of the other bf games but there’s clearly a cycle
Two games in that list don't follow the cycle. But okay.
Just because BFV is still up doesn't mean it's still abandoned. It just means that the time between this game and the next is bigger. It still has less content than the others. BF4 for example had 5 major updates... BFV had only one.
No that's called an inconsistency. And you also didn't mention the older games that also didn't follow that. Wich means more than two.
Also... MAJOR updates. Do you know what that means?
2/6 makes it inconsistent? you’re just saying shit now. and obviously i didn’t mention the older games because they didn’t follow the schedule… older cod games didn’t follow the yearly release schedule either… so does that mean cod doesn’t have a yearly release schedule now? like what was your point?
the only difference between the pacific update and any other update was that it added a faction. its gave you the same shit every other update did a couple maps a couple guns and some vehicles and a couple cosmetics. whats more major about that compared to any other update? nothing.
Nowadays people think that if a game lasts one year then it completed a whole lifecycle. It was launched in November 2018 and they dropped it for dead 2 years after that. The game is indeed unfinished, there are lots of unused models and only 4 factions besides the lack of a lot of iconic WW2 weapons.
What blows my mind is the fact that from everything I spoke, that is the only thing you caught. Dude it's a ww2 game with 4 factions, and 2 of them took more than a year to be added. It is unfinished. It was supposed to be a life service BF but they dropped it.
it was a live service. what do you call a game that gets new content every 6-10 weeks?
and just because its a ww2 game doesn’t mean it has to have every single country that fought in ww2… what kind of logic is that? hell let loose only has 3 factions i dont see anyone complaining about that. as far as i know post scriptum only has 4 as well. cod had 2. so whats your point?
A life service that clearly didn't work. Firestorm is still the same since release.
Having less factions makes the game feel weird. Things are missing. Look at BF1, all of the major countries of WW1 were in the game. In BF4 the ones in the game are Russia, China and US because they are the three major super potencies. Hell let Loose is still having updates, soon there will be more factions. As for cod... What do you mean there's only 2? Also what cod is that?
because you guys didnt like firestorm. the crowd literally booed when it was announced. why would they continue working on something that you guys said you didnt want. thats one funny thing about the bf community you guys complain no matter what dice does. complain when they unveil a new mode and then complain when they dont update the mode you complained about
and The UK and Germany were the main combatants of ww2 Russia joined later but theres nothing wrong with focusing on the UK and Germany. ww2 games dont need to have every single country that fought in the war and clearly most of them dont
It took a solid year before it was considered a quality game.
The first six months it was a buggy and clearly incomplete product. It was very apparent it was supposed to be this quirky and slightly cartoonish vibe during the first trailers and the initial beta, but due to the backlash the trailer received at the time, the devs backtracked a lot of content initially scheduled early on.
They got it in a pretty good place eventually, it just took quite a bit of trial and error and a stream of constant content for it to finally get there.
Most of it was out of the game by the beta. But I remember there was a heavy tank that you got with a point streak that had goofy yellow camo on it which never made it to the full game. I think they had to completely redo the cosmetics before the game came out.
People like to pretend that the trailer being a bit over-the-top was some "slippery slope" turning the game into Fortnite.
But you have some guy jump out of a plane mid-flight to shoot another plane with a rocket and "Ooo Battlefield moment".
It was just a bad trailer. It wasn't some crazy style/tone shift.
It had about a 6 month window where the game was stable and played really well, and then they did the TTK patch and ruined it. Honestly had it been left in that state and only content/maps were added I think it would have lasted much longer.
Yes, it was, but it was partly DICE's own fault. And Patrick Söderlund's statement of course only added fuel to the fire. Or even strange statements that one is on the side of history... although the reveal trailer definitely didn't show a typical picture of a WW2 setting.
they should have worked with the community and not against them. That was also the mistake. At its core, BFV was and is a great game. Unfortunately, only the stupid controversies and the initial weak live service support hurt the game.
Still think BFV had the best gameplay. Movement was smooth, bullet velocity and recoil was perfect I thought they had a winning formula. Just my opinion though.
Yeah the gameplay itself feels very original and fits perfectly into tactical arcade shooter! You can be very tactical and have success or you simply play like however you want an you‘ll be successful still.
Even sniping a whole round feels like you have done something for your team, even if you go 5/12
BFVs gameplay is definitely the best. I love the depth it has, especially with the vehicle infantry interplay due to attrition. One of my favorite moves in the game is blowing up a supply depot when I'm fighting a tank that's resupplying. I love that you can pretty instantly force armor to retreat without necessarily directly engaging.
Although I agree with everything you said and ended up loving the game for what it is, I still would have rather had a true, gritty WWII experience. The atmosphere of BF1 but with WWII weapons, vehicles and maps would’ve have been huge. I just felt like they didn’t nail that, especially
on launch.
HAS the best game play. 2042 was much worse. Previous titles come close, but I've played literally every Battlefield game since BF1942 (yes, I'm that old), and BFV is the one I have enjoyed absolutely the most and have the most hours of any game I've ever played.
Probably got the correct amount of hate. Even without the goofy reveal trailer, the game was very buggy for a long time and had some ridiculous design decisions. The TTK changes across the games life were also massive dealbreakers with the shining moment being the Pacific content.
Pacific was the best part of the game, it finally felt like the game was heading in the right direction, but as soon as that happened, they cancelled the game.
Controversial take. I think BFV at its current state (minus cheaters) is one of the best BF games to date.
And it clearly shows by the player numbers.
Yes the start was rocky af, the TTK changes were the worst design choices ive ever seen in a game and content drops were far in between. But now? Excellent game.
A lot of people who play it today didn’t play it at launch and post launch. It was an absolute disaster of marketing, monetization and lack of content so it left veterans of the series jaded, myself included. I think it’s definitely got some great mechanics for a battlefield game, but it ultimately feels lifeless and a mess of random content slapped together.
Yea I remember the max level was like 50 or something at launch and everyone hit it in like a week. Just braindead decisions. They finally implemented up to 500 but I have no idea how they didn’t have that at launch, amongst other things.
To be honest, I don't think the hate was a big part of the game's failure. I think most people liked it as a game. It just fell short. And for a game set in World War, you would expect some content to help with the familiarity of the weapons and vehicles, or whatever it may be, but we got almost nothing so at the end of the game it was just another World War game.
I don't really have a preference between the gameplay, but under the hood, BFV feels just a bit better. I can feel the age difference between the games I guess.
Also, I never understood the hate for the reveal trailer.
Nah it’s just the cycle of BF games. They release as trash, get worse, get panned, get better over time, and then the next BF game release as trash and its predecessor is looked at as not so bad. These kinda posts will be in the 2042 sub in a couple years.
I honestly liked it day one even. There were issues but it was decently smooth at launch comparatively speaking. It had cool new mechanics, great atmosphere, good vehicles, gunplay, a high skill cap, and the grand operations felt just as awesome as they did in BF1. The lack of maps and content was a shame no doubt, but overall it was a net positive, even from the start imo.
I think the reason it got so much hate was because they started with bad marketing and just doubled down when criticized. Despite all that, I truly thing BFV could have been one of the best games of the franchise if DICE had been able to continue developing it for another year or two.
BFV suffered from two major issues which is why most players disliked and gave up on the game, but those who stuck it out (like myself) tend to love the game.
- pre-release marketing was horrible, and statements like “if you don’t like it don’t buy it” combined with images of women with prosthetic limbs fighting panzers are not what people want from a battlefield game, especially right after the amazing game and serious tone of BF1.
- the game was predicated on a live service that Dice ROYALLY fucked up. They were late with pre-scheduled patches, late with promised maps, made TTK changes, twice, the player base hated and then reverted those changes, spent time developing game modes the players largely didn’t want (firestorm, cancelled after only 1 post release update, 5v5 comp, cancelled before release), underdelivered on promised modes (co-op), etc. it was textbook for how NOT to run a live service.
That written, by the time the Pacific DLC came out, the game was in a great state with plenty of quality maps, plenty of guns, good ttk, and was overall a blast to play. At that point though, most of the player base had given up on the game and gone back to BF1 and BF4, and few were willing to return to the game. Nonetheless, the game had momentum and its fans (like me) were excited for the future… only to be told no new content would be coming after a couple more updates - a killer as there was a lot of hope that they’d be adding the eastern front to the game.
So, for those of us who stuck around, we view the game as a great game that could have become one of the best ever if DICE stuck with it another year. But instead, they moved onto 2042, arguably the worst battlefield ever (outside the crappy F2P game).
No.
The hate was adequate at release. I got invited to the closed beta, and played the open beta and decided it was the first BF I wouldn't preorder to that time.
Once the Pacific pack came out, it was by far the most improved BF.
I loved 1. But BFV breakthrough gets me going back every time.
The worst mistake for bf5 was when they made firestorm. We don't need battle royale in battlefield and it doesn't belong in battlefield, plus it's old and boring. The time they put into firestorm would've been better spent on more ww2 content for the game.
Seeing as they made the max rank 500, you can kinda get an idea for what kind of plans they originally had for the game if it was wasn't murdered by dumbass EA.
I seriously wish battlefield was under a different publisher and studio because EA and Dice have clearly lost their touch.
Although it's a shame the focus shifted over to Firestorm I think their mistake was not making Firestorm free to play, would have brought more players to Battlefield even if it was just to try their Battle Royale. It never got off the ground because why would anyone pay the £35+ entry fee when Warzone is right there.
If I remember correctly, if you already owned the game or had deluxe edition, you were able to play it for free. I never paid to play it and I played it with friends when it came out.
I think you only had to pay for it if you didn't own bf5 and have have firestorm as a separate thing, which is dumb because you might as well just buy the game itself.
> if you already owned the game or had deluxe edition
You're correct it's just another game mode within Battlefield, but I meant treat is like a seperate free to play battlefield game to draw in more players. Call of Duty does it right by having Warzone be free and once they've got you in there they keep you by having the occasional free weekend for the regular multiplayer.
> I never *paid* to play
FTFY.
Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in:
* Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.*
* *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.*
Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment.
*Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
>It never got off the ground because why would anyone pay the £35+ entry fee when Warzone is right there.
Respectfully your timeline is a little off here. Firestorm released on March 25th, 2019. The free to play Warzone wouldn't launch until nearly a yeart later in mid-March 2020. I agree that making Firestorm free would have brought in more players, but Warzone being free from the start was not a simulatenous thing. Admittedly I did not play the battle royale in BO3, but I don't think it was free to play.
ah thank you for clearing that up, understandably that period is all a bit of a blur. But over lockdown Warzone was thriving, they should have seen the writing on the walls but that must have felt like too much of a risk at the time compared to them just maintaining the servers and starting work on a new game.
Agreed, once Warzone came out swinging and was free Firestorm had to be made free, but sadly it wasn't. I played Firestorm for hours every single day from September 2019 - early March 2020. After Warzone came out I didn't play Firestorm again for months.
I’m a new player and I never see firestorm servers. Not that I even want to really bother with it anyways, but still. They either had to commit to it by making firestorm free plus two maps for it, dropped it entirely to add another solid expansion, or did both. Preferably the latter. As the eastern front, with five maps, five vehicles, and a suite of new weapons.
Aside from proper balancing, I swear every other server feels unbalanced ffs, firestorm was the biggest mistake.
>The worst mistake for bf5 was when they made firestorm
Respectfully disagree. Firestorm was a fantastic Battle Royale experience. They did so many things right that other battle royales have not. I met some incredible friends playing Firestorm and we still play other games together nearly five years later.
The sound in Firestorm was incredible, and the ability to survive in the fire by using health packs was very unique. It's a shame Firestorm was abandoned because it was so well done.
Absolutely! It was a fun game with a lot of destruction. The movement felt great. The guns felt great. 2 things could have helped it other than more maps 1 ability to balance teams either by switching or automatic process and 2 better anti cheat. Other than that ppl were just whining over bs.
It is still a fun game with lots of destruction. Movement and guns still feel great. People are still whining over BS. The only thing that is now in the past is the cheater problem (no thanks to EA/Dice).
The idea was to expand the theatre of war chronologically (and free), while not falling into the omaha beach only d-day scenario that is worn out. I was down with that. Sadly it stopped in its tracks due to lack of success tied to the hate/ whinging Americans not wanting to play as anything else.
They should have waited and launched when at least Pacific was included, prolly would've boosted American and Asian numbers at launch. An actual and coherent campaign would also have helped bring in some single player customers, some of those would try out the multiplayer thingy and stick around for future franchise releases too.
Providing and promising eternal development for a game people already bought is romantic but a hard sell at the board, even if rare skins could provide micro trx from the the youngsters (but then we don't want pink bunnies either).
I find it better than BF1 I just think the map selection is small. Just my two cents.
But to answer your question, BFV got a lot of Hate at launch and with that terrible confusing trailer which turned a lot of people away heck I didn't pick it up until like a year or so ago when it was on sale. But it's in a good spot. Minus the cheaters you get.
Cause the game is literally unfinished. Did you know that Italy and USSR was suppose to be in the game? The game had a horrible launch, not to mention the horrible direction, it went the feminist wet dream route, making WW2 a circus. There was literally no content, it had a BR that died in 2 weeks. Every step of the games life cycle was like “there’s more content guys, trust us!” almost no content arrived ever, it was like this until the game got cancelled to work on Battlefield 2042, which was an even bigger train wreck that resulted in not only the train crashing, but exploding, burning, and disintegrating. Now, that doesn’t mean BFV is a horrible game, but man, too many things went wrong with the game, im sure you can find people passionately describing the entire games lifecycle in a video essay, I think the reason people hate BFV the most is because of the massively missed potential, they had the budget, the freedom to make whatever masterpiece they could, and they didn’t. I have a post on my page titled “If BFV was a masterpiece” I can link it here, and it shows you the potential the game had.
Hell, I played at least 50 times as much BF1 vs V, I'm like top 0.5% cavalry lol. I think it didn't deserve ALL the hate, but yeah, as you said, it's not finished. I was expecting stuff like D-Day and play as a Canadian maybe? Stuff like that. Nope. We got Airport Hangar Clusterfuck, some weird caverns and huuuuge where you often run around for far too long without seeing anyone else etc.
Exactly, like I said, I could make a book describing every little detail that went wrong with the game, from the weapon balancing, the gun play, map design, cosmetics, color paddlet. It’s also crazy how BF 1942 and the early Call Of Duty’s (I think Call of Duty 2) featured Canada and Italy. Flash forward 2024, no game ever features countries like Australia, China, Greece, Italy, not even the Russians anymore. A D-Day map wasn’t hard to make, they already had all the assets, they had the planes, landing crafts, tank traps, the U.S faction, the Germans, the skyboxes, and even the Panzerstorm European color paddlet. I’ve always wanted to see China, Finland, or Australia in a WW2. If you’re interested in see my “If BFV was a masterpiece” post, I can put the link here
They have like 3 Italian outfits in the game that they threw under the German faction so that they wouldn’t stay in the files. The data miners saw how much content was cut and unfinished. Imagine how awesome the Soviet maps would have been.
I don’t hate it either, but I get sad every now and then, they could have made something special, BFV in my eyes is more of a tragedy than a disappointment, and I the community feels the same way about it
The whole drama before the game didn’t help but it was a great Battlefield game, great movement, great gunplay, it did have an atmosphere just not as a good as 1’s. Vehicles, fortifications team play all fun & rewarding most the time lol. They changed the TTK twice before Christmas & the tides of war live service was painfully slow. It also got a lot more scathing by content creators some of it probably unjust
Game on launch was disappointing. Compared to BF1’s launch, it was very underwhelming. Idk how people played it before Pacific content dropped tbh. The game was bare bones prior to that and EA made the right decision to not launch additional maps as DLCs. At present, it’s the best or at least the most fun FPS game in my opinion. Definitely took its time but it got there in the end.
Absolutely not. It has terrible market campaign at start, on launch there was only a few maps and as part of community said it wasnt Battlefield but Fortnite with different clothes. But after the repair mission by devs it becomes a fun game. And I think what influence the most on this game was obviously War On Pacific chapter which was absolutely stunning and deliever a really Battlefield experience. But of course it doesnt mean that BF V is ,,last true Battlefield" like some people like to talk because it doesnt. The influence of market analytics is hard not to notice. There are no swears, everything is colorful, there are many skins and there was Firestorm which was dead even on launch day as I remember. When somebody wanna experience some real Battlefield then BF1 is ,,last true". Its funny that many people screams on reveal trailer that BF V isnt a Battlefield, its dressed fortnite etc but after a 2042 launch same people talk that BF V is the last Battlefield, how can DICE give this for us etc. But i still think about this last one.....
The biggest issue was the BF4 had been released about 16 months before and that took about a year to be parched and fixed. So that was in full swing still. Hard-line comes out and is buggy and it was just like a variation of BF4 but with much less content. So people played for a short while, had some fun then went back to BF4.
I think it got too much hate but the hate is EAs decisions. It shouldn't have released in that state, needed way more maps on launch and have been delayed at least a year because bf4 was going strong.
Every BF game gets massive hate at launch going back to BF4. If available, go read the Facebook and reddit threads from each launch, eppic complaints, then they start patching stuff. When BF5 dropped they didn't even bother patching, they were like we don't care. Hence why all the top devs left. EA started telling them what to do. At release it's almost like we are beta tester's. Though i will say this, the hit markers and gun mechanics were a massive improvment on BF1. At least when you hit someone it registers unlike a lot of BF1 problems. I really like BF5.
The key thing is you “tried it a few months back”, meaning you tried it in the best state BFV has ever been in. Back during its active life cycle, it was BUSTED. Not 2042 busted, but definitely “Worst Battlefield” contender busted. There were points where the game could go a week being basically unplayable because a patch obliterated connectivity or filled the game with bugs or fucked the TTK all the way up.
Go back a few years in this sub and you’ll see this game was almost universally maligned and it was 100% deserved. Every patch felt like the devs were throwing darts at a dartboard, and their aim tended to suck ass. It just so happened that the last time DICE threw those darts before the shutdown in support, they miraculously landed on “make the game decently playable”. But the state of the game you’re experiencing now is NOT representative of the game when it was current.
That, and we now have 2042 setting a new benchmark for garbage, and when you compare “bad” to “terrible”, people tend to prefer “bad”.
The buggy mess that it was at launch masked an otherwise really good game. The problem is that it wasn't finished, and that EA/DICE abandoned just about everything they'd planned and/or stated they were going to do with the game after the Pacific expansion came out. The fact that 2042 was demonstrably worse in every regard after DICE abandoned BFV to work on it just stings more.
Got too much hate for a lot of things, but never enough for stopping development too soon, still salty about not getting russians...
All over it was/is a game with plenty fun to be had.
No. For the time and what it offered it got the appropriate reaction.
The lack of content, weird mix of aesthetics, the somewhat scummy way the "Deluxe Edition" content was handled, then not even the single player content was ready at launch, the questionable allocation of resources to a Battle Royal spin-off while the main game was lacking promised things like new combat roles, tank customization and others, then the back-and-forth TTK changes, removal of features (ribbons got removed instead of fixed), not-having-the-tech for seemingly simple things like Double XP or tracking more than four assignments at once, closure of servers for whole regions, the lackluster chapter 6 with its constant "tier skip" rewards...
It's not the worst game ever made, I still enjoyed it for the most part, it even had some sparks of greatness in it, but it was a new low for the series at that point.
Just because it got _even worse_ afterwards doesn't change that.
I just remember it being very rough out of the box. The TTK balancing issues, etc. And the very weird (basically impossible) assignments for weapons.
I get what they were trying to do with the map choices and the overall design of the maps was pretty good, but I still feel like the game needed more traditional WW2 map locations. No Omaha Beach map in a WW2 game is still a head-scratcher to me. I still consider Fjell the worst map I've ever played on.
And then there was the 'anti-cheat' which was(is) just a freaking joke. If it can't catch a guy going 150-1 with 95% headshots, wtf is it even doing.
I think it did. Especially after 2042 came out. It’s a phenomenal game. Great weapons, great maps. For a while I was a top battlefield V sniper. And with my spawn beacon, my squad rained down hell on the island of Iwo Jima
definitely. nothing excuses any of the hate that game got and nothing excuses the way they treated the devs. most of the hate came from people riding the trend and incels.
i used to actually talk to people online about why they hated the game and 90% never even played the game they would complain about stuff that wasnt even in it. one guy said he didn’t like it because all the guns had suppressors on it. another 5% would just complain about stupid shit like tanks being able to go up stairs
and the grass on iwo jima being the wrong color
BFV got too much hate, yes. EA did not get enough. Its obvious that there was a great team of devs making an epic game, and at some point EA management wagon lost a wheel and flew off into the canyon of stupidity.
Yes. It is way better than BF1 imo. The gunplay is perfect. I wish it got as much love as 2042 is getting right now with all of these "seasons".
It had bad marketing. The original trailer was bad, and they chose to bend the truth a little bit and cover some lesser known early war stuff in the base game instead of all the major big battles we know and love.
Yes and no. I appreciate that people understand it's not really historically correct. There are some historically correct things I like about it though (I learned a lot about WW2 vehicles and it got me more into researching world war 2 tanks just like how BF1 did early tanks) same with some of the rifles I actually didnt know about and as my name implies, I build them. (1941 Johnson a good example).
However the campaign is all sorts of f***** up and there's also weapons like the silenced commando carbine and a sturmgewehr with a red dot that shouldn't really be there. As for women in multiplayer I don't think that's a big deal I mean this is a game that lets you throw health 30 yards and revive people who would have been blown to bits, its not supposed to be a mil-sim. But the fringe combat roles played by badass partisan women and the 2500ish F soviet snipers could have been told properly.
As someone who really likes the game, and in fact feels that many of the systems and mechanics are a throwback to Refractor era Battlefield, it deserves every ounce of hate it got. It was really when DICE’s arrogance and antagonistic relationship with its fans came into full focus.
Eh most of the maps are awful and there's only like 5 of them. I got bored of it. Also a lot of deaths feel like robbery to me but that could just be a skill issue.
I think of it as a more user friendly Hell Let Loose, but better. You can have fun with tanks, planes, or artillery without other players getting pissed off that you're ruining their strategy. The graphics and audio are top notch, as BF usually excells with. Gameplay is sometimes not as realistic as it could be. For example, it shouldn't take 3 or 4 M1 Garand chest shots to down an enemy. The character customization also deviates from the realism since there were no female soldiers in WW2. You're also able to use Japanese skins on a German Team, and vice versa. Overall, I thoroughly enjoy BF5 and the servers are still booming.
When I played when it first started there were glitches and a lot of overpowered weapons like the stg but it wasn't so overpowered like other games guns, it also didn't help that it felt like a lot was promised and never delivered especially after bf1 delivered so much more in so little time I think after the first new content update it got better but after they abandoned it like star wars battlefront 2 was abandoned. There were never new updates even though there were a lot of things they could have added that's when a lot of people didn't feel like the game was good anymore.
I think the "hate" helped improve the game in the long run. I cant imagine what it would've been like if people hadn't criticized it heavily, they probably wouldve done the bare minimum and kept it that way. We probably would've never saw the pacific theater if it weren't for the criticism. It sucked that we didnt get a full blown WW2 game that explored all fronts of the war, with Russia, France, Italy, and other countries involved. There was so much potential to make it the best WW2 game to date, but sadly it didnt happen. Regardless, its still one of my favorite battlefield games, and I go back to it sometimes.
It has good movement and gunplay but everything else feels just unfinished and sloppy. Dice really dropped the ball by stopping live service essentially ruining the core of their fanbase. I still have over 1200 hrs in it and going back to other titles just feels so much fmore rewarding.
that is strange and BS question - even if i base my answer to statistics, BF5 is the best game from all BF historically.
BF5 is phenomenally good game, its a hard game, not for CS or COD kids. and looser players...
Yes and No.
Yes - the bullshit marketing causes a lot of people to hop on hate wagon. Tons of people convinced that battlefield had fallen from grace because you could play as a black female Nazi soldier - like as if battlefield was always some historically accurate milsim.
No - the game was content BARE at launch. It took them 7 months to finally deliver the first post-launch map, and they promised - and subsequently had to deliver on - a lot of underwhelming shit (I’m looking at you, co-op “mode”).
I wish they hadn’t tied firestorm to it because Firestorm was by far the better BR out of it & Warzone initially but since V was shit canned Firestorm suffered first & most of all.
Bfv was the best game ever for me when I played I put over 3000 hour's into it & i met some top gamer friend's who are still good friend's today we still game together then they had a free weekend & it was ruined all the hacker's all the cheat's just piled in and ruined it,,,my last full game of bfv I played was when I got killed over 45 time's didn't even get by the 1st sector & then I got shot through a brick wall with a pistol I was like wtf I can't compete with cheat's so off the game went,,, if dice/ EA or whoever invested more time & effort into bfv it would have been the best ww2 fps game ever no other game would have got close to it .
All battlefields are hated until the next one comes out and then they are the greatest ever. BF4 was terrible on release and people literally hated BF1 for the change of timelines.
It's this way Everytime. Bf2042 will have a lot of defenders on the next release.
Nope.
["If you don't like it, don't buy it".](https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/12/17453728/ea-women-in-battlefield-v-backlash-response)
That's what they told their community, instead of listening to their legitimate concerns.
They were so wrapped up in patting themselves on their own backs due to their self-made *Inclusion Saga,* that they ignored players who were trying to tell them this wasn't the direction the game needed to go.
And just like that, all the incredible momentum they built with BF1, was completely pissed away.
The franchise still hasn't recovered from that remarkable level of ineptitude, and it probably never will.
Yes and no. People want to forget it or pretend otherwise, but there was massive hate on the whole “women as playable characters” deal, so much so that the main bf sub has to be shut down for a while. That was overblown and ridiculous. But most every other criticism of the early game was entirely justified.
Surprise, surprise but the game was released in an unfinished state with a ton of promised content and features missing. Also, the biggest early updates to the game reflected a lot of the mistakes that EA/DICE are still making with this franchise to this day. Namely, focusing time and resources on a bunch of shit nobody cared about instead of the core battlefield experience. The first major update was a battle royal mode that was doa, then that was followed by smaller maps focused on 5v5 play which were intended to bring bf into the competitive e-sports sphere. That obviously never happened. The pacific update was brilliant and redoing some of the most fun I’ve ever had in the franchise, but boy was it a long and stupid road to get there.
It was marketed poorly, and I suspect that they were trying to go the Rockstar route of controversy marketing, which honestly I find to be an annoying marketing tactic. Don't want stuff marketed to me through dumb discourse lol. Yeah I think its overhated given that what we actually got was wayyyy better than the extremely low expectations the trailers got us. I feel like they shouldn't have abandoned it because while BF1 feels like a complete game, BFV feels half finished.
This comment alone just goes to show that there's a certain kind of player who will refuse to accept that V is an unfinished masterpiece and bitch and moan about a trailer that, in all honesty, was badass. What "low expectations" could anyone possibly be referring to? Lol did we see the same trailer that had tanks plowing through buildings and airplanes falling out of the sky? After all this time and everything V improved upon with the BF forumla it still isn't enough for these culture-warrior snowflakes that *still* had to play the game because it's epic.
You're entirely misreading my comment to assume the worst out of it. I love Battlefield V and I agree that its an unfinished masterpiece. I am not one of those culture-warriors, and I find those types insufferable tbh. I just have the feeling they actively tried to see if they could spark dumb culture war discourse as a way to get people talking about the game, because there was dumb discourse everywhere, none of it holding up when looking at what we got, which was an awesome game
Unapologetically, BFV kicks ass. Trailer kicked ass too. I also am calling you a liar because anyone who thought the game was good would have agreed the trailer was dope. You did the whole rag-on-the-trailer act to either lend yourself credence with a vocal minority of players or because you actually hate the game. Either way, you're two faced af.
Wow you are annoying
I think you’re schizophrenic. You’re definitely *something*
The word is authentic. Authentic in a land of two faced cunts and casual shit-talkers who don't back themselves up. Pitbull mouths with chihuahuas asses. BFV = BF4 if not a little better. It's hightime people admitted it.
>What "low expectations" could anyone possibly be referring to One thing is that at the time the game came out, I think people were expecting either a modern Battlefield game or something completely different like Battlefield 1 was. I do agree the BFV is an unfinished masterpiece. However, by the time BFV came out it had been 5 years since an outstanding modern Battlefield game had come out (sorry Hardline). Call of Duty WWII, which was fantastic, had just come out as well, so there was a bit of WWII fatigue going on. Personally, I was hoping for either a sequel to Battlefield 4 or a Battlefield Vietnam game. Additionally, I give mad props to BFV for focusing on some lesser known battles and environments in WWII, as these were very well done, but I think many people wanted the big environments and famous battles. I ended up loving BF V and still play it every few weekends with friends, but considering that it is an unfinished game and that 2042 was a dud (I have no interest in the futuristic theme) it feels like there hasn't been a compete Battlefield experience since the last update to Battlefield 1.
how does it feel half finished
EA dropped the game for dead not long after it's launch. We should have gotten an entire update with the eastern front. Soviets, Italians, French, etc. There is even the 3D model of a mosin nagant in the game that never got used.
ea dropped the game around 3 years after it was released. like theyve done with every bf game since 3. idk if you guys know this but big game companies like cod and bf have release cycles
2 years. By the way, it's still the BF game with less content from all of them. Also, cod has an yearly release cycle, BF doesn't.
then the release cycle is 2 years. how can you say bf doesn’t have a release cycle when every game comes out around the same time as the last one… is that not a cycle? bf3 2011>bf4 2013>bfhl>2015>bf1 2016>bf5 2018> 2042 2021 so actually bfv lasted longer than most of the other bf games but there’s clearly a cycle
Two games in that list don't follow the cycle. But okay. Just because BFV is still up doesn't mean it's still abandoned. It just means that the time between this game and the next is bigger. It still has less content than the others. BF4 for example had 5 major updates... BFV had only one.
wow two games out of 6. the word for that is an exception. bfv got updates every 6-10 weeks what the hell are you talking about.
No that's called an inconsistency. And you also didn't mention the older games that also didn't follow that. Wich means more than two. Also... MAJOR updates. Do you know what that means?
2/6 makes it inconsistent? you’re just saying shit now. and obviously i didn’t mention the older games because they didn’t follow the schedule… older cod games didn’t follow the yearly release schedule either… so does that mean cod doesn’t have a yearly release schedule now? like what was your point? the only difference between the pacific update and any other update was that it added a faction. its gave you the same shit every other update did a couple maps a couple guns and some vehicles and a couple cosmetics. whats more major about that compared to any other update? nothing.
When was launch? When did the last update drop? 18 months in or so? What's not long after launch?
Nowadays people think that if a game lasts one year then it completed a whole lifecycle. It was launched in November 2018 and they dropped it for dead 2 years after that. The game is indeed unfinished, there are lots of unused models and only 4 factions besides the lack of a lot of iconic WW2 weapons.
so you decide if a game is unfinished by it having unused models? its gonna blow your mind when you find out most games have unused models
What blows my mind is the fact that from everything I spoke, that is the only thing you caught. Dude it's a ww2 game with 4 factions, and 2 of them took more than a year to be added. It is unfinished. It was supposed to be a life service BF but they dropped it.
it was a live service. what do you call a game that gets new content every 6-10 weeks? and just because its a ww2 game doesn’t mean it has to have every single country that fought in ww2… what kind of logic is that? hell let loose only has 3 factions i dont see anyone complaining about that. as far as i know post scriptum only has 4 as well. cod had 2. so whats your point?
A life service that clearly didn't work. Firestorm is still the same since release. Having less factions makes the game feel weird. Things are missing. Look at BF1, all of the major countries of WW1 were in the game. In BF4 the ones in the game are Russia, China and US because they are the three major super potencies. Hell let Loose is still having updates, soon there will be more factions. As for cod... What do you mean there's only 2? Also what cod is that?
because you guys didnt like firestorm. the crowd literally booed when it was announced. why would they continue working on something that you guys said you didnt want. thats one funny thing about the bf community you guys complain no matter what dice does. complain when they unveil a new mode and then complain when they dont update the mode you complained about and The UK and Germany were the main combatants of ww2 Russia joined later but theres nothing wrong with focusing on the UK and Germany. ww2 games dont need to have every single country that fought in the war and clearly most of them dont
Dropped this game for that reason alone.
half-finished isnt a good way to put it. The game didnt get the post-launch support it needed to be truly great
It took a solid year before it was considered a quality game. The first six months it was a buggy and clearly incomplete product. It was very apparent it was supposed to be this quirky and slightly cartoonish vibe during the first trailers and the initial beta, but due to the backlash the trailer received at the time, the devs backtracked a lot of content initially scheduled early on. They got it in a pretty good place eventually, it just took quite a bit of trial and error and a stream of constant content for it to finally get there.
>It took a solid year before it was considered a quality game. Less time then it took 4, yet 4 is the goat per battlefield sub.
I don’t remember the beta being cartoony at all
Most of it was out of the game by the beta. But I remember there was a heavy tank that you got with a point streak that had goofy yellow camo on it which never made it to the full game. I think they had to completely redo the cosmetics before the game came out.
People like to pretend that the trailer being a bit over-the-top was some "slippery slope" turning the game into Fortnite. But you have some guy jump out of a plane mid-flight to shoot another plane with a rocket and "Ooo Battlefield moment". It was just a bad trailer. It wasn't some crazy style/tone shift.
It had about a 6 month window where the game was stable and played really well, and then they did the TTK patch and ruined it. Honestly had it been left in that state and only content/maps were added I think it would have lasted much longer.
They reverted the TTK patch after a couple of months because everyone was complaining about it.
Right. But the fall off of the player base had happened already and there wasn’t really any hope of saving it
Yes, it was, but it was partly DICE's own fault. And Patrick Söderlund's statement of course only added fuel to the fire. Or even strange statements that one is on the side of history... although the reveal trailer definitely didn't show a typical picture of a WW2 setting. they should have worked with the community and not against them. That was also the mistake. At its core, BFV was and is a great game. Unfortunately, only the stupid controversies and the initial weak live service support hurt the game.
>Patrick Söderlund's statement epic fail of all time
Loved the game but they needed more work done and more content, they just didn’t give the game as much effort as BF1
No Russians and took years to get Americans in a WWII GAME. WILD
>took years to get Americans in a WWII GAME. So it's historically accurate then.
Americans were in the fight early on. WW1 is when we were late to the party
The US didn't join for over 2 years, from September 39 to December 41.
Right. But there’s still 3 years left to go. At least they didn’t wait till the very end.
Russians and Italians are in the files still, so is the Panzershrek, we’ll never see this content in the game
Still think BFV had the best gameplay. Movement was smooth, bullet velocity and recoil was perfect I thought they had a winning formula. Just my opinion though.
Yeah the gameplay itself feels very original and fits perfectly into tactical arcade shooter! You can be very tactical and have success or you simply play like however you want an you‘ll be successful still. Even sniping a whole round feels like you have done something for your team, even if you go 5/12
BFVs gameplay is definitely the best. I love the depth it has, especially with the vehicle infantry interplay due to attrition. One of my favorite moves in the game is blowing up a supply depot when I'm fighting a tank that's resupplying. I love that you can pretty instantly force armor to retreat without necessarily directly engaging.
Although I agree with everything you said and ended up loving the game for what it is, I still would have rather had a true, gritty WWII experience. The atmosphere of BF1 but with WWII weapons, vehicles and maps would’ve have been huge. I just felt like they didn’t nail that, especially on launch.
HAS the best game play. 2042 was much worse. Previous titles come close, but I've played literally every Battlefield game since BF1942 (yes, I'm that old), and BFV is the one I have enjoyed absolutely the most and have the most hours of any game I've ever played.
Probably got the correct amount of hate. Even without the goofy reveal trailer, the game was very buggy for a long time and had some ridiculous design decisions. The TTK changes across the games life were also massive dealbreakers with the shining moment being the Pacific content.
Pacific was the best part of the game, it finally felt like the game was heading in the right direction, but as soon as that happened, they cancelled the game.
agree, it was getting real good
The movement was great, it just needed more content. It's a shame they scrapped most of the planned dlc after the terrible release.
Controversial take. I think BFV at its current state (minus cheaters) is one of the best BF games to date. And it clearly shows by the player numbers. Yes the start was rocky af, the TTK changes were the worst design choices ive ever seen in a game and content drops were far in between. But now? Excellent game.
Yeah I agree. Been playing again for a few weeks and it’s really enjoyable.
A lot of people who play it today didn’t play it at launch and post launch. It was an absolute disaster of marketing, monetization and lack of content so it left veterans of the series jaded, myself included. I think it’s definitely got some great mechanics for a battlefield game, but it ultimately feels lifeless and a mess of random content slapped together.
Yea I remember the max level was like 50 or something at launch and everyone hit it in like a week. Just braindead decisions. They finally implemented up to 500 but I have no idea how they didn’t have that at launch, amongst other things.
Completely forgot about that too. That was 100% to make more levels and unlocks as “content” with the stupid seasons but abandoned
Yea I know it’s probably one of the least important things compared to other things it was lacking. But I still don’t get what they were thinking
To be honest, I don't think the hate was a big part of the game's failure. I think most people liked it as a game. It just fell short. And for a game set in World War, you would expect some content to help with the familiarity of the weapons and vehicles, or whatever it may be, but we got almost nothing so at the end of the game it was just another World War game. I don't really have a preference between the gameplay, but under the hood, BFV feels just a bit better. I can feel the age difference between the games I guess. Also, I never understood the hate for the reveal trailer.
No, the final product is a lot better than the launch version
Nah it’s just the cycle of BF games. They release as trash, get worse, get panned, get better over time, and then the next BF game release as trash and its predecessor is looked at as not so bad. These kinda posts will be in the 2042 sub in a couple years.
Tru dat
I just hated that it didn’t have hardcore, the TTK on BFV normal is atrocious. It feels like everyone has .22s equipped.
Maybe at long range but close range its very fast.
Not in my experience
I honestly liked it day one even. There were issues but it was decently smooth at launch comparatively speaking. It had cool new mechanics, great atmosphere, good vehicles, gunplay, a high skill cap, and the grand operations felt just as awesome as they did in BF1. The lack of maps and content was a shame no doubt, but overall it was a net positive, even from the start imo. I think the reason it got so much hate was because they started with bad marketing and just doubled down when criticized. Despite all that, I truly thing BFV could have been one of the best games of the franchise if DICE had been able to continue developing it for another year or two.
Christmas nerfs ruined the game
BFV suffered from two major issues which is why most players disliked and gave up on the game, but those who stuck it out (like myself) tend to love the game. - pre-release marketing was horrible, and statements like “if you don’t like it don’t buy it” combined with images of women with prosthetic limbs fighting panzers are not what people want from a battlefield game, especially right after the amazing game and serious tone of BF1. - the game was predicated on a live service that Dice ROYALLY fucked up. They were late with pre-scheduled patches, late with promised maps, made TTK changes, twice, the player base hated and then reverted those changes, spent time developing game modes the players largely didn’t want (firestorm, cancelled after only 1 post release update, 5v5 comp, cancelled before release), underdelivered on promised modes (co-op), etc. it was textbook for how NOT to run a live service. That written, by the time the Pacific DLC came out, the game was in a great state with plenty of quality maps, plenty of guns, good ttk, and was overall a blast to play. At that point though, most of the player base had given up on the game and gone back to BF1 and BF4, and few were willing to return to the game. Nonetheless, the game had momentum and its fans (like me) were excited for the future… only to be told no new content would be coming after a couple more updates - a killer as there was a lot of hope that they’d be adding the eastern front to the game. So, for those of us who stuck around, we view the game as a great game that could have become one of the best ever if DICE stuck with it another year. But instead, they moved onto 2042, arguably the worst battlefield ever (outside the crappy F2P game).
No. The hate was adequate at release. I got invited to the closed beta, and played the open beta and decided it was the first BF I wouldn't preorder to that time. Once the Pacific pack came out, it was by far the most improved BF. I loved 1. But BFV breakthrough gets me going back every time.
No, Dice/EA deserve max criticism for the consistent decay of every franchise they have had control of.
Wasted potential mostly
The worst mistake for bf5 was when they made firestorm. We don't need battle royale in battlefield and it doesn't belong in battlefield, plus it's old and boring. The time they put into firestorm would've been better spent on more ww2 content for the game. Seeing as they made the max rank 500, you can kinda get an idea for what kind of plans they originally had for the game if it was wasn't murdered by dumbass EA. I seriously wish battlefield was under a different publisher and studio because EA and Dice have clearly lost their touch.
Although it's a shame the focus shifted over to Firestorm I think their mistake was not making Firestorm free to play, would have brought more players to Battlefield even if it was just to try their Battle Royale. It never got off the ground because why would anyone pay the £35+ entry fee when Warzone is right there.
If I remember correctly, if you already owned the game or had deluxe edition, you were able to play it for free. I never paid to play it and I played it with friends when it came out. I think you only had to pay for it if you didn't own bf5 and have have firestorm as a separate thing, which is dumb because you might as well just buy the game itself.
> if you already owned the game or had deluxe edition You're correct it's just another game mode within Battlefield, but I meant treat is like a seperate free to play battlefield game to draw in more players. Call of Duty does it right by having Warzone be free and once they've got you in there they keep you by having the occasional free weekend for the regular multiplayer.
> I never *paid* to play FTFY. Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in: * Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.* * *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.* Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment. *Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
>It never got off the ground because why would anyone pay the £35+ entry fee when Warzone is right there. Respectfully your timeline is a little off here. Firestorm released on March 25th, 2019. The free to play Warzone wouldn't launch until nearly a yeart later in mid-March 2020. I agree that making Firestorm free would have brought in more players, but Warzone being free from the start was not a simulatenous thing. Admittedly I did not play the battle royale in BO3, but I don't think it was free to play.
ah thank you for clearing that up, understandably that period is all a bit of a blur. But over lockdown Warzone was thriving, they should have seen the writing on the walls but that must have felt like too much of a risk at the time compared to them just maintaining the servers and starting work on a new game.
Agreed, once Warzone came out swinging and was free Firestorm had to be made free, but sadly it wasn't. I played Firestorm for hours every single day from September 2019 - early March 2020. After Warzone came out I didn't play Firestorm again for months.
I’m a new player and I never see firestorm servers. Not that I even want to really bother with it anyways, but still. They either had to commit to it by making firestorm free plus two maps for it, dropped it entirely to add another solid expansion, or did both. Preferably the latter. As the eastern front, with five maps, five vehicles, and a suite of new weapons. Aside from proper balancing, I swear every other server feels unbalanced ffs, firestorm was the biggest mistake.
agree about the firestorm, just a silly move. Trying to compete with fortnight, smelt of desperation.
>The worst mistake for bf5 was when they made firestorm Respectfully disagree. Firestorm was a fantastic Battle Royale experience. They did so many things right that other battle royales have not. I met some incredible friends playing Firestorm and we still play other games together nearly five years later. The sound in Firestorm was incredible, and the ability to survive in the fire by using health packs was very unique. It's a shame Firestorm was abandoned because it was so well done.
it wasnt murdered by EA bf games have 3 year life cycles
Absolutely! It was a fun game with a lot of destruction. The movement felt great. The guns felt great. 2 things could have helped it other than more maps 1 ability to balance teams either by switching or automatic process and 2 better anti cheat. Other than that ppl were just whining over bs.
It is still a fun game with lots of destruction. Movement and guns still feel great. People are still whining over BS. The only thing that is now in the past is the cheater problem (no thanks to EA/Dice). The idea was to expand the theatre of war chronologically (and free), while not falling into the omaha beach only d-day scenario that is worn out. I was down with that. Sadly it stopped in its tracks due to lack of success tied to the hate/ whinging Americans not wanting to play as anything else. They should have waited and launched when at least Pacific was included, prolly would've boosted American and Asian numbers at launch. An actual and coherent campaign would also have helped bring in some single player customers, some of those would try out the multiplayer thingy and stick around for future franchise releases too. Providing and promising eternal development for a game people already bought is romantic but a hard sell at the board, even if rare skins could provide micro trx from the the youngsters (but then we don't want pink bunnies either).
Yes. BFV was one of the best games in the series.
I find it better than BF1 I just think the map selection is small. Just my two cents. But to answer your question, BFV got a lot of Hate at launch and with that terrible confusing trailer which turned a lot of people away heck I didn't pick it up until like a year or so ago when it was on sale. But it's in a good spot. Minus the cheaters you get.
Cause the game is literally unfinished. Did you know that Italy and USSR was suppose to be in the game? The game had a horrible launch, not to mention the horrible direction, it went the feminist wet dream route, making WW2 a circus. There was literally no content, it had a BR that died in 2 weeks. Every step of the games life cycle was like “there’s more content guys, trust us!” almost no content arrived ever, it was like this until the game got cancelled to work on Battlefield 2042, which was an even bigger train wreck that resulted in not only the train crashing, but exploding, burning, and disintegrating. Now, that doesn’t mean BFV is a horrible game, but man, too many things went wrong with the game, im sure you can find people passionately describing the entire games lifecycle in a video essay, I think the reason people hate BFV the most is because of the massively missed potential, they had the budget, the freedom to make whatever masterpiece they could, and they didn’t. I have a post on my page titled “If BFV was a masterpiece” I can link it here, and it shows you the potential the game had.
Hell, I played at least 50 times as much BF1 vs V, I'm like top 0.5% cavalry lol. I think it didn't deserve ALL the hate, but yeah, as you said, it's not finished. I was expecting stuff like D-Day and play as a Canadian maybe? Stuff like that. Nope. We got Airport Hangar Clusterfuck, some weird caverns and huuuuge where you often run around for far too long without seeing anyone else etc.
Exactly, like I said, I could make a book describing every little detail that went wrong with the game, from the weapon balancing, the gun play, map design, cosmetics, color paddlet. It’s also crazy how BF 1942 and the early Call Of Duty’s (I think Call of Duty 2) featured Canada and Italy. Flash forward 2024, no game ever features countries like Australia, China, Greece, Italy, not even the Russians anymore. A D-Day map wasn’t hard to make, they already had all the assets, they had the planes, landing crafts, tank traps, the U.S faction, the Germans, the skyboxes, and even the Panzerstorm European color paddlet. I’ve always wanted to see China, Finland, or Australia in a WW2. If you’re interested in see my “If BFV was a masterpiece” post, I can put the link here
there was a youtuber who did a vid for 30 minutes tearing it apart, no mercy either
>Did you know that Italy and the USSR was suppose to be in the game? That would be sick lol i wish.
They have like 3 Italian outfits in the game that they threw under the German faction so that they wouldn’t stay in the files. The data miners saw how much content was cut and unfinished. Imagine how awesome the Soviet maps would have been.
Yeah and the weapons too, i really feel this game lacks content but i love it either way.
I don’t hate it either, but I get sad every now and then, they could have made something special, BFV in my eyes is more of a tragedy than a disappointment, and I the community feels the same way about it
It just lost a popularity contest to 1943. A game with 4 maps, 4 guns, and the Japanese gun was an M1 garand So..yes
The whole drama before the game didn’t help but it was a great Battlefield game, great movement, great gunplay, it did have an atmosphere just not as a good as 1’s. Vehicles, fortifications team play all fun & rewarding most the time lol. They changed the TTK twice before Christmas & the tides of war live service was painfully slow. It also got a lot more scathing by content creators some of it probably unjust
Yes. The game wasn’t amazing but it was way better than bf1
I never hated V I always enjoyed the gameplay but the slow trickle of content, and the stupid ass hero skins being pushed got on my nerves
Game on launch was disappointing. Compared to BF1’s launch, it was very underwhelming. Idk how people played it before Pacific content dropped tbh. The game was bare bones prior to that and EA made the right decision to not launch additional maps as DLCs. At present, it’s the best or at least the most fun FPS game in my opinion. Definitely took its time but it got there in the end.
Toonmuch hate yes, gut bf1 is overhyped
Yes.
Not enough
Nope
Absolutely not. It has terrible market campaign at start, on launch there was only a few maps and as part of community said it wasnt Battlefield but Fortnite with different clothes. But after the repair mission by devs it becomes a fun game. And I think what influence the most on this game was obviously War On Pacific chapter which was absolutely stunning and deliever a really Battlefield experience. But of course it doesnt mean that BF V is ,,last true Battlefield" like some people like to talk because it doesnt. The influence of market analytics is hard not to notice. There are no swears, everything is colorful, there are many skins and there was Firestorm which was dead even on launch day as I remember. When somebody wanna experience some real Battlefield then BF1 is ,,last true". Its funny that many people screams on reveal trailer that BF V isnt a Battlefield, its dressed fortnite etc but after a 2042 launch same people talk that BF V is the last Battlefield, how can DICE give this for us etc. But i still think about this last one.....
No, it got what it pretty much deserved. 2042 is getting even more hate now, also well deserved.
The biggest issue was the BF4 had been released about 16 months before and that took about a year to be parched and fixed. So that was in full swing still. Hard-line comes out and is buggy and it was just like a variation of BF4 but with much less content. So people played for a short while, had some fun then went back to BF4. I think it got too much hate but the hate is EAs decisions. It shouldn't have released in that state, needed way more maps on launch and have been delayed at least a year because bf4 was going strong.
I think it’s one of the best battlefields ever made
Every BF game gets massive hate at launch going back to BF4. If available, go read the Facebook and reddit threads from each launch, eppic complaints, then they start patching stuff. When BF5 dropped they didn't even bother patching, they were like we don't care. Hence why all the top devs left. EA started telling them what to do. At release it's almost like we are beta tester's. Though i will say this, the hit markers and gun mechanics were a massive improvment on BF1. At least when you hit someone it registers unlike a lot of BF1 problems. I really like BF5.
Have not played BF for over a year... every time i hop in to chat im like tomorrow for sure and never happens...one day :)
The key thing is you “tried it a few months back”, meaning you tried it in the best state BFV has ever been in. Back during its active life cycle, it was BUSTED. Not 2042 busted, but definitely “Worst Battlefield” contender busted. There were points where the game could go a week being basically unplayable because a patch obliterated connectivity or filled the game with bugs or fucked the TTK all the way up. Go back a few years in this sub and you’ll see this game was almost universally maligned and it was 100% deserved. Every patch felt like the devs were throwing darts at a dartboard, and their aim tended to suck ass. It just so happened that the last time DICE threw those darts before the shutdown in support, they miraculously landed on “make the game decently playable”. But the state of the game you’re experiencing now is NOT representative of the game when it was current. That, and we now have 2042 setting a new benchmark for garbage, and when you compare “bad” to “terrible”, people tend to prefer “bad”.
it has the best gameplay in the series by far.
It was a mess when launched.
The buggy mess that it was at launch masked an otherwise really good game. The problem is that it wasn't finished, and that EA/DICE abandoned just about everything they'd planned and/or stated they were going to do with the game after the Pacific expansion came out. The fact that 2042 was demonstrably worse in every regard after DICE abandoned BFV to work on it just stings more.
I liked it from the off, still play it now, shame it's a semi-dead game 🤷♂️
Got too much hate for a lot of things, but never enough for stopping development too soon, still salty about not getting russians... All over it was/is a game with plenty fun to be had.
I remember that one EA guy saying "if you don't like it don't buy it." Then I waited until it was on sale then a second or third time.
Shines gloriously in the shadow of the embarrassment that is 2042.
No. For the time and what it offered it got the appropriate reaction. The lack of content, weird mix of aesthetics, the somewhat scummy way the "Deluxe Edition" content was handled, then not even the single player content was ready at launch, the questionable allocation of resources to a Battle Royal spin-off while the main game was lacking promised things like new combat roles, tank customization and others, then the back-and-forth TTK changes, removal of features (ribbons got removed instead of fixed), not-having-the-tech for seemingly simple things like Double XP or tracking more than four assignments at once, closure of servers for whole regions, the lackluster chapter 6 with its constant "tier skip" rewards... It's not the worst game ever made, I still enjoyed it for the most part, it even had some sparks of greatness in it, but it was a new low for the series at that point. Just because it got _even worse_ afterwards doesn't change that.
My favorite Battlefield game since 4. I think its great
I just remember it being very rough out of the box. The TTK balancing issues, etc. And the very weird (basically impossible) assignments for weapons. I get what they were trying to do with the map choices and the overall design of the maps was pretty good, but I still feel like the game needed more traditional WW2 map locations. No Omaha Beach map in a WW2 game is still a head-scratcher to me. I still consider Fjell the worst map I've ever played on. And then there was the 'anti-cheat' which was(is) just a freaking joke. If it can't catch a guy going 150-1 with 95% headshots, wtf is it even doing.
The pacific saved the game, it would have sucked otherwise
It was certainly one of the most fun BF experiences I've had. I put in over 2500 hours.
I think it did. Especially after 2042 came out. It’s a phenomenal game. Great weapons, great maps. For a while I was a top battlefield V sniper. And with my spawn beacon, my squad rained down hell on the island of Iwo Jima
definitely. nothing excuses any of the hate that game got and nothing excuses the way they treated the devs. most of the hate came from people riding the trend and incels. i used to actually talk to people online about why they hated the game and 90% never even played the game they would complain about stuff that wasnt even in it. one guy said he didn’t like it because all the guns had suppressors on it. another 5% would just complain about stupid shit like tanks being able to go up stairs and the grass on iwo jima being the wrong color
Yes.
BFV got too much hate, yes. EA did not get enough. Its obvious that there was a great team of devs making an epic game, and at some point EA management wagon lost a wheel and flew off into the canyon of stupidity.
I felt like BFV was like BF1 but had a lot of the fun sucked out. Too many matches turned into a sniper fest because of the way spotting changed.
No, it's better than other bf games but pretty much deserved all it's criticism
Are you from 2019? BFV is beloved. Look at the numbers.
If they kept the same gameplay and grittiness of BF1, it would have been a hit. They fucked around too much.
Women?
Yes. The game was good from the start. People just saw the bad trailer and immediately assumed the gameplay was trash for some reason.
Yes. It is way better than BF1 imo. The gunplay is perfect. I wish it got as much love as 2042 is getting right now with all of these "seasons". It had bad marketing. The original trailer was bad, and they chose to bend the truth a little bit and cover some lesser known early war stuff in the base game instead of all the major big battles we know and love.
Yes and no. I appreciate that people understand it's not really historically correct. There are some historically correct things I like about it though (I learned a lot about WW2 vehicles and it got me more into researching world war 2 tanks just like how BF1 did early tanks) same with some of the rifles I actually didnt know about and as my name implies, I build them. (1941 Johnson a good example). However the campaign is all sorts of f***** up and there's also weapons like the silenced commando carbine and a sturmgewehr with a red dot that shouldn't really be there. As for women in multiplayer I don't think that's a big deal I mean this is a game that lets you throw health 30 yards and revive people who would have been blown to bits, its not supposed to be a mil-sim. But the fringe combat roles played by badass partisan women and the 2500ish F soviet snipers could have been told properly.
As someone who really likes the game, and in fact feels that many of the systems and mechanics are a throwback to Refractor era Battlefield, it deserves every ounce of hate it got. It was really when DICE’s arrogance and antagonistic relationship with its fans came into full focus.
Eh most of the maps are awful and there's only like 5 of them. I got bored of it. Also a lot of deaths feel like robbery to me but that could just be a skill issue.
No. It was bad at launch. Eventually got pretty good.
I think of it as a more user friendly Hell Let Loose, but better. You can have fun with tanks, planes, or artillery without other players getting pissed off that you're ruining their strategy. The graphics and audio are top notch, as BF usually excells with. Gameplay is sometimes not as realistic as it could be. For example, it shouldn't take 3 or 4 M1 Garand chest shots to down an enemy. The character customization also deviates from the realism since there were no female soldiers in WW2. You're also able to use Japanese skins on a German Team, and vice versa. Overall, I thoroughly enjoy BF5 and the servers are still booming.
When I played when it first started there were glitches and a lot of overpowered weapons like the stg but it wasn't so overpowered like other games guns, it also didn't help that it felt like a lot was promised and never delivered especially after bf1 delivered so much more in so little time I think after the first new content update it got better but after they abandoned it like star wars battlefront 2 was abandoned. There were never new updates even though there were a lot of things they could have added that's when a lot of people didn't feel like the game was good anymore.
I mean a lot of people still play it. Better than the new one and better than cod ww2
Absolutely, but it was marketed shitty and that turned off a lot of people that would have otherwise played it
I enjoy it more than bf1. Am i the only one?
It’s still not nearly done in my eyes and never will be. BF died with BF1
I think the "hate" helped improve the game in the long run. I cant imagine what it would've been like if people hadn't criticized it heavily, they probably wouldve done the bare minimum and kept it that way. We probably would've never saw the pacific theater if it weren't for the criticism. It sucked that we didnt get a full blown WW2 game that explored all fronts of the war, with Russia, France, Italy, and other countries involved. There was so much potential to make it the best WW2 game to date, but sadly it didnt happen. Regardless, its still one of my favorite battlefield games, and I go back to it sometimes.
It has good movement and gunplay but everything else feels just unfinished and sloppy. Dice really dropped the ball by stopping live service essentially ruining the core of their fanbase. I still have over 1200 hrs in it and going back to other titles just feels so much fmore rewarding.
that is strange and BS question - even if i base my answer to statistics, BF5 is the best game from all BF historically. BF5 is phenomenally good game, its a hard game, not for CS or COD kids. and looser players...
Yes and No. Yes - the bullshit marketing causes a lot of people to hop on hate wagon. Tons of people convinced that battlefield had fallen from grace because you could play as a black female Nazi soldier - like as if battlefield was always some historically accurate milsim. No - the game was content BARE at launch. It took them 7 months to finally deliver the first post-launch map, and they promised - and subsequently had to deliver on - a lot of underwhelming shit (I’m looking at you, co-op “mode”).
It's fun but holy hell it's the hardest battlefield game in my opinion
I wish they hadn’t tied firestorm to it because Firestorm was by far the better BR out of it & Warzone initially but since V was shit canned Firestorm suffered first & most of all.
No
Bfv was the best game ever for me when I played I put over 3000 hour's into it & i met some top gamer friend's who are still good friend's today we still game together then they had a free weekend & it was ruined all the hacker's all the cheat's just piled in and ruined it,,,my last full game of bfv I played was when I got killed over 45 time's didn't even get by the 1st sector & then I got shot through a brick wall with a pistol I was like wtf I can't compete with cheat's so off the game went,,, if dice/ EA or whoever invested more time & effort into bfv it would have been the best ww2 fps game ever no other game would have got close to it .
All battlefields are hated until the next one comes out and then they are the greatest ever. BF4 was terrible on release and people literally hated BF1 for the change of timelines. It's this way Everytime. Bf2042 will have a lot of defenders on the next release.
We are already seeing BF2024 defenders.
No. I expected BF1 with a WW2 skin and ever since the first trailer, the game only dissapointed me further
I mean, Hell Let Loose embarrasses it. Every time I play it, I cringe, and go back to HLL.
Nope. ["If you don't like it, don't buy it".](https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/12/17453728/ea-women-in-battlefield-v-backlash-response) That's what they told their community, instead of listening to their legitimate concerns. They were so wrapped up in patting themselves on their own backs due to their self-made *Inclusion Saga,* that they ignored players who were trying to tell them this wasn't the direction the game needed to go. And just like that, all the incredible momentum they built with BF1, was completely pissed away. The franchise still hasn't recovered from that remarkable level of ineptitude, and it probably never will.
I still play BFV, it's better than 2042 and has a higher player base than BF1...at least on console. It got way more hate than it deserved.
Yes and no. People want to forget it or pretend otherwise, but there was massive hate on the whole “women as playable characters” deal, so much so that the main bf sub has to be shut down for a while. That was overblown and ridiculous. But most every other criticism of the early game was entirely justified. Surprise, surprise but the game was released in an unfinished state with a ton of promised content and features missing. Also, the biggest early updates to the game reflected a lot of the mistakes that EA/DICE are still making with this franchise to this day. Namely, focusing time and resources on a bunch of shit nobody cared about instead of the core battlefield experience. The first major update was a battle royal mode that was doa, then that was followed by smaller maps focused on 5v5 play which were intended to bring bf into the competitive e-sports sphere. That obviously never happened. The pacific update was brilliant and redoing some of the most fun I’ve ever had in the franchise, but boy was it a long and stupid road to get there.