General Gaming Battlefield V reveals initial post-release content roadmap, Firestorm battle royale mode to release in March 2019

[legend]

1 hour ago, Keyser_Soze said:

 

Well, I don't think they want a clone. I think they want a polished unique version of the BR mode running on the frostbite engine. Should be a home run.

And arguably it's good for EA because they'd be making money off it.

 

 

What makes it unique? Fortnite and CoD BR are not polished? And a tacked on BF mode will be?

 

Let me be clear, I'm not making an economic bet that it won't be financially successful. I am nevertheless baffled that anyone finds this prospect exciting.

[Keyser_Soze]

2 hours ago, legend said:

 

What makes it unique? Fortnite and CoD BR are not polished? And a tacked on BF mode will be?

 

Let me be clear, I'm not making an economic bet that it won't be financially successful. I am nevertheless baffled that anyone finds this prospect exciting.

 

I’m saying it is polished compared to an actual clone like Islands of Nyne for example.

What makes it unique? Well that’s up to the developers but like I said the game is a natural fit for the game they are using it for.

If they put effort into it then the mode isn’t necessarily tacked on.

The popularity of Battle Royal modes is arguably at it’s height right now. Some games got lucky, some forgotten and some just bad. It’s time for AAA developers to dip their feet in the water and sees what sticks.

But if you want to ask why BR in this game then I have to ask why WWIII in this game? Why single player in this game? Those are bigger headscratchers than adding an extra multiplayer mode to a multiplayer game.

What excites you about Battlefield V?

[Moa]

18 hours ago, legend said:

 

Yes. I really don't understand the need for 800 BR games especially when they are reactionary rather than driven by a core concept from start to end.

 

I understand not wanting the BR mode to be half-baked, but the reactionary attitude a lot of people here and elsewhere seem to have against BR doesn't make sense to me. Basically since the inception of FPS games, we've been limited to a few core game modes like TDM, conquest, and the now forgotten CTF,  among others, which all ultimately play similarly. Finally, something comes along that seriously shakes up the existing flow of FPS games and all the old men come out of their basements to yell at the hip young clouds.

[atom631]

7 hours ago, Xbob42 said:

Oh fuck off with this. My point was that Battlefield moved away from fun dumb things to appeal to the "realism" crowd while simultaneously dumbing down the game and making it about exploding buildings and low TTK to appeal to the dudebro CoD crowd. I have no idea if you can effectively stand on vehicles in BF these days as I stopped playing them years ago, but it's clear their intentions aren't to make wacky fun games like they used to, but to try to appeal to people who like boring bullshit.

I don’t disageee that as of the BFV beta, it feels like they are trying to appeal more to the COD crowd with the TTK, skins, etc. and in BF1 they’ve made it so that playing with your squad doesn’t really matter and cater to the K/D crowd.  Hopefully they make the changes and  get all this right in BFV

 

as for the “wacky fun”....wasn’t that only really in the Bad Company games? I don’t remember the OG Games 1 and 2 having any wackiness. Although that was a long time ago and i didn’t play them too much so maybe. I guess if that’s what you’re looking for then, yeah BF isn’t for you. There’s some wackiness but it’s not common (I’m still trying to take a plane down with an AT grenade!) 

 

 

[SimpleG]

12 hours ago, Xbob42 said:

And in a sad, bizarre twist, one of the most annoying changes to me about Battlefield (standing on vehicles now scoots you off/kills you) is now how it was in old Battlefield

 

9 hours ago, Xbob42 said:

I have no idea if you can effectively stand on vehicles in BF these days as I stopped playing them years ago

Go home Bob , your drunk.

[legend]

6 hours ago, Keyser_Soze said:

 

I’m saying it is polished compared to an actual clone like Islands of Nyne for example.

What makes it unique? Well that’s up to the developers but like I said the game is a natural fit for the game they are using it for.

If they put effort into it then the mode isn’t necessarily tacked on.

The popularity of Battle Royal modes is arguably at it’s height right now. Some games got lucky, some forgotten and some just bad. It’s time for AAA developers to dip their feet in the water and sees what sticks.

But if you want to ask why BR in this game then I have to ask why WWIII in this game? Why single player in this game? Those are bigger headscratchers than adding an extra multiplayer mode to a multiplayer game.

What excites you about Battlefield V?

 

 

Not being able to cite what makes it unique really just reinforces my point: I don't understand why anyone is excited by this.  

 

Why "single player" is not a bad question. I haven't played any BF single player because it never stood out enough to look interesting. Is it? To be fair, I'm not a fan of BF in general, but in the early years I at least understood the appeal. In general, I only get excited if a game looks like its running with a concept in a significantly better way than others or if they have a unique take on it. Sometimes franchises can keep my excitement simply because the developer does that kind of game better than others and they're aiming to improve it even further. 

 

But BF tacking on BR mode? How amazingly unexciting. It screams money grab, rather than meaningful concept worked on by the developers. Maybe they'll surprise me with an interesting take, but I'm skeptical of that and I see no reason to be excited by the mere notion of it. It's not like there are not good BR games out there for people to play.

[legend]

5 hours ago, Moa said:

 

I understand not wanting the BR mode to be half-baked, but the reactionary attitude a lot of people here and elsewhere seem to have against BR doesn't make sense to me. Basically since the inception of FPS games, we've been limited to a few core game modes like TDM, conquest, and the now forgotten CTF,  among others, which all ultimately play similarly. Finally, something comes along that seriously shakes up the existing flow of FPS games and all the old men come out of their basements to yell at the hip young clouds.

 

I can't speak for others, but I'm not yelling up at the clouds. I dislike the industry jumping over themselves to follow a trend rather than because they have a concept they want to develop. As soon as PUBG and then Fornite were raking in the money, we all knew this was going to happen. And here we are watching it happen. This is not new to the gaming industry and it's never been a facet I've enjoyed. BR is just the latest to inspire me too gaming.

[SimpleG]

7 minutes ago, legend said:

 

I can't speak for others, but I'm not yelling up at the clouds. I dislike the industry jumping over themselves to follow a trend rather than because they have a concept they want to develop. As soon as PUBG and then Fornite were raking in the money, we all knew this was going to happen. And here we are watching it happen. This is not new to the gaming industry and it's never been a facet I've enjoyed. BR is just the latest to inspire me too gaming.

Well said.

[atom631]

25 minutes ago, legend said:

But BF tacking on BR mode? How amazingly unexciting. It screams money grab, rather than meaningful concept worked on by the developers. Maybe they'll surprise me with an interesting take, but I'm skeptical of that and I see no reason to be excited by the mere notion of it. It's not like there are not good BR games out there for people to play.

 

Seeing as this is BF, my only thought on how this could be an interesting take, is the introduction of vehicles. I know some of the BR games have vehicles, but they are really there for transportation  (and the occasional road kill). By vehicles, I mean tanks, gun boats, fighter planes, etc...  Vehicles actually used for combat. 

 

I cant wrap my brain around how that would work in a BR game, esp planes...so who knows. 

[Keyser_Soze]

4 minutes ago, atom631 said:

 

Seeing as this is BF, my only thought on how this could be an interesting take, is the introduction of vehicles. I know some of the BR games have vehicles, but they are really there for transportation  (and the occasional road kill). By vehicles, I mean tanks, gun boats, fighter planes, etc...  Vehicles actually used for combat. 

 

I cant wrap my brain around how that would work in a BR game, esp planes...so who knows. 

 

Blackout has helicopters. That's fun.

[atom631]

1 minute ago, Keyser_Soze said:

 

Blackout has helicopters. That's fun.

yeah but again, only for transportation right? They dont have MGs on them I dont think. 

 

Combat vehicles is a huge part of what makes battlefield battlefield. they cant possibly exclude them in the BR mode because of that. 

 

 

[bladimir2k]

2 hours ago, atom631 said:

I don’t disageee that as of the BFV beta, it feels like they are trying to appeal more to the COD crowd with the TTK, skins, etc.

I think this has been BF downfall since it started releasing on console. Chasing COD coat tails... maybe if they kept doing their own thing and appeal to what they were always good at they would be at a different point right now.

[JPDunks4]

30 minutes ago, legend said:

 

I can't speak for others, but I'm not yelling up at the clouds. I dislike the industry jumping over themselves to follow a trend rather than because they have a concept they want to develop. As soon as PUBG and then Fornite were raking in the money, we all knew this was going to happen. And here we are watching it happen. This is not new to the gaming industry and it's never been a facet I've enjoyed. BR is just the latest to inspire me too gaming.

 

What is you history of Battle Royales played? Do you play a lot of PvP shooters? What games? 

 

You keep talking about tacked on money grab.  That just sounds ignorant after CoD just implemented a rather deep, well thought out, and extremely fun Battle Royale that incorporates a lot of very uniquely CoD gameplay elements.  

 

Battlefield is a squad based game.  Their Battle Royale is Squads only, no solos or duos.  Having heals and revives be more dependent on a Medic Class, Ammo distribution based more on a Support Class, ect could already greatly change the way the mode plays and feels.  If its a cheaply implemented tacked on Battle Royale then it just reinforces my point that Dice did a terrible job following a current trend and getting the work in early.  They also mention having things like Conquest Capture points in during  a match that will grant good loot, another more unique Battlefield element that will greatly change the game. 

 

Dice is a large studio, that works on a game that already has 90% of a Battle Royale built into its engine.  CoD was a game that I wasn't sure could pull off a Battle Royale cause of its nature of small maps, arcade gameplay, no vehicles, but they did its beautifully and its been some of the most fun gaming I've had in awhile.  

 

To dismiss Battle Royales cause they are popular at the moment is quite frankly idiotic.  They are popular for a reason.  They offer an entirely unique gameplay experience to the typical respawn no consequence PvP shooters we've been playing for decades.  But yeah, lets hope some of the largest best developers out there ignore the really fun new game modes introduced because its become too popular?  If Dice can't fully implement a great Battle Royale experience without sacrificing other parts of their game, that's entirely poor management on them, as CoD has already just done that.  There is no excuse.

[CitizenVectron]

I really  enjoyed the beta (moreso than BF1) so I'm still excited for this game.

 

[legend]

1 hour ago, JPDunks4 said:

 

What is you history of Battle Royales played? Do you play a lot of PvP shooters? What games?

 

The only BR I've put any meaningful time into is Fortnite.

 

I have a long history of playing competitive shooters. Doom and Marathon in the early days. Quake 1 and TF a little later. Then Quake 3 and UT; then the Halo series; and lots of other misc. shooters I put time into. I played other big names too. For example, some CS and Valve's TF2 but they never really clicked with me.

 

Quote

You keep talking about tacked on money grab.  That just sounds ignorant after CoD just implemented a rather deep, well thought out, and extremely fun Battle Royale that incorporates a lot of very uniquely CoD gameplay elements.  

 

Battlefield is a squad based game.  Their Battle Royale is Squads only, no solos or duos.  Having heals and revives be more dependent on a Medic Class, Ammo distribution based more on a Support Class, ect could already greatly change the way the mode plays and feels.  If its a cheaply implemented tacked on Battle Royale then it just reinforces my point that Dice did a terrible job following a current trend and getting the work in early.  They also mention having things like Conquest Capture points in during  a match that will grant good loot, another more unique Battlefield element that will greatly change the game. 

 

Dice is a large studio, that works on a game that already has 90% of a Battle Royale built into its engine.  CoD was a game that I wasn't sure could pull off a Battle Royale cause of its nature of small maps, arcade gameplay, no vehicles, but they did its beautifully and its been some of the most fun gaming I've had in awhile.  

 

I don' think having squads is special or unique. You can play squads in FN too. But okay, so you're looking forward to having classes in BR. That's legitimately something at least. Nevertheless, this isn't a case of Dice building out this concept from the start. It's reactionary: the very point of this thread is its something they're adding on later. If they come out with something really special, great. But I'm not interested in games that are mostly business motivated "we should do this because it's a huge money maker" without significant plans for why it will be stand out. 

 

Quote

To dismiss Battle Royales cause they are popular at the moment is quite frankly idiotic.  They are popular for a reason. 

 

Fortunately, I'm not dismissing all BR games merely because they're popular.  Nor am I saying BR games are not legitimate games. So you can stop there. In fact, I do play FN from time to time so that would be a rather silly position for me to take.

 

I am expressing confusion at excitement for a tacked on BR mode to BF because I don't see much reason for it to exist in addition to everything else.

 

And to be fair, Fortnite was also reactionary to PUBG. But their reaction wasn't just "we have to do this too" it was to take the idea and push it further. The consequence was FN was both much more polished and the fort building radically changed the dynamics of the gameplay that gave it a meaningful spin--a reason for existing.

 

 

 

 

 

[Moa]

The reason people are interested in a Battlefield battle royale mode is twofold. First, despite your impressions, the BR genre is not even close to saturated. There are three popular BR games, relative to the current FPS market as a whole, there is room for a lot more BR. Second, what draws people to BR games is the emergent gameplay and Battlefield more than any other series is known for its mayhem and emergent gameplay. The absolute nonsense that is Battlefield combined with BR seems like a match made in heaven.

[legend]

13 minutes ago, Moa said:

The reason people are interested in a Battlefield battle royale mode is twofold. First, despite your impressions, the BR genre is not even close to saturated. There are three popular BR games, relative to the current FPS market as a whole, there is room for a lot more BR. Second, what draws people to BR games is the emergent gameplay and Battlefield more than any other series is known for its mayhem and emergent gameplay. The absolute nonsense that is Battlefield combined with BR seems like a match made in heaven.

 

Well, I hope you're right and that it's more than just a tacked on mode!

[ALIEN-gunner]

Fortnite Battle Royal was a tacked on mode to Fortnite because PUBG was so popular and Fortnite wasn't. It was glitchy but it became popular and later made better. No one can say though that Battlefield's BR game mode will be tacked on until it's playable but if it's squads only and incorporates air, sea and land combat vehicles I can see this being a pretty unique and even more tense version of Battle Royale. Battlefield fans love the series because it's more realistic than casual shooters. 

[Paperclyp]

1 hour ago, ALIEN-gunner said:

Fortnite Battle Royal was a tacked on mode to Fortnite because PUBG was so popular and Fortnite wasn't. It was glitchy but it became popular and later made better. No one can say though that Battlefield's BR game mode will be tacked on until it's playable but if it's squads only and incorporates air, sea and land combat vehicles I can see this being a pretty unique and even more tense version of Battle Royale. Battlefield fans love the series because it's more realistic than casual shooters. 

Oh now it kinda makes sense.

[Keyser_Soze]

Yeah Fortnite is not the correct game to talk about tacked on modes.

 

Now if you said H1Z1, a game no one talks about, that is a fully realized BR mode that predates PUBG.

[Zaku3]

13 hours ago, CitizenVectron said:

I really  enjoyed the beta (moreso than BF1) so I'm still excited for this game.

 

 

Same. I find myself wanting to play it when I want to play a shooter.