• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

What are your hopes for Battlefield 5?

DaciaJC said:
Battlefield 2: Modern Combat on the PS2/Xbox was a far better designed console Battlefield than BC1.

For BF5, I would really appreciate it if DICE actually went back to their roots instead of pumping out more Battlefield/Bad Company/CoD hybrid nonsense. You know, give us a proper successor to BF2 or 1942.
Click to expand...
I have no problem with the gameplay mechanics of contemporary Battlefield. I fail to see how it is like COD in any way, except perhaps going overboard with attachments, awards, and pointless customization.


Though I will admit that 1943 is still my favorite Frostbite Battlefield title.
 
Everyone saying *higher* TTK? I don't understand or agree... Battlefield is only ever fun for me on hardcore servers. Consequently, I'm enjoying R6 Siege very much. I'd like to see more games adopt the "hardcore" model. We have enough "regular" multiplayer FPS games.


Dougieflesh said:
For them not to waste their time on a single player component. Multiplayer is where their resources should go.
Click to expand...


Yeah, after the bitching about Battlefront I can't see them dropping the campaign.
 
1) Assault and secure !!! I.E. :
- Point have to be capture in a given order.
- At anytime you have to defend only one point and you can attack only one point.
- You can respaw only on secured point.
- You can't capture a point alone.

2) Plus this :
Chozo_Lord said:
1) Dice LA works on it. They have done an amazing job of turning a buggy/laggy game into one of the current best fps.

2) Dice LA takes all the good fixed things from BF4 and puts them into BF5 and continues to improve it.

5) All future dlc maps/modes to be free. A big problem in multiplayer games is fragmentation of the community. I'm not saying no to paid dlc, but to keep the community healthy, all maps and modes should be free. They can make their $$$ from guns/camos etc.
Click to expand...
 
packy34 said:
Everyone saying *higher* TTK? I don't understand or agree... Battlefield is only ever fun for me on hardcore servers. Consequently, I'm enjoying R6 Siege very much. I'd like to see more games adopt the "hardcore" model. We have enough "regular" multiplayer FPS games.
Click to expand...
Hardcore mode is terrible, it becomes a sniper feast.
 
vasametropolis said:
1. Make it play more like BC2 (Sniping, TTK, movement speed, whatever)
2. Conquest mode greatest hits maps (BF2 forward)
3. Rush mode greatest hits maps (BC2 forward. Arica Harbour, for example)
4. Free maps. Figure out the business model to sustain this. No premium.
5. Great netcode, great party system
6. $30-$40
7. If including campaign, make it BC3 and charge $60
Click to expand...

I'd really like BC2 TTK too. Or BF3. BF4 felt too fast.

COD and Battlefield are the biggest MP games, and they won't suffer by selling map packs. Most other games would, which is why some developers are smartening up and making maps free.
 
Ditch the unlocking system of BF4. Its a bullshit fucking grind that makes you NOT want to try new weapons.

Ditch the Battlelog. Its garbage. Ingame server or bust.

Ditch the SP. No one cares.

Design maps for Rush and Conquest separately. 7 for CQ and 4 for Rush. I would genuinely rather have 4 good rush maps that were made for Rush than 11 shitty ones where the gametype is shoved in without a thought.

Make weapons more class specific. Its bullshit that Engineers can use DMRs and Recon can use Carbine.

Higher TTK.
 
Dr_Biscuit said:
1) Assault and secure !!! I.E. :
- Point have to be capture in a given order.
- At anytime you have to defend only one point and you can attack only one point.
- You can respaw only on secured point.
- You can't capture a point alone.
Click to expand...
That sounds awful, it would just make the matches a giant meatgrinder.
 
TimeEffect said:
Bad Company 3 first.

No sci fi junk. No thruster suits or exo movements, or jetpacks, or freedom to jump around all over the map. Just a traditional, grounded experience.
Click to expand...

Dear god, this. CoD really shat the bed with that stuff.'

All I want is

- SWBF gfx
- Stable 60fps
- Good net code
- Works at launch
- NO SCIFI JUNK!
 
I almost want a return to the smaller scale that BC2 had. I've never been a huge Conquest player after BF2, and honestly after BF3 and BF4 the super large scale maps feel excessive more than anything.

jets don't really do anything; there i said it

I would also want a larger focus to be placed on map design, since most of BF4's original maps were kinda bleh. Also, stop trying to push every game mode into a map. Maps made with Conquest in mind don't tend to really work with Rush and vice versa.

2143 would be cool but I'm not really expecting it since it would compete with Battlefront.
 
I would really like an alternate history setting. A "cold war gone hot" scenario would be a great idea for a battlefield game and just different enough from the "modern war" setting to make it feel fresh. I would also love a return to WW2.

Gameplay wise, i would also like more focus on popular modes like conquest and rush with dedicated maps for these as well as a smaller but much better balanced arsenal of weapons, vehicles and gadgets. Less bloat, more quality.

On a technical level i would be satisfied with improved destruction and PBR similar to Battlefront. 20v20 players is a good number for conquest and maybe rush as well.

And please no rushed release. Not again, DICE.
 
not be a regression in every single way compared to bf4 in the amount of content

I'll fucking rage if they pull a battlefront and offer like 5 maps for rush and 5 for conquest, I don't give enough fucks about rush to be fine with something like that
 
-Either make a Bad Company story, or remove it and focus on more MP content (tons more to make up for it).

-Server tests before launch.

-Make the world crazy in terms of blowing stuff up. I mean like EDF destruction.
 
Enosh said:
not be a regression in every single way compared to bf4 in the amount of content

I'll fucking rage if they pull a battlefront and offer like 5 maps for rush and 5 for conquest, I don't give enough fucks about rush to be fine with something like that
Click to expand...

Rush is amazing. Or at least it was. It's a fantastic mode. It was great in Bad Company 2 when they could be destroyed by damaging the MCOM stations. It was great when Bad Company 2 had exclusive maps that had insane trees that actually provided cover, or had full destruction that allowed you to literally bring the house down.

The alternative is forcing Rush into CQ maps.

5 maps for Rush and 5 for CQ is perfect. It'd be even better if they did the right thing and gave us free maps for life. It's nonsense that people pay for maps only to have a lot of maps and modes unplayable due to severe fragmentation.

At least make the DLCs free when you release the next set or something.
 
Like maybe 1/3 less weapons to unlock, 90+ is too many, and no unlocking the same attachments over and over for each gun. More attachments in general, Id like to be able to change stocks for more control over what my guns do feel like. If you unlock "X" scope once, you've unlocked it for all guns, just like in BC2.

Fixed arsenals, no more of the all-kit mess that keeps blurring the lines between classes already. Just hard weaknesses and strengths for each class. Engineers and Recons should be wanting to avoid fights with assault classes because of the limitations of their kits, but with the way all-kit weapons works, no one gives a shit because you've got mostly the same effective killing power as any other class.

Probably separate the assault and medic classes already. Out of all the classes, this one bothers me the most because its kit is wildly divergent to he point it may as well be its own class anyway. Id rather have 2 classes with a much more effective set of tools for both.

Don't try to cram every game mode on to every map. If a map supports both core rush and conquest well, great. If not, don't force it just to pad your numbers. Infact stick to about 4-5 game modes at the most. I see a huge list of game modes in BF4 that no one plays outside of 4 or 5 anyway.
 
Seems like they have a lot more time to develop it than 4. I'd firstly like to see a return to the Bad Company design philosophy. Focus on map quality and create maps with specific game modes in mind. Bring back destruction for almost all structures.

Unlike Battlefront, I'd actually prefer a set of co-op missions to an actual campaign given how lackluster the past two were. Bad Company 3 would be a different story on the other hand. But we all know that won't happen, at least not next year.

I have a feeling that it'll be another near future/future shooter. That's fine as long as the core Battlefield gameplay is retained. Please no jump packs, wall running, and the rest of that stuff everyone has pulled from Titanfall this gen. 2143 is fine by me, Titanfield is not.
 
Lord of Castamere said:
Not getting my hopes up. Expecting Bf4 but worse. Why worse? Because for some reason I don't think they'll include the year of patch work that made bf4 great. Hope I'm wrong.

.
Click to expand...

Thats a worry for me too.

They havent used all the BF4 improvements for Battlefront, so i think it will be the same here sadly :/


And agree with a lot here. A Bad Company 3 would be the best scenario.
 
JordanKZ said:
  • No single player component, at all. DICE have proven they simply cannot make them.


Click to expand...

Be careful wishing that, people will get mad about this. It happened with Battlefront and would happen here.

I agree. Dice isnt really well known for good campaigns besides the Bad Company games IMO
 
JumPeRJumPzZ said:
Be careful wishing that, people will get mad about this. It happened with Battlefront and would happen here.

I agree. Dice isnt really well known for good campaigns besides the Bad Company games IMO
Click to expand...
Because if a Star Wars single player component is mediocre it would at least have Star Wars attached to it. Battlefield didn't start with campaigns in their games and has never made a great one - even Bad Company 2 was serviceable at best and mediocre at worst.
 
TimeEffect said:
Rush is amazing. Or at least it was. It's a fantastic mode. It was great in Bad Company 2 when they could be destroyed by damaging the MCOM stations. It was great when Bad Company 2 had exclusive maps that had insane trees that actually provided cover, or had full destruction that allowed you to literally bring the house down.

The alternative is forcing Rush into CQ maps.

5 maps for Rush and 5 for CQ is perfect. It'd be even better if they did the right thing and gave us free maps for life. It's nonsense that people pay for maps only to have a lot of maps and modes unplayable due to severe fragmentation.

At least make the DLCs free when you release the next set or something.
Click to expand...

They do that it will be the worst selling BF of all time. Battlefield fans want Conquest. Rush is just an add-on that came way later in the series. You can't give Conquest 5 maps or else the game is already dead.
 
A return to WW2 is my hope, but it'll just be more modern/20 minutes into the future stuff for sake of having a million tacticool attachments and gadgets to unlock.

I also hope they don't bother with single-player and put that money and effort into building a bigger and better multiplayer instead. But that won't happen either. Either we'll get another generic shooter campaign, or we'll get no campaign while also getting no more multiplayer content than we would've had otherwise.

Wow, what a positive post! :D
 
Heroman said:
Hardcore mode is terrible, it becomes a sniper feast.
Click to expand...

Exactly! Hardcore mode is something that on paper is awesome, but in reality online games are full of assholes, and DICE's maps aren't the most balanced or tested.
So in reality, is a glitch ridden, sniper fest, frustration galore mode... with people exploiting maps and weapons...unplayable.
 
TimeEffect said:
Rush is amazing. Or at least it was. It's a fantastic mode. It was great in Bad Company 2 when they could be destroyed by damaging the MCOM stations. It was great when Bad Company 2 had exclusive maps that had insane trees that actually provided cover, or had full destruction that allowed you to literally bring the house down.

The alternative is forcing Rush into CQ maps.

5 maps for Rush and 5 for CQ is perfect. It'd be even better if they did the right thing and gave us free maps for life. It's nonsense that people pay for maps only to have a lot of maps and modes unplayable due to severe fragmentation.

At least make the DLCs free when you release the next set or something.
Click to expand...
bringing the house down on mcoms was utter bullshit because no matter what you did as defenders you lost that mcom unless the opposite team was made up of complete morons who couldn't find the explosives button
 
JordanKZ said:
  • No single player component, at all. DICE have proven they simply cannot make them.
  • Bring back more classes, I want medic and engineer to be their own thing again.
  • Nerf snipers, heavily. Make them difficult to use, so people have to compensate for bullet drop/gun shake.
  • Bring back BF3's destructibility, rather than the gimmicks seen in BF4.
  • Make the PC version feel like a flippin' PC game, and not just BF3/4 on different hardware.
  • Unrealistic, but PS4/PC cross platform play would be fun.

Click to expand...

Console players will get destroyed!! Hell no!!
 
MarineMountie said:
They do that it will be the worst selling BF of all time. Battlefield fans want Conquest. Rush is just an add-on that came way later in the series. You can't give Conquest 5 maps or else the game is already dead.
Click to expand...

I dont know why you want so many maps... i mean probably a lot of people who complain about the lack of Maps in Battlefront are the ones that play on 24/7 Locker Servers...

Seperate Maps for the Core Modes like Rush and Conquest is IMO a better approach than trying to create maps that work with every mode.
 
-No mobile AA (this is a must)
-mod support. Community knows best. New maps and skins should be created from the community.
-Vietnam addon (seriously, the best part of bc2 was the Vietnam addon)
-Attack helicopter needs to be buffed (by much imo)
-One hit kill sniper rifle within at least 20m
-no more redzone camping or no redzone at all
-Jet with 2 seats like in bf2
-wake island remake (not the shitty bf3 remake, a proper bf2 remake)
 
JordanKZ said:
  • No single player component, at all. DICE have proven they simply cannot make them.
  • Bring back more classes, I want medic and engineer to be their own thing again.

    [*]Nerf snipers, heavily. Make them difficult to use, so people have to compensate for bullet drop/gun shake.
  • Bring back BF3's destructibility, rather than the gimmicks seen in BF4.
  • Make the PC version feel like a flippin' PC game, and not just BF3/4 on different hardware.
  • Unrealistic, but PS4/PC cross platform play would be fun.
Click to expand...

Snipers are already nerfed into the ground indirectly due to the movement changes. The animations are no longer as smooth as they were at launch, making it much more difficult to hit moving targets because of the speed of movement with animations that dont match anymore.
 
I want great loading maps themes like we had in 2 and 2142, so many good themes, made me excited to jump in. The themes now are as boring as they can be, when I played Dragon Valley in BF4 and that theme came on, oh man, the difference in quality...
 
JumPeRJumPzZ said:
I dont know why you want so many maps... i mean probably a lot of people who complain about the lack of Maps in Battlefront are the ones that play on 24/7 Locker Servers...

Seperate Maps for the Core Modes like Rush and Conquest is IMO a better approach than trying to create maps that work with every mode.
Click to expand...
Lol

And no, 10 maps is a good starting point, the shouldn't be going backwards from 3 and 4.
 
My hope is that it returns to the older design. Back when it was possible to be a bigger threat as a solo player.

1. No squad spawns.

2. Every class has something to deal with vehicles, some more than others, but even snipers can take on a heavy tank or a helicopter.

3. One-shot sniper kills anywhere on the body and from any distance.

4. Slower vehicle spawns. If I destroy a tank, reward me with at least the repreive of no new tank for another 3-5 minutes.

5. Put back Ammo and health crates around the map and certainly around objectives. I shouldn't need a teammate to refill ammo or heal.

Make it fun for solo players again. Stop putting us at a greater and greater disadvantage each release. That's why I switched to COD. I could actually win games against clans by being really good even if I was rolling solo with pubs.

There's nothing fun about getting overrun by a squad that keeps squad spawning on top of you. There's nothing fun about dealing with the same guy spamming chopper after chopper after chopper without pause. And there's nothing fun about not having the tools to deal with heavy vehicles (without changing classes) especially when they make heavy vehicles so ubiquitous, nor is it fun having your class gimped by not having the ability to replenish ammo or heal wounds by yourself.

Almost everything they've done to "promote teamwork" was done by nerfing the individual. Un-nerf the individual.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Unpopular opinion: battlefield 5 was better than battlefield 6
Opinion 
29
618
MiguelItUp replied
What are your comfort games?
2
81
960
GardenOfAbbylon replied
What are your insanely fantastic experiences with video games?
2
88
1K
RomanceDawn replied
Your Top 5 Indie JRPG's
2
91
1K
OuterLimits replied
What Are Your Favourite Memories of the Xbox Golden Age (360)?
2 3 4
177
686
EverydayBeast replied
Top Bottom