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

What are your hopes for Battlefield 5?

Going back to World War II. Sick of future and modern warfare. Show me how great large destructible environments in world war II and having massive battles are.
 
Better hit recognition, net code and less janky character interaction with the environment. I don't think im getting any of these.
 
Less unlocks and less guns.
No micro transaction pack bullshit.
New or vastly improved engine so this doesn't look like a skin of the last 2 games.
 
JumPeRJumPzZ said:
wat, Disagree.

Leave out all the CoD modes like TDM and Domination. Rush has to stay.
Click to expand...
It should only have Conquest, Rush (or even better Turning Point from SWBF), Carrier Assault (imagine that in WW2), Domination, and Air Superiority.


I don't know what happened that made planes control so bad in BF3 and 4, but compared to 1943 flying sucks.
 
1. Bad Company 3. Give me back total destruction. Give me back vehicles that matter. Give me back maps that are fun and balanced and not just big open get shot from every direction festivals, with those little dense towns and forest you can completely level and clear out.

1.b: More density in forests and underbrush please.

2. It's been a while since we've got a big polished WWII game from anyone (lots of indies though but ehhh). I'd love to go back to that era. Would feel so fresh in this age of 95% future/modern war setting saturation. Even early cold war would be good.

dkeane said:
Remove all the game modes besides Conquest and Rush.
Focus on designing maps for those two modes.
Click to expand...

3. This is what people play BF for, just focus on it. There's 9 million other shooters that cater to the other modes better than this one ever will. It also forces players to play the objective based modes. So I agree, keep rush/conquest. Get rid of everything else.

4. Less unlocks, make them more substantial. Get rid of the "RNG open a case" unlocking system. That is absolute trash and does nothing to facilitate those urges on why the carrot on a stick works. Give us (realistic) weapon milestones and challenges instead to unlock attachments/sites.

5. The DLC stuff is absolutely out of control and splits the playerbase in a terrible, terrible way. I play BF4 casual and it shouldn't be this much work to find a server with a decent player count that is playing vanilla maps. Come on. 1 expansion, that's it. There's plenty of other monetary models to make money without splitting a playerbase up. Sell cosmetics. "But people don't buy those!" Stop making shitty military camo packs then that nobody wants. Sell unique player models and skins that people want to buy. Not just generic soldier #49943. You have a team of artists and designers, it can't be that hard to come up with some appealing designs to people. Hell, sell cosmetic game makovers. now everyone looks like a steampunk anime character. Wonderful, enjoy rolling in the money.

6. Vehicles need work. Less tanks, more sub tanks/APCs. Tanks should remain powerful, but should be a more rare thing. Jets need to either come out or be overhauled. Maybe change them to a powerup type status, where if the team meets a certain goal or something, they get a slow powerful bombardment plane instead of these fast, useless jets that just take players out of the equation.
 
  • They fix the audio when starting a match.
  • They forget the cops and robbers abortion ever happened.
  • We get to join back with Marlow and Sweetwater as they leave Texas and go stop the Russian invasion.
  • They bring back meaningful destruction to the games in many areas.
  • No luck based weapon unlocking.
  • Bring back the laser designator dart gun. That thing was fun.
 
Battlefront quality graphics and sound or even better, full destruction, WWII setting, tons of weapons and (visual) customization, easy to join games with a party.

That's about it I guess.
 
A massive improvement in player numbers. If a game like Mount & Blade Warband, developed by a tiny team with minimal resources and running on an engine developed by a single guy can offer team sizes of 200+, EA can do so much more with Battlefield. I imagine we're stuck at paltry numbers due to consoles in a way, but they should aim much higher.
 
packy34 said:
Yeah, after the bitching about Battlefront I can't see them dropping the campaign.
Click to expand...

I believe that most of the bitching about battlefront was not due to lack of campaign but rather lack of meaningful MP content in general while retaining the $60 price tag. It felt stripped down compared to the MP in BF4.
 
They need to do what Infinity Ward should have done with MW2...keep it the same and just refine it.

Add more maps, more levolution (like Siege of Shanghai), more guns, more game modes, and improve the graphics (I think they still look great for a two year old game).

Oh, and don't try to be like CoD by adding bullshit like perks and kill streaks. If they ever do that I'll be done with the franchise.

I still play BF4 and I think the game is very well made. The next iteration doesn't need a whole lot to be amazing.
 
Herne said:
A massive improvement in player numbers. If a game like Mount & Blade Warband, developed by a tiny team with minimal resources and running on an engine developed by a single guy can offer team sizes of 200+, EA can do so much more with Battlefield. I imagine we're stuck at paltry numbers due to consoles in a way, but they should aim much higher.
Click to expand...

More players doesnt mean more fun... The actual counts we had for BF4 and battlefront were fine IMO.


And man imagine RUSH in a WW2 setting where you have to destroy Nazi Gold Chests in Berlin etc. on top that all the WW2 sounds, guns etc.
 
pizzacat said:
Campaign and or campaign unlocks need to go. MP7 is locked off with it I think, what is this shit?
Click to expand...
fuck that, fuck vehicle unlocks (and customization really but I'll settle for it if all stuff is available from the start), fuck gadgets and weapons being locked to inane assignments and fuck attachment grinding
 
Future setting, higher time to kill, a lot of customization, destruction, a lot of maps, infantry based with some vehicles (think of Battlefront in terms of how many vehicles in a typical game).
 
I find it weird people are saying take out tdm/dom. If they remove single player they should easily have enough resources to do all the classic BF gamemodes along with tdm/dom. Sometimes I want to play a infantry only game with no killstreaks, but with bullet drop/recoil aka COD but not COD.
 
Herne said:
A massive improvement in player numbers. If a game like Mount & Blade Warband, developed by a tiny team with minimal resources and running on an engine developed by a single guy can offer team sizes of 200+, EA can do so much more with Battlefield. I imagine we're stuck at paltry numbers due to consoles in a way, but they should aim much higher.
Click to expand...

Please no.

Larger player counts than 64 are unnecessary, it'll just lead to watered down maps that have to be larger to account for more players.
 
Maybe something future involved. I hate to jump on the recent trend, but more mobility, verticality and destruction would be fantastic.

Jump boosting into the destroyed walls of a moving titan/scarab control point please.
 
AU Tiger said:
I believe that most of the bitching about battlefront was not due to lack of campaign but rather lack of meaningful MP content in general while retaining the $60 price tag. It felt stripped down compared to the MP in BF4.
Click to expand...

People will still bitch regardless of how much content there is and draw comparisons to CSGO/Overwatch/etc as multiplayer only games that aren't full price.
 
packy34 said:
People will still bitch regardless of how much content there is and draw comparisons to CSGO/Overwatch/etc as multiplayer only games that aren't full price.
Click to expand...
I mean part of it is fair, considering they're surely gonna have another season pass on top of it retailing it at full price.
 
RdN said:
A decent netcode, where hit detection works and rubber banding doesn't ruin the game.
Click to expand...
If your still getting rubber banding today then I think you need to play on local servers or/and upgrade your Internet. I've not had rubber banding since last year.

I'd like either a futuristic (no fucking exo suits) or a return to WW2, D-day landing would make a perfect game of rush!

A Pearl harbour map could make a great air superiority match as well.

Oh and make the campaign start in London with the PC and family waking up to the sound of an air raid siren! Planes over head bombing the city. Family doesn't make it in time so you decide to join the army. Don't ask me why I want this, I just do.

DICE, if your reading this, make it happen!
 
1. Continue with the modern setting.

2. DICE LA's many fixes and improvements in BF4 over the past year included.

3. Visceral's Hardline unlock/voucher system for weapons and attachments. The weapon license might need some tweaking though.

4. A working game with stable servers starting on Day 1.

5. *Map* DLC given out for free. Too much fragmenting of the dwindling player base months after release when maps aren't free.

6. Carbines in All Kits, just like in BF4. This, along with plenty of gadgets, really extends a class. Some players like this, but I know others don't.

7. Another "Second Assault" or "Back to Karkand" throwback map pack. I loved playing Strike in BF3, and Caspian/Firestorm in BF4.

That is all. :-)
 
I only need a BF with the same destructibility as BC2, then I'll be happy. I want to be able to make Port Valdez a plain map with only mortar holes and buildings's wreckages again, not BF3/4 hard coded shit where sometimes you can blow a house apart and sometimes you don't.
 
I would love a new BF2 lol. I know that is silly but BF2 was my favorite by far. Had so much variety and the whole squad and commander play was best in that version.
 
An unlock system that isn't blatantly set up to be a slog unless you pay up.

Don't care about setting, it can be any time, any place.

Sniping to be useful.
 
Reading through the thread a WWII Bad Company 3 sounds fucking awesome.

Maps like Golmud Railway? Hnng.

The density of buildings and things to blow up as was the case in Bad Company 1 & 2 is what I want. Destruction that doesn't feel like a gimmick. Sandbox combat that results from not only the size of the maps but from the amount of options available in fighting.

I want to blow the supports out of a small building and have the top half collapse. I want meaty destruction. I want solid, focused gameplay. 20 v 20. Oh, it could be so good.
 
JumPeRJumPzZ said:
More players doesnt mean more fun... The actual counts we had for BF4 and battlefront were fine IMO.


And man imagine RUSH in a WW2 setting where you have to destroy Nazi Gold Chests in Berlin etc. on top that all the WW2 sounds, guns etc.
Click to expand...

Imagine a WW2 map with a fucking fully destructible Wolfenstein-like castle on a hill, surrounded by a village, at night.

Jesus.
 
I would really like a battlefield remix. Just the best maps from 42, Vietnam, 2/3/4, 2142 in a single game and in their respective time periods with some new maps thrown in. So if I play Wake it's WW2 and Karkand it's modern. I would love to just have access to another setting because I love the gameplay but after some time I just want a thompson instead of an m16.

I know it's probably not feasible.
 
I just hope they pick up DICE LA's fantastic work on patching BF4 over the last year. While the launch of BF4 was absolutely atrocious, BF4 has been my favorite MP shooter for the last year.
 
OneUh8 said:
I would love a new BF2 lol. I know that is silly but BF2 was my favorite by far. Had so much variety and the whole squad and commander play was best in that version.
Click to expand...

Speaking of Commander, make it so that if I want to be a Commander I can simultaneously play in the game as a solider, just like BF2.

No one wants to play Commander because it just turns into a strategy game...which eventually gets boring.
 
Warablo said:
Maps that dont make smgs and shotguns mostly useless.
Click to expand...

Like in real life, those weapons are intended to be used in close quarters (ex. Operation: Locker). You probably need to diversify your weapons skillset so that you don't have to rely on them in more open maps (ex. Dawnbreaker, Golmud Railway, etc).

That's why I love BF. You can't get killed by a shotgun on opposing ends of the map lol. There is skill involved and situational weapon load out requirements.
 
Don't force me to wait so long before I'm able to use things, please thanks. If you can't retain players without enticing them with the idea of having played the game for hundreds of hours and still not having access to all the gear, then you've got a shit game or shit support and should probably work on that instead. But Battlefield isn't shit, there's probably people still playing that BF1942 demo. I'm so sick of it. Just let me customize the things and do the stuff. And no, offering me the option to pay you to circumvent the problem you've purposely added, is not a solution or you doing me a favor, you assholes. Genuinely pisses me off when PR tries that spin.

This was DICE's thinking four years ago.
Patrick Bach: I think the learning we’ve done is that if you make a good game, people spend a lot of time with it. If you make a great game, they will never leave. I think we maybe miscalculated with, for instance, Battlefield Bad Company, with a year. It’s been out for a year and a half, and we thought people would spend probably half a year playing it and then it would start to trend down. We’re actually at the same number of people playing today as we had three months after shipping. So it’s quite steady, how many people are playing the game. It actually went down slightly last Autumn when some other games were released, but it went right back up over Christmas when we released the Vietnam expansion pack.

So people are today playing the exact same amount of games as they did back then. So of course we miscalculated that, because we thought people would stop playing. And then people rank out and they unlock everything, and they start to feel fatigue for not getting more stuff. So I think the challenge is to figure out how long people will play this game for, and then make sure you have enough stuff for you to unlock. Because it’s not fun to have to play for ten years to unlock the last thing – that doesn’t make the game better, it makes it seem that there’s no point to continue. But then again, you still want that carrot, dangling in front of you.

For Battlefield 3, we known that people play even more than Battlefield Bad Company 2, so we’re planning for even longer unlocks, a bigger unlock tree. So I think, to us, it’s understand how long people will play the game for, who will play the game, and how they will play the game. Based on that, which is the only information you can speculate on, try and give as much as you can for that period of time. So what we’re doing is, for instance, is deepening the game, but also broadening the game. Depending on your play style, you can actually unlock stuff based on a specific weapon or a specific class, rather than have everyone unlock everything.
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/09/01/battlefield-3-unlocks/
Click to expand...
Hopefully it's changed, because that whole answer is just full of nonsense.

Like, he is literally saying that with this progression system which he considers a failure, the game managed to retain the same number of players for like a year longer than expected. Am I missing something here? Why is this something that needed to be changed? Shouldn't this quite clearly demonstrate that players don't need a shitty annoying unlock system to keep playing the game?

And that last sentence is just the worst. I stuck to one gun, because I didn't particularly feel like starting over the progressive waiting tree for every, single, gun.
Not having a general XP pool is shit, because once you've unlocked all the things for your preferred class, you will get nothing. You're effectively being punished for playing the game the way you prefer. If I got XP to spend on unlocks for other classes, perhaps I would actually feel inclined to use them. Was terrible in BF4. I suck at sniping but found booping other snipers off of rooftops with the MAV to be great fun in BF3. I've played BF4 for like 800 hours and still don't have the MAV unlocked, so I basically never use that class. It's garbage.

So yeah, I hope they make all that better.
 
tarius1210 said:
Like in real life, those weapons are intended to be used in close quarters (ex. Operation: Locker). You probably need to diversify your weapons skillset so that you don't have to rely on them in more open maps (ex. Dawnbreaker, Golmud Railway, etc).

That's why I love BF. You can't get killed by a shotgun on opposing ends of the map lol. There is skill involved and situational weapon load out requirements.
Click to expand...

I know, but in BF3 most of the maps were balanced better for it. While BF4 it wasn't. I used them, but only like 1-2 maps were decent with them. I was in no ways bad at the game.
 
be more like battlefield 3. have a nice balance between huge deserted maps and urban/dense maps, best of both worlds. i like consequent a lot as well, never really tried out rush.
 
-No futuristic warfare (I really like BO3 but I want a modern online FPS Please Dice..)
-No Battlelog
-Please have a proper party system at launch
-Focus on Rush and Conquest when it comes to map design
 
today i learned people hate battlelog. i've seen this several times in this thread. why exactly?

granted, it needed some time getting used to, but now i can't go back. games like bfbc2 and black ops use server lists in-game and it's annoying. on battlelog i can just browse gaf or whatever while the server loads on the background without alt+tabbing.
 
1. Premium Free for those that pre order or just free

2. 128 player servers

3. All Maps from the previous Battlefields

4. 4 player split screen/ Co op against a team of bots
 
IMACOMPUTA said:
And a World War 2 setting with full destruction, why not?
Click to expand...

hnnng, that would be a dream for me. One epic swan song for WW2 shooters. I can't see it happening though. I would be content with another modern setting, not sure about future, last thing I want is cod-like thrusters or something.
 
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
961
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