https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKfXvlJ2mOY
Looks a lot better than I thought it would, definitely looks like it would be more fun than BF1
Gotta say I'm pretty disappointed that the fortification building seems to be limited to set areas rather than just anywhere, but I guess it'd be exploitable if it were more freeform.
Lovely to see typical Norwegian landscape and buildings in a Battlefield game
The rest of the game has been focused on staying on the objective. Vehicles (bar planes and maybe boats?) have to resupply their ammo at points to encourage them to move to point to point instead of camping back on the rim of the map shooting at other tanks. This goes with fortifications being built for AA guns which are ALOT more important due to them being able to gun down reinforcement planes that can travel way back behind lines. I like it, you can still reinforce buildings and windows which is an added bonus. Plus they said the support has the option to upgrade their building material to concrete to be more explosive proof.
The BC2 level of destruction with buildings is the one thing which makes me want this game now.
This. I dunno why they stopped using it in the first place.
Honestly BF5 looks pretty good so far, might consider buying it if it's anything like BC2 was.
I believe they stopped using it because maps would literally be demolished to the point were there could be very little cover. The building system is exactly what this is trying to remedy.
TBH they probably could have just done it on a per-mode basis.
In BC2 it worked really damn well for rush mode and gave the game a great feel.
Are people really gonna shorten this to BF:V? Because BF:V is what Battlefield Vietnam was shortened to.
is there any plane gameplay? that's what ive been for the most but i havent been able to see a single video
Here's raw 10 min gameplay with no commentary
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UF7mTbf26h0&feature=youtu.be
Yup, from a level design standpoint full destructibility is not easy to do because you have to account for how the level plays before and after its been destroyed. That's why Battlefield games after BC2 have been gradually scaling back the destruction to the idiotically-named "levolution events" where only specific things can be destroyed, and thus the developers can easily plan for them. Hopefully allowing players to build back up destroyed areas will allow them to bring destruction back while avoiding turning everything into wastelands, it's gonna depend on how fast fortifications get destroyed and built though, as well as how much cover you can have when building them.
The amount of people total in the world talking about Battlefield Vietnam sits at right about two now that I've quoted this post so I think we'll get along without any confusion, really
But I WANT to turn my battlefield into a leveled wasteland! Besides, BFBC2 still had ruins you could hide in and around
Fighting at some of the points really sucked when there was essentially no cover. I feel like BF1 offered a nice compromise between BC2's "level everything given enough time" approach and BF4s "wait this game has destruction?". Though BFV doesn't really look like they made it more extensive, just more detailed.
Narvik looks so good.
Finally some Norwegian representation in games, hue.
a capture point literally leveled so there's nothing standing wasn't fun at all. Also in BC2 the buildings were quite generic and cut and paste while BF4 had cities and modern landscapes.
Not exactly the same but I actually thought Levolution was really cool if you were there for when the building gets destroyed. It reminded me of everyone evacuating the Titan in 2142 and was a really cool set piece to experience.
Did you ever play rush?
It got to a point where APCs would blow up the walls for all the objectives, and it was literally impossible to plant/defuse because of the sniper/rpg/APC spam
IIRC you also couldn't go prone in BC2 so enjoy getting raped by snipers from every direction
If you could do that you'd have most of the team going support and stacking up mg nests in a great spot, that would be incredibly unbalanced, especially for attackers in rush mode.
my BF4 experience improved dramatically once I discovered Conquest Small. 64 players worked fine in older games but with the combination of smaller maps, more mobile gameplay, and squad spawning I find myself enjoying 32-48 player modes more. Too bad conquest small is practically dead in BF4 and they removed 40 player operations from BF1.
To be completely honest, that is one of the biggest things about Battlefield that I hate - too many players. The idea of 64 player servers is fantastic, being able to play against so many others is an amazing thing to see, but the problem is it just ends up being one massive clusterfuck without room for coordination and personal achievement. Having an enemy around every corner to kill you or an ally around the other corner to steal your kill just isn't fun. Put on top of that the less likelyhood your contributions to the battle will matter, and it just makes the game feel a bit lifeless and unenthused...
The Stuka has the Jericho trumpet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZngkAvG25I
It bothers me how they've been making such a big deal of the new spawn screen. When it's near enough the exact same as before, except you spectate your squad mates to see if you're going to get spawn-killed. (which, correct me if I'm wrong, I think was also, already a thing in earlier games)
The supposed zinger is that you spawn much faster via the squad screen as opposed to the normal map screen.
Could maybe use a longer spawn time for the map deploy if they really want to emphasize it so much.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
