AAA companies are focused on this sort of gimmick instead of making their game fun and playable.
Better to focus on a gameplay gimmick than make the same game again.
Well the finals has taken this gimmick and made it fun.
The Finals is a product that understands its demographic, EA has absolutely no clue what their demo is for BF and that’s why we got a BR movement shooter with 2042.
These corpo dummies just look at what’s popular and tell their devs to copy it to maximize profit. They do not give a fuck about making a good product, they care about minmaxing spending.
I think they did really well with Battlefield 2042. It destroyed my interest in the Battlefield franchise. Loved Battlefield 4, 5 and the second 1, though.
The
developerspublishers, when asked if it would be fun, had no responseDon’t blame the devs.
It’s the execs and PMs who have other priorities.
Publishers* I imagine the devs are screaming internally
You ever notice how 4-5 years after release dice games become really solid? It’s because ea stops giving a shit and dice can finally fix them.
deleted by creator
I’m right there with you BC2 was the highpoint for me and absolutely nothing has scratched that itch since.
Have you tried BattleBit?
Seconded. Not as deep as BF 2, but that was exactly why bad company 2 pulled me in
I have not. I’ll check it out. Thanks.
Most realistic destruction isn’t going to stop EA and DICE from monetizing the game to hell and back. Stick to indie games.
Maybe they should focus on nice things like player-run dedicated servers, or being able to play the game with a larger group than four people…
How about… the best destruction effects in the industry? Wouldn’t that be nice?
Well that’s not happening. The Finals is eating their lunch on deductible environments.
At least let us run servers so we can continue playing it after they give up on it.
Another game claiming to do “realistic destruction” that will completely fail to meet even Red Faction (2001) levels.
They’ve done wonders creating destructive effects in their fanbase, why would this be any different?
About fucking time. I started playing battlefield for the destruction and 2042 had less destruction than bad company 2
Pretty much every BF since BC2 has had less destruction than BC2 and for good reason, flattening the entire map makes for very boring gameplay. IMO BF3 and BF4 hit the sweet spot of having enough destruction to have an impact while still maintaining some modicum of level design.
But now I don’t even play battlefield and I probably won’t return until the destruction is on par with the Finals.
BC2 still flourished with destroyed environments. The level wasn’t completely flattened in every match, and it really felt like you were part of some epic battle. It was the perfect amount of “levolution”. BF3 was a huge downgrade, and BF4 even more so. The Battlefield series has absolutely lost its way, and needs to stop trying to be both Siege and Call of Duty at the same time.
IDK, The Finals looks pretty fun and they allow complete destruction of the map.
Because they see how they failed in doing so and another company beat them to it. (The finals)
Bad Company 2 allowed you to demolish just about everything. They seemed to have scaled that back with each new iteration.
deleted by creator
