Printable View
What's a live service model? Is it like subscriptions, pay to win or something else?Quote:
Originally Posted by MrJim
The last online multiplay game i played was TF2 so and i gave up on that because of how many bots there were so my experience of online multiplayer pretty much ended there.
Haven't played a battlefield game since BF:Bad Company 2 and BF1942. The trailer makes they looks pretty dang good.
BF has always been predominantly multiplayer only, yes it's had single player campaigns but hardly anyone buys a BF game for single player...Quote:
Originally Posted by Boon72
Rainbow Six Siege, Fortnite, Destiny etc are all examples of a live service model where everyone gets everything but the game is funded by consumables, pretty things and non-gameplay affecting stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky34
Basically, The game is set and designed to grow, ebb and flow with the developer focusing on content and building atop of the original game rather than expansions, restrictive lockouts for features etc.
So essentially like TF2 was/is, IDK there was a name for it. :)
Damn shame its not got single player!
Will be giving this a miss!
The name seemed to be given after big brands made it mainstream (not that Valve and TF2 wasn't a big brand).Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky34
I also find it interesting that a game like BF that was born as a game with multiplayer only ie being given a miss because it's multiplayer only.
I played the BF4 sp campaign and it was mediocre at best, I'd rather they spent the effort and money that would have gone on an sp campaign to making a better multiplayer game. I dunno, just seems a little odd.
All this over the top dramatic stuff gets tiresome very quickly. I wish they just got back to basics and released a game with the mechanics of something like PUBG with Battlefield's zone capture gameplay.
For me Battlefield 2 and 3 was the peak of the franchise, but beyond that the gameplay become too much about twitch reactions in the Call of Duty model.
I still think PUBG's game mechanics are one of the best, balancing realism with arcade-like pick up and play, but the game is stagnating these days and we need a game to bring something fresh to the table.
Classes I can accept, but all these perks, upgrades which take 100s of hours of play to unlock need to die. That's the beauty of PUBG - everyone starts the next game on the same level playing field, and all that separates you is experience and ability.
This will probably be as close as you're going to get. I believe the maps for 64v64 on this are similar in size to one of the PUBG maps?Quote:
Originally Posted by cptwhite_uk
Agreed. I put a lot more time in to BF3 over 4 and hardly played the others, simply because it felt a lot more balanced and flowing (launch patch thermal cam and explosive shotgun aside).Quote:
Originally Posted by cptwhite_uk
BF4 got too crazy with the attachments and gadgets for me to the extent where there was just no flow to the game.
It works for PUBG due to the BR nature. The dmg model wouldn't work for BF and CQ.Quote:
Originally Posted by cptwhite_uk
It's a balancing act as people like progression and unlocking stuff. Looks like the Hero mechanic of this should get around the perk element.Quote:
Originally Posted by cptwhite_uk
For me, CoD4 had the best out of the gate balancing for different weapons/unlocks balancing.
I am very much the same, I do enjoy the single player campaign even if it doesn't last long. I am not really into multiplayer gaming and usually spend my time being shot before I even begin.Quote:
Originally Posted by avi8tor
Ha! Yeah my bad!Quote:
Originally Posted by Tabbykatze
Funnily enough, despite being a bit of a 'Battlefield' fan (playing since 1942!), I've never actually played any of the single player elements of the game...Quote:
Originally Posted by avi8tor
I forgot it got stupid in the later versions. I only really played BF:BC2 and BF3 online when it was a lot harder to do such silly things. Just find it kind of a shame that they celebrate it. Oh well guess I'm not target market anymore (no single player makes that obvious)Quote:
Originally Posted by Tabbykatze
Well, I guess EA/Dice lost a lot with BF1 & V because the big names that were so strong on BF content suddenly trailed off and left the BF brand with those two games. I did not enjoy BF1 and because of that did not play BF:V (that and I'm fed up with the WW2 setting) so this is a nice refresher to going back to what I know BF for which is serious fun while being serious and fun.Quote:
Originally Posted by cheesemp
Sometimes, it can be very successful to embrace what your games are used for rather than trying to direct the narrative, I really liked their trailer because it started off highlighting the high octane yet impactful military-esque combat of yore (BF3/BF4) yet as the video went on it also referenced that their multiplayer games are a sandbox and you play it how it suits you.
To me it feels like they're targeting both markets but inevitably when you put something ridiculous in a video, people are going to focus on that first rather than what else they showed.
I wonder if it's totally cross platform but I have never been a battlefield fan. Played way too much CoD and black hawk down. I hate vehicles in games and usually played medic when I last played.
Apparently they're bringing back bots in this one, so it'll have the same singleplayer option as 1942 or vietnam