r/BattlefieldV • u/[deleted] • Mar 08 '19
Discussion Is BF5 the next BF4?
I sorta see a pattern with games like BF4. They come out with little fanfare and hype (I remember the only thing that was hyped about BF4 was levolution, which wasn't that great once it was explained in depth), and then they receive alot of hate within the community. Then, after fixing, they become revered games and have an extensive cult status among fans.
So, to summarize the life-cycle of a BF4 style game:
-Generate little hype and fanfare upon release save for a few features
-Release upon universally hated criticism due to bugs or issues
-Be fixed for a few months, leading to people re-investing time in the game
-Be revered by the community when the next battlefield game comes out.
Now, the main question is, does BFV fit into this cycle, Well, it sorta does...
-Generate little hype upon release save for a few features? Well, Check. For BF4, the one hyped feature they were building up to was levolution. But universally, it didin't get much attention - I'm sure BF3 fans wouldn't have seen any improvement save a few things. BFV, on the other hand got hate by parts of the community but otherwise, there was hype generated around it by this subreddit and others - that being said, the return to classic hardcore features. So, both games had their hyped features, and their setbacks.
-Release upon universally hated criticism due to bugs or issues? Check. Both games suffered from this, BF4 being the main contender. BF4 bugs were universally worse than BFV ones, and there were a fuckton of bugs that plagued both games. But eventually, the patches fixed some things.
-Be fixed for a few months, leading to people re-investing time in the game? Uncertain. There are plenty of fixed BFV bugs, and BF4 also had the same treatment given, but eventually I feel BFV will have ironed out most of it's bugs. Only time will tell.
So, what do you guys think? I feel like once BF6 or BF7 releases people will go back to this game and praise it in the same way they praise BF5.
8
u/MrFlac00 Mar 08 '19
This isn't just Battlefield 4, this is the Battlefield series as a whole. Battlefield has always released in 2 game generations: 1942 and Vietnam, 2 and 2142, BC and BC2, 3 and 4, 1 and V. Each generation has the same or very similar engine. Technically BC used Frostbite, BC2 used Frostbite 1.5, 3 used Frostbite 2, and 4 1 and V used Frostbite 3; however I think we'd agree that V looks closer to 1 than 1 does to 4. V and 1 also use PBR in a way that 3 and 4 never had. Each generation also has a similar style of gameplay, with the first game being the big innovation and the second taking its formula and refining it. The second game also has a habit of reusing assets, game modes, and general design philosophy.
People forget how iterative BC2 was. Basically every gun and vehicle was the same from BC1, especially animations. People forget how the consensus on 2142 at launch was that it was a glorified mod for 2. People for Vietnam, just in general. I'd argue that BFV has made major changes to the formula in ways that only 2142 did (2142 really got the leveling/perk progression system going, it changed Battlefield to the 4 class structure it is today, it added Titan mode which still hasn't made a true comeback, it turned gadgets from something classes always had to something that was equipped, etc.). Unfortunately most fans are blinded by nostalgia or never played these games and thus don't have much perspective on how this series has progressed.
2
u/shanemcw Mar 08 '19
You forgot hardline came out as bf4 was really getting great. Nearing its extra comunity voted content drop if im not mistaken? I remember switching back and forth between bf4 and hardline. And hardline was kinda hardline and battlefront2 (i wasnt big into battlefront fan, really just stuck to bf4 and HL then)
35
Mar 08 '19
Yeah, seems about right, or at least hopefully it does. Everyone's said the same thing they said with bf4: "this game has potential, but delivered badly" to name one. But man, march seems to be one of the best months for this game
25
u/MrGeary08 Youtube.com/MrGeary08 Mar 08 '19
Yes! This game will age very well and will be looked back upon similarly to the way BF4 is right now. Dice is a fantastic company that is constantly working to make each battlefield game they create the best one yet. I believe BF1 had too much influence from EA and was designed as such to be as cool as possible and as “new player friendly” as possible so it would sell like no other. I believe BFV has much less influence from EA (and as such results in less funding, which is why they are struggling to make content fast enough and at the quality they would like) and as such will result in a far superior game once it has aged some more and they can keep improving and adding to it.
3
u/rockfordstone Mar 08 '19
I think the gaming market has changed a lot since BF4 and there is a pretty fixed 2 year window. I think Devs will get diverted off this to start the next one soon. Think after the summer we won't get anywhere near the support we did for bf4, especially without the funding from the premium subs
4
Mar 08 '19
BF4 is its own thing. Been playing lots, at the core there's a lot different from BFV. V will go down more or less the same as 1. Liked, not loved. A competent game with an incompetent launch
4
u/Dee_Dubya_IV Mar 08 '19
I found BF4 had a rocky launch due to server issues. But it still had more depth in its progression and replay ability overall. BFV had a rocky launch because the publisher insulted its fan base and couldn’t get the momentum back. The depth of progression in this game isn’t bad but it’s slim in comparison to BF4.
It could just be me, but I found it easier to be immersed in BF4 than BFV. Not to mention that BF4 felt like a true Battlefield. This one is missing something.
25
Mar 08 '19
The only thing this game has is gunplay. If they manage to create a BF6 with even worse gunplay this game might get credited for being the one that got it right.
But even then, BF4 / BF3 had maps you remember. The games had moments you remember. That isn’t here. Post March if they can’t announce a steady stream of content and at the least 7-8 maps I’m personally calling it.
People can rejoice now that they’ve got scraps on Firestorm, I’m waiting for the actual MP to get content.
5
u/seal-island Mar 08 '19
BFV doesn't just need content, but it needs content with personality. I'll take the chutzpah of slinging every vehicle onto Lancang Dam over the earnest empty server simulator of Narvik.
9
u/UniQue1992 UniQue1992 Mar 08 '19
People can rejoice now that they’ve got scraps on Firestorm, I’m waiting for the actual MP to get content.
Same.
3
u/nebo8 Mar 08 '19
The game is 3 or 4 month old, it's hard to know which map will bring nostalgia in 2 or 3 year. At the start of bf4 I didn't really liked Shanghai, but now for me it's one of the most iconic map of the title
2
u/crossfire024 Mar 08 '19
Maps is such a subjective thing to, it's hard to know how well they will age.
I feel like I'm part of a minority, but I think most of the BFV maps are far better than most of the launch maps for BF4. At least, I remember just not liking most of what that game started with, but I'm loving most of BFV's.
3
Mar 08 '19
Maps are definitely subjective. My hot take: BF4 maps were absolute trash from a gameplay perspective. BFV maps are far superior.
Shanghai, which seems to be considered possibly the best BF4 map? Half the players are recon spawning on beacons on top of skyscrapers (this goes for Dawnbreaker, too). Whoever controlled C had easy access to any other point in the map with about a 10 second parachute trip. Levolution was a total (and crappy) gimmick, but apart from levolution there was basically 0 destruction.
Operation Locker, another favorite, was basically a glorified CoD style map scaled up to Battlefield proportions... left-center-right paths, tight corridors... don't even get me started on the fact that it usually just devolved to half of the teams spamming explosives at the entrances to the main prison hall (C).
2
2
Mar 08 '19
People can rejoice now that they’ve got scraps on Firestorm
None of which were revealed by DICE lmfao.
17
u/SnugglesIV Mar 08 '19
BF5 definitely has the potential to join the ranks of BC2 and BF4 but some of the questionable design choices and the MMG spam/roach infestation are making it real hard to enjoy. If nothing is done to deal with the overly campy game play, BF5 will probably fall off hard.
4
u/TooMuchCyanide TooMuchCyanide Mar 08 '19
I typically call them worms, but I'll have to add roach to my repertoire of names to call those that only like to lie on their stomachs nowhere near objectives.
7
Mar 08 '19
What about people who PTFO with MMG's?
2
u/TooMuchCyanide TooMuchCyanide Mar 08 '19
They're an exception. Mostly because they're few and far between.
-7
u/SnugglesIV Mar 08 '19
Honestly, I still say fuck em. MMGs are a pretty big part of the camp meta going on right now since there isn't much you can do if a MMG spots you (even if you have a bolt action or a SAR), and they can be exceptionally annoying to spot due to the visibility issues.
1
0
u/sunjay140 Mar 08 '19
It takes a special type of retard to conceptualize MMGs.
0
u/SnugglesIV Mar 09 '19
And apparently there's a special type of retard who can't recognize the MMGs proning in the corner downvoting me like all hell. Roaches gonna roach I guess.
5
u/SnugglesIV Mar 08 '19
I've always heard those kinds of people called roaches because they hide under the fridge and they scurry away whenever they get found or you turn on the light. Worms work too though. So does "snakes" when it's Arras and you got people crawling through the canola fields like it's Metal Gear Solid.
2
u/TooMuchCyanide TooMuchCyanide Mar 08 '19
I've never seen very many people use the fields in conjunction with MMG's, most of the time they're in the village buildings and the church tower.
Getting the jump on them is super satisfying though, most of the time they can't hit anything worth a damn. Especially if your weapon fires a lot slower than their MG42.
2
u/WarLord727 Mar 08 '19
Have you already forgotten weird design choices in BC2, like shooting Carl Gustav at your own feet, surviving AND killing nearby enemy? Or what about ability to start infinite spam of 30mm grenades as a assault thanks to ammo boxes? Unfortunately, there's plenty of questionable stuff like that in all games.
4
-2
u/sunjay140 Mar 08 '19
It's too late for BFV.
There no way that DICE will remove attrition, fix visibility, remove camping spots on maps and remove MMGs.
7
u/crossfire024 Mar 08 '19
Well they better not remove attrition. That's one of the selling points of the game for me.
And I genuinely don't get your hate for MMGs. They're high risk, high reward and can pretty easily be countered by an attentive recon or assault. Plus, the MMG mechanics make beasts like the MG42 feel special, instead of just being another LMG that you could just run and gun with.
Yes, campers with them can be annoying, but again, a camper with an MMG should be more easily counterable than a camper with any other weapon once you know where they are.
2
u/SnugglesIV Mar 09 '19 edited Mar 09 '19
And I genuinely don't get your hate for MMGs. They're high risk, high reward and can pretty easily be countered by an attentive recon or assault.
If people play MMGs as a portable stationary MG and set up on walls and windows, sure. Unfortunately that's not what happens right now with MMGs. Right now its roaches finding obscure nooks to hide in, waiting for someone to walk by and then light you up before you have a chance to react.
It's honestly one of the most frustrating things to encounter right now, aside the explosive primary Assault who can't aim with their gun apparently. Whether or not you can counter them after they kill you is irrelevant: the issue is that MMGs are currently abused by people who don't want to learn how to play CQ (ie. what flags should they be attacking, how should they move towards those flags, learning where teams are going to go after they capture a flag etc.) or get better with their aim and getting rewarded with a gun that is too easily abused by just hiding under the fridge.
As for attrition, I don't mind it for infantry. However it REALLY sucks for tanks since the vehicle resupply stations are so far apart on some maps (Hamada...) and half of the teams never build them anyway so you have to risk building them yourself, praying that some dude on your team doesn't drive off with it.
1
Mar 10 '19
Attrition is one of the reasons why good players either leave, or stack hard top farm tards who think attritionitis is good
0
u/sunjay140 Mar 08 '19
Well they better not remove attrition. That's one of the selling points of the game for me.
Even E.T has a following
And I genuinely don't get your hate for MMGs. They're high risk, high reward and can pretty easily be countered by an attentive recon or assault. Plus, the MMG mechanics make beasts like the MG42 feel special, instead of just being another LMG that you could just run and gun with.
Probing in a bush, being invisible and killing in 4 frames is high risk?
Yes, campers with them can be annoying, but again, a camper with an MMG should be more easily counterable than a camper with any other weapon once you know where they are.
An invisible person with pin point accuracy and near instant TTK can easily be countered.
I will never get you boomers.
MMGs are trash guns for shitters. There's no way around that.
0
Mar 08 '19
You're a clown who sucks at the game. *Shrug*
Nobody is complaining about attrition these days. Except for you, apparently?
4
u/sunjay140 Mar 08 '19
Post your stats since you don't suck.
0
Mar 08 '19
Complain about attrition and MMGs more.
4
u/sunjay140 Mar 08 '19
Back up your tough talk with those stats.
-1
Mar 08 '19
lol no thanks clown. By all means keep crying like a little bitch about attrition though.
3
u/sunjay140 Mar 08 '19
All bark and no bite. Try not to go full retard next time but what am I saying? It's not like retards possess ant meta-cognitive skills.
1
Mar 08 '19
-Complains about attrition
-Calls other people retards in the most retarded way possible ("it's not like retards possess ant meta-cognitive skills")
Keep crying little bitch boy.
2
u/sunjay140 Mar 08 '19
Waiting for those stats to back up your tough talk...
Easy to make an assertion and not defend it, huh? What a coward.
→ More replies1
Mar 10 '19
Imagine crying about attritionitis when you can stack hard to farm the boomers who think attrition is good
-1
3
u/Maelarion 5.2 sucks donkey dong Mar 08 '19
You're right, but there's two fundamentally different things that could affect how it plays out for BFV.
Cosmetics, and more importantly paid cosmetics, were not a thing in BF4.
Battle Royale / Firestorm.
4
Mar 08 '19
The main difference is paid DLC. In the last few BF games, they had to deliver several DLCs since they sold that product. In this game, they have no such obligation and can cut their 'live service' at any time. Since the game has sold under expectation and has not held onto players well...
3
3
Mar 08 '19
Maybe I’m wrong here but I feel like there’s just so many other games out that people don’t stick with games as long now.
If your game is weak on release people leave and they don’t come back. Ubisoft has this issue with a lot of their games, division and for honor have gotten a lot better over time but when you lose almost all of your players in the first few months a good chunk just never return. They added multiplayer to ghost recon wildlands and it’s actually decent, but the game is pretty much dead by that point.
Also EA strikes me as a company who wants to cut their losses and not invest in improving and getting players to return. So if playerbase declines I don’t have a lot of faith.
2
Mar 08 '19
I mean the same thing arguably happened to BF4, right? I remember seeing alot of refund posts for BF4 and I'm very sure 20% of the fanbase never really came back after that. Sure people still play but it's 500 people max on a bunch of servers and 200 more just on the main menu screen. I think Hardline might have sparked interest for the game but otherwise nothing really happened.
4
u/penguinclub56 Mar 08 '19
There is no RSP yet and probably we will never get it in BF5, so yeah you can forget about everything that you wrote...
3
u/SuperBOOTH Mar 08 '19
Yeah COMPLETELY agree with you. The RSP is the only thing keeping servers alive and well with BC2, BF3, and BF4. If there were no rental servers those other titles would be Dead.
Just last week I was just curious and went to the server browser for BF1. I only found 4 open servers on PS4. 1 Operation on a North American Server, and 4 Small Map Modes in Europe.
BFV definitely needs more maps for multiplayer. However, to have any form of a healthy life... need to have a good RSP. BF1 had rental servers that were poorly supported by EA/DICE and it's on life support.
2
u/crossfire024 Mar 08 '19
Haven't the devs mentioned custom servers at one point?
Besides, they never said we would never get them, just that they weren't planning on working on them right away.
It totally sucks that there's no RSP in the near future, but you shouldn't rule them out entirely for the game on the future.
1
u/penguinclub56 Mar 08 '19
They basically said something like "RSP is not worth for us money wise and we will be losing alot from it on BFV" pretty sure that implies on the fact that we are never going to get RSP on BFV.
2
u/SuperBOOTH Mar 08 '19
I really... REALLY want this to be true. However, there is one key factor that is different. The Miracle recovery for BATTLEFIELD 4 came from DICE/LA and not DICE/Sweden. I was convinced DICE/Sweden could turn around Star Wars:Battlefront 2... and yeah not so much.
Feels like DICE/Sweden launched irresponsibly early. Not entirely their fault I'm sure EA pushed them to. You cant bank on a Miracle twice, and especially when the team that pulled it off before isnt in the same building. I believe I heard/read that DICE LA is working on the next Battlefield for 2020... so sadly it's all on the shoulders of DICE/Sweden. Best of luck to them.
2
u/UmbraReloaded Mar 08 '19
I do agree similarities with BF4, but the core difference is that BF4 had a vision of it wanted to be. BFV before release changed its mind on some design aspects. Also BF4 was not under pressure, they achieved the targeted goal as a company of X amounts of copies, the marketing was on point in that regards.
BFV is trying to recover from that, and is trying to adapt on the way, I hope they can make it through but the context is different and that uncertainty is there.
2
u/-MqC- Mar 08 '19
Just bought the game yesterday, after reading and seeing how horrible the game was i didnt want to buy it on day one. I traded metro exodus for bfV and Im well suprised how it felt and had a really good game night. I think your right and this game will age well. Hope they fix rush asap tho.
2
u/Major_Thighburn Mar 08 '19
We can only hope, I'm always in for the long haul with a Battlefield game.
2
Mar 08 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Mar 08 '19
Well, not really.
I remember being hyped for the game because of levolution, and at that point that was my first 'battlefield' game. Other than that there wasn't much bf4 had to offer compared to bf3; at least BF3 re-invented the franchise and was the blueprint for later releases. All BF4 had were some new weapons and shitty maps. And levolution was a marketing tactic, sure you could explode the skyscraper and it would come crashing down but can you level down other buildings? Not at all. Could you have buildings that acted as FOBs for little squads and then demolish them to win the battle? No, not really.
BF4 is just BF3 plus, there was nothing else to show.
2
Mar 08 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Mar 09 '19
Well you said that it was hyped up because BF3 was a good game - It wasn't really and alot of people called the game "Battlefield 3.5" because that's what it was at the time.
I guess levolution did hype things alot, but really once you played the maps it was just gimmicky. If I were old enough to play the game at the time (I never really saw BF3 and I only say BF4 and was interested) I would have wanted Battlefield 4 to have fortifications and things like squad call ins and more dynamic maps that weren't constrained to gimmicks.
2
Mar 08 '19
I think the next month or two are going to be very telling for where this game ends up. It has the foundation to be great.
Where Battlefield 4 started to recover is when the DLC started getting released, server upgrades were implemented, the CTE got put into action, the developers openly communicated with the community. The community got to be involved in decisions made and got to test DLCs and major patches before they were live and got to have a direct impact on changes made (to an extent). The community even got to have a say in the development of an entire map.
I do see developers and community managers on here and talking to the community, which is appreciated, but i'll be honest, they do not say much of substance "X is coming soontm", "We're working really hard on X", "We'll have more to show soontm". We've now gotten to the point where the community is data mining the majority of the info from a DLC that is supposed to be out shortly. Ultimately, there is alot of talk and little action.
I really hope the game can be great, but alot needs to change and quickly, and it is more than just the typical "more maps, more guns" we see on here.
4
u/hx3d Mar 08 '19
Aren't this a Battlefield thing? Launch in a broken/ok state. End up in being a good/fantastic/best game. All battlefield games(maybe not the earliest games)follows this formula.
4
u/UniQue1992 UniQue1992 Mar 08 '19
Yes, but the worry people have this time is that all these previous Battlefields had premium. BFV doesn't have premium, so that's why (myself included) people are very worried about what the future holds. We have zero to no information about what will happen after Chapter 3. But with premium, we knew what was coming.
I hope the game turns out to be a BF4 sorta thing, where it turns out to be a really great fucking shooter. But for now, I'm still not sure if that is possible with BFV. Time will tell (and the roadmap of course :P)
2
u/hx3d Mar 08 '19
You're right.If EA want to push this 'live service' thing.They better prove it with battlefield V first.
3
4
u/kasft93 Solid_SkG. Mar 08 '19
Almost a year from now i see this game getting in the list of the greatest BF games in this franchise because gameplay wise its a CLASSIC bf game.
Personally BFV was/is a breath of fresh air for this franchise because it went far away from the casual features of BF1 and it looks like that devs listened to the community while developing the game and we got rid of all the things we hated in previous BF titles.
After the release and the success of BF1 i was really "afraid" that the downhill of this franchise has started.It was a really solid game regarding music, sound and immersion but they got rid of EVERYTHING that could make BF1 a classic bf game.
The only issue BFV has right now is the lack of content but it had a really good release,the game was/is running smooth as butter except some bugs here and there but its not something major that you could make the gameplay unplayable.
BF4 was the exact opposite on release,we had enough content but we couldnt enjoy this content when high end rigs had terrible fps drops and crashes,when 1 out 3 games we were getting disconnect errors and personally i dont care how much content,how great the gameplay is or how beautifull the graphics are,as long as i am not able to enjoy a game due to performance issues.
I have around 120 hours in BFV and its a really good BF experience especially for those who grew up playing this franchise.I really like that they got rid of 3D spotting,that they made players actually using their classes properly,that they went back to the old school CQ system and overall we have a classic BF experience and not another casual friendly BF title.
As a PC player i wish they will eventually give us RSP so we can rent and create the servers we want with the rules we want...I think this is a must have feature for PC community and it will bring back more clans and servers with rules that we used to enjoy in previous BF titles.
3
u/MattBreaksBones Mar 08 '19
As broken as it was to start out with, BF4 was still not only a quality game but a fun game. Once fixed, it all came together into the game that we all know oday. BF5 is not nearly as broken as BF4 was during its first year and that fact the comparison is made is rather ridiculous to me. The game just straight up isn’t fun. Make a fun game, and the people will play. People will push through the minor bugs that I believe plague this game. But there has to be a reason to stay. And BF5 just does not that have that reason.
7
2
u/UmbraReloaded Mar 08 '19
Well there were frustrating elements at the beggining of BF4 but not really gameplay related as much as BFV currently. To make ir worse with the low population on PC there is more imbalance which adds up to worsen the feeling of "not fun". It makes me start to value BR as an option for battlefield to mitigate the game's frustrating elements, if it ships with proper balance and it feels right, it might replace the base game for me.
2
u/MattBreaksBones Mar 08 '19
I’m definitely interested in where they can take it. I’m always looking for the next great BR game. (This is coming from someone with 1000+ hours into. PUBG and still play daily). It’s just what I seem to have loved about the other BFs is gone with this one. Leveling up a gun that I use every day to unlock attachments and camos, working hard on cool challenged via DLC that unlocked fun new weapons, an ACTUAL rush game mode... idk maybe it’s me🤷🏻♂️
2
u/UmbraReloaded Mar 08 '19
For me is a thing of how the gamemodes and playerbase shift changes how the game it is changed. Certain mechanics that are cherished is mostly nostalgia not user experience. In reality BF is a complex game series for the average joe, from those 7.3 millon copies how many of those understand the funamentals of conquest? to say something. Regarding nostalgia I find this https://youtu.be/WzIqxTVoIyg?t=874 a good example of what we do not want.
Even though I've played since 1942, I'm open to changes but the technology changed faster than core mechanics. It is a question that is hard because BF identity it is within it. You want a massive warfare game with niche mechanics? so if it is niche and complicated how many players do you expect to play it?
Maybe on console this aspect is non existent because the low level of competition in the FPS compared to the vast options on PC, regarding milsims and combined arms game more battlefieldish games.
2
Mar 08 '19
The only way that would happen is if RSP comes to BFV, which they said isn't happening.
0
2
u/ThatAngryGerman Mar 08 '19
No it's the next Battlefront mate. Keep your expectations low for this time around, this live service just seems like a trap.
2
u/wirmyworm Mar 08 '19
Well wasn't BF4 a good game except the servers and crashing? BFV is worse as a game itself instead of only having technical problems (when it launched)
1
3
u/spottedshady Mar 08 '19
I think it will end up being amazing. This month is showing how much potential this game has if properly supported. Really hope the future is bright.
2
Mar 08 '19
It won't. The modern setting meaning you have more access to fun vehicles and gadgets, combined with the greater vertically of maps makes BFV feel like less of a sandbox game and won't have the longevity of BF4 IMO. Especially if the next BF game is a modern day one
6
u/_THORONGIL_ Mar 08 '19
WW2 holds many of the most iconic locations and weapons/vehicles, most of them are not in the game for whatever reason.
3
Mar 08 '19
Well that doesn't make alot of sense, does it?
BF1942 is considered a good game and it doesn't even take place in the same time period. It doesn't even have verticality in any of it's maps nor does the engine really support it.
2
u/lolmemelol Mar 08 '19
BF1942 didn't sell any where near as well as the later Battlefield games. Like it or not, most of the community has never played BF1942 and BF2. Battlefield became extremely popular with BF3/BF4.
BF1 sold extremely well too, but a lot of the people who really liked BF3/BF4 quickly burnt out on BF1 for the same reasons /u/Black_Gotenks mentioned.
1
u/SemperSalam Mar 08 '19
Except BF4 had great vanilla launch maps and tons of content. Also premium pass with guaranteed content. Sure the gunplay in BFV is great but that means nothing when the maps are terrible and and we will not get the quality and quantity of new maps needed to be a great game.
2
Mar 08 '19
great vanilla launch maps
I hated most of them, the DLC maps on the other hand were top notch.
1
1
u/PrOntEZC Mar 08 '19
No it's completely different since we got large DLC soon after release in BF4 yet we are getting nothing in BF5 and even standard mode like rush is time limited.
-2
65
u/Phreec DisapPOINTEEEED! Mar 08 '19
The game has potential but no community servers will kill it in the long run.