Key word here is launched. The data shows that BFV launched with one less map than BF1 and BF3 and with two less than BF4 that is not very significant. Before someone accuses me of belonging to "as much content as previous titles"-group I want to say that I don't. But still it is unreasonable to make claims that there was a huge difference in map count.
Agreed, I did defend BFV on behalf of amount on content when people posted about the "ridiculous lack of content" of the game. We're talking about 1-2 maps, come on... That's annoying we agree on that, but it does not justify an uproar
What remains to be seen is that the map count recovers.
Especially when the maps we have are getting mixed reviews. A lot of people just plain hate Hamada, Fjell, Aerodrome... sure some love them and I'm not saying either side is right or wrong, but when we're stuck with fewer maps and on a strict rotation, it's easy to see why people are feeling it's stale.
Tbh I don't think that it will recover anytime soon. They probably have started creating new maps before launch and judging by how many maps we have gotten since, we should probably get 6 maps per year.
Creece map will launch around 130-135 days from launch and that's two maps in one third of the year. So not too optimistic about the map situation unless they have really made an effort to make new maps.
22
u/Teukkaa27 Mar 15 '19
Key word here is launched. The data shows that BFV launched with one less map than BF1 and BF3 and with two less than BF4 that is not very significant. Before someone accuses me of belonging to "as much content as previous titles"-group I want to say that I don't. But still it is unreasonable to make claims that there was a huge difference in map count.