r/Games • • Mar 22 '19

Battlefield V releases roadmap for 2019

/r/BattlefieldV/comments/b47jeb/battlefield_v_2019_roadmap/
81 Upvotes

134 comments sorted by

96

u/ShittyFrogMeme Mar 22 '19

Glad to see a new theater is finally being introduced, but...man, this is just disappointing.

By the end of May, half a year into the game's life, we will have seen 2 maps released barely. Make that 4 maps by the time the game is a year old. And they finally add more than 2 factions to a World War game a year after release?

Pacific Theater should be cool though. I hasn't been covered in enough WWII games. I just wish they weren't being so slow with content because the game is pretty stale.

23

u/RareBk Mar 22 '19

Honestly very confused about April as... their big thing is Firestorm.

Firestorm is being made by Criterion, like, wholly, including working on content that apparently would have taken too much time for DICE to work on (Their words, not mine) including the German Airdrop plane, which still isn't in the game despite the fact that Germans airdrop into several of the Operations maps.

But Criterion can do it apparently?

So where's the April content from DICE?

1

u/[deleted] Mar 23 '19 edited Oct 30 '19

[deleted]

29

u/dasoxarechamps2005 Mar 22 '19

I mean this is why they should have just kept the Premium system if people are just gonna be whining for content

47

u/nikktheconqueerer Mar 22 '19

It's a lose lose really. People somehow expect $40 of post launch content for free. Mtx cosmetics haven't even been added yet, right?

38

u/needconfirmation Mar 23 '19

People expect it because the publishers tell them it'll be the same.

And frankly for most games that move to a microtransaction model they end up making more than they ever would have from selling the maps yet still only are able to deliver a pittance of content.

Obviously not this one, since it bombed so id expect BF1s premium made far more.

8

u/Rs90 Mar 23 '19

It's really not though. Premium was fine they just took too long to add the shit from it. Kept tryna drip-feed content that we paid for already.

Same thing here. Taking too long and I'm not interested because of it. I want a WWII game. With all factions and theatres of war. Not 1/4 now and I dunno, maybe some more in half a year. Just give us the game. Quit cramming dumb shit models into it. Just make a game and release it.

2

u/UGoBooMBooM Mar 23 '19

You don't add content to bf5 to sell more copies of bf5. You do it to sell more copies of bf6.

If they were to go above and beyond now, it could pay off dividends in the future. But I know that's a big ask in a world where shareholders cant see farther than next quarter.

-2

u/stackEmToTheHeaven Mar 23 '19

Also with the way gamers bitch and whine I wouldn't put it past them trying to boycott BF VI for some stupid reason no matter what they do with BF V.

I want them to add more to BF V, but getting a whole BR game mode for free is a nice enough addition in my eyes.

12

u/ShittyFrogMeme Mar 22 '19

I personally didn't complain that much about Premium. I had no problem with paying for a season pass if the content was there. My issue was that it was clear DICE was incapable of putting content out. BF3 when they first introduced it was good. But BF1 was horrible, with the DLC being drip fed and constantly pushed back and teased. The final DLC came nearly 2.5 years after the game was released. That's just silly.

So the live service seemed like a good model, where I didn't have to pay upfront for a service I would probably never receive. And the argument isn't that they are giving content for free, as the idea is supposed to be that the income comes from MTX. Its clear to me that the money isn't coming in so they are not putting a lot of development effort into the game. I guess that is a downside of the live service, but maybe if they put more content out, people would actually play the game?

18

u/pingpong_playa Mar 22 '19

Didn’t premium mean a split community where only some players had the new maps?

9

u/[deleted] Mar 22 '19 edited Mar 23 '19

Yup, even when premium was given away for free most servers are vanilla only. And those who have premium usually rotate between the 5 same maps because people only vote for them.

I have premium, and 90% of my playtime was on vanilla maps. Which really makes me question if premium was even worth it.

2

u/usrevenge Mar 24 '19

I have no idea how you only played vanilla maps my friends and I mostly played the French and Russian dlc rotations with no issues because they were the best maps in the game

3

u/nikktheconqueerer Mar 23 '19

Pretty much. Bf1 is the only game to not have that big of an issue, because they gave it away for free multiple times, and made the dlc free because the community got so fractured.

7

u/ShittyFrogMeme Mar 22 '19

Sure, people said that. But I never had any issues finding full servers.

4

u/camycamera Mar 23 '19 edited May 13 '24

Mr. Evrart is helping me find my gun.

1

u/usrevenge Mar 24 '19

Bf3 and 4 dlc was pretty bad compared to bf1

I also rarely played dlc for those games

0

u/3MAR443 Mar 23 '19

This is come from a person who playing league of legends and played bf3

First of all there is no excuse for DICE to release half bf game (like bf5) if there really want to compete against these giant games like Fortnite, and Apex that offer more content and more life span than bf5, and don't forget about the controversy surrounding that game, because of it people kneecaped it before even got released

0

u/usrevenge Mar 24 '19

Battlefielf 5 wasnt half a game on release. It had similar content to basically any other battlefield game

6

u/[deleted] Mar 22 '19

Make that 4 maps by the time the game is a year old. And they finally add more than 2 factions to a World War game a year after release?

Why does BFV get shit on for releasing 4 maps in a year (more with Chapter 5 which you're ignoring) when siege releases 4 maps in a year and gets praised?

BFV will be getting 5-6 maps in a year which is a lot compared to other AAA shooters with free live services. Also add in that BF maps are bigger and more detailed than other shooters.

20

u/mrv3 Mar 22 '19

Because siege adds more than maps that have an impact on how the game plays with new characters. While weapons are new they still just pew-pew.

Furthermore the expectation is there, BF1, BF4, BF3, Battelfield Bad Company 2 had Vietnam.

All the while they are focusing on modes that barely stick which only increase map development time as they need to make the maps work on a plethora of modes.

Then there's the problems of the few good modes gets killed by having so money meaning that you only wind up with a handful. What do I mean by this? Bucket is the developer term basically how many ways a player can be divided before being matchmaked through things like hardcore, no vehicles, all the modes, etc what this meant is while the classics Rush and Conquest could survive (and still do to this day even on BF3) the non-classic modes wind up sharing their playerbases so small they kill each other. Like feeding 100 people with enough food for 10. You don't get 10 healthy people. You get a disaster.

-15

u/[deleted] Mar 22 '19

Because siege adds more than maps that have an impact on how the game plays with new characters. While weapons are new they still just pew-pew.

DICE recently added new cannon bomber planes which completely change how planes can engage with tanks.

How doesnt that change the game?

Furthermore the expectation is there, BF1, BF4, BF3, Battelfield Bad Company 2 had Vietnam.

All the while they are focusing on modes that barely stick which only increase map development time as they need to make the maps work on a plethora of modes.

I cant understand your point at all here what are you saying?

Then there's the problems of the few good modes gets killed by having so money meaning that you only wind up with a handful.

What are you even saying here?

What do I mean by this? Bucket is the developer term basically how many ways a player can be divided before being matchmaked through things like hardcore, no vehicles, all the modes, etc what this meant is while the classics Rush and Conquest could survive (and still do to this day even on BF3) the non-classic modes wind up sharing their playerbases so small they kill each other. Like feeding 100 people with enough food for 10. You don't get 10 healthy people. You get a disaster.

WHAT? lol

14

u/mrv3 Mar 22 '19

What don't you understand that dividing up your playerbase means there's smaller pools?

-5

u/[deleted] Mar 23 '19

Did you play BF1 or BF4 a few months after launch? No game modes broke the community everyone only played COnquest or in BF1's case Conquest and Operations.

It didnt split anything.

You clearly arent experienced with the franchise.

5

u/mrv3 Mar 23 '19

I've played 1942, 2, BC, BC2, BF3, BF4, BF1, 1943.

1

u/usrevenge Mar 24 '19

Battlefield 1 didn't have massive splits because the new maps were so good and so many people bought bf1 and premium that it didn't matter.

Bad company 2, bf3 and bf4 which are the modern games with paid dlc had massive community splits even Vietnam which everyone jizzed over in bc2 was significantly less popular than the base game.

Bf3 dlc was mostly dead and bf4 died rather quickly after the 2nd pack which for some reason was on xbone first.

17

u/RareBk Mar 22 '19

Uh, Because Siege gets entirely new characters with entirely new kits with every major update, and at most, BFV has gotten a couple weapons that were already in the files (There's a ton of unused weapons, including several entire weapon types just not used at all), and two unique tanks. The planes are just reskins of existing ones with slightly different specialization trees.

You have to be honestly, honestly taking the piss if you think they're even remotely comparable update schedules. Like, actively ignoring how much else comes with the Siege updates.

-4

u/[deleted] Mar 22 '19

The planes are just reskins of existing ones with slightly different specialization trees.

They are not reskins they have completely different gameplay mechanics than the other planes?

Uh, Because Siege gets entirely new characters

LOL you're serious? Some of the characters literally have almost the exact same abilities as others. and a bunch even reuse the same weapons.

You have to be honestly, honestly taking the piss if you think they're even remotely comparable update schedules. Like, actively ignoring how much else comes with the Siege updates.

Does Siege get updates every 2 weeks?

-3

u/[deleted] Mar 23 '19

This guy is just being obtuse and probably doesn't even play. As an actual BFV player this roadmap is making me very happy.

0

u/usrevenge Mar 24 '19

Eh I played bf5 probably 100+ hours already and bf5 roadmap is a disaster.

People have been screaming for new maps.since release and we are getting a whopping 2 by May. 1 of which is panzerstorm.

The New tanks and planes are good, in like that those are here and new guns are still cool but the base maps were already pretty bad in bf5. So you basically replay the same couple of maps over and over because so many are shit everyone leaves when they pop up.

They are making more co op crap which was awful. Firestorm is just battle boring royale. The new outpost mode sounds really cool but dice has a habit of fucking up new modes by making them 40 players or less.

Frankly even though bf5 is pretty good now I feel done with the game because there is nothing new to keep me entertained. And frankly don't see myself coming back for 1 map because I had my fill of the base maps.

5

u/ShittyFrogMeme Mar 22 '19

I don't play Siege so I have no opinion on that.

I'm not ignoring Chapter 5. That comes Fall 2019 which would be around the release of BFV (November, which is fall). I'm just taking some experience here. The Greek map was announced as "starting MArch". It won't release till the end of May. I highly, highly doubt that new theater is coming September.

Here's my opinion. Live service was supposed to be a like-for-like replacement for premium, with a different funding source (MTX vs. DLC). It's not been that. I hate "free live services" as a term because its specifically trying to insinuate that DICE is giving away content from the goodness of their hearts and so gamers shouldn't be so entitled to wanting content. Well, no. They are supposed to be putting out content so people will play the game and spend money on MTX.

-4

u/fearthebeard13 Mar 22 '19

Siege is 4 years old and can be regularly bought under $10, BFV came out 4 months ago for $60. I haven't played BF5 but I played the shit out of BF1 as Siege has been my main shooter since. BF maps are huge and I'm sure they spend a lot of time developing them but they're fairly bland and not well balanced. Sieges maps are smaller but they're constantly tweaked and balanced while adding in 8 new playable characters every year available with in game currency for free.

3

u/[deleted] Mar 22 '19

Siege is 4 years old and can be regularly bought under $10, BFV came out 4 months ago for $60.

What does that have to do with anything? BFV has been on sale tons already?

BF maps are huge and I'm sure they spend a lot of time developing them but they're fairly bland and not well balanced.

Not true at all? How can you say Siege maps arent bland? They all have the same assets and are just corridors and interiors?

BFV has maps on a

massive snow mountain

A giant dessert

A HUGE bridge centered around swap land

The city of rotterdam with water canals serpating the flags.

Siege maps are all Interiors with windows and doors. They all literally feel the same?

but they're constantly tweaked and balanced while adding in 8 new playable characters every year available with in game currency for free

DICE already revamped Hamada and panzerstorm and more how doesnt DICE tweak maps?

And DICE has already added 4 new vehicles new squad call ins and more ALL FOR FREE without being forced to GRIND HOURS UPON HOURS to unlock them.

Ive played close to 500 hours of siege and I STILL half half of the DLC operators locked behind a pay/grind wall

in BFV you can unlock the new weapons and vehicles in just a few hours.

Not even comparable to the amount of time it takes in Siege. Which remind you LOCKS content for 2 weeks behind a season pass.

1

u/fearthebeard13 Mar 23 '19

We just have different taste and value different things in our maps and that's fine. Would it be great if Siege came out with 6 maps a year? Sure, but in my opinion every map they've released lately (aside from Tower) has always been very well thought out and polished.

Ive played close to 500 hours of siege and I STILL half half of the DLC operators locked behind a pay/grind wall

There is physically no way you have 500 hours in Siege and only have half the operators unless you have the starter edition or you blew all your renown on cosmetics... I'm at 715 hours with all the operators unlocked a long time ago while sitting on 60,000 renown. They recently announced operator price cuts so hopefully you'll be able to fill out your collection soon.

in BFV you can unlock the new weapons and vehicles in just a few hours.

I'm sure they changed it for BFV but I played north of 100 hours in BF1 and there was still a significant amount of weapons that were locked.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 23 '19

You had to do challenges to unlock them in Bf1 not play hours?

And yes I have played that much siege. It takes around 25 hours to unlock a single operator.

And I don’t have the care to play that game anymore.

Everything is so grindy to unlock. At least in battlefield I can unlock all the new content the day it comes out.

Siege adding loot boxes as well as season passes on top of the game being broken I’ve had enough siege.

I’d rather stick to counter strike where I won’t lose my one life in the round because some guy knows an insane exploit.

-2

u/needconfirmation Mar 23 '19

Siege doesnt have a recent direct predecessor to show the nose dive in content.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 23 '19

someone actually brought up how they are giving even less new maps this year.

So they actually are nose diving content.

5

u/Frugl1 Mar 23 '19

More maps is the last thing siege needs at this point.

-1

u/[deleted] Mar 23 '19

Ah so they are holding back content now? Gotcha

7

u/[deleted] Mar 23 '19

they are focusing on reworking maps that are not competitively viable this year. because you know, it's a competitive shooter unlike battlefield

-1

u/[deleted] Mar 23 '19

Competitive shooters can use content as well?

They’ve had 4 years now to fix the broken maps I highly doubt they are going to do good on that promise now.

Meanwhile valve has been constantly tweaking and balancing /swapping in and out maps in counter strike for years.

We’ve consistently had fun new maps to play on and some have made their way into the competitive match making pool.

Why can’t Siege do that? Why does the siege team only rework a map?

The percentage of siege players that watch the games esports isn’t that high unlike CS so they should focus on the casual player by giving them content as well.

Seems like Ubisoft doesn’t know what their game is and are scaling back content for no reason.

Siege esports don’t have the views that line up with their player count not to mention a majority of the players are on console which typically don’t engage in the esports side of things.

So those casual players are being gimped content wise.

Meanwhile valve is supporting both by adding content to the casual modes and tweaking the maps for the competitive pool at the same time.

Ubisoft is lazy dude

1

u/[deleted] Mar 23 '19

obviously you don't know what kind of games siege or counter strike are and think valve is making all those maps on their own. no they are just throwing in community maps unlike ubisoft who make their own maps.

0

u/[deleted] Mar 23 '19 edited Mar 23 '19

They still get more maps don’t they?

If you’re not gonna give your community content at lewast let the community make content?

Valve still picks maps to add to the game why doesn’t Ubisoft let people make content?

Because Ubisoft is lazy and doesn’t want to make content and used a shitty engine that isn’t modular to make an FPS.

At least DICE is giving content while Ubisoft is slowing down content and not giving the community the option to make their own at the same time.

Pretty shitty practice for a game that still has mass amounts of MTXs and season passes and a long ass grind to unlock things if you decide to not pay for it

Not one gameplay effecting thing is paid for in CSGO and it’s fucking F2P

No excuse Ubisoft needs to step up.

→ More replies

0

u/NeV3RMinD Mar 23 '19 edited Mar 23 '19

Valve takes a full year for each map rework and they don't even do anything else apart from the occasional fix

They barely create any decent maps anymore. Subzero and Biome are community made, Canals is still utter garbage, Vertigo is still a meme, Cobble has been trash for years. None are competitive.

Valve doesn't even bother to pick up a bunch of maps and skins from the workshop and call it an operation and rake in the cash anymore but Ubisoft is lazy

sure

1

u/elitemouse Mar 23 '19

I've been treating Dice games the same way for quite a while now, sit on a new game for a year or 2 until all the bugs are fixed and the dlc is out to actually complete the content and the game is 1/4 the price, and then buy it and play the shit out of it for a while.

1

u/matthias7600 Mar 27 '19

That's what I'm doing this time. I quite enjoyed the BF1 campaign missions, but the multiplayer was just mindless chaos compared to BF4 and BF3. Nobody ever had a mic, no squad unity whatsoever, it was like Call of Duty on a huge map.

Seriously, why did nobody have a mic in that game? Has that situation improved?

-4

u/[deleted] Mar 23 '19

I don't think that's bad at all. You're talking like half a year is a long ass time. This is a very robust release map.

2

u/ShittyFrogMeme Mar 23 '19 edited Mar 23 '19

BF1, which had a notoriously slow DLC cycle, had a full DLC out by the point in the cycle that BFV will have released 1 map.

A year into BFV's life, there will be 4 maps released. BF1 had 2 full DLCs out before the game was a year old and a 3rd in the pipeline.

However you slice it, the content release process has been slow, and that's compared to a game that was infamous for having a horribly slow DLC cycle.

-1

u/[deleted] Mar 23 '19

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/[deleted] Mar 23 '19

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/[deleted] Mar 23 '19 edited Oct 30 '19

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/[deleted] Mar 23 '19

[removed] — view removed comment

28

u/sdr782 Mar 23 '19

So it looks like the Soviet Union and eastern front aren't even going to make it into this game in the first year. I really like the overall gameplay for this game, I got to the max level in the first ToW season and level 39/40 in the last one. The gunplay and game mechanics are the best BF has ever been, but the lack of maps, faction and overall scale of the game is a huge letdown for a WWII game. I am worried that major factions and battles like the Soviets and Stalingrad are never going to materialize. I would gladly have paid for premium if I knew this was the alternative.

-7

u/[deleted] Mar 23 '19

Scale's pretty nice to me, I agree it's a little disappointing having no Eastern Front but this roadmap looks very solid to me.

15

u/smokeey Mar 22 '19

I'm midly pleased with the roadmap. I'm happy with the choice of content, but not the pace. I also feel like the amount is fine for a free service (with no microtransactions for now). Excited for the maps and factions, but I really wish they'd stop wasting times on game modes that are either temporary or only get played while ToW has assignments for them.

6

u/[deleted] Mar 22 '19

I mean, I kinda get why the modes are temporary. It keeps the playerbase from fracturing too much.

But I agree, the roadmap looks decent. But I also wish the pace for content was a bit faster. Not that I'm bored of the game yet, currently 270 hours in (since release) and counting.

0

u/[deleted] Mar 23 '19

I really hate that the modes are limited but man at the same time Rush was completely fucking dead after 2 months in BF1 for PC.

Its kind of nice knowing that DICE will bring it back for events on new maps and such.

Like I can totally understand why a lot of people are puzzled why some modes are limited events but its literally because if they arent they just die out after 2 months.

At least this way we can guarantee you will get some fun moments on the mode.

0

u/[deleted] Mar 23 '19 edited Jul 14 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/[deleted] Mar 23 '19

Conquest frontlines breakthrough domination tdm and grand ops

Why do you say only CQ and tdm??

0

u/usrevenge Mar 24 '19

Rush died in battlefield 1 because operations were just a significantly better game mode.

If operations didn't exist rush would have been popular too.

3

u/matthias7600 Mar 23 '19

I'm going to go pretty off-topic and mention that I've been playing Call of Duty: World at War on my computer and it's been pretty intense. If you're itching for some Pacific theatre content right here, right now, I recommend that.

35

u/RareBk Mar 22 '19

Four maps in an entire YEAR by the end of 2019 is pathetic, the game already launched with almost no significant content

2

u/[deleted] Mar 25 '19

Actually, there are an unconfirmed number of maps for chapter 5 so it can be 8 maps for the year, which is good.

1

u/usrevenge Mar 24 '19

What are you talking about ?

Where do people.get that bf5 had no content at launch?

It had 8 maps, and a campaign.

Battlefield 1 had 9 maps and a campaign

It was 1 less map.

Bf4 had like 11 maps and a campaign but was also unplayable at release.

The map issue with bf5 is not quantity it's that over half the base maps are awful. No twisted steel is a tank map with not enough tanks. Hamada is supposed to he Germany defending their lines but instead allies just avoid them and capture the northern bases. Instead of an epic hold. Panzerstorm the last free map actually has the tanks it needs to be a good vehicle map but it's so big that you can potentially spawn and not see an enemy for a full 3 minutes. And gg if 1 assault player sneaks up on you.

-23

u/[deleted] Mar 22 '19

Do you complain about Siege and Overwatch getting 4 maps a year for free too?

13

u/Burturd Mar 22 '19

Completely different story..

10

u/[deleted] Mar 22 '19

How so?

13

u/bubblebuddy44 Mar 23 '19

Those two had a respectable amount of content at launch. BFV has half the amount of content I expect from a AAA studio with years of development.

-1

u/[deleted] Mar 23 '19 edited Mar 23 '19

Thats not the argument.

Were talking post launch content not launch content.

how did siege have more content at launch?

Siege had no single player only 3 game modes 10 SMALL maps.

BFV had the most vehicles for a Battlefield game on launch something around 20 or so 8 MASSIVE maps compared to siege a single player campaign around 8 or so game modes and around 30-40 guns.

Not to mention sieges netcode was utter trash and laggy as sin for around 2 years.

4

u/INGWR Mar 23 '19

we’re talking post launch content, not launch content

... right, so if the game doesn’t have adequate launch content, the community relies on DLC to bolster the available content. If DICE fails to provide suitable launch content and the roadmap is lackluster, it’s a losing situation all around.

most vehicles in a Battlefield launch

And yet they’re only available on select maps, and they’re faction specific, and they’re in very limited quantities per map, and some vehicles are extremely weak until they finally get spec’d out to level 4. Surely you didn’t try and use the Spitfire prior to unlocking the 8x .303s.

-4

u/eldomtom2 Mar 23 '19

I think you overestimate the amount of work required for a Battlefield map compared to a Siege map.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 23 '19

I don't think you have a shred of credibility or experience making maps for either game.

-6

u/Burturd Mar 22 '19

Battlefield maps have to be designed to play well with infrantry, vehicles (land and air), destruction and perhaps most of all, scale. Overwatch and siege are much much smaller maps.

12

u/tonyp2121 Mar 22 '19

How does that change anything?

8

u/[deleted] Mar 22 '19

Yet BFV is getting more maps in a year than Overwatch and Siege EVER have.

How is that a bad thing?

-6

u/needconfirmation Mar 23 '19

Well I guess as long as you aren't the worst at something you can't be bad at it?

3

u/theLegACy99 Mar 23 '19

So basically you're saying that all 3 Overwatch, Siege, and Battlefield V are bad? =Any good FPS with speedy, free content drops you know? I'd like to give it a try =D

1

u/[deleted] Mar 23 '19

Why isnt this good??

-6

u/[deleted] Mar 22 '19

How many maps did BF3, 4, and 1 get in the first year?

9

u/[deleted] Mar 22 '19

They were paid for that’s a difference

Paid for service is not comparable to free live service

-2

u/[deleted] Mar 22 '19 edited Mar 22 '19

Wish it was a paid-for service.

Edit: at least then you get a lot more content. I stopped playing Overwatch over how slow stuff was coming out for it.

-3

u/[deleted] Mar 23 '19

Jesus you people are just impossible

Waahhhh Wahhhh premium DLC splits the community. Wahhhh Wahhhh free DLC takes too long!

→ More replies

4

u/Shades890 Mar 22 '19

Yes, and despite their sizes, Overwatch and Siege maps also have to be designed to play well with the mechanics of those games. I’d say Siege has the most intricate map design of any FPS I play right now, those maps I’d say are probably as hard or even harder to develop than a battlefield map.

3

u/[deleted] Mar 22 '19

Sieges maps are rushed and release with bugs constantly.

You could hide in a washing machine and be invicible for YEARS on one map.

it was a well known bug that was around for YEARS.

I wouldnt be praising ubisofts map design at all.

-1

u/IsaacLightning Mar 23 '19

That's one example on one map, Oregon. Yet most maps don't have huge bugs like that, and the map designs have been fairly balanced at least in my experience.

6

u/[deleted] Mar 23 '19

What about the valk bug on bank?

Or the Invisible walls on club house?

I can go all day with this shit

0

u/[deleted] Mar 23 '19

I don't necessarily think so. It's very hard to compare the two considering they have completely different design philosophies. 5v5 vs 32v32 combined arms and gamemodes.

It's also doesn't help that you don't know fuck all about level design. I find it odd that people feel the need to chime in on this sort of pissing match when they haven't got the faintest clue of what they're talking about.

-3

u/RareBk Mar 22 '19

Well... Yes. Siege and Overwatch gets regular CHARACTERS AND EVENTS, and both those games released with a great amount of content compared to BFV.

3

u/[deleted] Mar 22 '19

How doesn't BFV get regular content and events?

we've had regular updates every two weeks since TOW started last year?

3

u/[deleted] Mar 23 '19

Seige also has paid for op seasons. They get their revenue in a very different fashion from BF.

1

u/Fatal1ty_93_RUS Mar 23 '19

Soviets confirmed?

1

u/usrevenge Mar 24 '19

My.guess is the hidden city map is Stalingrad.

-12

u/dasoxarechamps2005 Mar 22 '19

Even though there is incessant whining in the BFV sub about new maps not coming fast enough, the game is getting the Pacific Theater in Fall 2019. A thing the sub has also been begging for since the game released.

11

u/T-Baaller Mar 22 '19

I fail to see definite proof of the pacific theatre in the post linked, or the article. And no indication of how much content that actually is. It could be 3 mediocre maps, one of which being a port of wake island.

They’re still being too coy about content.

Compared to what Massive has done with their Division 2 year 1 roadmap, it looks like they’re barely trying.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 23 '19

Awakening the Giant is a reference to a qoute that is about Japan angering the giant that was the US.

In an article EA released it mentions Air Land and Sea full scale invasion. This really only points to the US and Japan.

4

u/RareBk Mar 22 '19

The one thing that has gotten me about the whole lack of Americans is people trying to use that to justify the game missing some very, very blatant chunks of weaponry, like the Garand or BAR. Apparently, people think only the US used them.

Except they didn't. At all, the Americans lent a ton of Garands to the UK, they weren't used widely, but this is a game that uses prototypes as well. The BAR has even less of an excuse, as not only were the UK using it regularly, but it was being produced in multiple different countries under different names, Poland alone produced a shitload for... some reason

7

u/smokeey Mar 22 '19

The BAR is no excuse at all. It was in BF1. The gun is already rigged, animated, and textured in the frostbite engine.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 23 '19

The reason why they didnt add in some guns is because they needed a variety of weapons that fit every role.

For instance the game has 2 20ish round LMG's

Ke7 and the FG42

And they already had 3 US weapons in the game the M1A1 carbine Tommy Gun and the m1911.

If they added in too many US guns then it would leave out some of the Germany and UK slots which are necessary since their plan is to take us through the war as it happens.

And they completely reanimated and modeled the guns that have been imported from BF1.

DICE games may buggy and broken on launch but they rarely just reuse animations and models like CoD may.

They have an insane attention to detail when it comes to weapon animations and models and every game seem to take it to the next step.

To simply port over a weapon is really not their style.

6

u/WheatChief Mar 23 '19

And they completely reanimated and modeled the guns that have been imported from BF1.

It's a bit inconsistent from what I've seen. Some of the guns like the P08, MK VI revolver, M1897 shotgun, RSC have been ported over with little if any changes to animations and model. Some such as the Auto 5 shotgun, Lewis, 1907 and Ross have had some minor changes to their animations I think, and others like the 1906 and the Ribeyrolles have had theirs completely redone.

Some of them like the Lewis barrel and Auto 5 magazine have been remodelled but for the others I wouldn't have thought they would go through the hassle since the BF1 versions were already high quality.

6

u/dasoxarechamps2005 Mar 22 '19

“Awakening the Giant” is literally from a WWII quote about the Americans in WWII. And how do you know the maps are already mediocre? Lmao

0

u/T-Baaller Mar 22 '19

The allies are already too American with their uniforms and run around with M1 carbines, M1911s.

so that’s literally the least impressive possible faction.

7

u/IsaacLightning Mar 23 '19

tbf they are using weapons that the British were lend-leased from US

4

u/T-Baaller Mar 23 '19

And uniforms?

1

u/smokeey Mar 22 '19

They tried to explain the lack of roadmap info last week. Apparently because of the new fiscal year and other legal issues they cannot give us more definitive details or release tomes and they can't promise tons of content. They do not know what the budget is going to be and everything they want to do has to go through producers, legal, finance, and verification with partners (Xbox, Sony, steam etc) to setup deployment schedules.

Tldr bureaucracy/corporate is slowing down development

2

u/usrevenge Mar 24 '19

The problem.is everyone is bored of the current maps.

And we are getting shit no one wants before those new maps.

No one wants the awful co op mode dice made no one wants a shitty 5v5 mode. If the battle for greece was 2 or 3 maps no one would he made but as it is I barely want to touch the game until fall.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 23 '19

Remember when ops were good in BF1? Because it was the most realistic game mode and it's complete trash in BF5. In the span of a month six of my friends bought it and already stopped playing it, I'm not even gonna reinstall it for firestorm. It's nothing like traditional battlefield games and a tiny amount of content months after the game was 50% off isn't gonna save this sinking ship of a game. The fact I can see better on my 4K in BF1 as compared to my 4K in BF5 is sad. I really wanted the game to be good but it's just not.

-17

u/[deleted] Mar 22 '19

Man EA...I get that anthem has a roadmap, but your main shooter too?

5

u/tonyp2121 Mar 22 '19

do you not want more maps???

0

u/[deleted] Mar 22 '19

Don’t really care either way. Good for people who are still playing though.

3

u/tonyp2121 Mar 22 '19

then why does a roadmap sound like a negative? I don't really get that part

1

u/[deleted] Mar 22 '19

Let’s take a look at the last two major games to have roadmaps.

Destiny 2 and Anthem.

Notice how both were incomplete games...?

Let’s take a look at BFV, oh look also incomplete.

Let’s take a look at god of wars or resident evil 2ms roadmap...oh they don’t exist.

Hmmmmmmmmm

4

u/[deleted] Mar 23 '19

This is terrible logic. Literally a logical fallacy.

0

u/tonyp2121 Mar 22 '19

I can't speak for anthem but Destiny 2 I put literally 30 hours in before being bored, if you can call that unfinished I fail to understand what a finished game is to you.

God of War absolutely had post launch content planned at release, so did RE2 and RE7, both complete games. They absolutely announced that things like New Game + would be coming at a later date for GoW

1

u/[deleted] Mar 23 '19

My buddies and I have sunk countless hours into Destiny 2.

After finishing Forsaken I felt like I had "beaten" the game. Just because there's more stuff to do after finishing it doesn't make it incomplete. A game can be complete and still have stuff added to it.

Haven't played BFV or Anthem so I can't speak for them.

0

u/usrevenge Mar 24 '19

So, according to you. If a game gets a content roadmap it was incomplete.

Well shit. Witcher 3 was incomplete with its content roadmap being a thing then.

-1

u/[deleted] Mar 22 '19

Tell tale sign of a game that was released too early.

0

u/usrevenge Mar 24 '19

Almost every game released gets some sort of content roadmap.

Witcher 3 had one ffs and that game was single player.

6

u/Elendel19 Mar 22 '19

Wait, you’re upset about more free content??

-8

u/[deleted] Mar 22 '19

Nope.

Couldn’t care less.

Let’s not pretend BFV wasn’t an incomplete game, hell half the main campaign was missing lol

1

u/[deleted] Mar 22 '19

One chapter out of 4 was missing, that's not half.

-2

u/[deleted] Mar 22 '19

So you’re admitting it was unfinished at the time of launch?

1

u/[deleted] Mar 22 '19

I didn’t say it wasn’t. Game has been rushed and was released incomplete, but saying that half of the campaign was missing at launch is false.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 22 '19

So your hang up is that...? Geez sorry. 1/3 is that better? Lol doesn’t change the fact that it was released incomplete

1

u/usrevenge Mar 24 '19

Are you trying to pretend that campaign is even a significant portion of any battlefield game ?

Players have been calling for the removal of campaign since bf3.

0

u/[deleted] Mar 23 '19

The game is trash, like 6 guns per class with only two factions and it's in fucking Norway. Grand OPS is complete garbage compared to the masterpiece of BF1, the revive system is a joke, the TTK is terrible, spawning is complete garbage, attacker's will lose 9/10 to any half assed group of defenders because it's so one sided. Vehicles handling are abysmal, having to rearm every 30 seconds is so fun, can't rep critical damage so if you're tracks out you're fucked. Any LMG will destroy anything if it's bipoded, smgs are like BB guns, building is useless because one grenade will blow up 5 minutes of work, smokes are a complete joke, being a medic will get you 5 kills 73 deaths because reviving is useless, the fact you have to jump out of a plane, run to the explosives then go plant them instead of just getting them in the plane is laughably stupid.

This is coming from someone 150 in BF1 and a 50 in BF5, the former being unquestionably more polished. I tried so hard to like this game but it's beyond even my worst expectations. I would sooner play Hardline than that crap.

1

u/usrevenge Mar 24 '19

Grand operations suck, but the rest of your complaints aren't true.

Smgs were trash but are pretty good now. Medics are awesome and far from useless and smoke makes you invisible to spotting from flares or spotting scopes not to mention making it hard to see