Support NeoGAF

[Tenka Musou]

Ever since the release of Battlefield 2, the quality of the this series has been in a freefall and I rarely see anyone addressing these issues.

Namely:

Ridiculous visual clutter: Lens flare, mud on screen, excessive bloom, bloody/colorless screen when low on health, blur from suppression, overdone weather effects, etc... This game looks absolutely unreadable most of the time, aiming becomes extremely eye-straining because every player just blends completely in the environment. I'm not advocating for Overwatch-style red outlines on enemies, but please make the enemies distinguishable from the environments, I was playing CoD:WW2 recently and despite having great graphics and many visual effects, I had absolutely no issues acquiring enemies in my sights.


- CoD-tier low TTK: Especially since BF3 and onwards, the series adopted the ridiculously low TTK from the likes of CoD:MW, encounters now amount to who can pull the trigger first, and god help you if someone caught you from behind. 100% guaranteed kill. There is no room for maneuverability or a chance for survival. Although on paper BF2 had similar TTK, the snappiness of the movement and the the much better netcode made it feel like you always had a chance in a firefight even if you were flanked, I always say if you're going to implement low TTK and bullshit deaths like this, you at least have to make respawn time extremely short, and bring the player right back into the action, but nooo, in recent Battlefield games you gotta wait like 10 seconds, then respawn like 3 kilometers away from the action, only to get insta-killed from some douche spraying you from a bush on the way.


- The Frostbite engine: Just everything about playing these games feels like wading through mud, every movement feels stunted, especially apparent in vehicles, the physics feel OFF, and if you have less than ideal connection, it becomes especially annoying to drive even a quadbike, normally I'm wary of blaming game engines for the faults of the game, but I've heard one of the developers in EA (IIRC) saying they had issues developing their game on Frostbite because the engine didn't handle vehicles right. I was not surprised to hear that at all. It was funny seeing Call of Duty's first attempt at vehicle warfare last year having 10x better vehicle controls than whatever DICE was churning out all these years.


Dumbing down of Systems: Seems like with every sequel the games shed more and more of it's depth, remember the commander system from BF2? Gone. Classes? From 7 to 4. Assault being also a medic? Way to discourage teamwork... Squad spawns meaning the action is all over the fucking place, regenerating health meaning you can just go lone wolf instead of sticking around your medics, etc... Pretty much every new gameplay system they've added didn't add anything positive to the game, with Destruction being the one thing that is kinda cool at times, but most of the time it's just annoying because there is great inconsistency to which buildings and walls can be demolished, making the the firefights even more random.


Atrocious Map-Design: Instead of designing the map around a single game mode, they make the map and just put all the modes on it, which results in maps that feel awkward to play on, not to mention they get bigger every time, so the action is spread out and you have to walk large distances, especially with how few vehicles have become in later installments. There hasn't been a map like Strike at Karkand so far, even after all those years.


I just can't get excited about any new Battlefield game knowing that not only DICE didn't attempt to fix these issues, they haven't even addressed or acknowledge them at all.

 

[Breakfast at Noon]

Yes.

 

[ScaryBrandon]

And you still failed to address the most important flaw: Team balance is always bad.

 

[KiNeMz]

Agreed. Bf2 was the greatest ever. Went downhill from there

 

[captainraincoat]

Moving more away from historical accuracy and into fantasy land to appease social justice warriors and an audience that does not play these games

 

[coolmast3r]

Ever since the release of Battlefield 2, the quality of the this series has been in a freefall and I rarely see anyone addressing these issues.

Namely:

Ridiculous visual clutter: Lens flare, mud on screen, excessive bloom, bloody/colorless screen when low on health, blur from suppression, overdone weather effects, etc... This game looks absolutely unreadable most of the time, aiming becomes extremely eye-straining because every player just blends completely in the environment. I'm not advocating for Overwatch-style red outlines on enemies, but please make the enemies distinguishable from the environments, I was playing CoD:WW2 recently and despite having great graphics and many visual effects, I had absolutely no issues acquiring enemies in my sights.


- CoD-tier low TTK: Especially since BF3 and onwards, the series adopted the ridiculously low TTK from the likes of CoD:MW, encounters now amount to who can pull the trigger first, and god help you if someone caught you from behind. 100% guaranteed kill. There is no room for maneuverability or a chance for survival. Although on paper BF2 had similar TTK, the snappiness of the movement and the the much better netcode made it feel like you always had a chance in a firefight even if you were flanked, I always say if you're going to implement low TTK and bullshit deaths like this, you at least have to make respawn time extremely short, and bring the player right back into the action, but nooo, in recent Battlefield games you gotta wait like 10 seconds, then respawn like 3 kilometers away from the action, only to get insta-killed from some douche spraying you from a bush on the way.


- The Frostbite engine: Just everything about playing these games feels like wading through mud, every movement feels stunted, especially apparent in vehicles, the physics feel OFF, and if you have less than ideal connection, it becomes especially annoying to drive even a quadbike, normally I'm wary of blaming game engines for the faults of the game, but I've heard one of the developers in EA (IIRC) saying they had issues developing their game on Frostbite because the engine didn't handle vehicles right. I was not surprised to hear that at all. It was funny seeing Call of Duty's first attempt at vehicle warfare last year having 10x better vehicle controls than whatever DICE was churning out all these years.


Dumbing down of Systems: Seems like with every sequel the games shed more and more of it's depth, remember the commander system from BF2? Gone. Classes? From 7 to 4. Assault being also a medic? Way to discourage teamwork... Squad spawns meaning the action is all over the fucking place, regenerating health meaning you can just go lone wolf instead of sticking around your medics, etc... Pretty much every new gameplay system they've added didn't add anything positive to the game, with Destruction being the one thing that is kinda cool at times, but most of the time it's just annoying because there is great inconsistency to which buildings and walls can be demolished, making the the firefights even more random.


Atrocious Map-Design: Instead of designing the map around a single game mode, they make the map and just put all the modes on it, which results in maps that feel awkward to play on, not to mention they get bigger every time, so the action is spread out and you have to walk large distances, especially with how few vehicles have become in later installments. There hasn't been a map like Strike at Karkand so far, even after all those years.


I just can't get excited about any new Battlefield game knowing that not only DICE didn't attempt to fix these issues, they haven't even addressed or acknowledge them at all.

I think you would very much like Battlefield 1943 then. Apart from lack of commander mode it addresses pretty much all of the issues you mention. It is available on XBone via BC afaik.

Stuff that you say in your post was the reason I started playing my copy of 1943 that came bundled with BF3 instead of actually playing BF3 back in 2011. It is just a very consistently enjoyable Battlefield game that doesn't make you rage due to stupid shit DICE decided to add in BF3 onwards.

 

[Tenka Musou]

I think you would very much like Battlefield 1943 then. Apart from lack of commander mode it addresses pretty much all of the issues you mention. It is available on XBone via BC afaik.

Stuff that you say in your post was the reason I started playing my copy of 1943 that came bundled with BF3 instead of actually playing BF3 back in 2011. It is just a very consistently enjoyable Battlefield game that doesn't make you rage due to stupid shit DICE decided to add in BF3 onwards.

Yeah I remember enjoying that game before my PS3 bricked. Is there a way to play in on PC nowadays (Is it even populated?)

 

[coolmast3r]

Yeah I remember enjoying that game before my PS3 bricked. Is there a way to play in on PC nowadays (Is it even populated?)

I'm not sure. Theoretically, there should be a way to host a custom server for an emulated version just like there are servers for RPCS3 version of Demon's Souls, for example. Otherwise that game was a console exclusive, so no native PC version is available.

 

[Shivvy24]

Spot on , 1st point was exactly what went though my mind all the time playing.

 

[the welsh one]

I'd say Bad Company 2 was the last bf with decent level design. Rush maps that flowed, buildings you could level and you could be as effective with starter weapons as you could with further unlocks. Current maps are too large especially conquest, where you spend most of the match running in circles rarely interacting.

 

[ZywyPL]

Atrocious Map-Design: Instead of designing the map around a single game mode, they make the map and just put all the modes on it, which results in maps that feel awkward to play on, not to mention they get bigger every time, so the action is spread out and you have to walk large distances, especially with how few vehicles have become in later installments. There hasn't been a map like Strike at Karkand so far, even after all those years.

That's my biggest complaint, modern BFs play like shit because how terrible the maps are, like, there is no design philosophy behind them at all, just make it big and pretty and call it a day. The map design and spawn system are the most crucial aspects of any MP shooter, doesn't matter if you create the best gameplay there is, if you screw up any of the two the game is done. IMO BFBC2 had the very best maps in the series, those linear, streamlined maps build around Rush mode were absolutely blast to play, you could easily tell how much thought-out they were, how much care DICE put into them.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Hot take: once Battlefield migrated to consoles, and once PC gamers stopped caring about the series, it was done.

Battlefield 1942 was legendary, up there regularly with UT, Quake, Tribes, CS, and so forth. And now it's a mediocre CoD wannabe that sets itself apart by emphasizing how not-CoD it is.

 

[Holammer]

I'd say Bad Company 2 was the last bf with decent level design. Rush maps that flowed, buildings you could level and you could be as effective with starter weapons as you could with further unlocks. Current maps are too large especially conquest, where you spend most of the match running in circles rarely interacting.

Focus on rush maps with tight sphincter-like bottlenecks made for almost COD-like gameplay. Never a dull moment, wondering where the enemy might be.

 

[SometimeLaterToday]

In today's culture and economy, as long as people buy the product regardless, EA would be stupid to do anything else differently.

 

[ResilientBanana]

In Battlefield, you can't run away from gun fire and it follows you around corners. Also, everything in the first paragraph is spot on.+

 

[INC]

Netcode is horrific

Poor mp design

Visual clutter I agree, look at bf1 and bfv, bf1 I have 0 issues seeing people across the map, bfv they can be laying right next to you

Pandering to the xmas noobs, or low skill ceiling.

Lack of knowledge on how to balance land sea and air combat.

Changing design and mantra multiple times through out a games life cycle, just pick one and stick with it, bfv was meant to be a more grounded experience, they changed the core gameplay so many times, it was ridiculous

 

[ZywyPL]

I have an idea - let Respawn do a BF game and see what that can get out of the franchise.

 

[Jakk]

Agreed. Last time I was really hyped for a BF game was before BF 3. I had some fun with it, but it had some serious issues and it feels like it all went even further downwards from there. Some maps were okay-ish, some were outright horrible. I couldn't agree more about the visual clutter. Also, does anyone know what the fuck was that blue filter for in BF 3? I remember that Alpha didn't have it and it looked really good. Netcode has been terrible in every modern BF game. Nevertheless, I am curious about their next game. I hope they really take their time and address at least some of the issues.

 

[TexMex]

I generally agree but they’ve had some good entries post 2 (Vietnam is still my favorite tho)

i really enjoyed Bad Company 2, 4 and 1

 

[SantaC]

Does CoD have destruction yet? Battlefield has been shit, but i dont like how CoD constantly gets free passes.

 

[Psykodad]

The lower TTK in BFV was the best thing to happen to BF.

Hardcore and minimal spotting are the best way to play BF.

 

[Javthusiast]

Strongly agree.

Last Battlefield I truly enjoyed was Bad Company 2.

 

[OneShotThrill]

Moving more away from historical accuracy and into fantasy land to appease social justice warriors and an audience that does not play these games

Honestly that shit was overblown. Had nothing to do with the bad gameplay and horrible developer choices. If the game was actually good we could be dressed as fucking Klingons. We would still play it.

 

[Tupinambis_WOT]

I feel like most of these problems weren't that bad, and the map design was pretty good, in Bad Company 2. But after that yeah none of the BF games really seemed that good anymore.

 

[Texas Pride]

I've given up hope they'll ever recapture the magic the series once had.

 

[PlayerPurple]

CoD-tier low TTK: Especially since BF3 and onwards, the series adopted the ridiculously low TTK from the likes of CoD:MW, encounters now amount to who can pull the trigger first, and god help you if someone caught you from behind. 100% guaranteed kill. There is no room for maneuverability or a chance for survival. Although on paper BF2 had similar TTK, the snappiness of the movement and the the much better netcode made it feel like you always had a chance in a firefight even if you were flanked, I always say if you're going to implement low TTK and bullshit deaths like this, you at least have to make respawn time extremely short, and bring the player right back into the action, but nooo, in recent Battlefield games you gotta wait like 10 seconds, then respawn like 3 kilometers away from the action, only to get insta-killed from some douche spraying you from a bush on the way.

This might be the biggest reason it’s difficult for me to take modern shooters seriously.

As you put it, it’s just a game of who shot first. The best part of competitive games (on the fly adaptation) is completely ignored.

 

[MDSLKTR]

Battlefields post BC2:

Glaring you say? Dice be inclusive of the human eye please.

 

[EverydayBeast]

Battlefield is a large franchise that gamers have a lot of respect for and I think Dice were under orders to make those bad map designs.

 

[Croatoan]

Low TTK is a good thing. I can't stand bullet sponge games like Apex. PUBG, Battlefield, Tarkov TTK is the best as its more tactical and requires players to have much better skill. In a low TTK you have to care more about positioning and tactical advantages than spraying bullets like rambo.

The problem with COD and BF is that they have explosives in their games. Explosives require zero skill and are extremely annoying. I'd have a 10/1 K/D ratio in battlefield if it wasn't for explosives.

 

[Arun1910]

You are in the wrong place.

If you go to the BF subreddit EVERYONE is unhappy with how dice have handled the latest and past game. They are the most vocal community I see at the moment. They're always coming up with ideas to make the game better because they WANT it to be good yet the Devs don't give a shit. Every other patch is one step backwards.

 

[Tenka Musou]

This might be the biggest reason it’s difficult for me to take modern shooters seriously.

As you put it, it’s just a game of who shot first. The best part of competitive games (on the fly adaptation) is completely ignored.

It's especially bad in recent Battlefields because the moment you are hit with the bullet (or even if the bullet fly past you) you will get a debuff called Suppression which blurs your screen, and your aim will be shaken if you are hit.

It's "first guy to shoot wins" taken to the extreme.

Battlefields post BC2:

Glaring you say? Dice be inclusive of the human eye please.

These pictures are making me nauseated, they even put finger smudges on the screen

Kill it with FIRE

 

[Diddy X]

Idk but BF1 is a better game than all the cod games combined, cod is good, easy and addictive but feels like garbage after playing BF, just look at those graphics and sound, there is no question on which is the higher quality game.

 

[RedVIper]

Low TTK is a good thing. I can't stand bullet sponge games like Apex. PUBG, Battlefield, Tarkov TTK is the best as its more tactical and requires players to have much better skill. In a low TTK you have to care more about positioning and tactical advantages than spraying bullets like rambo.

The problem with COD and BF is that they have explosives in their games. Explosives require zero skill and are extremely annoying. I'd have a 10/1 K/D ratio in battlefield if it wasn't for explosives.

Low TTK by itself can be a good thing, but couple it all the other issues it makes the game feel worse to play.

 

[Croatoan]

Low TTK by itself can be a good thing, but couple it all the other issues it makes the game feel worse to play.

I have never felt the gameplay in BF is bad, save for grenade spam in BF1 and airplane explosives in BF5. I honestly think the gunplay is top notch. The only game with better gunplay is PUBG. IMO COD gunplay is kinda trash, but then COD is not really my thing so maybe that is why I don't like it.

 

[Knightime_X]

Maps are way too large.
It's like you have to play death stranding first and hope you encounter someone to kill the boredom.
It makes for awful pacing. Adding bots like Titanfall 2 did makes it a bit more fun.

Making weapons like rocket launchers ONLY able to kill vehicles and not humans are just dumb.
I mean you CAN kill someone with a rocket launcher but you need to be aiming it directly up their asshole. Off by an inch and they'll be totally ok.

Virtually ALL explosive weapons fucking suck in battlefield games to the point there's no reason to use them.
Shotguns and the lack of being able to make them secondary is just bad as well.

Battlefield just isn't fun.
It's dying for a reason.

 

[Naked Lunch]

I agree nearly 100% with the OP.
The new Battlefields are too fast, too wacky, too nonsensical, and too simple. PC BF2/2142 was actually extremely complex with the commanders, squad leader only spawning, side missions like taking out commander assets, and just overall tactical gameplay. I thought the series would move even further in that direction - but now 15 years later, it has regressed.

High TTK is how BF should be played in my opinion - but they tried that in BFV with a patch and everyone went crazy. The Low TTK is burned into peoples brains now. In PC BF2 the TTK was very high giving you tons of chances to escape.

The problem is Battlefield has so many different iterations at this point - and so many fans think a certain entry is how Battlefield should play. In other words, the fanbase is splintered. The old style BF looks to be gone for good. For me, the template moving forwards needs to return to the gameplay systems of PC BF2. If not they should just re-release BF2 to the modern era.

 

[-YFC-]

Agreed. Especially the level design. The maps are so bad in BFV. Like that Aerodrome map in BFV. What an absolutely shitty map.
I want more maps like Caspian Border. That was my fav map in the whole battlefield series.

 

[Bryank75]

The series could be so much better than it is....

There should be maps with much more variety, very high elevations only accessible if you're mountain troop, dive teams that can attack from the water, tank crews, CQB teams for clearing buildings.... mobility troop on motorcycles and buggys (They have silent electric MC's now).

Throw them all in a map and see how they use their specialization to negotiate the map.

Then you could have a campaign based around each class (focusing mainly on one or two) and how they all contribute to accomplishing the mission.

Also, the re-writing of history is not cool... that's revisionist bullshit.

 

[GlassAwful]

Nice summary of issues.

Like you said one of the biggest issues is their squad spawn system which allows groups of enemies to appear out of thin air even as you are engaging them. All in a game about controlling parts of the map.... I mean who the fuck thought that was a good idea?

They should switch to a spawn system that is reliant on a real-time adjusting battle front system similar to Planetside.

Some of my ideas to account for this:
Dead teammates can either elect to spawn within their team's control zone, or if a player/squad behind enemy lines calls for reinforcements go into a short queue to be air dropped from a spawned but destroyable c130 over their general location. Or a troop ATV if inaccessible from air.
Neither of these should just appear directly in the vicinity. A well coordinated team should be rewarded for completely cutting off an area by forcing these carriers to travel from the control zone and give them a chance to take it out.

As is its wack a mole and its stupid. You can corner a single enemy into a room with only one door and find yourself facing a full squad.

Further, they should expand the squad concept to give ranks meaning such that higher ranked players can send objectives to multiple squads in the vicinity with this concept flowing up to a commander class with a chain of command system.

You give the commander class some RTS style control of AI driven support vehicles, drones, etc, as well as incentivise players to follow their orders with big rewards and I could see players vying to play the role.

COD reached 150 players on current consoles which is an impressive feat. I expect this number to go up nextgen to near planetside levels and the games in the genre need to be balanced to account for it. I'm not sure Dice is up to the challenge.

 

[Kerotan Frog]

Yeah, I've always hated the series because so much of the game is walking to action area, maybe sneak up on one person for a kill, someone kills you, repeat. I tried Battlefield 1 a couple years ago but dropped it after 3 hours because I spent so much time running to where people are at. What a stupid game design.

Multiplayer needs to be specifically crafted with thoughtful level design with engaging choke points that players can get back to (see Halo and Gears).

Bigger is not always better. Huge maps work in single player because the sole player is the focus and the game is balanced as such. And if you die, you don't respawn 5 miles away from your objective.

 

[cormack12]

Good post.

I think they've basically condensed maps down to a few critical contact points and unless you enter the meat grinder, there isn't another way to take the objective. They basically made everything a war of attrition.

I think they need more transport only vehicles as well. As much as people hate hardline, it did this well. And makes sure the running miles to get in the action becomes a thing of the past, and the reason we have squad spawns and spawn beacons. But this is a game where the squad leader would soon rather jump into the action with everyone dead, than take cover and allow their squad to respawn and atatck together.

 

[FrozenFlame]

Yeah, I've always hated the series because so much of the game is walking to action area, maybe sneak up on one person for a kill, someone kills you, repeat. I tried Battlefield 1 a couple years ago but dropped it after 3 hours because I spent so much time running to where people are at. What a stupid game design.

Multiplayer needs to be specifically crafted with thoughtful level design with engaging choke points that players can get back to (see Halo and Gears).

Bigger is not always better. Huge maps work in single player because the sole player is the focus and the game is balanced as such. And if you die, you don't respawn 5 miles away from your objective.

Then what's the point of having vehicles (especially airplanes/helicopters) if the map is designed to be small with choke points? Honestly, one of the things that made me not purchase BF5 was that the maps looked small and the gameplay seemed geared towards infantry.
I absolutely hate Operation Metro due to the shitty gameplay experience and yet, people seem to love it. For me it's just COD with a different skin...

 

[Swadedtx]

I think Battlefield needs a lower ttk. If you screw up and someone is shooting you it shouldnt take a whole clip to bring them down. Battlefield and COD need to take the ttk down.

 

[Kerotan Frog]

Then what's the point of having vehicles (especially airplanes/helicopters) if the map is designed to be small with choke points? Honestly, one of the things that made me not purchase BF5 was that the maps looked small and the gameplay seemed geared towards infantry.
I absolutely hate Operation Metro due to the shitty gameplay experience and yet, people seem to love it. For me it's just COD with a different skin...

If I remember correctly, not everyone can have a vehicle. Also, what if you don't like vehicle gameplay? I really don't.

I actually think Battlefront 2 did vehicles better. They were there, they were useful, but it didn't shift the balance so far that foot soldiers were straight up screwed.

 

[V4skunk]

Bring black real classes.
Bring back vehicle spawn on map.
I don't know what you mean by TTK! Because on BF2 you die much faster than in the later games. But the upside is it's much easier to be revived and healed.
The next BF needs to be more "realistic".
Basically BF series got ruined by console plebs. Should have stayed on PC.

 

[Terce]

I also miss build flexibility. BFBC2 was my favourite by far and one of the most entertaining things was picking up the NEO and using slugs so you could 2shot people from across the map, but the trade off was you had no zoom and if you missed in close quarters and couldn't pull out your pistol fast enough you were done. Not to mention you could use this combo on any class so you would pick the class based on the utilities needed at the given moment.

My other biggest issue with the BF series is the unlocks and how long it takes to actually get fun guns. Everything is paced in such a way that they're trying to get you to buy the booster packs and instead of providing build flexibility and entertainment from the get-go, you're forced to grind for 50+ hours to use the setup you want. I was suckered into buying BF1 on sale and it's definitely the last BF game I'll be buying. Thankfully there are still a few active BFBC2 servers on PC (though no Vietnam ) so that helps scratch the itch whenever it comes up

 

[FrozenFlame]

If I remember correctly, not everyone can have a vehicle. Also, what if you don't like vehicle gameplay? I really don't.

I actually think Battlefront 2 did vehicles better. They were there, they were useful, but it didn't shift the balance so far that foot soldiers were straight up screwed.

I seriously don't get your point. The battlefield series always had vehicles. It simply is part of the series. If you don't like vehicles gameplay, then play as a soldier, what's the problem?

About Battlefront 2, I only played the demo but I wouldn't call it better when you finally reach the amount of points to get a vehicle and suddenly the game switches all players to an indoor section of the map. Bye bye vehicle that you just purchased. No refunds!

 

[Kerotan Frog]

I seriously don't get your point. The battlefield series always had vehicles. It simply is part of the series. If you don't like vehicles gameplay, then play as a soldier, what's the problem?

About Battlefront 2, I only played the demo but I wouldn't call it better when you finally reach the amount of points to get a vehicle and suddenly the game switches all players to an indoor section of the map. Bye bye vehicle that you just purchased. No refunds!

My point is recent Battlefield games are so unbalanced towards vehicles that playing as a soldier isn't fun at all.

And fair point, it doesn't always work the best in Battlefront 2.

 

[R6Rider]

Agree with some points and disagree with others.

TTK is has been fine for me at least since BF3. BC2 is among my favorites but it had a pretty high TTK compared to some later titles. The TTK changes with 5.2 in BFV pretty much killed the game for me and many others. Some guns would take 13 bullets to kill people at medium ranges and was purely stupid. They had made a similar change before and it was for new/bad players to get a chance to shoot back as some kind of reward for running in the open and wondering why they died.

One major problem that I don't think has been mentioned in the topic yet is the class system hasn't been balanced very well.

Overall feel and movement of soldiers and vehicles is fine for me. Thought some vehicles can get stuck really easily and become problematic (I'm looking at you LAV in BF4).

Most maps are ok size, with a few being much too large with not enough objectives spread out and/or areas of nothing (that one BF1 from the Beta in the desert comes to mind).

Maps like Metro and Locker that are pure chokepoint clusters with explosive spam need to go. They cater to the CoD mentality and offer no vehicles. It's BF and every map (at least in the main modes) should have vehicles.

As mentioned already, maps should be designed around the modes. BC2 did this amazingly well. The Rush maps felt amazing and the Conquest maps were balanced objective wise.

They need to bring back the vehicles auto spawning at bases in which you can spawn directly into or hop into while running around.

 

[ihavezippers]

100% agree with everything said re: multiplayer. Another huge downgrade IMO is Bad Co 2 had an incredible single player campaign, whereas BF1 and BF2 single player campaigns are essentially demos. I’m mostly referring to length/story development. I seem to remember pre-reboot BF3 and BF4 having decent singleplayer campaigns—-I remember BF Vietnam having a great singleplayer campaign.