Why Does Everyone Hate Battlefield 5
Battleground has always been controversial
With near 20 years of history behind information technology, it feels like every new game with the discussion "Battlefield" on it is destined to underdeliver on every person'south internalized thought of 'peak Battlefield'. If you're i of Battlefield'southward oldest fans, you may look dorsum at its roots as a simplistic WW2 class shooter fondly. If you lot're a fleck younger, perchance Battlefield was never meliorate than when it had mechs (opens in new tab).
Battlefield 2042 has had annoying bugs and spotty hit detection, simply goose egg quite like BF4'southward silencer that could literally mute an entire server.
It'south no surprise that Battlefield 2042, which boasts the most radical changes to the series always seen, has been met by a prickly, sometimes peppery reaction (opens in new tab). Not but has it blurred the lines of roleplay by replacing traditional classes with specialists armed with unique gadgets, it has also doubled the player count, supersized the maps, ditched singleplayer, and reintroduced a mod setting for the showtime time in 5 years. That's a lot of change!
But if a week of reflection on the serial has taught me anything, it's that Battlefield has always been controversial to its fans. Anybody has a Battlefield they love to love and beloved to detest, and despite complaints at launch, the latest Battlefield e'er seems to find its people.
Here's how fans reacted to the final 10 years of Battlefield, according to original impressions, preserved slices of cyberspace forums, ancient memes, and my own memories.
Battlefield 3
Released: October 25, 2011
Platforms: PC (Origin), PS3, Xbox 360
Thing people were maddest about: The servers
The 2010s marked a new era for Battlefield. Off the heels of the offbeat only well-received Bad Visitor games, Dice had clearly made Battleground 3 with the increasing popularity of Call of Duty in mind. Battleground 3 took a far more serious tone and included a linear campaign with a story that could've fallen off an Activision truck. Battlefield 3 was also the debut of the Frostbite 2 engine, which was a huge deal. The reveal trailer (that one where a building falls on you lot) blew my damn mind at the fourth dimension.
If y'all were a fifteen-year-quondam shooter fan in 2011, the "Modern Warfare 3 vs Battlefield 3" showdown of Fall 2011 was a big moment. Underdog Die was taking on the FPS that'd been enjoying the videogame throne for iv years straight, and BF3 looked good enough to (peradventure) have it downwards. How did it shake out at launch?
😠Battlefield iii was riddled with server bug and bugs
Quote from the fourth dimension: (opens in new tab) "Tom Senior's game crashes to desktop every five minutes. Rich gets disconnected from every server later on a circular-and-a-half of play, without neglect. Tim can't connect to servers at all, most of the time." —Quondam PC Gamer deputy editor Graham Smith in 2011
Yikes. I clearly remember playing Battlefield 3's beta a few months before release and thinking "I'm glad they're doing this beta so the final game will be more stable." Oh how little I knew. Servers were dodgy for weeks after launch, as our review (opens in new tab) referenced.
🤠It was unbalanced as hell, but nosotros didn't care
Quote from the time: (opens in new tab) "After playing with and without fore grip on my FAMAS, non sure I could nerf it enough lol. Hmm, this one is a biiiiiiiiiit OP." —Quondam Dice senior designer Alan Kertz in 2011
If you had asked me in 2011 if I thought Battlefield three'south tanks had enough armor, I would've responded, "Who cares?" Dorsum then, frequent balancing updates weren't an automatic expectation of multiplayer games. Meanwhile, players felt strongly plenty nigh Battlefield 2042'due south underwhelming assault rifles that Die buffed them all within a week (opens in new tab).
Fifty-fifty if Battlefield 3's FAMAS was annoyingly strong (I do think seeing it a lot), I think the average role player in 2011 was inclined to just… go used to information technology? Patches used to take longer and developers weren't almost as communicative about what changes were in the pipeline as they are now. In that location certainly wasn't a Battlefield Twitter business relationship dedicated to communicating upcoming changes to players in 2011.
😤Battlelog was a job for PC gamers
Quote from the time: "In Bad Visitor 2, if you lot wanted to change servers, yous had to quit the round and then load another map. This is no different at all." —Former Dice senior designer Alan Kertz in 2011
Battlelog was DICE'due south official companion site for Battlefield iii that kept all sorts of fun personal stats that you could compare against friends. It was snazzy as long every bit you lot were a console histrion at the time like me. If you happened to play BF3 on PC, Battlelog was a lot more than a stat site: It's how you launched the freaking game (opens in new tab). The entire matchmaking and server browsing process: trapped on a web browser!
Die reckoned that players would be thankful not to sit through a bootup sequence or load a real primary card to get into a match. Fifty-fifty if it worked equally advertised (seems similar it wasn't e'er reliable), alt-tabbing out of the game to notice a new server sounded bad-mannered and PC players didn't capeesh non having the choice to bypass Battlelog, especially considering the panel versions had normal in-game server browsers.
Battlefield iii was likewise the offset fourth dimension PC players were forced to buy the game through the Origin app. Players didn't like this either, because the Origin app sucked dorsum then and still sucks a decade later. Today you tin buy EA games through Steam again, but you lot'll yet be routed through Origin to actually launch them. At least the whole Battlelog affair didn't stick.
Battlefield iv
Released: October 29, 2013
Platforms: PC (Origin), PS3, PS4, Xbox 360, Xbox One
Affair people were maddest about: The servers (merely worse)
With a shorter dev cycle and a (somewhat?) upgraded Frostbite 3 engine, Battlefield iv came out looking a lot like Battleground three. That was perfectly fine to many, just Dice's big sell this time around was maps that dynamically change over time thanks to its "Levolution" events. You know that skyscraper that fell in BF3's campaign? Now that tin happen in multiplayer!
But the aforementioned fans planning to pick up Battleground four at launch remember how janky BF3 was out of the gate and hoped Dice wouldn't allow that happen over again. Well…
🤬Servers were a complete disaster
Quote from the fourth dimension: (opens in new tab) "Nosotros're not moving onto hereafter projects or expansions until nosotros sort out all the issues with Battlefield 4." —EA spokesperson in 2013
DICE went bigger on everything in Battleground 4: more guns, bigger maps, and bigger server problems. Widespread crashes, disconnections, and bad netcode plagued every version of the game correct out of the gate, and it wouldn't exist cleaned upwards for months. Players were less understanding this time around, with some demanding refunds (opens in new tab) or putting the game down (opens in new tab) until weather improved.
Battlefield 4's bug (opens in new tab) persisted well past its Fall 2013 launch and into 2014. The debacle led to dozens of patches that addressed everything from netcode, weapon balance, and bizarre bugs like the "death shield. (opens in new tab)" Battlefield 4'southward poor launch state became a saga bigger than the game itself (one that Polygon cataloged with 46 articles (opens in new tab)). EA eventually put on a weeklong double XP outcome to say sorry and committed to putting DLC on hold until the game was in better shape. EA even got sued past shareholders (opens in new tab) for allegedly misleading the public about the quality of BF4. Battleground 2042 has had some abrasive bugs and spotty hitting detection so far, simply nothing quite like BF4'southward silencer that could literally mute an unabridged server (opens in new tab).
🙄Battlelog was better, simply still unnecessary
Quote from the time: "Er, guys, I think y'all've mistaken 'fixing things that Battlefield 3 did badly' with 'a whole new mode to find games.'" —PC Gamer UK Editor-in-Chief Phil Cruel in 2013
Battlelog was all the same effectually, but an in-game overlay permit you admission most of Battlefield iv's menus from within the PC version and non a webpage. At least it had some extra features that nobody used like a existent-time map and remote joining.
🙁Next gen upgrades weren't free, merely it could've been worse
Quote from the time: "You tin go far the game without any worries that y'all will have to offset ranking up all over once more when the side by side generation consoles launch. We got your back." —EA spokesperson in 2013
This particular grievance didn't matter if you played on PC, but if you lot were on a PlayStation like me, upgrading to the adjacent gen version was a bit awkward. Most publishers charged the toll of a whole new game, some offered costless upgrades, and Battlefield 4 landed in the middle with a $10 fee that simply worked if y'all put your PS3 disc into your PS4. It was a weird transaction that really should've been free, but adjacent to other games it didn't seem so bad.
EA nigh charged for a next-gen upgrade for Battlefield 2042 as well, but it subsequently switched to a free upgrade path after pushback.
Battlefield Hardline
Released: March 17, 2015
Platforms: PC (Origin), PS3, PS4, Xbox 360, Xbox Ane
Thing people were maddest near: The price
OK I'll admit it: I forgot this one existed. At a fourth dimension when Visceral had wrapped Dead Infinite 3 and EA didn't know what to do with it, the publisher threw them a cops and robbers-themed Battlefield iv spin-off. It was the last game the studio would ever brand before it was shuttered in 2017. My impression of Hardline at launch was that it was a fine and forgettable Battlefield game, but it wasn't without its own (much smaller) controversies.
🤔Battlefield Hardline straddled a line between expansion and $sixty game
Quote from the time: (opens in new tab) "Release Battlefield Hardline as DLC for Battleground four" —A 2013 Change.org petition
Is Battleground Hardline worth the full $60? That was the question fans and press were asking themselves up until Hardline's release. DICE reckoned that its unique campaign, new maps/modes, and engine improvements justified the price. To many, Hardline notwithstanding had the mouthfeel of a fancy expansion (perhaps because BF players stay for the multiplayer, and that part of the game was basically modified BF4). The uproar wasn't huge past whatsoever stretch, but as is required by gamer constabulary, there was a Change.org petition (opens in new tab) involved. (If you're curious, there are already x+ petitions (opens in new tab) for Battlefield 2042 out there.)
🤠Hardline's launch was disaster-free, only had a few hiccups
Quote from the time: (opens in new tab) "We're withal working hard every day to improve the gameplay experience to make Battlefield Hardline even more fun." —Old Visceral atomic number 82 multiplayer designer Thad Sasser in 2015
There were some rough edges to smooth out, like a CPU usage bug and some crashes, simply Hardline launched relatively disaster-free. Cool!
Battlefield 1
Released: October 21, 2016
Platforms: PC (Origin), PS4, Xbox One
Thing people were maddest about: The servers
With BF4'due south reputation slowly recovering and Hardline already leaving our minds, the main Battlefield team at Dice was cooking upward a bold setting completely uncommon to a competitive FPS: World War i. Battleground 1 went on to exist 1 most beloved games in its history with just a few pocket-size grievances, similar janky individual servers.
🤠DICE took liberties with the WW1 setting, only it worked
Quote from the time: (opens in new tab) "Nosotros tried to discover the interesting weapons that could have theoretically been used." —Die executive producer Aleksander Grøndal in 2016
A big question around the reveal of Battlefield i was how DICE planned to interpret WW1, a state of war mostly fought with bolt-action rifles and not a ton of machine-gunning, into a fun Battlefield game. Turns out Dice's answer was, "Screw that, everyone gets an SMG if they want i." Battlefield i didn't recreate WW1 combat authentically, but neither did Battlefield 1942 recreate WW2 gainsay authentically, and an immaculate attention to particular in its maps, uniforms, and vehicles still sold the fantasy well.
There were also several posts complaining that Blackness soldiers were featured prominently (opens in new tab) in Battlefield ane'due south marketing, despite the fact many African soldiers were recruited or forced to fight for colonial powers (opens in new tab), and that all-Black regiments served in WW1. If in that location was any reasonable complaint here, information technology was that yous only played as a Harlem Hellfighter for a few minutes (opens in new tab) of the campaign before dropping expressionless.
😠Private servers were janky
Quote from the fourth dimension: (opens in new tab) "Seriously, this is cool and a complete letdown." —Reddit user GrowlmonDrgnbutt in 2016
EA'southward Hire-A-Server program returned with Battlefield 1, merely information technology was pretty low-cal on features at launch. Server owners couldn't practise bones things like create VIP slots, add every map to the rotation, or disable autobalance. And the service wasn't cheap, either: Servers toll up to $300 for a year.
Battleground 5
Released: Nov 9, 2018
Platforms: PC (Origin), PS4, Xbox One
Matter people were maddest about: The women
And then we go far at the near contempo Battleground earlier 2042. With a two year dev cycle and maps/modes/guns that all felt like to BF1, Battlefield 5 was a swift follow-up that retreaded old FPS territory with its WW2 setting. It also had boxing royale, because it was 2018 and that's merely what you lot did.
😡Fans weren't happy that Battlefield 5 had women
Quote from the time: (opens in new tab) "We want Battlefield five to correspond all those who were a part of the greatest drama in human history." —DICE general director Oskar Gabrielson in 2018
Many Battlefield fans took issue with Dice'southward inclusion of women soldiers in their World War two game, to the tune of over 300,000 dislikes on the Battlefield 5's reveal trailer afterward its premiere. Setting aside that women did serve combat roles in WW2, particularly Soviet women, those upset argued that women soldiers sharing a battlefield with men crossed a realism line for a WW2 game (because Battlefield has always been nigh its realism). Dice stuck to its guns and kept its customization options in place. Few seemed to care once the game launched and besides featured many men.
🤢Battlefield v's TTK was all over the place
Quote from the time: (opens in new tab) "Our intent with the TTK changes was to see if we could evolve the Battlefield 5 experience and make information technology more enjoyable for new players… Clearly we didn't get information technology right." —Former DICE community manager Dan Mitre in 2018
Early word from data and players afterwards BF5'south launch suggested that the average fourth dimension-to-kill (TTK) was too loftier (opens in new tab) for almost guns. Within a few weeks, Die deployed a large patch that bulked up player health to increase survivability. Turns out, Battleground veterans liked it the way it was and felt like it was at present too hard to get kills. Less than a month after the changes, Dice reverted the TKK values (opens in new tab) and issued a long apology on the game's subreddit.
😕Trunk dragging never arrived
Quote from the fourth dimension: (opens in new tab) "Having discovered that soldier dragging would negatively impact the core gameplay loop, we've decided to not add together the feature to Battlefield V." —Die spokesperson in 2019
One of Battlefield 5's most intriguing features (at least for Medic mains like me) never saw the low-cal of twenty-four hours. First depicted in the 2018 reveal trailer, Dice planned to allow players to drag a downed ally to rubber and so they tin exist revived. The mechanic didn't make it into BF5 at launch, which led players to casually wonder when it'd arrive for months after. Die somewhen announced that body dragging had been cancelled because it would "negatively impact the core gameplay loop." Still bummed about that one!
Wrap upwardly
Looking back at a decade of Battlefield, I was a little surprised at how things that actually ticked me off at the time have at present morphed into nostalgia. I recollect shouting at my TV several times as Battlefield 4 decided to crash, and then why did I feel like I was saying hi to an old friend when Battlefield 2042 servers briefly went downward (opens in new tab) on solar day two? Maybe it's considering "Battlefield is borked at launch" is a concept I'm so used to that it virtually feels like a rite of passage?
It shouldn't be, of grade. Nosotros should wait games to piece of work as intended at launch, even if it's not surprising when they don't. It's interesting that in 2021, Battlefield four is considered one of the greats of the series. The most disastrous launch in BF history didn't taint its reputation forever. Even Battlefield 5, which was at one indicate considered a series low, establish an audience that liked its WW2 setting and didn't heed the old spotting mechanic was gone.
I wasn't 1 of those people. I resisted Battlefield's plunge into the globe wars considering I missed jets, humvees, and massive tanks. Feeling alienated from a serial I similar for five years sucked, but I had an clue DICE would find its way dorsum to a modern-day game someday. And hey, it did and I'thousand enjoying it, warts and all.
Source: https://www.pcgamer.com/battlefield-has-always-been-controversial/
0 Response to "Why Does Everyone Hate Battlefield 5"
Post a Comment