These articles get published the same way anyone with a PC, OBS, and internet connection can call themselves a streamer. The barrier to entry is non-existent.
Opinions are like butts, every1 has one, but coming from older battlefields, bf3 and bf4 weapons sounded and felt so similar, so much so, you couldn't tell them apart. Most of them sounded like tiny firecrackers. Bf4 classes also weren't easy anymore to tell apart, unless you took your time to figure them out. Bfbc2 had 5 or 6 weapons per class, and they couldn't feel and sound more apart, they were incredibly balanced and all that on top of having one of the best sound in shooters. You could tell them apart while being shot at you. I used to play at least 3 weapons per each class. Go do that in modern shooters with much content slop, where every1 plays the meta. So..... you're pretty wrong on this one. Every1 is tired of "more content" slop to sell battlepasses for companies to farm you like you're a sheep. It's insane that some1 like you pushes for it, unless you want the slop to spam youtube with weapon guides, but don't worry, I'm pretty sure you'll figure something out. Either way, all this debate is pointless since they removed server browser to farm gamers with eomm and bots. So..... GG!, one here that's not gonna pay a cent for it. Probably won't play it even for free.
Unlikely to happen since it's a mainstream franchise by now. Not trying to be a snob here, I'm not suggesting that anything mainstream is bad, but I've generally felt like the communities around games like that are a little less lucky when it comes to the density of fun players to engage with.
So less people pre-ordering a game based off a trailer and then crying it's not what they wanted? Oh wait, that's the community who watches these videos and makes your type of comment.
What battlefield actually needs is -no operators -return the classes -more destruction -maps that are not either a clusterfuck or a open field -no fucking call ins
yes it needs the call ins. BFV squad reinforcement system has improved the squad play, because u getting something from capturing flags + ammo and medi stuff. cutting this out is a BIG downgrade.
The writer lists his pronouns on his profile and says his favorite franchise is "Super Smash Bros., and favorite game is Super Mario Odyssey. Better listen to this guy for FPS insight.
@LuisRodriguez-yv5xp Yeah, and if you remember, during the last 8 years Battlefield pushed out 2 of their all time worst titles. CoD didn't kill BF, BF killed itself...
15 total guns is absolutely laughable. As a pistol fan, I felt so disappointed with the pathetic side arm selection in 2042. It’s becoming the norm to provide less and less product for more and more money. Some AAA company needs to come and completely dominate the scene.
All guns feel same on new games because of gunsmith, not because of amounts of guns they have. You can make every gun to have no recoil, no sway, max ammo, max hipfire setups. That’s why people only use same 3 weapons in DF or in CoD or in Tarkov. BF doesn’t have that issue and most likely won’t have that issue as long as they keep the plus system. They should remove mag options in fact, every gun should have fixed amounts of ammo.
The problem is not the customization system, in theory it allows normal play with any weapon (but in reality it doesn't work). In Batelfield, starting with Bad Company, almost everyone played with AEK, even in Tarkov there is more variety of meta weapons.
@@WrongBeacon Word meta excludes variety, thats the point of smtf being meta. If u look for variery u need to make diff weapons with various advantages , with various disadvantagesand - instead of giving tools that make weapons the same.
@@WrongBeacon Problem is the customization system. If a weapon has obvious flaws(high recoil, high RPM, low TTK) you shouldn't use gunsmith to make it a no recoil, low TTK, high RPM gun. Not saying BF always had the perfect balance but you could use variety of weapons and most of them felt unique especially in BF1 or BFV. In BFV if you wanted to have low TTK weapon like Suomi or Tommy gun you had to sacrifice recoil. If you wanted to have a laser beam like Sten you had to sacrifice TTK. With gunsmith you can take Suomi and make it a no recoil gun or add rapid fire to Sten and make it OP. This is especially an issue in CoD because they added lots of visual recoil, lots of idle sway, lots of clunkiness to guns so attachments are making base guns weaker. After 5 attachments they start to feel good.
@@Merty1388 I even get the impression that the stock weapons are intentionally so bad that the player would feel the benefit of the customization system )
I do not care if some guns feel the same or are only slightly different. More guns means more options for your personal preference. I still play bf4's slightly different guns over a decade later. I get immediately bored in 2042.
Same. I don’t care if they all feel the same. I want my G36 and my Famas, etc in my games. Even if they only have a different reload animation, it’s still better than having one gun only.
What modern shooters need less is this hyperactive movement during gunfights. All this jumping, sliding, leaning, proning and so on is so fucking stupid.
@@devinguy or i want to play a modern Battlefield that is more fast paced than Arma or R6, but not a game for 12 year olds fueled by monster energy and their parents credit card to buy stupid microtransactions. You know, like Battlefield was in past, when the games actually where good and fun to play.
A huge point I feel is missing that made the old BF games great was how well the weapon balance and spread based shooting mechanics were handled looking back, its funny how we hated it so much due to its randomness, but it actually added a lot of longevity to the gunplay I can't think of a single weapon in bf3/bf4 that you couldn't be extremely effective if you played to its strengths It was a constant choice between weapon spread and fire rate, a rock paper scissors which was further explored in BF1 now, all shooters are about is making the lowest recoil laser beam possible and the meta instantly stagnates as soon as people discover it and its same 2 guns the whole life of the game
Considering how many weapons in BF4 were literal re-skins with identical stats, I'd say it's not hard to be effective when you only need to learn 15 recoil patterns across 100 weapons. I guess quantity over quality?
nah it was trash outdated mechanic, bf5 gunplay was such an enjoyable improvement that I never wished to come back to shooting air while pointing on enemy. laser beams are problem of attachment forge system, not spread-less gunplay. even then fully tuned guns in delta force need to be recoul controlled.
If they just put one gun in the game I bet it would feel insane. There wouldn't be any other guns like it in the game. They could spend so much more time and resources on making it perfect.
The heart is there, but they are a little confused. I agree Quality > Quantity but 1. DICE/EA is a HUGE company and BF6 has what 3 studios working on it?? 2. Weapon identity usually lie with in their categories (SMG, LMG, AR, Carbines). The point of having weapon variety (in a BF game) is giving player more options to go "i like how this weapons looks". On BF4 - and this is my personal opinion - the issue isn't the QUANTITY of weapons, but how almost all of them are universal, degrading class identity, imo.
Looks like this "journalists" new content strategy is working, you simply write the most out of touch stupid shit and everyone and their mother is talking about and sharing your article
Just imagine DICE taking advice from this “journalist” and releasing the next Battlefield with 1 map thats not even finished and is still in the white box phase, 1 placeholder weapon thats broken, no campaign and charging $250 USD for just the standard edition.
Ya know what this important game needs? Less weapons to choose from! There’s no way this guy actually plays battlefield. He’d fit right in with all the devs though tbh
I want the "less is more" from BF4, alot of guns but not One Million attachments and variants/blueprints bs like CODMW, where you can transform a AKs74U (smg) to a LMG and so forth... Let it be more "simple" but more.
I completely agree with that last point - he's got a point about focusing on getting things right from the start, it's just the wrong approach to cut content to end up with good balancing
When it comes to games journalism, I believe less is more too! The less “influence” they have, the more I enjoy the game. Dead take, DICE DO NOT LISTEN THIS PERSON!
you know when a random out of touch "journalist" writes like this, one must dread and shiver at the utter lunatic machinations of board room execs coming up to similar if not worse ideas than him
I don't understand why they need to "balance" the weapons, BF3 and BF4 exist, just build on top of those, no need to reinvent the wheel every single time. Keep all the good weapons and maps from those and add new. Keep what worked well, that was a lot, and add new stuff.
Battlefield 1942 around 30 primary weapons. This includes rifles, submachine guns, pistols, and machine guns, as well as a few specialized weapons such as flamethrowers and rocket launchers. The Road to Rome and Secret Weapons of World War II added more weapons, bringing the total number to over 40 different types Battlefield: Modern Combat 2 my favorite maps and game in the franchise (released for consoles) featured a total of 22 weapons, including rifles, shotguns, machine guns, pistols, sniper rifles, and explosives. The game allowed players to use a variety of weapons across different classes (Assault, Engineer, Sniper, etc.) with its more limited weapon selection could result in a more balanced gameplay experience, where fewer overpowered "meta" weapons dominate the game. With fewer options to choose from, players often have to rely more on their skill and tactics, rather than finding and exploiting the most powerful or "meta" weapons. This can lead to a more consistent and fair experience for all players, rather than constantly having to adapt to shifting metas in games with larger weapon pools. Games with fewer weapon choices can also promote more variety in gameplay, as players explore the full range of available options and focus on mastering their preferred weapons. The emphasis can shift more to teamwork, positioning, and strategy, rather than simply using the best weapons to win. think that's the point and I loved it. but bf is in a bad state anyway and not buying it regardless
Bring back the old BF days. 3&4 was the peak, do that on a new engine, minimal bugs, good matchmaking and plenty of content. The main reason people abandon games is because they get bored of it with nothing to do, stripping content is lining up for failure. Regardless how good the small amount of content is.
I think 15 is not enough but something like 30 would be just fine: 5 for each weapon class. BF4 had too many assault rifles that all felt the same. I like guns as much as the other guy but I'd rather have more distinct weapons and better customization instead of 20 identical guns. For example for assault rifles, there could be SCARH for highest damage, AKM for medium damage, M16A4 for burst only, HK146/AK12 for low damage and then throw into the mix one high ROF close quarters weapon like VHX.
I would love to see a Planetside approach with huge maps and higher player count. The tanks, jets and choppers would make more sense. I played M.A.G. back in the days and it was awesome.
Needs a really good weapon customisation / gunsmith. You could get away with less guns if there was in depth build crafting (15 is still way too low though, even if just talking about primaries). You could even tie build crafting to an in game economy, with attachments and frames of varying price points available for each gun (I’m sure this could be done without there being any pay to win). I know there are various problems with this idea, but it would be nice to see a more in depth system and maybe done a little differently than the usual boring levelling up and unlock process.
It doesnt fucking matter if weapons bleed into eachother and perform similar. Its about variety in both look/aestetics, sound and feel. And its always fun to grind a new weapon, unlock attachments and go for a gold Dogtag, T1 badge or complete assignments. At the end of the day, i might not actually choose the "meta" weapon anyway, because maybe i just like the sound and look of this other weapon. Its like in BF4, the CZ-805 wasnt really a top pick for other players by any means, i didnt see it being used that much. But to me it was a different story. It may perform the same as some other guns, but personally it certainely was a frequent pick. Or maybe i just want to "roleplay" as a Swedish soldier and gun away with a CBJ-MS even though it might suck, or the AK5C, even though it might perform almost the same as a M416. Variety is key.
no no no a handgun - a SMG - an assault rifle - a LMG - a marksman and a sniper - 6 guns at start - hear me out... After only 20 kills with any of them you unlock the next of 7 - . So really 42 guns for starters, but you work thru them to get a feel for each weapon. Then 3x6 =18 per update. 6 updates with 18 =108 - and the 42 =150 guns total... I can live with that... And while I'm at it: Give the kids a server selection where they can play in funny hats with guns that look like lollipops - SO THE REST OF US DON'T HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT SHIT...
why are we babying a multi-million dollar Triple A gaming industry juggernaut into not providing the level of content we know that they have provided in the PAST?
The only thing the game needs to succeed is as much content as it can possibly give people, and then dedicated, customizable servers to allow people to play the game the way that they want to play the game. I'm sick of these jackass developers telling me that Infantry only servers can't exist, or infantry only can't exist on x and y maps because... The beauty of battlefield of the past was we didn't have to deal with some developer telling us that we were wrong in how we wanted to play their game. They didn't care, all they cared about was providing enough content for us to make the game our own. This whole lobby system and rules and crap has severely fractured the battlefield community to the point that we started playing different games and considering the franchise to be a lost cause. Which it is at this point. I had fun in battlefield playing on servers with rulesets that fit the way that I liked to play the game. This, some dude behind a desk telling me that the way that I had fun is wrong, approach... I don't have fun with battlefield anymore. I don't like the way the developer tries to shove down my throat. I don't have fun. And I don't buy their games anymore.
I really enjoyed the weapon variety in BF4 and I have 500 hours played. I just googled, BF4 has 107 guns. Imo, the devs should release all weapons at launch, because unlocking them and the attachments gives the player a sense of progression. There will always crystalize the best weapon in the game, like an AEK for example, but still I want to be able to choose from a wide range of , that would get boring fast. BF2042 was a letdown for me, I wish they would hit a homerun for the next BF. The article you mentioned, seems to me, to be from someone who does not play or enjoy Battlefield, which is fine, but don't try to ruin the experience for us who love variety of weapons lol. More choice is always better. Good video too
I get your point, but BF2 Modern Combat is my favorite BF game, and that game only has something like 5 main weapon types, with slight variants for each of the 4 teams, so at most 20 main weapons. It is seriously one of the most rewarding and fun gunplay games to me with those mechanics. You can read your enemies because you know exactly what they have at their disposal as well. My issue with modern gaming is that if the game is so unpredictable, then you will just pick the meta weapon always, or you pick an off beat weapon for fun, and get punished. The game should be about learning to play the core game and objective, but BF has to make an actually decent game for the weapon variations to be stripped from it.
Well , i think this kind of Articles are been delivered by EA\Dice themselves to do what they want (Less content) so they can say: See we've listened to you guys and did what the community wants.
If you were to take this guys ridiculous suggestion of 15 weapons and realistically spread them across the classes it would look something like this: 2 pistols - semi auto and full auto or maybe hand cannon 2 launchers - lock on and free fire 2 snipers - semi and bolt 2 LMGs 3 SMGs 4 ARs Imagine how bored you'd be within a week with this few weapons to play around with
I just don't understand the whole point of "games journalism". If you ever have a subject you know about, like your major in university, and you look up a news article that subject, you will notice how much actual BS journalists write without anyone noticing it. The same goes for gaming journalism. Why would I listen to anything some games journalist says who has played the genre/series in total for 20 hours. Why would I do that when I can check out youtube channels or streamers who mainly play said genre/series and ask for their opinion, if in the case that I am not sure? Why would I need a journalist's opinion on a game when I have played the previous installments of the franchise for more than 2000 hours? I don't understand how these websites stay up and generate profit. What is their target audience? I've never known a person who buys games based on journalist recommendation. This is the description of the writer: Matt Anderson (He/Him) is a Features Writer from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. He's been gaming as far back as four years old on the original PlayStation and writing in the industry for several years. Over the years, he's written for outlets such as Game Rant, DualShockers, Comic Book Resources, SVG, and Twinfinite. Matt's favorite franchise has always been Super Smash Bros., though he also enjoys a wide variety of other franchises such as Super Mario Bros., Ratchet & Clank, DOOM, Sly Cooper, Kingdom Hearts and Metroid, to name a few. Matt's all-time favorite game, though, is Super Mario Odyssey. He writes an article about FPS games even though he does not even play them. What kind of retardation is this :DDD ? How is this brainlet's job not taken over by AI? Holy shit just look at the writer's other articles, they are similar levels garbage. Oh my days :DDD
The whole reason I go back to play BF3 or 4 or 1, besides nostalgia and just wanting to have good old fun, is because of the shear amount of awesome weapons that I can use and try out different attachment load outs and stuff. I was happy when 2042 finally got more weapons cause it allow for more variety in playing. Even COD has more weapons that 2042. Lazy lazy lazy devs. No one wants to do any hard work on BF nowadays. Heck most of the devs I don’t think even play FPS games.
I really enjoyed RTCW Enemy Territory, which had very few guns, and I played that for a decade or so :) I think the amount of guns isn't really that important, much much more important, to me at least, is the amount/quality of maps
Alright, let's just say this article isn't rage bait and this guy is serious. Well what does that say? It says that Dice is so bad at making games they literally need to scale back because they keep getting in over their head...and well, I guess there is a point to be made on that; but still, that would be such a stupid way to go about making their games. I would actually prefer for a game to only have 15 weapons if meant they were all well balanced, well made, and felt good to play with, as opposed to having 100 weapons that are all a clunky and unbalanced mess; but 15 weapons is what I would expect from an indie game, not a AAA project made by multiple studios with lots of money and workers lol. I've heard it said that game journalists are people that tried to be actual journalists and failed, so they went to video games to find a job. The more I see them speak, the more I believe that to be true.
Is it too "mil-sim" to say I think team-locked weapons would be cool if balanced correctly? Also, I would rather they cut down on the guns than do another BF1 where it's just 3 variants of every gun to inflate the numbers. It's just a shittier attachment system lol.
IDK why but less weapons is actually what I also enjoy, I cant stand being able to put 50 upgrades on a weapon just to make one loadout seen on a youtube video that is the only one that makes sense.
Didn't 2042 have like 10 guns at launch and they all felt like dogshit? I kind of like Delta Force's approach to weapon customization, there's a shit ton of visual options, along with even more statistical options on guns.
dice thinking that balance is a must in weapons as a life or death situation is just non sense nothing should be 100% perfect it is best to be near perfect
The next Battlefield game needs content, weapons along with a a top tier customization system for the weapons. Find a balance for vehicles. Stick to the roots of what made Battlefield 3 and 4 successful
Finally some Battlefield stuff on your channel again appreciate it and thank you for this!!! BUT just one BIG sad thing here you are playing absolutely the wrong game in the background sir :(
Yea. Yet another reason why I’ve stopped listening and reading anything game journalists say. It’s amazing how these people have jobs. More so there’s people who actually look forward to their shit pieces.
know whats funny, I have 1,000 kills with AT LEAST 109 guns in bf4 alone... Weapons Mastery is fun when your bored I guess, and Battlelog was nice to track and share that progress, unlike some *other* games of the same franchise...
Bad Company 2 each class only had like 7 weapons? Including all-kit and sidearms there was like 40 firearms in total? BC2: Vietnam had even less than that like 3-4 per class maybe 15 total and it was super fun? My favorite game in the series was easily BF5 and despite it having 80ish firearms that felt like way too much, especially when you get a dozen bolt-action and semi-auto rifles and SMGs that while feeling different are essentially the same thing, Same damage and ammo count... I think literally the only difference in the Sten and MP40 was one had like +1 degree of vertical recoil and the other had +1 degree of horizontal recoil... they felt very different but damn. (Felt different by default, but could and would easily make them identical with perks/attachments) What I disliked the most about BF5 was in fact that it had too much customization: too many uniforms, too many attachments/perks, the vehicles had way too much customization to the point that some vehicles could essentially have the same stats/gameplay as another. Where BC2 was very simplified with its perks and attachments. I would love to have something more akin to BF5's graphics, movement, gunplay, maps but with BC2's simplified systems and customization. The soldier, weapon, and vehicles skins should be like soldier uniforms BF1, each map just has default faction-based skins... snow skins on the snow map, desert skins on the desert map etc. (Though I would like to note if you select Red-Dot or Scope as your perk, I wish each firearm had a unique Scope not just copy-paste in appearance like BC2.) I wanted Portal to be like BC2: Vietnam, a series of standalone expansions where you could select an era and drop in.
@@Sombre____ it's quite simple tbh. BF3 and 4 were overrated and carried by the engine they're on. Go back and play those games. The entire mechanical system is way too clunky
Just wait, this guys was probably paid by EA because they will deliver even less content with the next BF release and this way they want to soften the blow
I would unironically read an in-depth article written by you or other professional players versus someone who hasn’t invested as many hours in the Battlefield franchise and the FPS genre in general.
Since they introduced this operator nonsense I don't feel immersed anymore. But dang dude. Let a guy speak his mind. You sure are. I agree with your points, players wanting different things is what makes game development tricky.
Im no game dev but i would imagine that balancing weapons is literally just tweaking a few numbers for each weapon that feels too strong. Oh this gun does too much damage, Turn it down by 2 damage per bullet or turn its recoil up by 2%. How fucking hard can it be??
As a game dev that's actually just it. Once a gun is developed and properly working it really is just about adjusting numbers. Now it isn't always easy to find those perfect numbers, because if a gun does 34 damage on the torso it's a 3 hit kill, if it does 33 damage it's a 4 hit kill, so it's easy to see how it can be a bit tricky; but it isn't that hard either to find a decent estimate and go from there. It's better to make a gun a bit too weak than too strong, as players would just ignore it whereas making a gun too strong makes every player spam it. Making it a bit weaker than what people would truly want from it and slowly creeping up on that sweet spot through balancing is the key. Sometimes I'll see developers make a gun that is so ridiculously overpowered in a patch that I can't help but feel if they only did it to get people talking about their dying game... The true trick though is making the gun balanced with every other weapon, but if caution is used in the beginning, if guns are added one at a time, and if the 'gold standard' is set like the first basic assault rifle, then every other gun can be balanced around it. When developers focus on balancing around just one gun then everything else will fall into place so much easier, it doesn't take away the challenge of making sure all guns work together, but it certainly helps. I think they just throw in a bunch of guns in the beginning though and have no clue how to make them work with each other... Proper planning really is half the battle. It's funny though because there have already been countless FPS games made, and all of that data is sitting right there for developers to use...there aren't really excuses at this point.
@@le_fancy_squid The problem is that most games cave directly to the lowest common denominator being the crying "skill issue" minority that doesnt want to learn or adapt and the "boomer" Esport players; that want the game morphed to their liking or how they were used to it with the problem of frustrating the majority of players that can adapt and acutally have fun. The worst thing they did in games was to add scopeglint to snipers. If you´d face the sun that´d be atleast realistic anything else is just BS and poor balancing. I love sniping in games but it gets so frustrating and boring when you´re seen across the map due to your ginormous headlight on the rifle. I mean how bad does someone have to be to let himself get picked off several times by someone with a bolt action rifle before realizing to maybe use an alternate path? E.g. I´ve never seen sniping as a problem in BF2 and never heard of "Sniping OP" in BF2, yet in BF3 there was scopeglint added. In BF2 players at some point knew the spots and got an eye for anomalities which would oust you as sniper. Sometimes you even got a appreciating handdelivered TV-Missile or Bomb to the face from the enemy.
@@venusflytrap2622 That balancing is what's completely killed pubg for me. Ive played almost 9k hours of pubg on console and lately the game is just a shell of what it used to be. I got into it because it was a br with my AA and guns had a ton of recoil compared to other games. It actually felt skillful to win a fight. Lately the game has been plagued with the cod and apex shills that want to come in and not have to learn how to play the game, in the last 2 years smgs have quickly become the most op thing I've ever seen in any game ever. The smg's in pubg have literally 0 recoil and do almost the same damage as most ars but also have a limb multiplier. So naturally everyone runs smgs as there's literally no downside to it. Its no longer rewarding to learn to use the hardest guns in the game because the easiest guns will just wipe you 10/10 times. I've essentially wasted 8 years of my life learning to control the ars and dmrs for no fucking reason. Don't even get me started on bipods in games, that's a whole rant in itself. Balancing around shitty players kills games, balancing for pros kills games. Balance for the slightly above average player and tell everyone else to adapt.
Dude couldn't even evenly divide the 4 classes. So one class only gets 3 weapons? What planet is this person living on? I go back to BF4 and there are STILL guns I haven't really experimented with. I still don't agree with abandoning 128 players. Battlebit has maps the same size as BF 2042 but DOUBLE the players. And it plays fantastically. It just needs its maps to be properly designed. I love the chaos of 64+ players. 64 feels outdated nowadays.
The things BF need is content. We care about content. And less weapons means less content, so WTF. They need to listen the comunity and not a guru from Mars.
I think BF1 and BFV has a reasonable amount of weapons for each class. It feels balanced. Also, I have not read the article, but he has got a point regarding the number of weapons. If you're a developer then you know that for each weapon you add to the game this will increase cost, time for delivery, create bugs, an even more complex balance system, less time for developing other CORE features. Less is more is OFTEN better IMO. But like I said BF1 and BFV feel balanced to me in terms of weapons.
Less weapons is a reason to quit the game when you cant find a weapon that you like, had this issue with BF5, didn’t really like any of the weapons, maybe like 2 or 3 that I found okay, but playing the same few weapons is boring af
It's widely known that shooter video games are an introduction to guns for the younger generations. This is frowned upon by many tyrannical organizations. This writer, in my opinion, is one of these anti-gunners.
You know i actually belive that a "gunsmith" system is bad .... I would have really liked the next battlefield not to have one. Seeing people playing with "zero recoil" weapons makes me cringe. Yea it could be balanced with adding more bullet deveation to these builds ( making them less effective at range ). But something about min-maxed gun build makes me hate it.
Look at all the trending development of games these days. EA and Dice are not innovators or "driven by feedback." They will remain in their offices, misinterpreting the 'data', super disconnected from their actual fanbase. Im sorry to say I think it's over for Battlefield as we know it boys... And when Delta Force fails in a similar way I will be finding another hobby probably lol.
Streams every day! www.twitch.tv/enders
These articles get published the same way anyone with a PC, OBS, and internet connection can call themselves a streamer. The barrier to entry is non-existent.
Opinions are like butts, every1 has one, but coming from older battlefields, bf3 and bf4 weapons sounded and felt so similar, so much so, you couldn't tell them apart. Most of them sounded like tiny firecrackers. Bf4 classes also weren't easy anymore to tell apart, unless you took your time to figure them out.
Bfbc2 had 5 or 6 weapons per class, and they couldn't feel and sound more apart, they were incredibly balanced and all that on top of having one of the best sound in shooters. You could tell them apart while being shot at you.
I used to play at least 3 weapons per each class. Go do that in modern shooters with much content slop, where every1 plays the meta.
So..... you're pretty wrong on this one.
Every1 is tired of "more content" slop to sell battlepasses for companies to farm you like you're a sheep. It's insane that some1 like you pushes for it, unless you want the slop to spam youtube with weapon guides, but don't worry, I'm pretty sure you'll figure something out.
Either way, all this debate is pointless since they removed server browser to farm gamers with eomm and bots. So..... GG!, one here that's not gonna pay a cent for it. Probably won't play it even for free.
The things that BF needs less of are bugs, operators, and delusional players/writers. :)
Unlikely to happen since it's a mainstream franchise by now. Not trying to be a snob here, I'm not suggesting that anything mainstream is bad, but I've generally felt like the communities around games like that are a little less lucky when it comes to the density of fun players to engage with.
So less people pre-ordering a game based off a trailer and then crying it's not what they wanted? Oh wait, that's the community who watches these videos and makes your type of comment.
Less wokeness, less DEI = good games.
I doubt the next BF will be any good.
There should be 15 guns. In each weapon type
i feel like this should become a new consumer protection law for FPS games.
Imagine the CopyDICE
Got me on the first half ngl
Absolutely and a special weapons type category with like bows crossbows launchers and unique weapons like adding the Trojan pistol
There should be more guns than BF4 had on release.
What battlefield actually needs is
-no operators
-return the classes
-more destruction
-maps that are not either a clusterfuck or a open field
-no fucking call ins
yes it needs the call ins.
BFV squad reinforcement system has improved the squad play,
because u getting something from capturing flags + ammo and medi stuff.
cutting this out is a BIG downgrade.
a server browser (and community servers) would be very important imho, but it seems that this might not happen ever again?
"more destruction" makes any map an open field with terrain created clusterfucks, flashbacks from bf5
BFV Squad Call-In's were a great system that should 100% be brought back.
And that's why fortificacións also should come back@@Turned2Ice
The sad part is that these are the kinds of people Dice wants to listen to, not the players that actually play their game.
DICE have been trying to reinvent the wheel with every release since BF4 so i doubt they really listen to anyone
I saw this article too, the author is mentally regarded.
The writer lists his pronouns on his profile and says his favorite franchise is "Super Smash Bros., and favorite game is Super Mario Odyssey. Better listen to this guy for FPS insight.
ngl smash bros is a great game, maybe he is just a casual gamer
@@jmgonzales7701 game is great, soyjack "experts" are not
Do you get triggered at pronouns or something? Also super smash bros is incredible.
Less Call of Duty, more Battlefield
Whats killing the franchise trying to be like COD
@@TheFredp62 Exactly, which means a generic headless chicken simulator made for kids.
Omg THIS!!!!!!!!!!
Call of Duty been killing battlefield for the bast 8years
@LuisRodriguez-yv5xp Yeah, and if you remember, during the last 8 years Battlefield pushed out 2 of their all time worst titles.
CoD didn't kill BF, BF killed itself...
15 total guns is absolutely laughable.
As a pistol fan, I felt so disappointed with the pathetic side arm selection in 2042.
It’s becoming the norm to provide less and less product for more and more money.
Some AAA company needs to come and completely dominate the scene.
dont ever let bro cook again 😭
Bro soiled his pants instead of cooking 😂
😂😂😂😂@@JeromeConnor6093
All guns feel same on new games because of gunsmith, not because of amounts of guns they have. You can make every gun to have no recoil, no sway, max ammo, max hipfire setups. That’s why people only use same 3 weapons in DF or in CoD or in Tarkov. BF doesn’t have that issue and most likely won’t have that issue as long as they keep the plus system. They should remove mag options in fact, every gun should have fixed amounts of ammo.
The problem is not the customization system, in theory it allows normal play with any weapon (but in reality it doesn't work).
In Batelfield, starting with Bad Company, almost everyone played with AEK, even in Tarkov there is more variety of meta weapons.
@@WrongBeaconan94 was the meta of bc
@@WrongBeacon Word meta excludes variety, thats the point of smtf being meta. If u look for variery u need to make diff weapons with various advantages , with various disadvantagesand - instead of giving tools that make weapons the same.
@@WrongBeacon Problem is the customization system. If a weapon has obvious flaws(high recoil, high RPM, low TTK) you shouldn't use gunsmith to make it a no recoil, low TTK, high RPM gun. Not saying BF always had the perfect balance but you could use variety of weapons and most of them felt unique especially in BF1 or BFV. In BFV if you wanted to have low TTK weapon like Suomi or Tommy gun you had to sacrifice recoil. If you wanted to have a laser beam like Sten you had to sacrifice TTK. With gunsmith you can take Suomi and make it a no recoil gun or add rapid fire to Sten and make it OP. This is especially an issue in CoD because they added lots of visual recoil, lots of idle sway, lots of clunkiness to guns so attachments are making base guns weaker. After 5 attachments they start to feel good.
@@Merty1388 I even get the impression that the stock weapons are intentionally so bad that the player would feel the benefit of the customization system )
I do not care if some guns feel the same or are only slightly different. More guns means more options for your personal preference. I still play bf4's slightly different guns over a decade later. I get immediately bored in 2042.
Same. I don’t care if they all feel the same. I want my G36 and my Famas, etc in my games. Even if they only have a different reload animation, it’s still better than having one gun only.
What modern shooters need less is this hyperactive movement during gunfights.
All this jumping, sliding, leaning, proning and so on is so fucking stupid.
This. I prefer taking covers and using map knowledge to gain more advantageous positions over enemy
if you wanna walk slowly around corners go play milsims or R6.
@@devinguy or i want to play a modern Battlefield that is more fast paced than Arma or R6, but not a game for 12 year olds fueled by monster energy and their parents credit card to buy stupid microtransactions.
You know, like Battlefield was in past, when the games actually where good and fun to play.
@@devinguyR6 was enjoyable until they started sprinkling it with glitter.
return to counter strike
"Games journalism" is dead and has been dead for awhile, that's how they publish these articles.
A huge point I feel is missing that made the old BF games great was how well the weapon balance and spread based shooting mechanics were handled
looking back, its funny how we hated it so much due to its randomness, but it actually added a lot of longevity to the gunplay
I can't think of a single weapon in bf3/bf4 that you couldn't be extremely effective if you played to its strengths
It was a constant choice between weapon spread and fire rate, a rock paper scissors which was further explored in BF1
now, all shooters are about is making the lowest recoil laser beam possible and the meta instantly stagnates as soon as people discover it and its same 2 guns the whole life of the game
Yep, are there really 100 guns off only 15 are usable?
Considering how many weapons in BF4 were literal re-skins with identical stats, I'd say it's not hard to be effective when you only need to learn 15 recoil patterns across 100 weapons. I guess quantity over quality?
nah it was trash outdated mechanic, bf5 gunplay was such an enjoyable improvement that I never wished to come back to shooting air while pointing on enemy. laser beams are problem of attachment forge system, not spread-less gunplay. even then fully tuned guns in delta force need to be recoul controlled.
If they just put one gun in the game I bet it would feel insane. There wouldn't be any other guns like it in the game. They could spend so much more time and resources on making it perfect.
I found that one gun modes are very intresting, like instagib in quake. More consistency, more skill expression. But thats not for bf genre for sure.
The heart is there, but they are a little confused.
I agree Quality > Quantity but 1. DICE/EA is a HUGE company and BF6 has what 3 studios working on it?? 2. Weapon identity usually lie with in their categories (SMG, LMG, AR, Carbines). The point of having weapon variety (in a BF game) is giving player more options to go "i like how this weapons looks".
On BF4 - and this is my personal opinion - the issue isn't the QUANTITY of weapons, but how almost all of them are universal, degrading class identity, imo.
Looks like this "journalists" new content strategy is working, you simply write the most out of touch stupid shit and everyone and their mother is talking about and sharing your article
clicks and views are the only things that matter, any form of integrity is only holding them back
Just imagine DICE taking advice from this “journalist” and releasing the next Battlefield with 1 map thats not even finished and is still in the white box phase, 1 placeholder weapon thats broken, no campaign and charging $250 USD for just the standard edition.
15 weapons? fine, give me 25 maps at LAUNCH and an addition 25 over the life cycle of the game.
From space to dinosours and now just 15 guns? Lol articles getting crazier and crazier.
The best battlefields had far less weapons without much customization (bf2 > bf2142 > b3) and it wasn't an issue at all.
Ya know what this important game needs? Less weapons to choose from! There’s no way this guy actually plays battlefield. He’d fit right in with all the devs though tbh
Is the developer working on the guns the same developer working on the engine, bugs and all these areas?? This makes no sense.
I want the "less is more" from BF4, alot of guns but not One Million attachments and variants/blueprints bs like CODMW, where you can transform a AKs74U (smg) to a LMG and so forth...
Let it be more "simple" but more.
I completely agree with that last point - he's got a point about focusing on getting things right from the start, it's just the wrong approach to cut content to end up with good balancing
When it comes to games journalism, I believe less is more too!
The less “influence” they have, the more I enjoy the game.
Dead take, DICE DO NOT LISTEN THIS PERSON!
you know when a random out of touch "journalist" writes like this, one must dread and shiver at the utter lunatic machinations of board room execs coming up to similar if not worse ideas than him
I don't understand why they need to "balance" the weapons, BF3 and BF4 exist, just build on top of those, no need to reinvent the wheel every single time. Keep all the good weapons and maps from those and add new. Keep what worked well, that was a lot, and add new stuff.
How do some people become "journalists"?
Like, seriously!
What has gaming journalism become???
Battlefield 1942 around 30 primary weapons. This includes rifles, submachine guns, pistols, and machine guns, as well as a few specialized weapons such as flamethrowers and rocket launchers.
The Road to Rome and Secret Weapons of World War II added more weapons, bringing the total number to over 40 different types
Battlefield: Modern Combat 2 my favorite maps and game in the franchise (released for consoles) featured a total of 22 weapons, including rifles, shotguns, machine guns, pistols, sniper rifles, and explosives. The game allowed players to use a variety of weapons across different classes (Assault, Engineer, Sniper, etc.)
with its more limited weapon selection could result in a more balanced gameplay experience, where fewer overpowered "meta" weapons dominate the game. With fewer options to choose from, players often have to rely more on their skill and tactics, rather than finding and exploiting the most powerful or "meta" weapons. This can lead to a more consistent and fair experience for all players, rather than constantly having to adapt to shifting metas in games with larger weapon pools.
Games with fewer weapon choices can also promote more variety in gameplay, as players explore the full range of available options and focus on mastering their preferred weapons. The emphasis can shift more to teamwork, positioning, and strategy, rather than simply using the best weapons to win.
think that's the point and I loved it.
but bf is in a bad state anyway and not buying it regardless
Backstabb all the way!
Bridge Too Far Russian boarder
15 weapons isn't half bad if the gunsmith system is sufficiently advanced
Bring back the old BF days. 3&4 was the peak, do that on a new engine, minimal bugs, good matchmaking and plenty of content. The main reason people abandon games is because they get bored of it with nothing to do, stripping content is lining up for failure. Regardless how good the small amount of content is.
I think 15 is not enough but something like 30 would be just fine: 5 for each weapon class. BF4 had too many assault rifles that all felt the same. I like guns as much as the other guy but I'd rather have more distinct weapons and better customization instead of 20 identical guns. For example for assault rifles, there could be SCARH for highest damage, AKM for medium damage, M16A4 for burst only, HK146/AK12 for low damage and then throw into the mix one high ROF close quarters weapon like VHX.
I would love to see a Planetside approach with huge maps and higher player count. The tanks, jets and choppers would make more sense. I played M.A.G. back in the days and it was awesome.
Weird, when a BF4 had so many weapons and felt trillion times better than 2042
Needs a really good weapon customisation / gunsmith. You could get away with less guns if there was in depth build crafting (15 is still way too low though, even if just talking about primaries). You could even tie build crafting to an in game economy, with attachments and frames of varying price points available for each gun (I’m sure this could be done without there being any pay to win). I know there are various problems with this idea, but it would be nice to see a more in depth system and maybe done a little differently than the usual boring levelling up and unlock process.
I can live without a million attachments turning guns into laser beams
It doesnt fucking matter if weapons bleed into eachother and perform similar. Its about variety in both look/aestetics, sound and feel. And its always fun to grind a new weapon, unlock attachments and go for a gold Dogtag, T1 badge or complete assignments.
At the end of the day, i might not actually choose the "meta" weapon anyway, because maybe i just like the sound and look of this other weapon.
Its like in BF4, the CZ-805 wasnt really a top pick for other players by any means, i didnt see it being used that much. But to me it was a different story. It may perform the same as some other guns, but personally it certainely was a frequent pick.
Or maybe i just want to "roleplay" as a Swedish soldier and gun away with a CBJ-MS even though it might suck, or the AK5C, even though it might perform almost the same as a M416.
Variety is key.
no no no
a handgun - a SMG - an assault rifle - a LMG - a marksman and a sniper - 6 guns at start - hear me out... After only 20 kills with any of them you unlock the next of 7 - .
So really 42 guns for starters, but you work thru them to get a feel for each weapon. Then 3x6 =18 per update. 6 updates with 18 =108 - and the 42 =150 guns total... I can live with that...
And while I'm at it: Give the kids a server selection where they can play in funny hats with guns that look like lollipops - SO THE REST OF US DON'T HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT SHIT...
Hello, Im manager from EA. Would you buy a negative battlepass, which removes existing skins from the game for you?
@@Turned2Ice ROFLMAO🤣
why are we babying a multi-million dollar Triple A gaming industry juggernaut into not providing the level of content we know that they have provided in the PAST?
This is not CSGO. Or Valorant. People play BF for the fun of shooting different guns. Just like COD.
hopefully EA and Dice don't take this article seriously.
Whoever wrote that article doesn't play Battlefield, wants to see Battlefield fail or they are a shill taking talking points from someone in DICE.
The only thing the game needs to succeed is as much content as it can possibly give people, and then dedicated, customizable servers to allow people to play the game the way that they want to play the game. I'm sick of these jackass developers telling me that Infantry only servers can't exist, or infantry only can't exist on x and y maps because...
The beauty of battlefield of the past was we didn't have to deal with some developer telling us that we were wrong in how we wanted to play their game. They didn't care, all they cared about was providing enough content for us to make the game our own. This whole lobby system and rules and crap has severely fractured the battlefield community to the point that we started playing different games and considering the franchise to be a lost cause. Which it is at this point.
I had fun in battlefield playing on servers with rulesets that fit the way that I liked to play the game. This, some dude behind a desk telling me that the way that I had fun is wrong, approach... I don't have fun with battlefield anymore. I don't like the way the developer tries to shove down my throat. I don't have fun. And I don't buy their games anymore.
I just lost my connection for moments when i heard 15 weapons only.
What the games need is less hackers. Its the #1 problem with these fps .
I really enjoyed the weapon variety in BF4 and I have 500 hours played. I just googled, BF4 has 107 guns. Imo, the devs should release all weapons at launch, because unlocking them and the attachments gives the player a sense of progression. There will always crystalize the best weapon in the game, like an AEK for example, but still I want to be able to choose from a wide range of , that would get boring fast. BF2042 was a letdown for me, I wish they would hit a homerun for the next BF.
The article you mentioned, seems to me, to be from someone who does not play or enjoy Battlefield, which is fine, but don't try to ruin the experience for us who love variety of weapons lol. More choice is always better. Good video too
Ah yes. Access media who love sniffing their own farts thinks he's playing 4d chess when he's playing tic tac toe
there should be 15 guns per class in the first ever internal pre-alpha playtest
I get your point, but BF2 Modern Combat is my favorite BF game, and that game only has something like 5 main weapon types, with slight variants for each of the 4 teams, so at most 20 main weapons. It is seriously one of the most rewarding and fun gunplay games to me with those mechanics. You can read your enemies because you know exactly what they have at their disposal as well. My issue with modern gaming is that if the game is so unpredictable, then you will just pick the meta weapon always, or you pick an off beat weapon for fun, and get punished. The game should be about learning to play the core game and objective, but BF has to make an actually decent game for the weapon variations to be stripped from it.
Well , i think this kind of Articles are been delivered by EA\Dice themselves to do what they want (Less content) so they can say: See we've listened to you guys and did what the community wants.
If you were to take this guys ridiculous suggestion of 15 weapons and realistically spread them across the classes it would look something like this:
2 pistols - semi auto and full auto or maybe hand cannon
2 launchers - lock on and free fire
2 snipers - semi and bolt
2 LMGs
3 SMGs
4 ARs
Imagine how bored you'd be within a week with this few weapons to play around with
You mean like Bad Company 2 Vietnam that was extremely popular? xD
@@DigitalinDanielBad take here. That game came out 400 years ago. Like really lmao
they wouldn't be able to balance it even if there was one single weapon for everyone
I have been way to busy with work lately, but what game is he playing in the background?
2042
I just don't understand the whole point of "games journalism". If you ever have a subject you know about, like your major in university, and you look up a news article that subject, you will notice how much actual BS journalists write without anyone noticing it. The same goes for gaming journalism. Why would I listen to anything some games journalist says who has played the genre/series in total for 20 hours. Why would I do that when I can check out youtube channels or streamers who mainly play said genre/series and ask for their opinion, if in the case that I am not sure? Why would I need a journalist's opinion on a game when I have played the previous installments of the franchise for more than 2000 hours?
I don't understand how these websites stay up and generate profit. What is their target audience? I've never known a person who buys games based on journalist recommendation.
This is the description of the writer:
Matt Anderson (He/Him) is a Features Writer from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. He's been gaming as far back as four years old on the original PlayStation and writing in the industry for several years. Over the years, he's written for outlets such as Game Rant, DualShockers, Comic Book Resources, SVG, and Twinfinite.
Matt's favorite franchise has always been Super Smash Bros., though he also enjoys a wide variety of other franchises such as Super Mario Bros., Ratchet & Clank, DOOM, Sly Cooper, Kingdom Hearts and Metroid, to name a few. Matt's all-time favorite game, though, is Super Mario Odyssey.
He writes an article about FPS games even though he does not even play them. What kind of retardation is this :DDD ? How is this brainlet's job not taken over by AI?
Holy shit just look at the writer's other articles, they are similar levels garbage.
Oh my days :DDD
Match the weapons on BF3. linear progression. Play to unlock weapons. Plus server browser is a must. No latex suits and silly glowing guns.
Weapons should be divided by factions like in the old BF1942 and BF2
The whole reason I go back to play BF3 or 4 or 1, besides nostalgia and just wanting to have good old fun, is because of the shear amount of awesome weapons that I can use and try out different attachment load outs and stuff. I was happy when 2042 finally got more weapons cause it allow for more variety in playing. Even COD has more weapons that 2042. Lazy lazy lazy devs. No one wants to do any hard work on BF nowadays. Heck most of the devs I don’t think even play FPS games.
I really enjoyed RTCW Enemy Territory, which had very few guns, and I played that for a decade or so :)
I think the amount of guns isn't really that important, much much more important, to me at least, is the amount/quality of maps
The only way to make people not pick the best guns is to make all the guns the same. And that's impossible and unfun
It'd be nice for them to drop the gun cap back down to 500.
We need 15 weapons PER CLASSES
Damn Enders had like 10K less subs last time I saw and that wasn’t long ago. Killing it.
Clicks man clicks, that's all that matters. That's how things like this get published.
15 weapons? ok, 5 smgs, 5 lmgs, 5 ARs. Sorry, there is no avalible place for shotguns and SRs
Alright, let's just say this article isn't rage bait and this guy is serious. Well what does that say? It says that Dice is so bad at making games they literally need to scale back because they keep getting in over their head...and well, I guess there is a point to be made on that; but still, that would be such a stupid way to go about making their games.
I would actually prefer for a game to only have 15 weapons if meant they were all well balanced, well made, and felt good to play with, as opposed to having 100 weapons that are all a clunky and unbalanced mess; but 15 weapons is what I would expect from an indie game, not a AAA project made by multiple studios with lots of money and workers lol. I've heard it said that game journalists are people that tried to be actual journalists and failed, so they went to video games to find a job. The more I see them speak, the more I believe that to be true.
Is it too "mil-sim" to say I think team-locked weapons would be cool if balanced correctly?
Also, I would rather they cut down on the guns than do another BF1 where it's just 3 variants of every gun to inflate the numbers. It's just a shittier attachment system lol.
Battlefield 6 should have 2 classes so Dice can ballance them better.
defend and attac
My buddy and I got in a match with you last night where 80% of the team was medics on Trench Lines. The wave of smee never ended 🤣
IDK why but less weapons is actually what I also enjoy, I cant stand being able to put 50 upgrades on a weapon just to make one loadout seen on a youtube video that is the only one that makes sense.
Did you ever hear the tragedy of Darth Plaguais the Rage Baiter?
Didn't 2042 have like 10 guns at launch and they all felt like dogshit? I kind of like Delta Force's approach to weapon customization, there's a shit ton of visual options, along with even more statistical options on guns.
dice thinking that balance is a must in weapons as a life or death situation is just non sense
nothing should be 100% perfect it is best to be near perfect
The next Battlefield game needs content, weapons along with a a top tier customization system for the weapons. Find a balance for vehicles. Stick to the roots of what made Battlefield 3 and 4 successful
Finally some Battlefield stuff on your channel again appreciate it and thank you for this!!! BUT just one BIG sad thing here you are playing absolutely the wrong game in the background sir :(
Maybe 15 weapons per weapon type not 15 weapons total. We’ll just be back in 2042’s launch
Dice should just hire Enders... I think it'd be good
Shocker. Gaming journalists know nothing.
Yea. Yet another reason why I’ve stopped listening and reading anything game journalists say. It’s amazing how these people have jobs. More so there’s people who actually look forward to their shit pieces.
know whats funny, I have 1,000 kills with AT LEAST 109 guns in bf4 alone... Weapons Mastery is fun when your bored I guess, and Battlelog was nice to track and share that progress, unlike some *other* games of the same franchise...
Bad Company 2 each class only had like 7 weapons? Including all-kit and sidearms there was like 40 firearms in total? BC2: Vietnam had even less than that like 3-4 per class maybe 15 total and it was super fun?
My favorite game in the series was easily BF5 and despite it having 80ish firearms that felt like way too much, especially when you get a dozen bolt-action and semi-auto rifles and SMGs that while feeling different are essentially the same thing, Same damage and ammo count... I think literally the only difference in the Sten and MP40 was one had like +1 degree of vertical recoil and the other had +1 degree of horizontal recoil... they felt very different but damn. (Felt different by default, but could and would easily make them identical with perks/attachments)
What I disliked the most about BF5 was in fact that it had too much customization: too many uniforms, too many attachments/perks, the vehicles had way too much customization to the point that some vehicles could essentially have the same stats/gameplay as another. Where BC2 was very simplified with its perks and attachments.
I would love to have something more akin to BF5's graphics, movement, gunplay, maps but with BC2's simplified systems and customization.
The soldier, weapon, and vehicles skins should be like soldier uniforms BF1, each map just has default faction-based skins... snow skins on the snow map, desert skins on the desert map etc.
(Though I would like to note if you select Red-Dot or Scope as your perk, I wish each firearm had a unique Scope not just copy-paste in appearance like BC2.)
I wanted Portal to be like BC2: Vietnam, a series of standalone expansions where you could select an era and drop in.
BF5 is maybe the worse one behind 2042 ... How can't you love BF3 and BF4 seriously ? What's wrong with you ?
@@Sombre____ Lmao, grow up kid.
@@DigitalinDaniel Say the incel emo
@@Sombre____ it's quite simple tbh. BF3 and 4 were overrated and carried by the engine they're on.
Go back and play those games. The entire mechanical system is way too clunky
Just wait, this guys was probably paid by EA because they will deliver even less content with the next BF release and this way they want to soften the blow
Creating an Reddit is a really good idea
All they need to do is make a modern era game with the atmosphere of bf1
I would unironically read an in-depth article written by you or other professional players versus someone who hasn’t invested as many hours in the Battlefield franchise and the FPS genre in general.
Since they introduced this operator nonsense I don't feel immersed anymore. But dang dude. Let a guy speak his mind. You sure are. I agree with your points, players wanting different things is what makes game development tricky.
Im no game dev but i would imagine that balancing weapons is literally just tweaking a few numbers for each weapon that feels too strong. Oh this gun does too much damage, Turn it down by 2 damage per bullet or turn its recoil up by 2%. How fucking hard can it be??
As a game dev that's actually just it. Once a gun is developed and properly working it really is just about adjusting numbers. Now it isn't always easy to find those perfect numbers, because if a gun does 34 damage on the torso it's a 3 hit kill, if it does 33 damage it's a 4 hit kill, so it's easy to see how it can be a bit tricky; but it isn't that hard either to find a decent estimate and go from there. It's better to make a gun a bit too weak than too strong, as players would just ignore it whereas making a gun too strong makes every player spam it. Making it a bit weaker than what people would truly want from it and slowly creeping up on that sweet spot through balancing is the key. Sometimes I'll see developers make a gun that is so ridiculously overpowered in a patch that I can't help but feel if they only did it to get people talking about their dying game...
The true trick though is making the gun balanced with every other weapon, but if caution is used in the beginning, if guns are added one at a time, and if the 'gold standard' is set like the first basic assault rifle, then every other gun can be balanced around it. When developers focus on balancing around just one gun then everything else will fall into place so much easier, it doesn't take away the challenge of making sure all guns work together, but it certainly helps. I think they just throw in a bunch of guns in the beginning though and have no clue how to make them work with each other... Proper planning really is half the battle.
It's funny though because there have already been countless FPS games made, and all of that data is sitting right there for developers to use...there aren't really excuses at this point.
@@le_fancy_squid The problem is that most games cave directly to the lowest common denominator being the crying "skill issue" minority that doesnt want to learn or adapt and the "boomer" Esport players; that want the game morphed to their liking or how they were used to it with the problem of frustrating the majority of players that can adapt and acutally have fun.
The worst thing they did in games was to add scopeglint to snipers. If you´d face the sun that´d be atleast realistic anything else is just BS and poor balancing. I love sniping in games but it gets so frustrating and boring when you´re seen across the map due to your ginormous headlight on the rifle. I mean how bad does someone have to be to let himself get picked off several times by someone with a bolt action rifle before realizing to maybe use an alternate path? E.g. I´ve never seen sniping as a problem in BF2 and never heard of "Sniping OP" in BF2, yet in BF3 there was scopeglint added. In BF2 players at some point knew the spots and got an eye for anomalities which would oust you as sniper. Sometimes you even got a appreciating handdelivered TV-Missile or Bomb to the face from the enemy.
@@venusflytrap2622 That balancing is what's completely killed pubg for me. Ive played almost 9k hours of pubg on console and lately the game is just a shell of what it used to be. I got into it because it was a br with my AA and guns had a ton of recoil compared to other games. It actually felt skillful to win a fight. Lately the game has been plagued with the cod and apex shills that want to come in and not have to learn how to play the game, in the last 2 years smgs have quickly become the most op thing I've ever seen in any game ever. The smg's in pubg have literally 0 recoil and do almost the same damage as most ars but also have a limb multiplier. So naturally everyone runs smgs as there's literally no downside to it. Its no longer rewarding to learn to use the hardest guns in the game because the easiest guns will just wipe you 10/10 times. I've essentially wasted 8 years of my life learning to control the ars and dmrs for no fucking reason. Don't even get me started on bipods in games, that's a whole rant in itself. Balancing around shitty players kills games, balancing for pros kills games. Balance for the slightly above average player and tell everyone else to adapt.
Bro said "grab a snack" Enders we're always eating while watching lol. I got some Double stuffed Oreos.
Dude couldn't even evenly divide the 4 classes. So one class only gets 3 weapons? What planet is this person living on? I go back to BF4 and there are STILL guns I haven't really experimented with. I still don't agree with abandoning 128 players. Battlebit has maps the same size as BF 2042 but DOUBLE the players. And it plays fantastically. It just needs its maps to be properly designed. I love the chaos of 64+ players. 64 feels outdated nowadays.
You nailed it Enders! Someone is clueless...
The things BF need is content. We care about content. And less weapons means less content, so WTF. They need to listen the comunity and not a guru from Mars.
I think BF1 and BFV has a reasonable amount of weapons for each class. It feels balanced. Also, I have not read the article, but he has got a point regarding the number of weapons. If you're a developer then you know that for each weapon you add to the game this will increase cost, time for delivery, create bugs, an even more complex balance system, less time for developing other CORE features. Less is more is OFTEN better IMO. But like I said BF1 and BFV feel balanced to me in terms of weapons.
the SLOP must flow
Less weapons is a reason to quit the game when you cant find a weapon that you like, had this issue with BF5, didn’t really like any of the weapons, maybe like 2 or 3 that I found okay, but playing the same few weapons is boring af
It's widely known that shooter video games are an introduction to guns for the younger generations. This is frowned upon by many tyrannical organizations. This writer, in my opinion, is one of these anti-gunners.
You know i actually belive that a "gunsmith" system is bad ....
I would have really liked the next battlefield not to have one.
Seeing people playing with "zero recoil" weapons makes me cringe.
Yea it could be balanced with adding more bullet deveation to these builds ( making them less effective at range ).
But something about min-maxed gun build makes me hate it.
BF4 had way more weapons than BF2042
Look at all the trending development of games these days. EA and Dice are not innovators or "driven by feedback." They will remain in their offices, misinterpreting the 'data', super disconnected from their actual fanbase. Im sorry to say I think it's over for Battlefield as we know it boys... And when Delta Force fails in a similar way I will be finding another hobby probably lol.
I could see 15 guns being realistic though if that's what they are going for.