Battlefield V has launched a day early for EA Access Premier members

Avatar image for big_denim
#1 Edited by Big_Denim (778 posts) -

It launched a day early and is now available for Access Premier members on Origin. Looks like I know what I'm doing after work tonight now. See you duders on the battlefield!

PS Not sure if this will work for PS4/XBox folks or if it's restricted to PC players through Origin.

Avatar image for jacksmedulla
#2 Posted by jacksmedulla (340 posts) -

I'm very interested to see how Battlefield V does. Between the clusterfuck of an announcement, the shitstorm from the fan base regarding some merited and not so merited complaints, the delayed release of the battle royale, the delay of the game itself, how little buzz I have seen on the internet so close to launch, and my own personal experience with the beta, my gut is telling me that it isn't going to do well. Combined with the fact that DICE and EA are no longer doing a premium pass and how dull the cosmetic customization will be, I am also curious to see if this game gets abandoned in the same way Battlefront 2 did after its release.

From everything I have heard since the beta, DICE has worked their asses off to improve and iterate on everything they reasonably could in such a short amount of time, so hopefully it turns out alright. I've been wanting a good WWII shooter to play again.

Avatar image for big_denim
#3 Edited by Big_Denim (778 posts) -

@jacksmedulla: Yes, everything is going against the game it would seem. Which is unfortunate, because I actually enjoyed the beta a lot and the maps they've shown off look really good. Either way, I'll check back in tonight and let y'all know what my first impressions are of the final/launch product!

Avatar image for jacksmedulla
#4 Posted by jacksmedulla (340 posts) -

@big_denim: Thanks, duder! I'll be interested in hearing what you think!

I wish I could say I enjoyed the beta, but I just the flow of the matches to be incredibly tedious. I genuinely think that Rainbow 6 Siege has changed what I am looking for out of multiplayer shooters. The Battlefield V beta just felt too chaotic and the flow was all over the place for me.

Also, regarding buzz, I looked at the BFV forums on here, and the last post was from a month ago! That is crazy, considering it is so close to launch.

Avatar image for atwa
#5 Posted by Atwa (1675 posts) -

This is actually one of the things I hate the most of all modern ways of selling games, early access to full games when you buy deluxe editions or pay more in some way.

IT STINKS.

Avatar image for big_denim
#6 Posted by Big_Denim (778 posts) -

@atwa: Yes, it is certainly not a business model I'm crazy about, but if there's one redeeming thing I can say about it, it's that I hope this means a slow rollout to users means a more stable launch day for the general public. I'm sure I'm wrong and the servers will totally tank when the general public gets their hands on it, but hopefully...HOPEFULLY they will be able to detect any potential server limitations/issues now before the wider audience jumps in.

Other than that though, yes the early launch stuff isn't something I'm too fond of. But hey, I'm not complaining too much since I'm one of the early adopters this time around xD

Avatar image for sammo21
#7 Posted by sammo21 (5936 posts) -

I noticed this morning that my Ps4 digital copy showed up with a time of next Tuesday as an unlock so apparently the deluxe edition unlocks a week earlier than normal.

Avatar image for big_denim
#8 Edited by Big_Denim (778 posts) -

@jacksmedulla: From what I played last night (got 3 or 4 rounds in), the game itself I find to be very fun, but it feels much different than prior Battlefields (this is not surprising because the beta felt similar).

I will elaborate my thoughts more this weekend after I've spent more time with the game. I'm also at work so can't waste too much time on the forums :P

  • The game is very fast paced compared to prior Battlefields. Everything feels snappy. The running. The aiming. Everything feels like it got injected with two shots of speed and turned up to 11. I like it. I fear some Battlefield vets may hate it though, but only time will tell.
  • The fast gameplay and movement leads to a lot of the map points flipping back and forth between teams much faster than it has in prior Battlefields. This may have been what you were referring to in that the 'flow of the match' can sometimes feel 'chaotic.' It did bug me sometimes, but as I played a bit more, I realized just how important the building/fortification system might be. Which leads me to point three...
  • Seems like players are still new to the game and thus aren't leveraging the fortification systems usefullness quite yet. Once a point is fully fortified it becomes MUCH easier to defend. A single point can go from an open deathpit, to a single hallway choke point that can be held by a single squad. In general, I like the new system though. It makes the support class much more viable. They can build a fortification in 2 actions instead of 5 for all other classes.
  • All around, the need for a diverse set of classes in each squad is much more impactful this time around and I dig that a lot.
  • I am a huge fan of the medic class in every Battlefield so here are some deeper thoughts on the medic class.
    • The change to medics to only carry SMGs was a smart change. I was guilty of being that sniper-medic in BF1, so always was at odds with how I should be playing. Part of that was due to the long, open map-design in BF1. Should I be hanging back and sniping with my semi auto rifle lest I run the risk of being sniped? Or do I run around the front lines like a maniac with my needle equipped just reviving people left and right. It caused me to play an either/or scenario instead of being fully effective. Now, I have an SMG and it is constantly equipped because revive is now an action as opposed to an equipped revive item. This lets me run around being somewhat effective in combat AND still revive people as needed.
    • You start with a smoke grenade rifle launched too. Very useful for smoking your downed teammates to get the revive at a lower risk.
    • Overall, the rehaul to what is and isn't allowed within the class allows for a much clearer vision on exactly what a medics role should be during the flow of the match. Yes, a lot of these things were possible in prior installments, but it wasn't made as clear to the less hardcore fans. Not to mention the build that is 'forced' onto medics in BFV wasn't as viable in prior games due to their maps. Which leads me to my last point...
  • I fucking LOVE the maps in this game.
    • They're absolutely breathtaking to look at.
    • The destruction systems are top fucking notch.
    • They are still big, but it seems like there are clearer pathways for infantry and a lot more buildings, trenches, tall grass, etc. to use as cover. Because of this, as stated earlier, the SMG classes seems to be a lot more viable now. This isn't to say snipers/recon is totally useless now. But it forces them to hold down certain points on a map while other points need to be defended by other classes. This feels different than BF1 where it felt like the recon class could take over nearly all parts of the map from one or two key sniping spots.
    • The tighter pathways and extra cover also makes it a bit easier to take down tanks and vehicles with launchers, grenades, etc. Seems to help stop the round from being a total vehicle-sniper circlejerk fest that became ever so popular in BF1.

Sorry if those thoughts seem all over the place. I will possibly write a more well-thought out review for the game in a week or two, but for now, those are my initial, stream-of-conscious thoughts :)

EDIT: Couple of other things I thought of after typing this

  • The changes to spotting are so much better. It reduces people from spamming the Q button, and is no longer just a 'look for the next red floating marker.' Instead, you now mark areas where enemies were sited. It keeps you on your toes and forces you to look for an actual enemy as opposed to a blatantly obvious HUD element.
  • Every game I've played in so far has been close...like really close. My buddy kept saying "this is awesome, it's crazy how close these games always are." Me? I'm skeptical. There were multiple times where it felt like we were totally dominating the team. We'd have 5 of the 6 points captured for what felt like an eternity and would have a decent lead on tickets (+100 or so), yet the other team always seemed to crawl back into the match and finish only 10-30 tickets behind us by the end. Maybe there are systems in play that I'm not totally aware of, but it felt like some BS rubber banding was happening. Again. I'm new to the game though, and there's probably something I'm missing...or my teams just sucked and the opposing team really did do a great job of crawling their way back into the rounds. Call me a curmudgeon-y old man...but I'm still skeptical (*grumbles under breath and shakes fist at EA driving games with rubber banding*)
Avatar image for darkjohnny477
#9 Posted by darkjohnny47 (274 posts) -

I feel the opposite about this game. Been playing the trial through EA Access on xbox one s.

The "tutorial" thing that they make you go through is TERRIBLE and gives a really bad first impression. There is no hud through any of the scenes they jump you to, its very hard to tell who to shoot (realism, i get it), almost every enemy i did shoot physics-ed really weird and made me laugh out loud with how bad it looked when the game is trying to be all serious and stuff. 10 secs after getting control of the character for the first time, a dead ally on the ground disappeared and reappeared behind me 20 feet. The "dogfighting" is especially bad because without a hud i had no idea who to shoot or what i was supposed to be doing.

I will try the other single player modes soon, but man that was TERRIBLE!

I played 1 match of conquest so far and i feel like BF1 had a better overall look and feel. The character models look rough and oddly out of place with the rest of the environment graphics. The multiplayer gameplay felt fine, but super outdated. After playing Black Ops 4, (and i know they are 2 different beasts) i prefer COD, which is weird, because it was always BF for me.

I will play some more with my 10 hr trial (i have 9 hrs left), but boy am i glad i didnt pay $60 for this.

Avatar image for jacksmedulla
#10 Edited by jacksmedulla (340 posts) -

@big_denim: Thanks for your thoughts, denim! I actually paid 5 bucks for origin access to use the 10 hour trial. I think that was enough for me to get my fill haha.

I'm going to try to share my thoughts on each of your points.

I very much agree that it's a much faster paced game, and that is definitely part of my problem with it. I appreciate how snappy the gunplay is, but the actual movement of everything is just way too fast. It's like every person who fought in WWII was an ancestor of Usain Bolt. It just leads to me constantly trading deaths with people, and it doesn't allow for any downtime. I think the pacing of matches suffers as a result. And the biggest problem with the gameplay for me, is how poorly balanced the other classes guns are when compared to the assault class' selection. I think TTK and TTD are just a little bit too low, too. See, I don't feel like I gained anything from the fortifications. As a support player usually, I was hoping it would be a fun thing to do when hunkering down, but I just never saw too much benefit from them. With the TTK being so low, having a bunch of sandbags up doesn't matter much if a burst from an assault rifle is still going to knock you out. I love some of the maps, and I fucking loathe others. Namely, the two from the beta, Rotterdam and Novick(I think), are a complete slog to play. They're just giant clusterfucks with little to no flow to the infantry combat. Twisted Steel and the Netherlands maps are fantastic, though!I agree that the spotting changes were smart, but by that same token, I am finding it very difficult to make out players, both enemy and on my team. I wish character models were just a bit more distinct.I feel ya on how artificial the match closeness can feel sometimes. Especially in conquest, when my team has all but one of the flags captured for a majority of the match, I find it strange that the two teams end up so close. Aesthetically, the graphics are obviously impressive from a technical stand point, but I can't stand all of the sights that are in the game. There is just something about the art direction, even after Dice's reversal from the initial trailer, that makes it hard for me to believe that I am playing a World War 2 game. On my i5-2500k and 970, the game runs pretty atrociously even on medium settings at 1080p. This is the first game to actual challenge my rig that much, but I don't think it is that much of an upgrade from BF1, apart from the destruction. I think the progression is as convoluted as ever, and I don't really have any drive to unlock anything. The cosmetics seem like they are going to be fucking expensive, too.Overall, I think BFV is currently a game of dissonance. The frenetic pace of the gameplay clashes with the core concepts of battlefield, or at least what the battlefield name used to mean. Team play, attrition, advancing forward, tug of war. I just don't get that out of BFV. Instead, it seems like Call of Duty gunplay on way too big of maps with a higher player count. Visually, it feels like a half-measure between a Steampunk game and a WWII game, similar to how BF1 was a half-measure between a steampunk game and a WWI/WWII game. I don't think Battlefield is for me, anymore. I haven't put a lot of time into one since BF3, and every new release I keep hoping it will be the one to pull me back in. For the 5 bucks I paid for a month of EA access, I think the 10 hours I got was fun enough, but it gave me my fill.

I also got all of this down pretty fast, so I apologize if it comes off as incoherent. I'm glad you're having a good time with it, Denim!

Avatar image for big_denim
#11 Edited by Big_Denim (778 posts) -

@jacksmedulla: Yup...I'm not surprised by your thoughts on the game at all. Like I said, it's very different from other Battlefield games and I can see this souring a lot of the Battlefield vets who didn't like BF1 and will probably just go back to BF4 yet again.

I'm curious though, you don't like the customization stuff because of the aesthetics? Or the progression system? Or both? If it's the aesthetics of it, I suppose I understand your qualms with that, but I've learned to accept it considering prior Battlefield games have had some pretty ridiculous skins despite the series supposed 'authenticity.' From a progression standpoint though, I actually thought it is much more streamlined and intuitive now (which I like). I couldn't stand how BF1 did progressions through war bucks, and I can barely remember how BF4 handled it (I think I remember liking BF4's progression system...I think?)

--------

Any who, for those that haven't liked Battlefield games in the past though, I recommend you at least give the game a shot through rentals or a month of EA Access. It's quite different from prior entries in the series so you may end up enjoying it more. There's a much bigger focus on infantry warfare and squad play and less of a focus on vehicles and massive map battles (they're still there, but they seem to have far less impact on how a round plays out). That's a huge shift from the series original core concepts...

Overall, I like the game a lot, but I was always someone who just enjoyed Battlefield casually. This is the first time I can see myself getting into the series a bit more.

Avatar image for jacksmedulla
#12 Edited by jacksmedulla (340 posts) -

@big_denim:

Regarding the aesthetics and progression, I don’t really like either of them. I agree that the progression is much more streamlined than in the previous entries, but I still think they have a long ways to go before they have a decent user experience. To the aesthetics, I just wish they picked a direction. I was actually super excited when the first BF1 trailer was released, and everyone was under the impression that it was going to be a steampunk game. That sounds fucking rad. But I just find the pseudo historical approach to everything to be dull, I guess. I’d much prefer a fantastical setting or a saving private Ryan, classic ww2 shooter look.

As I said, I’m going to be curious to see how this game plays out when it’s fully released.

Avatar image for hayt
#13 Edited by Hayt (1627 posts) -

@big_denim: Re: your thoughts on rubberbanding. You are not crazy there is in fact a system in place to prevent total stomps that helps the losing team cap faster. I'm unsure on it but DICE says they are still tuning it. I liked it before I knew it existed so I guess its a good feature?

Conquest Catch-Up Mechanics

  • We’re listening! We’ve noticed that the comeback mechanics for losing teams have been too aggressive and put the winning team at an unfair advantage in close matches reaching the end of the round. Thus, we are balancing the mechanics and improving them to have no effect in these matches that are ending in close rounds, but only affecting the matches in which one team is being fully run over – as these are the ones we intended to make more interesting for both teams with the system. We are going to keep an eye on this and will adjust it further based on community feedback.
  • Status: Fix coming in an upcoming update.
Avatar image for big_denim
#14 Posted by Big_Denim (778 posts) -

@hayt: Thanks, I wasn't aware of that. I am not sure if I really like that feature at all honestly. If they can make it a bit less aggressive so it's not so blatant than I suppose that's okay though.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.