Any Battefield vets here wish the series would go back to it's roots?

Recently I started playing BF2 and I still find the gameplay so much more satisfy and challenging then any newer BF game especially BF1. It's painful because I use to love this series and now it just feels like COD with vehicles. It all started to change once the Bad company came out the BF games basically got dumbed down to appeal to the COD players. Stuff that I still think doesn't belong in a BF game like example regenerating health whats the point now of the medic player now sure he can still heal you but it's not as significant as it was before now you can just lay behind a rock and wait to heal. I'm pretty much done with the series. I gave BF1 a chance it's has beautiful graphics and great destruction but that's it. There's no teamwork or learning curve anymore its just feels so damn shallow any BF vets here feel the same way? and when I mean vets I mean players that started playing this series before the bad company games when this series was a PC exclusive.

I feel that BF is better than ever with BF1 (BC2 and BF1942 are my other favourites). BF2 for me is a pain to play with the super unresponsive infantry gameplay (heavy spread, terrible netcode and other weird mechanics). Vehicle combat is good, but there're more BF games with good vehicle combat but also with at leaat decent infantry combat.

I agree that the modern BF games feel more cramped in terms of map design. Older BF games have much bigger maps where you need to use vehicles, but I don't mind the cramped maps since I don't have to walk for ages anymore or redeploy. I rather play Planetside 2 if I want bigger maps with more vehicles.

O and the health regen is a non-issue in my opinion. It's so slow that it has no impact in combat. You still need a medic, preferably with the smaller single use packs, to stay effective in combat.

I loved the hell out of the Bad Company series and I put a massive crap ton of time into 4, which I love and think is the second best game in the series. Battlefield One was garbage to me and Hardline felt like a cheap user made mod.

Call of Duty but vehicles is a bit strong. There are tons of differences in the way those games play and to me feel really different. I here what your saying though and I agree to an extant, I like BF1 but find it a bit thin right now. I like BF 3 and 4 a good deal too but it doesn't reach the highs that BF2 did for me. If they came out with a more modernized (game play an UI wise not aesthetics) version I would definitely play that over any of them but the newer ones in my opinion are worthy modern examples of BF2. Not the same but good enough for me.

Sounds like you want to play somthing like Squad or Rising thunder.

Agreed on all counts. I also loved 1942. Battlefield 1 has its flaws, but overall is a pretty good game that I'm playing the shit out of. I really don't get the "CoD with vehicles" claim. If anything, the two series have diverged more than ever of late as CoD has basically become wanna-be Titanfall while Battlefield 1 is fairly plodding (in a good way). Medic class is still dope, BTW. The non-medic health regen is so slow that it's barely even worth doing. You're as likely to have someone run up on you and kill you as you are to gain your health back.

SQUAD

I should of went into more detail of why it feels like COD with vehicles. The newer games feels like COD because of these changes to the BF series ever since Bad Company came out these where never in the old BF games and I don't want them in any BF game because it feels like I'm playing COD.

• Unlimited sprint, makes the series feel more arcadey like COD I prefer stamina bars like BF2 pacing is better IMO doesn't feel like a twitch fest .
• Grenade indicators, don't need them, don't want them stop holding my hand with this.
• Regenerating Health like I mention in my first post another dumb down feature that the series doesn't need it makes the medic classic practically worthless.
• Killcams, another COD feature that BF doesn't need.
• Worthless weapon upgrades just for the sake of something to unlock just give me weapon unlocks don't need a million scopes that barely make a difference from each other.

This is why BF feels like COD to me these days everything somewhat tactical from the series is gone now the only difference from the series compared to COD is vehicles and destruction and bigger maps other than that it just feels like I'm playing COD.

No, I feel the opposite. I loved the series during BC2 and BF3. What you say dumbed down the series I actually feel started to make it good. They really don't play like CoD at all. Here's a nugget of wisdom: CoD players play CoD. Trying to appeal to that demographic is a fool's errand.

BF2 was the pinnacle of the series.

Time to go back to its roots: Battlefield 1066!!!

@jec03: The health regen in BF1 is super slow without a medic though. If you get shot to near-death and don't have anyone to heal you, you're out of the fight for a while. BF1 also doesn't have killcams, so not sure what you're talking about on that one. Lack of meaningfull weapon upgrading/customization I agree on.

I really enjoyed my time with BF1. I would love for the next Battlefield to essentially be BF1 in WW2.

I play Project Reality when I get the craving for more teamwork-oriented gameplay.

I wish these games still had friendly fire, and health regen could be slower and more gradual, but Battlefield 4 is the most fun I've had with Battlefield, except maybe the first Bad Company.

@spoonman671: try playing on a hardcore mode server though that also takes away the minimap.

I would totally play a remastered BF2.

Me too as long as the gameplay isn't touch.

I think you meant War Thunder. Speaking of Rising Thunder, though. I wonder if those devs are still working on even a fighting game under Riot.

BF2 is very much the pinnacle of the franchise for me, with only BC2 being a very good alternative style approach coming close. The map design was just second to none, and the mechanics they had in play felt a lot more cohesive and less messy than they do in BF3/4/1.

That being said I think just going back and remastering 2 would be a mistake, what I really want them to do is to double down on the commander role, make it more integral to a teams success and not just by adding more fluff tools like they did in BF4. I want them to approach it like the commander in Natural Selection, bring back alternative objectives from BF2 that aren't just "capture area" but also have other means to reduce ticket depletion rate through successful area defense or sabotage. What would be even cooler from NS is the light RTS intergration where taking objectives would generate a commander currency that dictates when vehicles spawn, rather than just an arbitrary timer a commander purchases them and assigns them to a squad. That would add another layer to the Battlefield formula that I feel would freshen up the map design.

Sadly the chances of these things being added to what the Battlefield franchise now is very slim. They're no longer looking to add depth to their systems but just more ways to create maps that are designed around chokepoint capture locations that behave like Skinner boxes.

I liked Battlefield 1 for a time but much like 3 and 4 after about 100~ hours it was basically a glorified deathmatch game.

I put a ton of time into BF2 and I think it was/is the best in the series. Bad Company 1 & 2 were great in their own right, but they were a very different type of game. I think the newer games miss the mark whether compared to BF2 or Bad Company. They're still decent games, just not great.

I suspect he actually meant Rising Storm which is the expansion to Red Orchestra 2.

I couldn't agree more what made the battlefield series special now is gone and sadly it will never come back it's a twitch shooter now with not much tactics. I'm sure this series will continue to make alot of money in the future but I think it will start to get stale for people and it will be like the COD series in the sense everybody will start to hate it. To me the series sold out when the main series went multiplatform and the gameplay changed for the worst. I agree BF2 is the pinnacle of the series it has the best maps great teamwork all weapons feel like they have meaning combat in the air and on foot are both satisfy still even to this day the game was really ahead of it's time.

Nah. IMO BF3 was the best one and 4 was solid once it got fixed. BF1 is ok but the WWI setting and lack of technology and weapons/vehicles really sucks. Im still hoping they'd do some near future stuff but that will never happen now with the success of BF1.

The battlefield mainline series is just another causality to the black hole of shit that is EA. I don't ever expect another good BF game. The best we can hope for is another dev team to pick up the torch dropped by BF2 and create another game like it.

Not really a fan of getting back to world war 2. It just feels like a scenario which has had a lot of games made about it.

I do like Battlefield 1 though i do think they kinda dropped the ball when it comes to giving players more unlocks and being able to customize weapons a bit more than what one is currently able to. I understand that this is ww1 and weapons probably werent as customizable as they are these days but most of the current weapons in Battlefield 1 are experimental weapons anyway.

I still play Project Reality every now and then but BF2 is the best in the series, so yes.

He probably meant Red Storm Rising.

I've played every game in the series from 1942 on except 2142. I've enjoyed every game. But I feel like it's better now then it ever had been.

I never got on with the Rush gametype. Conquest always had been Battlefield to me. But Operations is now my preferred way to play Battlefield.

@hayt: Yes it was rising storm I was thinking of.

BF1 is really good with custom rules now. Most of the stuff you don't like is probably easily solved. There are a couple of "realism" servers that are fun to play on.

There's also Squad, ArmA, Red Orchestra/Rising Storm if you want something along those lines.

I love BF1, but it ain't the same yeah. I just have moved on to other franchises to fill that. BF1 is still fun with buddies in a squad.

Remember when guns had recoil hah the good old days. like killing somone with a light machine gun in BF2 while standing up was pretty hard also most fights just turned out to be pronefests.

Also BF2 is the best battlefield ! Those who say other wise are either to young or didn't own a pc at that time.

Battlefield 2 was best. Good recoil where it wasn't cod style. Helicopters/jet combat leveled out great. Commander was utilized really well. Squad play was on point. Map design always superb. Community was strong mannered. Achievements were something to keep up with and brag about. Classes were balanced.

@jec03:I am really glad you are not in charge of battlefield game design because I prefer all of those features existing to being gutted.

I started at BF3 so I guess different perspectives. But I also think you are being hyperbolic by calling it COD with vehicles (and what you call dumbing down I consider to be adding playability - limiting sprint as a feature? Seriously?) . I only ever played MW2 extensively, but that game feels extremely different to battlefield 3/4/1.

A ton of people looking at BF2 with rose tinted goggles here. It was a great game for its time - 2005 - but it was horribly balanced and the weapons feel downright cartoonish to fire by modern standards.

The quality of life adjustments in the more modern games have definitely picked the pace up, maybe a bit too much in some cases I'll agree. But the guns feel (and act) more genuine, things like better destructibility have improved tactical depth, and the way vehicles are integrated with the game just works better.

I'm having a hell of a good time with BF1 and I sincerely hope the best of what DICE has put forth so far can get rolled into a new WW2 game.

@giantstalker: I agree with you that BF2s strong suit was never infantry weapons but the the rock/paper/scissors balance of the vehicles was far better in BF2. The vehicle control especially for Jets and Helicopters allowed for much higher skill ceilings, rewarding experience and practice. The control systems in the more modern games have lowered that ceiling significantly compared to 2. As a Helicopter pilot from DC to 2, BF3 and 4 fucking killed them for me so much. This also feeds into the requirement for vehicles to actually restock and repair in 2 which would force players to either have an engineer or return to a restock and repair location. That would take non-destroyed vehicles have to go out of commission temporarily which gave infantry units time to take advantageous positions. In BF3 onward none of this stuff needs to be taken into consideration.

There's also very minimal teamwork involved in the modern games. in BF2's heyday people adhered to the Commander/Squad Leader/Squad Member hierarchy to a fault there was such an amazing level of team coordination going on that none of the new games have come even close to having. Squads got designated objective roles as saboteurs to destroy enemy communications, others were flank squads that didn't engage in much combat but instead chose to take flanks capture points behind enemy lines to sandwich the opponent and break off other attacking squads. People try to do this in BF1 but the presence of uncappable main base spawns that are right next to the initial capture points makes that effort only serve as a very short term ticket gain booster rather than an actual strategic positional capture point.

3D spotting has also removed such a large portion of situational awareness and communication between players and the maps are far less varied in terms of sight lines, making a significant portion of them contain a whole bunch of random pot shotting at red dots (thankfully BF1 drastically reduced this but it's still very much a thing). The map design is also way more compact in the more modern games and like@jec03noted infinite sprint is a detriment in this regard. BF2 had a problem with headless chickens, it's only gotten worse as newer BF games have come out. The compact nature of the objective points also leads into the thing I dislike most about the more modern games is that almost every single map feels like I'm playing the start of Strike at Karkand, there's just so little downtime, such little variation to playstyle.

The design heavily favours people who prefer close range infantry combat, it's so watered down to avoid people whinging about having to move large distances from capture points because they chose to spawn at an incredibly far away location where the map clearly indicates that there's no vehicles.

So no, I don't think people are looking at BF2 with rose tinted glasses, I think most people genuinely believe its a better, more varied game than the modern ones. It also set standards for what a lot of modern shooters have become. The new BFs haven't done anything of the sort they've tried nothing new or compelling and refuse to take any sort of design risk at all.

I loved BF since the beginning. To say "go back to their roots" means seriously nothing now. It's many, many years later. I haven't loved recent BF games so I wish they would do some things differently, but new things and evolution in different aspects.

Those old games weren't perfect themselves. Some of the fatigue is a factor of just having played so much BF by now. There are also many games that have grown out around that genre.

I have issues with BF 1 but it's an improvement in some areas. The answer is certainly not "put out BF 2 with new graphics". Personally I am also a bigger fan of multiple games in the franchise, including 42, BC 2, and Vietnam over that game.

BF 2 hardly sold 2 million copies. The games now sell like 12 million copies plus. It's not going back and regardless you can't put out "BF 2 - 2" today. You need to make some changes.

I wish I made a poll so pretty much most of you guys prefer the newer style of gameplay?

@artisanbreads: Most people was referring to what @giantstalker said "A ton of people looking at BF2 with rose tinted goggles here." So I was referring to people in this thread.

Well said BF2 is 12 years old and the gameplay is a million more times satify then newer BF titles.

Well then you really don't know what the series use to play like so why even criticize my post? this thread is directed to old school BF players.

@jec03: 'Any Battefield vets here wish the series would go back to it's roots" Sorry I didn't know there was a strict cutoff at BF2?

And for the record: When I say started, I mean my first game I laid hands on. I have played BF2, Bad company 1 and 2, in addition to 3, 4, and 1. Thing is, I played BF2 after 3.

So why did I criticize your post? Because I disagree with your opinion. I found the old games far less satisfying than the new ones (especially BF3 and BF1). I don't follow with the teamwork issues. I always play in a squad with at least 2 other friends on mic. Coordinating with them is the only way I play battlefield. Yeah, I see the point about not much teamwide teamwork, but I am happy with the fact that battlefield doesn't require that. And I prefer how our squad is autonomous, but we still push with the team when it works best. This is not an issue of which game is objectively better, because that is an impossible argument to make. It is all about what you or I find more satisfying. I guess I don't know what you call a battlefield "vet," but as someone that has played many games extensively, I am *mostly* fine with the direction they are taking.

If your big issue is lack of teamwork, there are other games that emphasize that to the max. Are you not all over Arma 3? Is there something BF2 did that other games haven't done yet? (Like arma?). Does overwatch meet your requirement for careful planning and teamwork?

Battlefield: Pax Romana

Stab, shield, Visigoth, stab, shield, phalanx, stab, shield, stab, Germanic tribe, stab, shield, chariot.

lack of teamwork is only one issue all the other issues I have with the newer games I posted before in bulletpoints. As far as Arma 3 I'm not into military simulation see what made BF2 and prior games to the series special was the balance. It wasn't to arcadey and wasn't a military sim it was somewhere in between to me that's when BF games are at there best. Now a days there just arcadey and feel like COD to me which is what the series was never about. Sure the newer games have beautiful graphics and destruction but I need more in a BF game. That's why I would love for Battlefield to go back to it's roots but yeah I know it will never happen.