Rethinking Battlefield 3
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 มิ.ย. 2024
- Was Battlefield 3 - or Battlefield 4 - better than Battlefield 2? Has Battlefield reached new development heights in the past decade?
No and no - but that's not to say you didn't, couldn't, or shouldn't have enjoyed those titles. We did, though, deserve more and Battlefield fans familiar with the refractor engine titles will tell you how and why. A decade of Frostbite's Battlefield has left many of us - myself included - relatively disappointed. Battlefield 2 is (still) the series' zenith.
A long-form review of Frostbite engine Battlefield entries: Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield V, and Battlefield 2042 against the refractor engine Battlefield entries - namely Battlefield 2.
Another long-form review of a teamwork oriented first-person shooter: • Why You Struggled to E...
TIMESTAMPS
00:00 Introduction and Credentials
02:18 Forgetting Battlefield 2
03:50 Frostbite's trouble with the snap
05:40 Review parameters
06:18 Battlefield 2's magic
07:50 Fostering Teamwork - Kit Design
12:55 Fostering Teamwork - Communication Design
15:49 Upfront access to tools
19:27 Valuable roles for all
23:42 View Distances, 3D Spots, and Spawn Options
29:19 Map Spacing, incentives, and rewards
33:47 Quiet Time
36:51 BFV and BF4 Classic
39:45 French Fries and Sushi
41:34 Epilogue and the G4TV reviews
#battlefield #battlefield2 #bf2 #battlefield3 #bf3 #battlefield4 #bf4 #battlefieldv #bfv #battlefield5 #bf5 #battlefield2142 #bf2142 #battlefield2042 #bf2042, - เกม
You managed to put the feelings I've had for this franchise into words and I can't give you enough props for that. BF2 came out when I was six years old, and somehow I remember more things that I did playing that title than I did BF4 or any other entry no less than a year ago. Your french fries and sushi analogy was spot on- I played BF4 with some friends and yet it still felt like I was playing solo, but this time I just had someone to talk to. I'll have to check out those classic servers sometime, too. Birthday Truck, you're awesome, man. Keep up the amazing work! What a great start to 2022!
I'm so thrilled you felt the same way! Share the video - I'd love the to see the rest of the fandom's thoughts on this.
Battlefield 2 Has the best movement mechanics. Also random bullet spread is doing stuff its not easy to get how this system works. Hit detection etc.
Game as infantry in 4v4 mixes with veterans is truly the best thing i could get since 2021 untill now
Simple - they Flanderized/Marvelized entire franchise with CoDifications (for lack of the better word) - which gave them higher player base and sales in exchange of complexity and depth.
BF2 has pretty much everything teamwork way.
Squads, good kits, Different weapons for EACH faction which was awesome, Commander mode WITH arty, supplies and shit. BF2 WAS and STILL is the best BF game ever.
Also unique multi-layerd, multi-weakpoint damage models for each vehicle. Stamina mechanic which promoted more hard-core tactical methodical slower none-CoD-like approach to gun-fights. Much more complex higher celling for true mastery of Arial crafts. God Tier Iconic maps and many, many more things.
The angle of attack argument reminds me of when I first transitioned to BF3.
During my high school years I dedicated most of my gaming time to BF2 partially due to my rather limited PC spec, while my friends got started with gaming with newer titles like COD4/6. And I had the reputation of being the Battlefield veteran within my friend group.
Then came 2011 and BF3. One of my best friends, having got the only PC capable of running the game among us, bought it. Needless to say, I would find the first chance I could to try the game out at his place. Confident with the experience and skills I have accumulated on the battlefield, I spawned in, only to realize how often I died. Then came my friends' endless mock and forever went their high regard for my battlefield expertise.
In Battlefield 2, there was a sense of the frontline, and you would know when and to which direction you should apply more caution, just by looking at the expanded map. And I was quick to realize this was not the case in BF3, after my long streak of deaths. A fine example was when USMC and MEC reaches stagnance over the bridge in BF2's Strike At Karkand. When you or your squad was tasked with the mission to slit through the enemy siege to capture the far capture point in the enemy's control terrain, to give your team the last hope to turn the tide, the excitement was unmatched. Your actions carried bigger meanings even if you were not fighting. That's what made BF2 so special for me.
cringe me a lot when "veterans" battlefield fans discuss about what battlefield was the best... And only include 3 and 4....
Seen it in many comment sections. Then again, I see a lot of 1942ers making similar comments.
Underrated channel. My introduction into the franchise was BF4 and I never knew what I was missing out on. That might be the problem with the current games being coded by those being brought up on the games after BF2.
I think for a future video idea, you should compare games that started out as mods, and compare them to their current release(s). Counter-strike, insurgency, etc. Keep it up.
Thank you for the compliment - the "passion" here was to point out what we're missing, not that what we have is bad. *Very* happy the message was clear. BF2: project reality wasn't a mod I played, but SQUAD is a game I play. It's a likely candidate for what's next.
So glad to see you upload again! Your MWO review is so well researched and this one is even more so, considering the amount of games you cover.
Really enjoyed this one as well. Hope you stick with making videos!
Happy to see a returning fan! Give the video a share. Post it in a discord! The MechWarrior video is what keeps me interested, but I'm not sure I can keep talking about that game. The Mechwarrior online video was a bit of a grieving process - trying to articulate why I can't enjoy something anymore.
Hyped to see you uploaded another video! I've really enjoyed your mechwarrior online one, even as someone who only casually played mechwarrior games
Thank you! I'm just pleased the first comment is from a fan. This is a much hotter topic for folk.
This is a good argument without being too sentimental about the old games. I also noticed that the classic (or even hardcore) presets in BF4 make a huge difference to how the game plays (although this might be partly because these servers attract more dedicated players).
I haven't played much BFV but I did like the features you mentioned. Attrition didn't seem very popular though which probably indicates the direction BF will go (don't even know what to say about 2042).
That said, we should consider that Battlefield might not exist today if it didn't make compromises to attract a larger audience.
Battlefields' popularity was largely thanks to console introductions - but the console introductions are what cut-out so much of that magic. It's to a point, though, with modern consoles that we can have both. It's on the developers, now.
I'm also really happy this didn't come across as too sentimental. I played a lot of BF2 for this footage. It was difficult to do long sessions - the clunk was real. The coordination, though, was absolutely still there. All of this footage in BF2 highlighting random cooperation was captured within the last year!
Three essays, all three made me learn and appreciate something about games I've played of am playing. I'm only slightly disappointed no mention of 2142, which for me added a lovely layer of asymmetry, and had some truly unique game mode. Plus, ya know, mechs... Even if I spent more time blowing them up then piloting them. It also had those cool critical weaknesses on the mechs that empowered a group to work together to take down something that would otherwise eradicate a squad. Super fun.
This was such a good video :D.
I always told my friends that i didn't like modern battlefield because it tries so hard to be call of duty that it forgets being battlefield.
There is also one big issue i have with Battlefield 3 (and some Bad company 2 maps) and that is the degenerate gameplay it favored. Tanks sitting in spawn points and sniping across the maps. Senseless death runs on choke points in the hope that you get through. Sniper nests at the edge of the map. Grinding through painful early levels of a classes.
Its like they forgot how to make a fun game.
I enjoyed BF3 and 4, but not as much as BF2 mostly because of what you've described, here. Lots of the maps didn't sprawl out or create new neighborhoods to deal with the increased view distances--that's how you got your sniper nests, choke points, and vehicle camping.
Holy shit man how does this only have 2k views its so good. I've watched it like 5 times already because of how good it is. Also 1000th sub :)
I'm so thrilled you enjoyed it, and even more thrilled I have a 1000th subscriber. That means so much for me -- it means I can monetize and support this little journalistic habit even more.
@@birthdaytruck yeah I subbed because I saw your community post about it. I hope you can get much bigger one day because your content is genuinely great
I know I’m late to the party, but what a vid!! The only thing I could possibly point my finger at here, is the team kill lacking from Frostbite-Battlefields. Slows things down and gives that necessary pause you talked about at the end. Otherwise my feels exactly!! Thanks!!!
I did love BF3. I still think it had the better gameplay / gun pla.. but you are 100% right. It removes too much. The best time I had was playing with clans at work.
Even when I started playing BF2 when I was 8 years old, I knew back then that my favorite part about this game was the "quiet time". I loved it so much to prepare with my teammates. To see everything is getting in order.
And the next thing I liked was the semi-action stuff. Like being a support unit near my teammates but in relatively safe distance. Dropping stuff, preparing mines, giving suppressive fire or indirect fire to block a corridor so teammates could fall back...
And the extraction afterwards was also priceless. Feeling that you just survived a fight, didn't die and now you're being brought to the place you were fighting for and fortify on that. Waiting for the enemy to arrive for you.
And of course you had to have a Commander that ordered a SpecOps squad to destroy that damn arty because otherwise your advance would just get wiped out :D
This was a carzy good video! Well written and summaries my struggles with BC2 and BF3 aswell. Loved playing them for a blast, but played BF2 mods longer….
Mannnnn. It's sooo good hearing someone give praise to BF2 and its importance and significance. For me, they just haven't captured it's fire since. I am of the same. I remember my Bf2 moments more than I do to any of the following sequels. If I could describe it, BF3 onwards, not only modernized the visuals. But they modernized the gameplay for the worse. When I launched BF2, I did so knowing I was in for more than 20 minutes. Even if on the losing team, you were there for the long haul right to the end. BF3 and onwards seemed to cater waaaaay too much for the 'jump in for 5 or 10 mins and get a quick dopamine rush' and 'quit if the going gets tough'.
I've been gaming since 1992. My favorite/best/most pvp memories are still in BF2. My brother and I hiding in a bush with pistols wiping two squads, getting merc'd point blank by a choppers's chaingun, guiding a hellfire thru a window to get the guy who took potshots at us and hid...
It was amazing.
was? come join our BF2 online community ;)
Okay damn it took me much longer than anticipated to get back to this and finally write my comment.
I've watched your video ~2.5 times now and I think I agree with most of what you said. I really appreciate the analysis you've done and the arguments you have presented. Particularly the fact that BF2 had such a big emphasis on teamplay is something that I think about quite often. It's always been one of my most favourite things to coordinate kit choices with my teammates so that we may complement each other. And the downtime you mentioned was an integral part in preparing strategies and icnreasing the pay off when it worked out. There definitely is a much higher amount of chaos in the frostbyte Battlefield's that makes this very difficult.
That being said, I did playing BC1 and especially BC2 a lot. I loved it. I played BF3 and BF4 and consider BF4 to be one of the best shooters in recent history. I really liked the amount of customization you had for your weapons and even enjoyed that there was a global pool of weapons that every class could play. The gunplay felt nice and I loved coordinating with my teammates to e.g. play thermals and smoke grenades or to use the various class gadgets. I even liked Levolution a lot and the maps provided a lot of interesting combat. Vehicles felt great etc. Little downtime, but not as chaotic as BF1/BF5. A good sweet spot perhaps. I have definitely used and abused the 3d spotting a lot, but I agree that it probably changed the style of warfare for the worse. Nevertheless I think being able to ping a location for your squadmates is quite powerful, I think the spotting system from BF5 where you put down a marker that does not move with any enemies may be a good compromise.
I too liked that tools and weapons were locked behind upgrades. This is definitely a personal preference, but I like being able to unlock new ways to play over time and not being too overwhelmed in the beginning with options. It's a rewarding feeling!
I think one needs to be careful when judging a successor based on how much it is like the predecessor. I think it's a good move to try something new (e.g. BC1, BF3 etc.) and it's all right to give up on old things and have more creative freedom. It's tough to get the balance right for sure, but I think it's unfair to negatively judge the Frostbyte Battlefields based on how similar they are to BF2/BF2142. I'd love to have a modern BF2, but I think there is also space for frostbyte battlefields as they are quite different (like you point out).
In terms of additions to the series there was definitely things that I thought were good ideas.
I even liked BF1 a lot with the Behemoths, unbalanced as they were and I love the idea of being able to "slowly" revive your teammates in BF5 to foster cooperation (though I'd argue execution is lacking). The ammo pouches and healing pouches are a nice idea, it's great to coordinate with your squad to have ammo resupply but it sucks when you run out of ammo and stand around like an idiot with noone in your team giving you any ammo. I absolutely loved the operations gamemode to give the sense of persistence between rounds and building fortifications in BF5 as well as calling in things with squad points like artillery or vehicles is a cool idea to further increase player agenda and reward good plays with new tactical opportunities. And to grab BC2 again: Personally I think that destroying house walls never got old. I absolutely loved the destructability. It made me feel like there was so many more strategies I could play and much more depth to my choices and planning. As one example: being able to blow up a house to destroy the coms relay in rush is fantastic - love the player agenda. Speaking of rush, imo it's a really cool idea for an attack-defend gamemode and at times I even preferred it to Conquest where often I felt like I was just circling the map capturing flags with little resistance while the enemy does the same. Oh and going back to team coordination? How cool were those tanks in BF1 when you had a full squad and coordinated repairs and attacks? I remember that from blackhawks in BF2, and I suppose BMPs, but I felt like in BF1 it felt a tad more meaningful.
In summary: BF2 and BF2142 occupy a vastly different space in my mind as well. It may be nostalgia as it belonged to a different time in my life, but I do think that those games simply provided a vastly different experience that got lost in the more recent Battlefield's. Making games more accessible is not necessary a bad thing, but designing games for people with no attention span or ability/desire to coordinate is a shame. I've moved to ArmA and Squad for this, though it sucks that playing those games requires a high level of seriousness lest the matches become frustrating. BF2 never seemed like that to me.
I miss carrier assault, I miss the commander, I miss Battlefield. BF5 definitely does not scratch the Battlefield itch for me, it's really just a modern team shooter bearing the name of an old series. But then again, so many cool new features were developed in BC1+....I'm glad I had a chance to play them.
Again, thanks for making this. You make great content and I'm excited for your next video!
I think you're the only guy I remember who follows me on Twitter - thank you carbon cola. I thoroughly enjoyed reading this comment. To be clear - I *really* liked BF4, but it ought to have been so much better.
I've put like 40+ hours into SQUAD, and it's still not giving me what I wanted. SQUAD is the opposite in so many ways: where BF2 gives you tools to play and cooperate with randoms, SQUAD's actively takes them away. What's difficult in SQUAD is, through voice chat, telling someone how to dig a trench or unloading supplies is made so much more difficult in that you have tell them how to do it via a computer. It works in real life where a man can dig a hole or unload a box, but in a video game - it's actually more difficult through just voice alone.
Amazing video. Thank you for your analysis.
You absolutely nailed. BF3 was a huge disappointment. Initially, I thought it was solely because of the maps because the ones the game launched with were absolutely horrible. 6 of them were a cqc corridor clusterf*** and the remaining 3, according to DICE, "large maps" still had all objectives within 15 second of sprint time of one another. Operation Firestorm and Kharg Island had all these really bland and repetitive buildings. Just awful all around. Luckily, the DLC called Armored Kill came a year later. It was dedicated to the fans of the series and launched with 4 properly large maps that finally enabled the old school battlefield gameplay. The fact that only 4 maps out of 25 were like this says a lot about the new audience DICE was targeting with the game.
Unfortunately, after playing the DLC, I realized that BF3 completely breaks down on large maps, the larger the worse, precisely because of the 3D spotting problem you described. Because as soon as you get spotted, you get shot by 20 snipers and shelled by all the vehicles with a line of sight, even jets and the AC-130. Furthermore, player learn to spam the spot button at anything suspicious, moving vegetation, but especially commonly known positions where enemy players could be hiding. It completely destroys the stealth gameplay or any attempt of trying to blend with the environment. On the other hand, it completely destroys the enjoyment of trying to spot enemies in the environment with your own eyes. So everybody loses. It even sucks all the fun out of shooting. Like where's the fun in shooting at triangles, as opposed to real enemies. As if the hit indicator wasn't enough of a crutch.
Battlefield 2 wasn't perfect, but it was a great foundation for something that DICE could've continued to iterate upon. All its features had a lot of room for an improvement and the community spent years making suggestions to DICE that all fell an deaf ears because DICE decided to scrap it all and start anew with something that can almost be described as a mindless run'n'gun CoD clone with vehicles.
Objectively, BF2142 is still the most well-thought, designed and feature-rich game in the series. It doesn't feel clunky to me at all, partly because compared to BF2, it has toned down weapon deviation and everything feels well balanced and requires good effort and skill to use.
Agreed with everything you said about Battlefield V. It was a nice breath of fresh air that also has the most balanced weapons in my opinion. DICE is unable to figure out the relation between bullet spread and rate of fire, hence no bullet spread and recoil works much better for the overall balance.
This comment means a lot. This video is my favorite on the channel. BF2 means too much to me and the whole video was me grieving the loss of what I thought made good battlefield titles. Give the video a share, I think lots of people generally agree.
Great video I never had the privilege of playing Battlefield two but it’s almost shocking how many cool mechanics never made a comeback.
I imagine plenty of younger Battlefield fans don't know what they're missing, unfortunately. Thank you for the compliment!
Fantastic Vid! You hit the nail on the head. But funnily enough , when I got BF2 I joined some public servers and was dismayed by the lone-wolf behaviour and chaos and nearly gave up on the game. Then one day, purely by accident, I bumped into Tactical Gamer, a community for mature gamers. Their servers had scripts which kicked anyone that wasn't in a squad within 5mins of joining the server. This led to some of THE best multiplayer action I've ever experienced in my life. Like you said in the vid, the game rewarded squad play and with TG's community the resulting gameplay was epic. With TG, you would end up with players who renowned for specific things.
eg There were celebrity squad leaders: Person's , some with a military background , who made their squads so much fun to play in that people would actively try to join them whenever they were on. These were the guys whom the commanders always gave the toughest assignments. These were the guys who made your squad panic when we realised it was their squad trying to get our capture point. Some ran their squad like a military unit, breaking it into fireteams. Some were just calm and unflappable under fire with a wicked sense of humor.
We also had celebrity Commanders. Our favourites were these female twins who were very competitive so they always played against each other. They'd put the kids to bed and have proxy wars through us. They were excellent commanders, strategically and tactically. They knew their stuff but were also open to suggestions. Those matches were always hard fought and a blast no matter who won. They were the sort of matches that led straight to the forums were people would give after action reports and recount various highlights of the match. It was so much fun to recount a moment you were proud of and have someone from the opposing team respond: "Wait! That was you!? OMG. We collectively peed ourselves. that was awesome!" and then hear the whole thing from their point of view.
I personally loved being in the support roles. Medic, Support, Engineer. I also loved and specialized on the helos. I loved being a taxi with the transport helos, flying in low and working with the door gunner to light up the LZ with the mini gun while the rest deployed. Person's would actually relinquish the helo to me when I joined the server. A lot of this carried over to BF2142 as well, but unfortunately I had to leave once BF3 became the game of choice . My machine couldn't play it. I checked recently and it looks like the whole community has broken up. But you're right BF2 was definitely peak battlefield.
thx for your effort. your video encaptured, my frustration for the battlefield games after bf2 and what has becomen of the series
Give the video a like and share! I know more people out there are trying to put into words what they feel about Battlefield right now, especially after 2042.
Looking forward to watching this. I played battlefield 2 back when I didnt have internet. I used to just try to land the planes when I didnt have other people to play with...
I did get to play with people eventually, but by that point the special wrapons were no longer able to be unlocked. It was still awesome though. I've been trying to recapture the sense of teamwork that this game had for the last decade. No luck yet.
I love Arma, Squad and battlefield. I'd really love 2 more games one between Arma and Squad and one between Squad and battlefield.
Battlefield 2 is and always will be the best in the series.
Just had a round on BF2 Hub servers! Nothing has changed, it's still perfect.
and half full of hacks.
29:47 On this map, I spent an entire round in the patrol boat, in my uncap TV missileing opponents who could not hit me. Never died.
It was a nice showcase of exactly what you're talking about.
You need to makea slight correction. The supply drop wasn't actually there for supplying players, it was there for killing the enemy commander.
I stand corrected
🤣
Great, insightful commentary--as before with MWO. Btw 31:10 - 'divulged' is to make known, rather than the 'devolved' I think you intended. ;) Minor nitpick for a great video.
Ah, shoot. I've been doing that for years--thank you. It's nice to see you stuck around the video that long!
wow, I never expected to find someone putting to words so well my feelings on Battlefield. My first BF was also BF2, back in 2007. No other game has replicated the teamwork experience of Battlefield 2.
"Fights felt more digestible and solvable"
Absolutely. This is the one thing I miss from BF2. Having played nearly all BFs (the only one I didn't purchase was BF2042 because I just could not support it.) to me the closest recent game that ever came close to BF2 was BFV, surprisingly it was slower and had more quiet time than BF1 ( a WWI game) which had so many clusterf### moments, chokepoints, it was like playing on a permanent michael bay movie.
BFV was slower paced and had more focus on teamwork and you could feel a more tactical segmented move through the map, like you could actually apply some sort of tactical defending/atacking and like what you and your squad were doing mattered. This depended on the maps and on the games ofc, largely there was still a lot of fast-paced caos.
Regarding gameplay pace it's like battlefield became COD, just in bigger maps with vehicles.
I prefered BF3 to BF4 because BF4 was just way more chaotic, with less destruction ("lelvolution" was a massive marketing gimmick), and all vehicles felt discardable and made of paper.
I remember in BF2 once you would get support from a vehicle, an armored vehicle or a plane would fly overhead, you would feel relieved "uff finally we got some support!", or if it was the other way around, your team would feel genuine fear. In modern BFs games vehicles are so plenty and easy to take out they are almost on par with infantry.
Hello, I'm still obsessed with this video.
it explains everything so well... and it's really sad how EA/DICE just threw away the "identity" that Battlefield 2 had formed... and people just consumed this change of direction like "yep, this is battlefield"...
My question is why? Why did they limit themselves, making a less "ambitious" game than its predecessor? Did Call of Duty 4 or consoles limitations have anything to do with it?
I believe Call of Duty had a big influence on that, the whole regenerative health and every soldier being able to take on vehicles and aircraft.
Oh man, the memories are back.
I did play BF2 Commander for quite a bit, those feels when you smash that pesky enemy sniped with a supply crate, haha!
The rush to escape incoming artillety when you're caught in the open, thedespair when your flanking squad's wiped out on Karkand I/O.
It really did require and reward teamwork, didn't it?..
You have my gratitude.
I would like to add a couple of things for BF2 over new frostbite battlefields. Mod support and LAN support. I have a lot of memories not with trying to all get onto the same server, but getting a bunch of friends on a LAN network and going up against bots with or without mods. We filled up a server once (64) with just 4 of us on one team and the 60 others were on the enemy team. Those 60 others were also zombies and our goal was to clear and recapture the city. Project Reality was also a lot of fun. And the developers at the time listened and took notes from the mods the fans were creating and playing. You could argue that BF2 started as a modernization mod from 1942. (Cause there was one) I mean just look at the release time difference between Vietnam and 2. There's no way they completely revamped the Battlefield series in that amount of time without having already starting to work on it.
I think part of the difference too is the player support. Console players are different than PC players. PC Players have access to more complex controls which are extremely useful in true sandbox like games. (Dayz is probably the best console players will get. No ARMA for them) PC players also have access to more games that require a level of patience and communication. That and dealing the computers themselves sometimes require patience. (I have a computer right now I want to throw out the window... Good thing I'm a nerd and also have 4 others for sometimes no reason...)
I didn't play much of the battlefield franchise. My introduction was battlefield 2. When I got to play bad company 12 years later I was confused as to why people liked it. No one talks about battlefield 2 and 2142 and I don't understand why.
Never got to actually play 2142.
Hoping you can explain this for me.
Would you ever consider a video on how Rainbow Six Siege has changed over the years? Also I really appreciate the disdain with which you said ‘dirt bike’
I appreciate that you appreciated my disdain for dirt bikes as the only reward for capturing a point.
Sadly, no. I actually never played Siege.
@@birthdaytruck that’s cool, no worries. Me neither, with any modicum of skill anyway lol. The only other games I play with any regularity are MWO, Crossout, Hunt Showdown (with friends, badly), and the Monster Hunter franchise (and siege with friends, also badly). What sort of games do you play regularly?
I cannot believe I watched the whole video, goes to show how greatly made it was. Miss the times battlefield felt real😥
Oh man xplay, I remember how sad I was when I heard they were pulled off air. Just as sad as when I got the last issue of nintendo power, why did they have to snuff out xplay and nintendo power? I miss them some days
X-Play is back, and Adam Sessler is still Adam Sessler! They're on cable and TH-cam, now. The TH-cam channel has a healthy backlog of content to binge now - including games from when Xplay was off.
BF2 is still online guys, just saying.. It’s like a time machine to 2009. The community is so awesome, get bf2 hub and you’re set
aaaaw man, did you see the event I hosted this Friday? We managed to pin our Special Forces server at the top of the servers list for a bit!
yes finally someone able to explain exactly the game play problems of bf3+ and why BF2 was soo good
i must have around 3000+ hours in BF2 and loved it
i do love BF2142 and there is no other game to date that has emulated or even similar to titan mode
bf bad company was good i liked the destruction. but there was still problems game play wise and i think it is down to nerfing for consoles
the game that replaced BF2 for me was red orchestra then rage thunder (simulator ground battles mostly) then mechwarrior online (untill faction play longtom) now just random games
Now I'm hungry for Battlefield 2 with upgraded graphics, destruction and net-code... Best game of all time?
Thanks for this. Might sound a bit dramatic but it's very relieving to hear this put into words. It's a well written and edited video too, good job. I think this will happen with most games eventually. They will be prettied up, dumbed down and homogenized for mass appeal. And that's okay I guess, the new battlefields are fun for a lot of people. But I miss everything you described here, and I'm glad I'm not alone.
Part of the reason I put this video together was to make order of my swirling thoughts about the franchise. It was also a bit of a grieving process - a eulogy so to speak. Being able to share these frustrations has helped me move on.
Amazing video!!! you hit the nail on the head of what made BF2 best in the series.
Thank you! I'm thrilled I nailed it. Give the video a like and a share :)
I very much echo this same argument.
Though I personally love BF2142 over BF2 I still have to agree that of the series those two titles are king.
BF2142 added the four main classes we see today, Assault, Engineer, Recon and Support. All of which combined the kits of BF2.
Assault taking the Assault and Medic class from BF2. Engineer combining the Anti -Tank and Engineer. Recon taking Special Forces and Sniper.
One could argue 2142 started the lack of equipment for starter kits, as the assault kit the only thing you have to start is the Medkit.
Support starts only with the ammo box, engineer a rocket launcher and repair tool, and Recon a sniper.
But the very first unlocks for all the classes brought RDX(C4), Defibs, EMP grenades, claymores, and tools that allowed the player to diversify their kits.
Because while they did cut the amount of classes you got to make a sub kit that tailored to your needs, but you could still play Special forces as a recon, or only a Sniper as a recon.
Assault you could forgo using the defibs to go all-out attack. The classes and goals of all the BF2 kits remained, it just took a short time playing to unlock a few items and playing how your squad needed you.
2142 also introduced the field upgrade for playing in a squad too. So say you just started and didnt have defibs, playing with a squad you could temporarily unlock them and learn the tools that you can unlock.
2142 Also introduced 3D spotting, though not in the same sense as BF3 and onward.
The NetBat helmets all soldiers had, would only 3D between squads and not the whole team. Players who've spotted or shot at enemies would potentially be 3D spotted with a red diamond on the players center mass. These 3D spots are sometimes hard to see or even remember what they signify as they don't tend to appear as often as one might think they would.
Each class also had an unlock upgrade specific to the class.
Assault could see enemy health and class when 3D spotted, Support could see cloaking recon players easier, Engineer could see vehicle armor health, and Recon's upgrade reduced total time spotted.
I'll miss having more than 4 classes in battlefield. Each class felt more specialised and it made teamwork a requirement to win. But I guess it makes sense to have only 4 classes as the series now feels more console focused. From a gameplay standpoint, BF2 is definitely the peak of battlefield. Also good content man, keep it up.
Thank you, @Nicky Simi! This video was a passion project and a form of grieving. I look at 2042 and just can't get excited.
@@birthdaytruckno, thank you for this video. And yeah I feel ya there man, 2042 is just so depressing to look at. I was hoping to at least see battlefield 2 content in bf portal, I'm surprised nobody ever made a video on the evolution of the class system in battlefield
Phenomenal video, amazing work, thanks mate. One of the reasons why BF2 was superior is that it had mod tools. Even if the newer BF iterations were bad and had features we didn't like, with mod tools, we could change them!
good god love this video. when ever I'm asked why i don't like modern twitch shooters I'll point to this. growing up i was a fan of ghost recon. yes when it was only know as ghost recon. i missed that slower planed out game play where it your shot or use up to much ammo. its game over. new fps is about the moments where older fps where more about the over all immersion in the situation you found your self in. its kinda why i don't like mech warrior five as much as i loved mech warrior 4 mercs. the long play of thence silents before you find the fight you where looking for. mech 5 has none of that because all of the tank and turret spawns. new fps games are the same. no more taking your time slowly going threw the map to find contact before it finds you like walking threw fog just waiting for the rain to start falling. now its a constant stream of bullets and some one on your six dieing ever 4 seconds, you wake up to nothing but a down pour and the rain storm doesn't stop for days, no break, no melody of a light sprinkle, no rainbow, only the defining roar of the storm.
thanks for another great well thought out video man.
You've put a lot of my own experiences in your comment, here, and I especially appreciate the rain storm metaphor.
this channel is so underrated - mwo one was awesome but this - this is peak content
squad kinda feels like a successor to bf2 but of course more milsimmy
Man, you've nailed it on EVERYTHING. God bless you and thank you for putting into words what I've been feeling about this topic for so many years.
BF2 best shooter ever.
Give the video a share! Enough people have left comments like yours that I think my observations are in the right.
What mic do you record with? It sounds great
Just a Blue Yeti. The quality of the recording jumped significantly after I started recording in a small sound-proof box.
It's just an IKEA cube-box with sound proofing panels inside, but it's made a world of difference. I think any microphone would benefit from like a laundry basket with some blankets inside.
Finally someone said it. BF2 and 2142 was the franchise peak mechanically. I've struggled to put my finger on why the new battlefields don't feel as fun or as well designed.
This is exactly what I'm trying to say. I'm glad you saw it. BF3 or BF4 ought to have been so much better -- all they were missing were what made BF2 so classically great.
Lotta truth in this video.
BF series traded its uniqueness and identity for simplified CoDified bigger player bases, bigger sales.
This video needs more views
Thank you :) Give the video a share, toss it into a subreddit, slam it into a discord, something.
legendary game with legendary mods :)
I didn't find the series fun anymore after Frostbite, and so I quit. Almost every feature added, only promoted the playerbase to deviate away from the former teamplay/squadplay playstyle of the series that once made it wholesome. It was as if EA took the reigns from Dice to attract CoD fans to the series at the expense of alienating the OG Battlefield fanbase away for profit.
Absolutely agree 💯
100% nostalgic, i love BF2.
totally agree with your viewpoint, was a big time BF2 player and enjoyed BF2:PR as well, Bad company 2 was a different type of game on a smaller scale but then when BF3 was announced the potential was immense but so was the disappointment. Never bothered playing any of the other BF games after BF3 with how awful the game was.
BF4, with friends on a classic server, is probably as close as you could have gotten. I haven't touched 2042 - the wing suit offends me, the most.
🐐Bf2 🐐
26:49 The lack of a view distance limiting enabling this is pure nonsense, just like sniping players from the other side of the map with a vehicle.
It kills me that I can't play battlefield 2 anymore. I lost the code needed to install the game. I have *a* code, but its to the cd version that my friend had, not the dvd version that I have. Not sure what happened to those discs...
But you can play BF2 again! All my footage was gathered within the past year! You'll want to visit BF2Hub - it's an easy installation.
www.bf2hub.com/home/
Title equals very yes.
beautiful, made me cry
boop
Share this damn video - it's the one that means the most to me.
Just don't agree with the crowd... BF2 was never "clunky" to me. It seemed more intuitive. Probably not what people want to hear but with the "upgrades", it became less playable for me and seemed more focused on visuals than actual core gameplay.
The cone of fire weapon spread was clunky, as was movement.
@@birthdaytruck Not to mention the removal of bullet deviation - every weapon from BadCo2 onward always hit what you aimed at, until it hit it's artificially defined maximum range.
Hi. First of all. I liked your style in this video essay. It's clean, the audio is good and the visuals help understand your message.
I have a lot of criticism, not for your form, but your points/arguments, but it's coming from a person whose favourite game is BF4 (as you can see by my avatar) and I didn't play BF2, so ALL I say about BF2 will be entirely based on your presentation of this game in this essay. Also, I can't defend BF3, because I didn't play this game enough to argue. I have only about 150 hours (not 1050 hours like BF4) and It was a long time ago. Everything I'll say will only apply to BF2 VS BF4 debate. I will try to make it clear in my points, but just in case have it in the back of your head, please.
Let's start with things I disagree with:
1. Teamwork is not as important in BF4. Really? Teamwork is super important in this game. While sure, you can win a game all by yourself if you use an aircraft and you're like a TOP 100 player, it happens rarely. Games are won by teamwork in BF4. The lone wolf element you mentioned is an option, not a necessity and that's why IMO it's a BETTER system than in BF2.
2. Spawning on your teammates makes for more chaotic gameplay. I would say it makes it more friend-oriented than BF2. Hardcore mode in BF4 offers this mechanic and I hate it. It's ok if I play solo, but when I try to coordinate with my 1-2 friends it's a nightmare if neither of us has the squad leader. Sure, we can create another squad, but this hampers our possibilities of engagement/of having a positive effect on the match.
3. War Thunder as a game that evolves... I played WT. I played too much WT. I have over 3.5k hours in this grind fest. It changed for the worst for the most part. I could go for hours on how bad this game is, but I can't stress this enough. WT is not a good example of a game that evolves. For crying out loud, it didn't change its game modes since its launch. It plays mostly the same with a few new toys like guided munition in ARB and IR scopes in GRB.
4. I completely don't understand the point where you said, that the BFV mechanic of reviving someone without being yourself a medic is good and it improves teamplay while previously saying that classes got mixed up and now you don't need an AT expert/medic/recon/support in your squad/team. You can't have your cake and eat it too. It's either more limited classes or everyone gets to have everything. Also, I don't agree with your statement about your squad not needing a medic/AT expert/support. So many times I needed ammo/heal/revive/got pinned down by a vehicle and didn't have proper tools for the job and needed another person to help me out. It was fun when someone did.
5. Infinite ammo? what? 10:48 for context. I have no idea what you meant there.
6. Unlocking good stuff/not having it from the start. I would say BF4 has an almost perfect system of giving you mostly the easiest gadgets and weapons at the beginning. Then gives you more difficult loadouts or down-right useless, but sometimes fun and often in the end the most effective weapons, BUT require knowledge of the game actually to use them. Because you already mentioned this OPERATION SUFFER of a game I'll give them credit where credit is due. You need to grind for those first 4 tiers to learn how to play. It's a chore and it's not fun when you need to do it for the 6th time, because you are starting another nation/tree, but the first time around it is fun. Later the grind is unbearable. 5 tier is on the border of forcing you to learn new mechanics. Every subsequent one is downright awful and humanitarian. BF4 is not like that. Sure, you need to grind a little, but I would say it's fun and engaging. Assignments are awesome and rewards for sinking your time into them are also quite good. There are some misfires like getting RPG before the SMAW, where SMAW is way easier and getting C4 as the last gadget in support, but other than that the unlocking system is well thought-out.
7. BF2 cooperation Is never replicated in any other BF game and it never happens. It depends on your POV and time spent in the game, but I can communicate and work together just fine in BF4. I have some fond memories of working with 3 other individuals on chat/q-system. We played 3 matches together and completely changed their outcomes. It's a personal anecdote, but you didn't specify how BF2 makes this magic cooperation better than in other games, so all I can say is I also have those experiences in BF4. Well, maybe except VOIP system and q-system which both BF4 has.
8. Switching loadouts mid-game to adjust to the situation is somehow bad? 19:00. I don't understand your point here again. The rock-paper-scissors mechanic is actually pretty fun and having always the best loadout in every situation just makes the weapon OP and not fun. Playing with your strengths and around your weaknesses is what makes the game so enjoyable. I hope I don't need examples for that. That is also why I don't really like how Assault weapons are generally the best pick (not always and if you make good decisions it will rarely happen, but let's just say they are too noob-friendly in my opinion.
9. 30:55. Knowing the map was key. It looks like chaos at first, but after a few matches you get the hang of it and don't let your prey escape. If only by choosing your targets more thoughtfully.
10. 32:00 I don't see the problem here. Points/telescope dish are valuable if you are an aggressive player while hills are more for defensive players. That includes vehicles and infantry. It's a well design map, with one issue. Flags were RU sided. You had B, C, D and E in the center and A near RU spawn.
11. I completely disagree with your statement that BF2042 failure is somehow a 10-year-old consequence of changing their game formula. While there are some things that BF2 had and BF2042 didn't. These are not the core problems. The list you showed had like 200 missing features. You highlighted only 4 and 2 of them were present in BF4. You just can't make an argument that if only they stuck to these 2 BF2 mechanics the game wouldn't fail. BF2042's core IS NOT FUN. You can't change it by adding VOIP. It's a quality of life improvement, but I think the issue is much deeper than that and this game should be analyzed through and through. Maybe an idea for a video? ;)
Now, for the things, I agree with and are fair criticism.
1. 3D spotting should be removed or preferably (in my opinion) changed so that only specific gadgets can do it. Eg. by recon class with PLD / Soflam / MAV and maybe by a gunner of a vehicle, but with special secondary ability. Like trading 3x zoom / IR for it, or a TV missile. Also, you should start your segment by saying I have a problem with 3D spotting because for 3 minutes I was wondering how can you complain about seeing the whole map, without this artificial fog. You almost lost my interest, because I took you for an old man rambling about how old times were better just cause. Now I know it was not what you were trying to say, but for 3 minutes it looked like it.
2. Commander mode was a good idea but badly executed. I have no clue how they could improve it.
3. Fully regenerating health (soldier and vehicle) without a medkit isn't a good design, BUT this would make the Assault class even more powerful and OP. I like the BF5 system where you have a limited supply of small medkits. This could work.
4. 20:00 I see how this would be really fun. Destroying enemy logistics and assets could be fun, but I can see how this can go very unfun way. It's hard to pull off the right balance of a good boost that a resource gives your team and not make it OP at the same time remember that DICE needs years just to have a playable balance of loadouts, now add in logistics resources and I don't think they can pull it off. Also, camping the whole match with one asset/place to protect it wouldn't be fun. But I ultimately agree that it sounds fun.
5. It's hard to find quiet time in BF4. You can have some rest if you choose so (it's a sandbox after all). Like carefully preparing a trap for an enemy vehicle, but you don't have quiet time forced upon you by a game. It is good and bad at the same time. It's good for players with less time, people with less attention span and people who like non-stop action. It's bad for slower/more tactical players.
6. BF4 is more of an arcade and chaotic game where memorable moments aren't created by working with your team, but by performing those ONLY IN BATTLEFIELD MOMENTS.
In summary, I liked your video, but I don't agree with most of your arguments.
I see you are very intelligent and are trying to justify your nostalgia. There is nothing wrong with that, but it obscures the full picture. Newer games were just different in a way that didn't suit you. Again, there is nothing wrong with liking the old games, just that I think the nostalgia obscures how the newer ones do things differently and sometimes better. I also have my own biases and I didn't have fun in BF1, although it was probably one of the most polished and well-made BF games on the premiere. But the gameplay was off somehow and I still can't put my finger on how/why.
But maybe it's not it and I'm projecting my feelings towards newer titles onto you. Idk, anyway, good job and keep up your good work. You deserve more subs :)
Also as a side note (completely unrelated), I would swap PDWs and shotguns. As you probably know BF4 has class-restricted weapons and universal ones. I see those universals as a weaker version of kit-based weapons. Carrabines - weaker Assault weapons, DMRs weaker snipers and Shotguns better PDW (?). It doesn't make sense. Also, medics are way too powerful with them.
Responses in bullet points.
Let's start with things I disagree with:
1. Teamwork is not as important in BF4. Really? Teamwork is super important in this game. While sure, you can win a game all by yourself if you use an aircraft and you're like a TOP 100 player, it happens rarely. Games are won by teamwork in BF4. The lone wolf element you mentioned is an option, not a necessity and that's why IMO it's a BETTER system than in BF2.
• Teamwork is important in BF4. It was less important than in BF2. I do not disagree that teamwork is super important in BF4. It was less important than in BF2 because you were far more independent.
2. Spawning on your teammates makes for more chaotic gameplay. I would say it makes it more friend-oriented than BF2. Hardcore mode in BF4 offers this mechanic and I hate it. It's ok if I play solo, but when I try to coordinate with my 1-2 friends it's a nightmare if neither of us has the squad leader. Sure, we can create another squad, but this hampers our possibilities of engagement/of having a positive effect on the match.
• Everyone spawning on teammates produces chaotic gameplay. A Squad Leader-spawn fosters more cooperation with *random* players and cleans up much of the overtly chaotic gameplay.
3. War Thunder as a game that evolves... I played WT. I played too much WT. I have over 3.5k hours in this grind fest. It changed for the worst for the most part. I could go for hours on how bad this game is, but I can't stress this enough. WT is not a good example of a game that evolves. For crying out loud, it didn't change its game modes since its launch. It plays mostly the same with a few new toys like guided munition in ARB and IR scopes in GRB.
• Yes, WarThunder's gamemodes haven't evolved. Enduring conflict is our best bet. But playing early WW2 tanks and planes is a drastically different experience than playing cold-war era equipment. Combined Air-Ground RB has problems, but it evolved ground RB gameplay if only by giving anti-air vehicles a reason to exist.
4. I completely don't understand the point where you said, that the BFV mechanic of reviving someone without being yourself a medic is good and it improves teamplay while previously saying that classes got mixed up and now you don't need an AT expert/medic/recon/support in your squad/team. You can't have your cake and eat it too. It's either more limited classes or everyone gets to have everything. Also, I don't agree with your statement about your squad not needing a medic/AT expert/support. So many times I needed ammo/heal/revive/got pinned down by a vehicle and didn't have proper tools for the job and needed another person to help me out. It was fun when someone did.
• You're right: I do say separated services is better and then praise BFV for giving everyone one of those services. I praise BFV for giving everyone revive services because, in effect, players were encouraged to interact with *random* players more often. That was a net positive outcome. Additionally, I argued that players needed other classes less often: not entirely. You didn't need AT players as often as in BF2 because you had access to C4, for example, in more classes.
5. Infinite ammo? what? 10:48 for context. I have no idea what you meant there.
• Unlimited reloads. In Battlefield 2, you had "X" amount of reloads. If you reload a magazine with 29/30 rounds in it, those 29 rounds were lost. The Call of Duty style reload pool means your reloads are hyper efficient and you often only needed a support player to reload gadgets.
6. Unlocking good stuff/not having it from the start. I would say BF4 has an almost perfect system of giving you mostly the easiest gadgets and weapons at the beginning. Then gives you more difficult loadouts or down-right useless, but sometimes fun and often in the end the most effective weapons, BUT require knowledge of the game actually to use them. Because you already mentioned this OPERATION SUFFER of a game I'll give them credit where credit is due. You need to grind for those first 4 tiers to learn how to play. It's a chore and it's not fun when you need to do it for the 6th time, because you are starting another nation/tree, but the first time around it is fun. Later the grind is unbearable. 5 tier is on the border of forcing you to learn new mechanics. Every subsequent one is downright awful and humanitarian. BF4 is not like that. Sure, you need to grind a little, but I would say it's fun and engaging. Assignments are awesome and rewards for sinking your time into them are also quite good. There are some misfires like getting RPG before the SMAW, where SMAW is way easier and getting C4 as the last gadget in support, but other than that the unlocking system is well thought-out.
• I see we largely agree here. BF4 did it better, yes, but I would argue unlocking the gadget with a currency, a `la Black Ops, is more fair to the player.
7. BF2 cooperation Is never replicated in any other BF game and it never happens. It depends on your POV and time spent in the game, but I can communicate and work together just fine in BF4. I have some fond memories of working with 3 other individuals on chat/q-system. We played 3 matches together and completely changed their outcomes. It's a personal anecdote, but you didn't specify how BF2 makes this magic cooperation better than in other games, so all I can say is I also have those experiences in BF4. Well, maybe except VOIP system and q-system which both BF4 has.
• I did specify. I have about 350 or so hours in BF4 - far less than you but sufficient hours over 6 or so years. The BF2 magic is, again, the cooperation with random players moreso than discord friends. The commo-rose system in BF4 was ineffective. The dependency on each other meant more random players stuck around each other. BF3/4 produced for more independent behaviors amongst random players.
8. Switching loadouts mid-game to adjust to the situation is somehow bad? 19:00. I don't understand your point here again. The rock-paper-scissors mechanic is actually pretty fun and having always the best loadout in every situation just makes the weapon OP and not fun. Playing with your strengths and around your weaknesses is what makes the game so enjoyable. I hope I don't need examples for that. That is also why I don't really like how Assault weapons are generally the best pick (not always and if you make good decisions it will rarely happen, but let's just say they are too noob-friendly in my opinion.
• Spawn in tank with rock. Lose to tank with paper. Respawn in tank with scissors. That produces gameplay more dependent on your loadout. I want gameplay more dependent on player actions, planning, etc. Give each player rock, paper, and scissors and allow them to out-wit each other.
9. 30:55. Knowing the map was key. It looks like chaos at first, but after a few matches you get the hang of it and don't let your prey escape. If only by choosing your targets more thoughtfully.
• My complaint was, specifically, that players weren't penalized for jumping off buildings. It felt like chasing chickens, not fighting for real estate.
10. 32:00 I don't see the problem here. Points/telescope dish are valuable if you are an aggressive player while hills are more for defensive players. That includes vehicles and infantry. It's a well design map, with one issue. Flags were RU sided. You had B, C, D and E in the center and A near RU spawn.
• You capture the point under the radar dish. You are safe from air elements. Your ability to project power to other points is zero. You "capture" the hills. You can now project power to other points. That's more useful.
11. I completely disagree with your statement that BF2042 failure is somehow a 10-year-old consequence of changing their game formula. While there are some things that BF2 had and BF2042 didn't. These are not the core problems. The list you showed had like 200 missing features. You highlighted only 4 and 2 of them were present in BF4. You just can't make an argument that if only they stuck to these 2 BF2 mechanics the game wouldn't fail. BF2042's core IS NOT FUN. You can't change it by adding VOIP. It's a quality of life improvement, but I think the issue is much deeper than that and this game should be analyzed through and through. Maybe an idea for a video? ;)
• BF2's design pillars: the separated player services, limited advanced spawns, limited view distances, locked gadget access, clear and concise commo-rose, fleshed out commander modes, quiet-time pacing, and other smaller design inclusions were eroded or removed through the course of BF3, BF4, and ultimately 2042. 2042 is a result of the studio's gradual distancing away from the design elements in BF2/1942/2142.
Now, for the things, I agree with and are fair criticism.
1. 3D spotting should be removed or preferably (in my opinion) changed so that only specific gadgets can do it. Eg. by recon class with PLD / Soflam / MAV and maybe by a gunner of a vehicle, but with special secondary ability. Like trading 3x zoom / IR for it, or a TV missile. Also, you should start your segment by saying I have a problem with 3D spotting because for 3 minutes I was wondering how can you complain about s
@@birthdaytruck Thank you for replying to my comment. Yeah, It took about 90 minutes and a lot of effort to put all of my feelings and thoughts into words. I really enjoy this discussion and analysis of those titles.
(con'td from prior comment - answers in bullet points)
Now, for the things, I agree with and are fair criticism.
1. 3D spotting should be removed or preferably (in my opinion) changed so that only specific gadgets can do it. Eg. by recon class with PLD / Soflam / MAV and maybe by a gunner of a vehicle, but with special secondary ability. Like trading 3x zoom / IR for it, or a TV missile. Also, you should start your segment by saying I have a problem with 3D spotting because for 3 minutes I was wondering how can you complain about seeing the whole map, without this artificial fog. You almost lost my interest, because I took you for an old man rambling about how old times were better just cause. Now I know it was not what you were trying to say, but for 3 minutes it looked like it.
2. Commander mode was a good idea but badly executed. I have no clue how they could improve it.
• You literally re-introduce Battlefield 2's commander and assets. The answer is right there.
3. Fully regenerating health (soldier and vehicle) without a medkit isn't a good design, BUT this would make the Assault class even more powerful and OP. I like the BF5 system where you have a limited supply of small medkits. This could work.
• The BF5 system was much better. You needed someone to intreact/cooperate to return to full health more often. You were more dependant on others.
4. 20:00 I see how this would be really fun. Destroying enemy logistics and assets could be fun, but I can see how this can go very unfun way. It's hard to pull off the right balance of a good boost that a resource gives your team and not make it OP at the same time remember that DICE needs years just to have a playable balance of loadouts, now add in logistics resources and I don't think they can pull it off. Also, camping the whole match with one asset/place to protect it wouldn't be fun. But I ultimately agree that it sounds fun.
5. It's hard to find quiet time in BF4. You can have some rest if you choose so (it's a sandbox after all). Like carefully preparing a trap for an enemy vehicle, but you don't have quiet time forced upon you by a game. It is good and bad at the same time. It's good for players with less time, people with less attention span and people who like non-stop action. It's bad for slower/more tactical players.
6. BF4 is more of an arcade and chaotic game where memorable moments aren't created by working with your team, but by performing those ONLY IN BATTLEFIELD MOMENTS.
• BF3 and BF4's only in battlefield moments were mostly "I shot a jet with a rocket launcher wow". BF2's only in battlefield moments were "look what we accomplished with random strangers without microphones" and those were richer. BF3/4 could have offered both.
In summary, I liked your video, but I don't agree with most of your arguments.
I see you are very intelligent and are trying to justify your nostalgia. There is nothing wrong with that, but it obscures the full picture. Newer games were just different in a way that didn't suit you. Again, there is nothing wrong with liking the old games, just that I think the nostalgia obscures how the newer ones do things differently and sometimes better. I also have my own biases and I didn't have fun in BF1, although it was probably one of the most polished and well-made BF games on the premiere. But the gameplay was off somehow and I still can't put my finger on how/why.
But maybe it's not it and I'm projecting my feelings towards newer titles onto you. Idk, anyway, good job and keep up your good work. You deserve more subs :)
• To be clear: I'm not trying to justify my nostalgia. I'm trying to remind us what made Battlefield titles great. I'm trying to demonstrate that Battlefield 2 and 2142 hold the correct design choices. I'm not nostalgic for 2142, but I know it held successful design elements and felt it necessary to include such.
Also as a side note (completely unrelated), I would swap PDWs and shotguns. As you probably know BF4 has class-restricted weapons and universal ones. I see those universals as a weaker version of kit-based weapons. Carrabines - weaker Assault weapons, DMRs weaker snipers and Shotguns better PDW (?). It doesn't make sense. Also, medics are way too powerful with them.
• I'll never dip my toe deep into the what-class-gets-what-weapons but PDW's weren't the useful in the grand scheme of things. BF4 engineer with a carbine was good enough to handle most if not all threats.
@@birthdaytruck
Part 1:
1. Teamwork is not as important in BF4. Really? Teamwork is super important in this game. While sure, you can win a game all by yourself if you use an aircraft and you're like a TOP 100 player, it happens rarely. Games are won by teamwork in BF4. The lone wolf element you mentioned is an option, not a necessity and that's why IMO it's a BETTER system than in BF2.
• Teamwork is important in BF4. It was less important than in BF2. I do not disagree that teamwork is super important in BF4. It was less important than in BF2 because you were far more independent.
•• Can't argue with that, because I didn't play BF2. All I can say is that while I play I still depend on other players and their classes alot.
2. Spawning on your teammates makes for more chaotic gameplay. I would say it makes it more friend-oriented than BF2. Hardcore mode in BF4 offers this mechanic and I hate it. It's ok if I play solo, but when I try to coordinate with my 1-2 friends it's a nightmare if neither of us has the squad leader. Sure, we can create another squad, but this hampers our possibilities of engagement/of having a positive effect on the match.
• Everyone spawning on teammates produces chaotic gameplay. A Squad Leader-spawn fosters more cooperation with random players and cleans up much of the overtly chaotic gameplay.
•• In my opinion, it's more of an annoyance than forcing cooperation and I would still say that Hardcore has the same amount of chaotic gameplay as any other mode. People are more careful because you die quicker, but it is still very uncoordinated. I don't know how it was in BF2, but in BF4 spawning on teammates is not (in my opinion) an element of chaoticness whatsoever.
3. War Thunder as a game that evolves... I played WT. I played too much WT. I have over 3.5k hours in this grind fest. It changed for the worst for the most part. I could go for hours on how bad this game is, but I can't stress this enough. WT is not a good example of a game that evolves. For crying out loud, it didn't change its game modes since its launch. It plays mostly the same with a few new toys like guided munition in ARB and IR scopes in GRB.
• Yes, WarThunder's gamemodes haven't evolved. Enduring conflict is our best bet. But playing early WW2 tanks and planes is a drastically different experience than playing cold-war era equipment. Combined Air-Ground RB has problems, but it evolved ground RB gameplay if only by giving anti-air vehicles a reason to exist.
•• It's not that different tho. You get a few new toys, like radar, but it stays mostly the same. The largest difference between tiers is in planes in 1-5 vs 6+ where energy doesn't matter anymore and your situational awareness and trained crew matter most. But I think I understood you wrongly here. You are not saying that WT is evolving in its gameplay (time spent by the player), but in its updates and the BF franchise as a whole isn't. To that, I too must disagree. While BF4 is (IMO) a better BF3 and BFH is a reskin of BF4, BF1 has different gameplay and mechanics. BFV and BF2042 are not a single thing alike, nor is BF2042 compared to their predecessors. BFV has more of a light tone of visuals and a hard tone of gameplay (with attrition system and whatnot) and BF2042 is a mess. If we exclude BF2042 from the franchise then I would say that BF is evolving for the better in some areas and getting worse in others. Still, the comparison to WT is absolutely wrong. WT gets new mechanics, but they are game-breaking/bad/annoying/useless. Sure, they change the way people play it (mostly by forcing them to not play it :P) but it's the same change we see in BFV to BF2042. Devs not understanding what makes their game fun, not playing it and solely rely on fan screech to make their decisions. "Oh you like *new vehicle*/*specialists in other games*? Here ya go, we will add it without thinking it through.". That's their mentality. Most of their decisions devolve or revolutionize the gameplay in a bad way. So If we wanna include war thunder in this discussion I wouldn't play it anywhere near "good and evolving" games. More in a failing and not understanding their core gameplay games. To sum this up, it got really messy. BF3 is a proper sequel to BFBC2. BF4 is a proper sequel to BF3. BFH a reskin to BF4. This is an era of stagnation and a slow evolution. Then BF1 and BF5 come (while the BF5 marketing team doesn't get what BF was about, devs do). This is an era of experimentation and evolution. Then comes BF2042... an era of revolution (in its bad sense). I would say BFBC was also a revolution, but a well-done one. Maybe it would be better if they didn't call it Battlefield and made an original title borrowing from previous BF franchise entries (like BFH should have been). Just throwing ideas. Anyway, most titles in this franchise were innovating. They evolved the formula, sometimes with good results, sometimes not. I think (and correct me if I'm wrong) you were trying to say that BF does evolve, but sometimes it makes a complete revolution and it happened during the switch of BF2142 -> BFBC and now during BFV -> BF2042. And you think that they should've evolved the BF2(BF2142) formula and not revolutionised the franchise.
4. I completely don't understand the point where you said, that the BFV mechanic of reviving someone without being yourself a medic is good and it improves teamplay while previously saying that classes got mixed up and now you don't need an AT expert/medic/recon/support in your squad/team. You can't have your cake and eat it too. It's either more limited classes or everyone gets to have everything. Also, I don't agree with your statement about your squad not needing a medic/AT expert/support. So many times I needed ammo/heal/revive/got pinned down by a vehicle and didn't have proper tools for the job and needed another person to help me out. It was fun when someone did.
• You're right: I do say separated services is better and then praise BFV for giving everyone one of those services. I praise BFV for giving everyone revive services because, in effect, players were encouraged to interact with random players more often. That was a net positive outcome. Additionally, I argued that players needed other classes less often: not entirely. You didn't need AT players as often as in BF2 because you had access to C4, for example, in more classes.
•• I understand now what you were trying to say. I still think BF5 revive system isn't better than a dedicated medic, because I too like my classes separated. I agree with your point, that they dissolved the AT class to others. The one thing that would resolve this issue is taking away the C4 from the support. Now you have your 3 classes that need each other. If we take my idea of 3D spotting available only to recon and take away his C4 too we get 4 separate classes. That didn't happen, so I ultimately must agree. As a side note, now I think that BF4 had two classes Medic/AT and then you add to AT a subclass like AT-support(ammo), AT-engineer(repairs) and AT-recon(spawn beacon).
@@birthdaytruck
Part 2:
5. Infinite ammo? what? 10:48 for context. I have no idea what you meant there.
• Unlimited reloads. In Battlefield 2, you had "X" amount of reloads. If you reload a magazine with 29/30 rounds in it, those 29 rounds were lost. The Call of Duty style reload pool means your reloads are hyper efficient and you often only needed a support player to reload gadgets.
•• Ok, thank you for clarifying. I understand and agree. Now I have an idea (not an argument): I think you shouldn't drop your mags, but keep them in their state and have an option to "unionise" them to simpler mags. Eg you have 14 bullets left in your mag -> Reload -> shoot -> 11 bullets left -> reload. Now you have two mags of 14 and 11 bullets each, but you can merge them into one mag that has 25 bullets, but this action takes time.
6. Unlocking good stuff/not having it from the start. I would say BF4 has an almost perfect system of giving you mostly the easiest gadgets and weapons at the beginning. Then gives you more difficult loadouts or down-right useless, but sometimes fun and often in the end the most effective weapons, BUT require knowledge of the game actually to use them. Because you already mentioned this OPERATION SUFFER of a game I'll give them credit where credit is due. You need to grind for those first 4 tiers to learn how to play. It's a chore and it's not fun when you need to do it for the 6th time, because you are starting another nation/tree, but the first time around it is fun. Later the grind is unbearable. 5 tier is on the border of forcing you to learn new mechanics. Every subsequent one is downright awful and humanitarian. BF4 is not like that. Sure, you need to grind a little, but I would say it's fun and engaging. Assignments are awesome and rewards for sinking your time into them are also quite good. There are some misfires like getting RPG before the SMAW, where SMAW is way easier and getting C4 as the last gadget in support, but other than that the unlocking system is well thought-out.
• I see we largely agree here. BF4 did it better, yes, but I would argue unlocking the gadget with a currency, a `la Black Ops, is more fair to the player.
•• TBH I still like the system that restricts your availability of unlocking weaponry, but at the same time also like unlocking them with currency. Maybe they could merge them together something like in hardline? Where you had an option to research/buy weaponry if you had enough points and cash? And they of course should make it so you can unlock more than one weapon on each level/point cap. That way players can choose what they wanna unlock, but don't get upset when they choose a really bad thing and stop playing the game (I had that happen to one of my friends in wt). But it's more of a detail thing than general stuff.
7. BF2 cooperation Is never replicated in any other BF game and it never happens. It depends on your POV and time spent in the game, but I can communicate and work together just fine in BF4. I have some fond memories of working with 3 other individuals on chat/q-system. We played 3 matches together and completely changed their outcomes. It's a personal anecdote, but you didn't specify how BF2 makes this magic cooperation better than in other games, so all I can say is I also have those experiences in BF4. Well, maybe except VOIP system and q-system which both BF4 has.
• I did specify. I have about 350 or so hours in BF4 - far less than you but sufficient hours over 6 or so years. The BF2 magic is, again, the cooperation with random players moreso than discord friends. The commo-rose system in BF4 was ineffective. The dependency on each other meant more random players stuck around each other. BF3/4 produced for more independent behaviors amongst random players.
•• While I cannot asses your claim that BF2 did a better job than BF4, I can present my experience in the latter title to show that BF4 has a lot of teamplay encouraging elements and brings people together. And yes you guessed correctly that I had a group of friends that played with me. In fact, I had 4 full platoons of people (~200) and on a daily basis had on average about 9 people on TeamSpeak at any given time. But after two-three years that number dropped hard. And then I had to rely on complete randoms.
My point is that I've experienced both sides - solo play and with friends. In fact, BF4 helped me make those friendships in the first place. Now, after 8 years I have 4 friends with whom I speak regularly and one of them is my best friend. So my perspective on this matter is very subjective, but I still think is valid. Anyways, back to the randoms. I have fond memories of working together with a gunner/driver of a tank. I remember that time I cleared buildings in Pearl Market with a 4-man squad. I have a memory of that time I cooperated with a AA and a Jet while playing heli (and a gunner). While sure, they are specific memories, not general observations, but this happens and this is quite regular in my gameplay. This comes down to your own experiences, not the mechanics of a game, because (at least I would say) BF4 and BF2 both have elements that encourage teamwork and cooperation with randoms, but in completely different ways.
8. Switching loadouts mid-game to adjust to the situation is somehow bad? 19:00. I don't understand your point here again. The rock-paper-scissors mechanic is actually pretty fun and having always the best loadout in every situation just makes the weapon OP and not fun. Playing with your strengths and around your weaknesses is what makes the game so enjoyable. I hope I don't need examples for that. That is also why I don't really like how Assault weapons are generally the best pick (not always and if you make good decisions it will rarely happen, but let's just say they are too noob-friendly in my opinion.
• Spawn in tank with rock. Lose to tank with paper. Respawn in tank with scissors. That produces gameplay more dependent on your loadout. I want gameplay more dependent on player actions, planning, etc. Give each player rock, paper, and scissors and allow them to out-wit each other.
•• I can't agree here. It's not predetermined that a rock loses to paper. He can still out-wit the other, having a tougher time tho. Eg: Infantry-combat oriented tank still can kill an AT tank, but it takes more skill and effort. I don't think there should be a loadout that is the best at everything. That's why I don't like AEK - it's a good weapon on almost every range except long.
One of the best BF videos I've ever seen, alongside the videos by Battlenonsense and a couple others. It would come from a Battletech fan too ;-) Well done, I wish EA/DICE would listen.
:) Thank you - this video is the culmination of several years trying to figure out why Battlefield titles don't satisfy anymore.
I think, that you are exaggerating the "clunkiness" of BF2. This series is known to have numerous balance and techical problems just in every instalment, but the BF2 was never the biggest offender there. And its game design was quite elegant in comparrison to some of the latest games, which bogged down in crapload of superficial stuff and Frostbite inherent issues.
I'm happy you seem to agree with my points, but BF2 was pretty clunky. If you recall Battlefield Play4Free, they re-used the refractor engine, there. It was much smoother, then.
Bf3 did movement,gunplay(which is the core of the combat and a big deal) and graphics much better.
Also expolsives like grenades were far less powerfull vs infantry(unlike the litteral invisible mini nukes grenades of bf2) and there was no "enemy boat spoted!" in bf3.
Bf3 was also the peak for the competitive community of battlefield in general,with the highest number of tournaments/leagues/Pro teams/ESL versus aswell as the largest cash prizes and the biggest esports hype in the history of the franchise(all of that large competitive community and the momentum it had ,got insta gibed by how dogshit awfull BF4 was)
Everything else....it's not even close,bf2 is a far superior game and bf3 was not the true succesor to bf2 that DICE promised back in the day.
Bots,offline instant action,mod tools,battle recorder,squad voip and the best commo rose,massive focus and lots of features for team work,all coming in at a cheaper price fully functional and playable at launch(unlike bf3 and later battlefield which release in alpha state and get to a decent state a few months before the release of the next bf game,for PR reasons ofcourse,not coz DICE actually cares lol).
In 2005 I remember I was sooo excited about the future of gaming,we had functional AI bots,large maps and 64p CQ in 2005,I was thinking "holy shit imagine just how much bigger maps will get,how much more advanced AI will be and how much mod tools will advance"....we all know how that turned out...
By far and away the most hours I dedicated to playing online on was with this game. I remember the first time I saw 1942 I was blown away. I started my fps journey with the original Wolfenstein...so I was a seasoned cpu gamer. And man ...dice blew me away ...then Vietnam....then there was this. BF2 is a legendary game imo. And 2042 doesn't get its' due either.
I feel like a nameless soldier who actually belongs to an army in bf2.
I feel like a hollywood action star in codfield3 and later games.
Slower, planned, tactical pace simply makes this a better game.
I cant stand a minute of bullets flying everywhere and people running, small maps of bf3 and later entries.
Bf2 is the best bf ever made.
0:35 The only thing I would be worried about is not using dark mode.
I agree with most of your points here but I have to disagree with one. Needing the SL as your spawn point. I remember being forced to sit in a spot so others could play the game. I was thankful when others did that for me. BF 2142 and BF3 fixed that with spawn beacons.
That being said I still think BF2 is the crescendo of the BF franchise. The new games forgot what BF is and focus purely on gaining the CoD crowd. I remember an interview with a DICE developer when asked how they felt about their competitor CoD. He answered, CoD is not our competitor, we are not competing with CoD.
EDIT: At the end of the video you reminded me of something. Newer BF games do not want larger squads. I get that it is annoying to fight 6 dedicated players but it makes it harder to play with a larger group of friends. That is bad. You have to hope they can get on your server and stay on your side of the game. BAD.
Funny thing: Gaijin already has a better battlefield experience in their Enlisted game, thanks to the BF series degrading over time
Footage of the april fools modern warfare event looked rather similar to battlefield. I wouldnt be surprised if it ends up a permanent mode
hey, bf is still hella active why not attach a link to download it in the description😗
i loved BF:BC2 bf2 was fun tho. they have a community that plays a modded bf2 and its very active
Judging by the other BF2 modding comments I've received on this video, it must be very active.
battlefield 2 is simply more realistic. its just the best battlefield. saddens me that no one knows about this game. bf3 and all laer entries suck.
BF4 came close, very close, to BF2.
preach, brother.
why are you lying?? nobody had infinite reloads, only support had c4
In Battlefield 2, you could only reload magazines. If you had 5 magazines you had 5 reloads.
In Battlefields 3 and 4, you have a pool of bullets. You can reload infinitely as long as you had bullets.
In Battlefields 3 and 4, multiple classes had C4.