Battlefield V

Honestly do not like this map one bit, makes pootling along in a tank pretty difficult and with the amount of spamzerfaust whores all over the place it gets annoying quickly. Seems to be a fuckload of stuff to get hung up on as well.

Performance wise its a bit harder to run than bf1, though that could change when its in its final stages.
 
Chris_B said:
Technically. closed alpha :p Think they're past pre-alpha stage now, in record time it would seem.
Click to expand...

Not surprising given it's mostly just a re-skin of BF1...they really need to fix the way auto-balancing works (atleast on the official EA servers force it whether or not people are in squads)...there were far too many games in BF1 conquest where the games just end up with lopsided scores because of the amount of people teamstacking. Literally would lose interest in playing because almost every single game was lopsided loss or win.
 
TheMadHatterXxX said:
That's great, you'll come back to Battlefield V after witnessing that the mediocre production value of those 2 games pales in comparison.
Click to expand...
both those games will have their place. bf v will still be very arcade compared to those two games even though dice is making some good changes. expect sandstorm to be pretty polished.
 
Yeah if the game isn't fun you has no production value I mean how many FPS games can you play before it's no longer fun. The brain looks for patterns if that direct route is being wired and fed the same game mechanics there is no challenge or suspense. What I don't get with most modern games is more textures means a fuller and better game while in 2001 you had these smooth 3-D Polygons that looked better than most games in 2018.

This game honestly looks like the developers were bored out of their mind.
 
Last edited:
Comixbooks said:
Yeah if the game isn't fun you has no production value I mean how many FPS games can you play before it's no longer fun. The brain looks for patterns if that direct route is being wired and fed the same game mechanics there is no challenge or suspense. What I don't get with most modern games is more textures means a fuller and better game while in 2001 you had these smooth 3-D Polygons that looked better than most games in 2018.

This game honestly looks like the developers were bored out of their mind.
Click to expand...

Hell yeah man, polygons these days just ain't what they used to be. Bring back 2001 polygons.
 
TheMadHatterXxX said:
That's great, you'll come back to Battlefield V after witnessing that the mediocre production value of those 2 games pales in comparison.
Click to expand...

Sandstorm looks to have some pretty good animations and graphics. A huge step up from the first game. I'm going to assume the 100-200 man team with 10 times the budget will be better, but Sandstorm certainly closed the gap.

Then when you factor in the art direction, Sandstorm will likely prevail 1-2 years post release where as BFV has a high chance of degrading visually due to their new business model. You can have a great game engine, but when you're running around as a black Nazi female Santa who is missing one arm with Hello Kitty guns and katanas, your game will still look like shit.
 
Flogger23m said:
Sandstorm looks to have some pretty good animations and graphics. A huge step up from the first game. I'm going to assume the 100-200 man team with 10 times the budget will be better, but Sandstorm certainly closed the gap.

Then when you factor in the art direction, Sandstorm will likely prevail 1-2 years post release where as BFV has a high chance of degrading visually due to their new business model. You can have a great game engine, but when you're running around as a black Nazi female Santa who is missing one arm with Hello Kitty guns and katanas, your game will still look like shit.
Click to expand...
Also the player base is liable to be way better (on PC at least) after 1-2 years. Look at a game like ARMA 3 - never had a huge following since it's a "niche" game - but it was released nearly 5 years ago and the average player count has remained fairly constant (it's actually grown quite a bit compared to release.) On the other hand BF1 started out with ~120,000 PC players and dropped to ~50,000 three months after release and has been in a slow decline ever since - down to ~26,000 players as of this month.

I doubt BFV will do any better unless the whole limited ammo / health mechanic actually forces teams to work together - of course if it does then one side will be filled with cancer and the other will dominate.
 
capt_cope said:
Also the player base is liable to be way better (on PC at least) after 1-2 years. Look at a game like ARMA 3 - never had a huge following since it's a "niche" game - but it was released nearly 5 years ago and the average player count has remained fairly constant (it's actually grown quite a bit compared to release.) On the other hand BF1 started out with ~120,000 PC players and dropped to ~50,000 three months after release and has been in a slow decline ever since - down to ~26,000 players as of this month.

I doubt BFV will do any better unless the whole limited ammo / health mechanic actually forces teams to work together - of course if it does then one side will be filled with cancer and the other will dominate.
Click to expand...

BF1 did worse than BF4 when it came to retaining player count. BFV might do better because they are adding in more unlocks and stuff (and people love that stuff). BF1 lacked weapon variety and vehicles were too limited at release. It felt very scaled back from BF3 and 4 and got old much quicker. It also isn't as good of a PC game, and I think BF4 was the last traditional PC style AAA MP game. The future is all match making. Ironically you can largely thank Valve for that.

Assuming BFV allocates more vehicles per map like BF3/4, it will increase variety. But the new game modes are much smaller and restricted, so depending on what players prefer in terms of game modes it may have the same issue as BF1. About the only thing that looked interesting to me so far in BFV was the MBT vs tank destroyer gameplay. I'd love to see assault guns and other armor types added and be plentiful on the map.
 
Flogger23m said:
Sandstorm looks to have some pretty good animations and graphics. A huge step up from the first game. I'm going to assume the 100-200 man team with 10 times the budget will be better, but Sandstorm certainly closed the gap.

Then when you factor in the art direction, Sandstorm will likely prevail 1-2 years post release where as BFV has a high chance of degrading visually due to their new business model. You can have a great game engine, but when you're running around as a black Nazi female Santa who is missing one arm with Hello Kitty guns and katanas, your game will still look like shit.
Click to expand...

To me those sound like some pretty decent achievement unlocks to continue grinding for.
 
Random thoughts after a full match: couldn't get to options screen fast enough to turn off motion blur, vignette, film grain, increase to 90 fov etc. Movement feels extremely clunky/heavy and it takes quite a while to respawn. Don't like the new respawn system nor the respawn screen not defaulting to the overhead map view. I need to spend some time on the UI and see if I can make it more manageable in regards to information at-a-glance because it's pretty hard to see some info or it at least is for me. There's a very distinct lack of local sound in regards to footsteps and I'll chalk it up to the current version of the game though that could just be an Alpha thing. Regardless, I felt like I was missing a huge aspect of my spatial awareness. TTK is quite low and you have practically no time to react before dying.

I'll say, though, that when you hit a target it really feels like you hit them.
 
I am playing as Bjergen Kjergen from the Fjergen Fjords; Hm, that's in the Kalergen province isn't it?
 
What the hell map is this. What war are we fighting? Can we swap out grenades for a pickled herring? These questions are on my mind.
 
Flogger23m said:
BF1 did worse than BF4 when it came to retaining player count. BFV might do better because they are adding in more unlocks and stuff (and people love that stuff). BF1 lacked weapon variety and vehicles were too limited at release. It felt very scaled back from BF3 and 4 and got old much quicker. It also isn't as good of a PC game, and I think BF4 was the last traditional PC style AAA MP game. The future is all match making. Ironically you can largely thank Valve for that.

Assuming BFV allocates more vehicles per map like BF3/4, it will increase variety. But the new game modes are much smaller and restricted, so depending on what players prefer in terms of game modes it may have the same issue as BF1. About the only thing that looked interesting to me so far in BFV was the MBT vs tank destroyer gameplay. I'd love to see assault guns and other armor types added and be plentiful on the map.
Click to expand...

This is one of the reasons I've moved to consoles for certain first person shooters. The player base, even after decaying, is still large in many games compared to the PC. Fortunately, Battlefield isn't one of those. (Call of Duty is though, as the series is empty on the PC compared to the consoles). I grabbed a Xim Apex, and while it doesn't feel the same, it feels playable.

I wonder how many people got into the closed alpha, but as I made it, I'm guessing a lot.
 
Nytegard said:
This is one of the reasons I've moved to consoles for certain first person shooters. The player base, even after decaying, is still large in many games compared to the PC. Fortunately, Battlefield isn't one of those. (Call of Duty is though, as the series is empty on the PC compared to the consoles).
Click to expand...

CoD for console peasants, BF for PCMasterRace.
 
Nytegard said:
This is one of the reasons I've moved to consoles for certain first person shooters. The player base, even after decaying, is still large in many games compared to the PC. Fortunately, Battlefield isn't one of those. (Call of Duty is though, as the series is empty on the PC compared to the consoles). I grabbed a Xim Apex, and while it doesn't feel the same, it feels playable.

I wonder how many people got into the closed alpha, but as I made it, I'm guessing a lot.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately no luck here, but I rarely make it into anything from EA.

COD is only empty on PC because of what they did to the PC playerbase and then they changed the game to be focused on small player counts.
 
brennok said:
Unfortunately no luck here, but I rarely make it into anything from EA.

COD is only empty on PC because of what they did to the PC playerbase and then they changed the game to be focused on small player counts.
Click to expand...

How many games do you have on Origin though? I'm guessing that played a part, as I have quite an extensive account. I haven't had time to play the alpha yet, but I'll get around to it later tonight or tomorrow.
 
does anyone who's playing the alpha know how to disable HDR? i'm using a samsung tv and it defaults to HDR on with no obvious way to disable it.
 
The options seem limited. The best way I can suggest to disable HDR is find a console command for it.

Anyway, as for performance on my system, it's running @ 2560x1440, I average somewhere between 80-90 fps. So when the full game comes out with graphics options, I feel I'll most likely have to lower them.
 
Nytegard said:
The options seem limited. The best way I can suggest to disable HDR is find a console command for it.

Anyway, as for performance on my system, it's running @ 2560x1440, I average somewhere between 80-90 fps. So when the full game comes out with graphics options, I feel I'll most likely have to lower them.
Click to expand...
you can lower them now. I think theres a more button in the menu and then options. on ultra I was getting about 50-60 fps. lowered to medium and I get 60-80 now. specs are in sig and I run at 1440p
 
Well, I mean for right now, it's fine. Come release day, there will most likely be settings that far exceed this. I wonder if turning off SLI will improve the fps. It did for Battlefield 1.

Overall, I'm enjoying it. There are a few issues, such as having to hit escape every once in awhile so I'm not forced to deploy on a squad mate, but I haven't run into anything too terrible.
 
Porter_ said:
does anyone who's playing the alpha know how to disable HDR? i'm using a samsung tv and it defaults to HDR on with no obvious way to disable it.
Click to expand...

swapping to boarderless windowed and then back to fullscreen worked for me. i played 2 rounds of conquest and here are my thoughts:
1) SLI doesn't currently work which is not surprising since it's in alpha. i had to lower settings to medium and reduce resolution scale to 80%. still looked good which is surprising because i usually can't tolerate any <100% resolution scaling.
2) it plays a lot like BF1 (duh)
3) map is cool, i like it
4) player models look ridiculous. face masks, face paint, odd camos. you only really notice this at the 'end of round, here's the best squad' screen when it shows a close up view of the player models. during normal combat you don't really notice it much (the camos stick out though). that end of round screen is a bit ridiculous looking.
5) planes sound fantastic
6) weapons sound decent
7) i like the new squad spawn screen after you die. respawning in general is a bit faster than previous BF games.
8) the VX1 rockets are cool as hell to watch. i imagine after logging some hours of playtime they could become annoying.

i'll buy this because it's fun and i have a good time with all battlefield games. if you didn't like BF1 there's a slim chance you'll like this. this is all based on the alpha, obviously.
 
Tank deployment system is the same from bf1 and still the drizzling shits. You see an icon for an available tank, click on it, click on the tank you want, hit deploy and what happens? You see on the mini-map some other tit has somehow got it ahead of you. You basically have to put your mouse on the tank icon and spam left click to have any chance of getting one, if you select it and either try and select a different tank or configure it then it seems other people can still take it.
 
Oh and in case anyone didn't know (and it seems most didn't) this actually has a server browser, on the surface it looks like it just has quick connect options but according to the alpha forum:

Bottom right corner of the "Play Conquest" and "Play Grand Operations" pictures. There is a little icon.
 
I can't see DICE dumping the server browser, but rental servers I can see those going away and are even rumored to do so.


Nytegard said:
How many games do you have on Origin though? I'm guessing that played a part, as I have quite an extensive account. I haven't had time to play the alpha yet, but I'll get around to it later tonight or tomorrow.
Click to expand...

33.

It's fine though after watching a bunch of the footage I didn't come away excited for the game. I was hoping maybe it would boost my interest, but I think I am just ready for Battlefield to go back to modern day.

The worst part is I have an itch to play a FPS, but I am burned out on BF3 and BF4 after over 1500 hours and none of the FPS out there are grabbing me. I have tried just about every F2P battle royal game and I am not a fan of the mode. Unfortunately for me it is what is popular these days. By the time something comes out I will want to play, my new PC fund will probably be 10k. I usually build new every other Battlefield and I skipped BF1 and looks like I might skip BFV.
 
Hulk said:
All I want is BF 2 with updated graphics.
Click to expand...

EA/DICE executive: And all we want is to sell you a trojan horse live service so we can shower you in microtransactions and milk you for every god damn cent you have! So stop being a whiny bitch and hand over your wallet!
 
Porter_ said:
FYI the closed alpha ends July 3rd at 7am PDT (14:00 UTC)
Click to expand...
well that sucks. I was hoping it would last at least a week. I enjoyed it. looking forward to the release. its not perfect but better than bf1. I like the increased time to kill. I can kill 3 people with one 30 round clip. I like the medic and revive changes. only thing I really didn't like was the graphic clutter, so many effects. and fps wasn't great. the guns felt good. that assault gun felt so good to use. I dont know why, I was like addicted to it.
 
Last edited:
Gabe3 said:
well that sucks. I was hoping it would last at least a week. I enjoyed it. looking forward to the release. its not perfect but better than bf1. I like the increased time to kill. I can kill 3 people with one 30 round clip. I like the medic and revive changes. only thing I really didn't like was the graphic clutter, so many effects. and fps wasn't great. the guns felt good. that assault gun felt so good to use. I dont know why, I was like addicted to it.
Click to expand...

yeah i had fun with the alpha. if by "increased time to kill" you mean it took less time to kill people then i 100% agree. once i reminded myself to slow down and play more cautiously i really started to enjoy that aspect. the STG 44 hits like a truck, i think that's why it's so fun to use.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gabe3
like this
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top