Battlefield V

Dayaks said:
Yeah just saying, seems like a loading issue. Less concerning than constant low fps.
Click to expand...
the fps seems like 40 and the frequent micro freezes seems like its low on ram or something.

https://wccftech.com/dice-battlefield-v-60fps-1080p-rtx/
"DICE: Battlefield V Demo was Running at “Rock Solid” 60fps in 1080p using NVIDIA’s RTX Ray Tracing Tech"

if 60 fps is about all they can do I don't think people will play with ray tracing on. I have a 144hz monitor and I don't even like playing below 100 fps. people who have a rtx card probably have a 144hz+ monitor at this point. once you're used to playing above 60hz, you never want to go back.
 
Chris_B said:




The second vid has RTX enabled, very hitchy but still in alpha according to the top right of the screen.
Click to expand...

That map looks incredible. It puts a whole different paintjob on the game from the impression given by the previous alpha/beta map.
 
Gabe3 said:
the fps seems like 40 and the frequent micro freezes seems like its low on ram or something.

https://wccftech.com/dice-battlefield-v-60fps-1080p-rtx/
"DICE: Battlefield V Demo was Running at “Rock Solid” 60fps in 1080p using NVIDIA’s RTX Ray Tracing Tech"

if 60 fps is about all they can do I don't think people will play with ray tracing on. I have a 144hz monitor and I don't even like playing below 100 fps. people who have a rtx card probably have a 144hz+ monitor at this point. once you're used to playing above 60hz, you never want to go back.
Click to expand...

May have been running at 60fps in the demo but ingame is a different matter. Their demo was basically 1 guy walking around with the game running in slow motion, compare that to 63 other players running around with explosions, smoke effects, muzzle flash, buildings taking damage etc. I think 60fps is optimistic at best.

Ed: and typically ea have removed the 2 main vids.
 
Chris_B said:
May have been running at 60fps in the demo but ingame is a different matter. Their demo was basically 1 guy walking around with the game running in slow motion, compare that to 63 other players running around with explosions, smoke effects, muzzle flash, buildings taking damage etc. I think 60fps is optimistic at best.

Ed: and typically ea have removed the 2 main vids.
Click to expand...
"Battlefield V ALPHA - "RTX ..." is no longer available due to a copyright claim by PC Master Race Latinoamérica.
 
Gabe3 said:
the fps seems like 40 and the frequent micro freezes seems like its low on ram or something.

https://wccftech.com/dice-battlefield-v-60fps-1080p-rtx/
"DICE: Battlefield V Demo was Running at “Rock Solid” 60fps in 1080p using NVIDIA’s RTX Ray Tracing Tech"

if 60 fps is about all they can do I don't think people will play with ray tracing on. I have a 144hz monitor and I don't even like playing below 100 fps. people who have a rtx card probably have a 144hz+ monitor at this point. once you're used to playing above 60hz, you never want to go back.
Click to expand...

If they got rid of microstutters and it could do 60Hz I’d be all over that.... for single player.

I would be ok with RT sucking if DLSS delivers.
 
This game looks just like BF1 to me. Maybe I am missing something.
 
Vega said:
This game looks just like BF1 to me. Maybe I am missing something.
Click to expand...

spaceman said:
You are not. I played the alpha.
Click to expand...

it plays a lot like BF1, as you would expect. the battlefield formula has been relatively the same since BF3 (you could argue since BC2) so the last few games have been mostly a change of setting/era. This is talking big picture and not the small details. the small details are pretty interesting though. in my mind there wasn't a whole lot of difference between BF3 and BF4 (i played the crap out of both) but i recently loaded up BF3 and it really highlights all the improvements they made with BF4. it's easy to forget the little changes DICE have made over the years but they all add up.
 
Last edited:
I played the alpha too. I don't think it plays like bf1. the ttk is way faster. reviving takes longer. limited ammo. the game feels less arcade to me.
 
Not sure how anyone could compare it to bf1, the gun mechanics are totally different, they're not based on "RNG" as they were in bf1 and reward accuracy over spraying and hoping you get a roll of the dice with the "RNG" system. Its a vaguely similar era in terms of setting but there's a lot of differences.

The fortification system which i thought was a bit gimmicky at first has been expanded on quite a bit and now looks like it could be quite useful for defending flags, its shown in this video digging trenches and making MG nests as well as a lot of questions being answered.

 
Chris_B said:
Not sure how anyone could compare it to bf1, the gun mechanics are totally different, they're not based on "RNG" as they were in bf1 and reward accuracy over spraying and hoping you get a roll of the dice with the "RNG" system. Its a vaguely similar era in terms of setting but there's a lot of differences.

The fortification system which i thought was a bit gimmicky at first has been expanded on quite a bit and now looks like it could be quite useful for defending flags, its shown in this video digging trenches and making MG nests as well as a lot of questions being answered.

Click to expand...

that was a decent interview. I got excited at the end where he mentions redoing some of the bf1942 maps.
 
It plays like a more refined bf1. Except for the planes which I did not like. The infantry was faster and more precise. I did not like the alpha map but the fortify option is interesting. I am hopeful. The recent server issues with bf1 have left a bad taste in my mouth. I don't understand what the deal is there. Unless it is a constant ddos or something.
 
I don't know if this was the same video Chris_B posted earlier, but here is some more gameplay with ray tracing.

 
That gameplay above literally looks like BF1 Amiens. Not sure how people say it is so different.
 
Vega said:
That gameplay above literally looks like BF1 Amiens. Not sure how people say it is so different.
Click to expand...


As i said above the gunplay is very different in the game, there's plenty of obvious differences when you actually play the game. Try the open beta next month then you'll see.
 
My biggest issue with these games at this point is that the release cycle is so fast for EA and BF that within a year the game is a ghost town. I'll never be buying another BF again, and i'm tired of the DLC fracturing the community.
 
Mchart said:
My biggest issue with these games at this point is that the release cycle is so fast for EA and BF that within a year the game is a ghost town. I'll never be buying another BF again, and i'm tired of the DLC fracturing the community.
Click to expand...
All DLC for Battlefield V is going to be added through free updates. They're replacing that revenue stream with cosmetic microtransactions which is arguably more profitable in this day and age.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DPI
like this
Actually is looking fun from the videos. I'll give this a go during the open beta.
 
Armenius said:
Actually is looking fun from the videos. I'll give this a go during the open beta.
Click to expand...


Yup, the fortifications in the alpha were pretty useless, in this being able to set tank barricades etc they could actually have a decent bearing on the game. Not long til we can try it anyway,. next tuesday for pre-orders.
 
Not sure if it's been mentioned but vehicle gameplay has supposedly been improved and continues to undergo being overhauled, with more "depth" being added. We'll see how that pans out.

In BF1 it felt like the pendulum swung a little too hard in the infantry-only direction with vehicles as an afterthought, and that's not what historically made Battlefield great.
 
Just a small nitpick. Why are the guns still held sideways like in BF1? Annoyed the crap out of me in that game.
 
Haven't pre ordered yet but may do it tonight. Always end up getting every battlefield game anyways. Looks good.


I dont know how to explain it but the gun play does "feel" like its better. There is a, how should i say it, weight/heft behind it when firing off rounds. We shall see.
 
Is anyone else of the opinion that this game is catering to the lowest common denominator?

The graphics are impressive, but that appears to be the only impressive thing about this game.

There are a litany of things which need to change before I would even remotely consider purchasing it:
1. Origin needs to go away. Every time I re download it to try out something it's riddled with bugs and annoyances.
2. EA was voted the worst company in America, and continually backs this election through it's anti consumer practices. The company itself simply needs to change.
3. Battlefield shows a complete lack and unwillingness to allow mod ability. Because...money.
4. There is an extremely limited selection of maps, and complete lack and unwillingness to allow moders to create new ones. Because...money.
5. Not only is there a lack of modability, but there are Microtransactions INSTEAD of allowing moders to incorporate new skins, levels, etc... Because...money.
6. There is a rather strange attempt to alter a historic time period with women serving on the front lines with weird cyborg arms. Who thought that was a good idea?
7. EA essentially told anyone who criticized point 6 that they are unwelcome to purchase the game.
8. Cost. It's not at all a great value for $60.00.
9. There is generally a waiting period for EA games to show up in the EA Access library if you prefer the whole "Renting" scheme. Because...money.


Sure, some of these points are opinions, and some are facts. But they're MY opinions, and EA itself doesn't seem to be helping to improve them.
 
TheMadHatterXxX said:
Now delayed until November 20th, lel.
Click to expand...


Yup, looks like someone at EA realised after seeing pre-orders drop 85% that launching in between RDR2 and Blackops wouldn't be a good move. They released titanfall 2 inbetween Bf1 and a COD game 2 years back and sales for that game suffered badly. Of course they're sending out the usual pr spin that the delay is to "polish" the game and has nothing to do with pre-orders being in the shitter. Apparently we're all fucking stupid and are expected to buy that Bs hook line and sinker.




Some more gameplay which i found a bit weird to watch, it's like watching an olympic sprinter with a railgun flying around the map.
 
TheMadHatterXxX said:
Now delayed until November 20th, lel.
Click to expand...
Source for the delay:
https://www.ea.com/en-gb/games/battlefield/news/an-update-on-battlefield-5#__prclt=xWIFxy0y

So now it's sandwiched between Fallout 76 on November 14 and Super Smash Bros. Ultimate on December 7! I don't think that is much of an improvement in release window, EA.
Chris_B said:
Yup, looks like someone at EA realised after seeing pre-orders drop 85% that launching in between RDR2 and Blackops wouldn't be a good move. They released titanfall 2 inbetween Bf1 and a COD game 2 years back and sales for that game suffered badly. Of course they're sending out the usual pr spin that the delay is to "polish" the game and has nothing to do with pre-orders being in the shitter. Apparently we're all fucking stupid and are expected to buy that Bs hook line and sinker.




Some more gameplay which i found a bit weird to watch, it's like watching an olympic sprinter with a railgun flying around the map.
Click to expand...

Looks more like Call of Duty the way the guy is playing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top