Flogger23m
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2009
- Messages
- 14,369
Things that kill modern BF games is the fact that they are built primarily for consoles first and with that comes the restrictions on design, chiefly map size and terrain detail. Coming from PC games like ARMA 3 (which is now 5 years old) and even PUBG to any Battlefield game just highlights the painful fact that EA caters to the lowest common denominator and any version of Battlefield we get will be a watered down one. Go play King of the Hill for ARMA 3 with vehicles + infantry enabled (which usually only takes advantage of a small portion of Altis) and then imagine a Battlefield game with a map of that scale and it would be breathtaking.
The very first thing you see in the new trailer is a fucking Xbox logo which automatically kills any desire to play this game. What I'd like to see (and never will until consoles die out) is a Battlefield game that can take advantage of modern PCs with huge open maps where you can let loose with vehicles like airplanes/tanks without constantly running into those shitty red zones like in the recent Battlefield games. If I had to describe how it feels to play a Battlefield game (as a primarily PC gamer), it's like swimming in a fish bowl.
Given the fact that the PC gaming market is worth billions now and growing, it is time publishers like EA went back and started designing games for the PC first with consoles as a secondary platform or even create an alternate version of the game for consoles rather than a one size fits all design. Remember Battlefield 2? There was the PC version and then there was BF2: MC for consoles.
BF4 maps were fine size wise for Conquest Large and TDM/Domination. When it gets bigger than that you have little to gain in return. I found 45-48 players per team to be perfect for Conquest Large. Once it gets bigger it becomes too spread out. The problem with BF1 is the maps were less open overall in terms of player flow and catered much more to infantry.