Battlefield 5

 

BATTLEFIELD V:

                             Battlefield, five, this game has a very interesting position among the fan base there were a lot of questionable things said by developers and EA executives at launch. A lot of fans boycotted the game at a protest and ultimately battlefield five didn't sell very well at all. I think one of the main reasons this game can feel very underwhelming and uninspired for many people and even a little for me was the setting, World War Two has been done quite a lot in the FPS genre at this point and it's getting a bit redundant, I grew up on the modern slash near futuristic battlefields and those settings were really innovative and unique, finding a top skyscrapers that collapsed as the match progressed and writing in helicopters and using those extremely satisfying weapons and before it was what made me fall in love with Battlefield, and even though I prefer the modern setting I still really loved battlefield one, it was very gritty and immersive and there was a nice change of pace for the series but I think battlefield fives and world war two settings just came out at the wrong time. This game also came out a year after Call of Duty had just done World War Two as well keep in mind so I think everyone was a bit tired of the older settings. Not only that, there's also a lot of historical and accuracies in Battlefield five, which was a large issue and all the controversy at launch things like face paints and flashy cameras prosthetics and there was the whole argument about woman being on the battlefield for the factions, that's had a lot of people thinking that DICE and EA were more focused on trying to be politically correct, rather than Berkeley accurate known Battlefield has never really been extremely realistic to begin with but nonetheless the way he handled this was absolutely terrible and their csio probably said the most EAA quote I've ever heard and that was, accept it or don't buy the game as a company trying to sell this game to your fans and trying to make money, you probably shouldn't give people an ultimatum like that, but we all know people who work up in the higher ups at EA have no contact with the outside world. So regardless of all that controversy, I really just wanted to take the game in for what it actually is, And try not to have any predetermined biases or judgments. And it turns out it's actually a pretty solid game, it's not bad it's not bad at all. Sure, it may not be on the level of other previous titles I still enjoyed the game quite thoroughly dices map design and visuals continue to be some of the best I've played in first person shooters The visuals are absolutely stunning and the maps looks so authentic. They all have great environmental variety, and each plays out differently, there's large open fields tight corridors and alleys buildings islands, and they all look incredible aesthetically now probably what you're wondering is what the player base is like right now, is that that div is a quick to find games, and it really depends when you play and what game modes you play on. Also keep in mind, I'm on PC so there's likely more people playing on console, but for most like conquest and Pacific war, the game is very active most times, it took under 10 seconds to find the game, but for demos like outpost grand operations and Team Deathmatch, it would be very inconsistent, sometimes it would be very quick and easy, and other times it would be near impossible to find the game, and it will just put you in lobbies with only like two players, but usually at night, it was very easy to find games for TDMA random operations only mode where I could never find the whole game for no matter what was Firestorm, the battle royale mode, nobody talks about this battle reality and that's likely because nobody plays it, it's only 64 players and I struggled to get above five in my lobbies, so I really didn't get to properly test out the Battle royale I mean the zone looks cool and it destroys buildings as it moves past them, but that's about all like, it's a good thing battlefield is moving away from that already. The gunplay in multiplayer is extremely satisfying and for the most part weapons feel really good, although the guns kind of feel like laser beams and already a bit too accurate for world war two guns in my opinion, they definitely have recoil but it's like really easy to control sniping like always is one of the most satisfying things you can do in this game, and I'd say for the most part the game feels pretty balanced the starting weapons are all pretty solid and while there's definitely some much better one, so a month, it doesn't feel like any gun is extremely overpowered and broken, at least not from what I experienced this game had a new revival system basically anytime you die you get this brief time where you're bleeding out on the ground, you can either choose to wait it out and hoping medic or squad member comes to revive you. Or you can just skip that and respond right away. I've heard a lot of mixed opinions on this revive system. On the one hand I liked it because it makes playing as a medic and being a team player really helpful to your team, but also makes the whole response process really lengthy when I'm playing respond first person shooters, I just want to respond and immediately get back into the action but the whole revive system makes it go through multiple screens and wait a few extra seconds before you can get back into the game. Overall though, I liked it because I feel like I was revived a lot more frequently in this game, and I wouldn't have to waste a bunch of time running back all the way to where I died. The Lord still modes like tactical and strategic conquest, are still in my opinion, the best game modes and the best way to experience this game, they just feel so huge and open it feels like all out warfare, it's what always made battlefield distinctive from other first person shooters like Call of Duty, Battlefield is just so immersive and it almost feels like you're playing in a live war movie with people screaming and artillery fire landing all around you big tanks and bombers decimating the destructible buildings and fortifications. I especially loved the Pacific War as well because one team has to try and assault an island by coming in on boats and tanks, and there's cannons flying everywhere people getting gunned down on the floor by descenders, it's so cool, and to me that was what battlefield was always about the destructible buildings and environments, along with dynamic weather effects, it's really impressive, although I might add that I think battlefield one and, or is this a lot better as the terrain of the map would actually change, as you're playing, and more buildings and ports are coming down, Battlefield five did introduce a build system where any class can just pull out a hammer and start building little fortifications and walls resupply stations etc wasn't a crazy new feature, but it was a nice touch. Insert quite useful in many scenarios so I wouldn't say it's something that series absolutely needs.

There was also a new weapon progression system implemented every time you level up a weapon, you'll get a skill point, you can spend to unlock for boost for your particular weapon like increased reload speed or aim down sight speed, I didn't really find something like this necessary but it gets it gives a little more reward for progressing the grand operations was something I was very excited for I loved operations from Battlefield One, it was this large scale demo that took place over several Indian days, and could take up to two hours to complete, depending on how even the teams were, it felt like a very authentic war experience grained operations were pretty disappointing to me though, there's still a long day mode that is story driven and takes place over several day modes and maps but it really just reused a lot of game modes, I had already played previously, it felt more like a playlist of other demos just mash into a bigger game mode that had some vague narration to make you feel like that what you're doing, actually impacts a narrative, it was also just a best of three across these different game modes, and I had a hard time finding games for grand operations so that was pretty disappointing for me. The final thing I wanted to touch on was the campaign, it's a very short campaign, it's only about two to three hours, which is what you would probably expect for an online FPS, the game has multiple different levels across different times and stories during World War Two, they took a very similar approach as they did with Battlefield One with the storytelling, they really emphasize the historical and realistic feel and trying to showcase the horrors of war, some of the moments and characters felt a bit ridiculous and cheesy, it was also quite unbelievable that some of these stories could have happened for some of the missions but it was still really enjoyable. My favorite mission was definitely in the snowy mountains of Norway, you get to do some snow stealth with throwing knives and suppress snipers and pistols you even get to use skis lead design looks fantastic. The Stealth is very simple, it's just melee and suppress weapons but I'll take what I can get and surprisingly the mission design was actually really open and most levels that felt more like a sandbox, rather than a linear mission, usually gives you a list of objectives and you can take them down in any order you want and using any means necessary, including being able to drive vehicles and planes, it was different, but a cool take on campaign for Battlefield, I would say the campaign as a whole isn't too special, and it's definitely not worth getting the game just for the campaign but had some really fun moments admissions sorta nice bonus, and I almost forgot to mention, but obviously this game looks incredible on the Frostbite engine and it runs extremely well on PC.