In today’s video, we discuss something subjective – are video game remasters good or bad? And...
5 Changes Battlefield 5 Must Have
There isn’t much known about Battlefield 5, but we do know that it exists and major content will hopefully be revealed soon. There are certain things we want to see changed or added in the game that weren’t in previous immediate Battlefield titles like Battlefield 3 and 4.
Battlefield is undoubtedly one of the biggest and most popular online franchises, and the series has long been considered the professional gamer’s shooter, one which emulates warfare in the most serious fashion, and also on the largest scale possible in a multiplayer.
However, despite being such a good franchise, it’s far from perfect, and that’s why we believe there are certain changes and improvements that need to be made in Battlefield 5. Here are the top five changes we’ve like to see when the game is released:
Unscripted and Player Oriented Destruction
DICE really prides itself with the awesome and dynamic Frostbite engine, and it certainly does make the game very pretty and incredibly immersive. DICE also has pride over the destruction system, but in many players’ opinions their pride is a little false-driven.
You see, destruction in Battlefield titles has been integral since Bad Company 2, but as new iterations of the main series have come out, it’s died down to a considerable extent.
In fact, meaning destruction in the game in Battlefield 4 had been left to ‘Levolution’ – a scripted event that players can trigger, such as destroying a tower that greatly alters the structure of the respective map for the remaining course of a match.
It was impressive the first few times you did it, but it became a terribly repetitive scripted sequence that not many cared to trigger. There were two reasons for that: it actually maps less tactically versatile, and it was just boring.
Battlefield 5 should throw that idea out of the window and bring back the good old destruction system from Bad Company 2. Bad Company 2 not only allowed players to destroy literally every structure in the game, it allowed them to use this to their advantage to carve out unconventional paths and really give their team a tactical advantage.
This player oriented destruction was unscripted, transient, and more importantly served a tactical purpose that could be utilized by good players and squads. Bring that back, and 90% of the community would be happier.
Better Player Customizability
Okay, I’m frankly tired of having almost exactly the same character as others in Battlefield 3 and 4. In the and age where multiplayers are a lot about how you represent your own character, Battlefield has lagged behind.
Battlefield 5 has the perfect opportunity to learn from modern-day multiplayers like The Division, which allows for really good customizability and makes each individual’s player unique.
Granted, you can’t see yourself all the time in a first-person shooter, but it’s always a nice idea to know you have a character who stands out. It’s also really nice to know who’s killed you half a dozen times by just looking at them instead of having to read their name.
Add in things like props, caps, and different costume types, will you, DICE? It’ll definitely make the game more immersive and add a bit of personality to it, which frankly speaking seems a tad lacking when just about everyone looks exactly the same. I mean come on guys, every soldier in the battlefield has a unique identity after all. We’re not all cloned killing machines.
Improved Map Design
Maps in Battlefield games are generally very impressive, mainly because of their scale, but I feel DICE has gone a bit too far with the ‘size’ idea and ignored other essential aspects.
In Battlefield 4 especially, it seemed like maps were made big just to be made big – there were lots of empty and open areas with minimal cover, not much tactical purpose, and a tad tedious for anyone not holding a sniper.
Maps like Rogue Transmission and Goldmud Railway don’t have much room for tactical creativity, and feel like just big huge regions with too many open spaces. There isn’t anything sequential about the to make the versatile enough for multiple game modes.
The most important and essential aspect of these maps though was that they failed by a large margin on certain game modes. This for me is why DICE needs to revisit the whiteboard and plan things out for Battlefield 5.
Heck, they don’t need to take inspiration from anyone else but themselves – Bad Company 2 had specific maps dedicated to specific game modes, which made them feel refined and genuine. Certain maps in Battlefield 4 on the other hand felt stupid and tactical disasters when played in other modes.
Make a few dedicated maps for Rush, a few others for Conquest, and a few more for other game modes, and restrict certain Conquest maps from being playable in Rush and vice versa.
For example, playing Silk Road on Rush was always troublesome because of how it was essentially designed for Conquest. The terrible lack of cover made it nearly unplayable for a hectic, pacey game mode like Rush.
Improved Singleplayer Campaign
Not many care about the campaign, but in my opinion it plays a huge part in a first-person shooter’s overall impact. The same can be true for Battlefield. DICE has incorporated campaigns into their games, but none of them have been remotely as interesting as the singeplayer campaigns in the Bad Company games.
DICE themselves have admitted they aren’t great story-tellers, which is fine for the most part, but you don’t have to write a killer story to make a memorable campaign.
A good example is Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, which had a short campaign, but one that was engaging, and more importantly had a lot of brilliant moments. Its story was mostly forgettable, but the set-pieces and certain missions really made it a worthwhile experience.
Battlefield 5, if its adding a campaign in the first place, should be having one that has such wow factors, and those will translate well into its multiplayer experience and overall appeal.
The killcam in the Battlefield franchise is one of the most useless applications of the feature, if I’m being brutally honest.
It’d make sense if the maps were small and compact, and it was only a 5v5 or similar match, but with maps that scale several kilometers in length and width, it’s absolutely useless to have a killcam that shows where your killer is going.
By the time you spawn, he/she could have gone anywhere in the multiple open paths. It’s especially useless in a game mode like Rush, since there are defined bases and positions for respective teams.
For this reason, the killcam needs to be scrapped and the more classic killcam should be introduced in Battlefield 5. I’m talking about a killcam that actually shows how the killer killed you, from the killer’s perspective.
This not only gives you a great idea of what you’re doing wrong, but also makes an automatic learning source for many newbies who will enter a game. It’ll be a great source of learning new tricks and tactics from higher ranked players when they do something really unconventional or new.
Similarly, you also want others to appreciate how you managed to kill them, and let them know what you are/aren’t good at.