I do agree that Battlefield has hit a rough patch with the last two instalments, but I disagree with the reasons. The basic gunplay and engine are excellent, and recent instalments have seen more vehicles, bigger maps, and more destruction, but in some ways these have become the issue, or perhaps theyve highlighted the issue.
The current problem Battlefield faces is with game balance and map design. Planes are an absolute blight on the game, rarely contributing to the objective focussed gameplay, and with no reasonable counters, serving only to rack up disproportionate K/Ds for their users. The heavy vehicles need to be better balanced too. In previous Battlefields, they had better counters, and there were fewer of them. New additions like artillery bombardments, that you can do little to avoid, only add to the frustration.
In terms of map design, there are several issues. The excessive number of game modes is something of a vicious circle. DICE create poor Rush maps (how hard is it to set objectives that begin easy but get progressively harder, rather than vice versa?), but then assume the issue is with the mode rather than the design. They then create a new mode, and pull together the maps quickly, and when that fails they create yet another mode, diluting player numbers and design focus further.
- Bigger maps and more destruction are fine in theory, but in practice has led to maps that can feel large and characterless and only gets worse as key landmarks are destroyed. So what would I do to fix Battlefield?
- Focus on 24-man Rush and 64-man Conquest. Build the Conquest maps up from the Rush maps, rather than the other way around.
- Drop planes. All heavy tanks, helicopters, etc. should require two or more players to operate.
- Allow poinRead More – Source
