EA’s had a tough time with some of its biggest franchises at the tail-end of this console generation. EvenBattlefield, one of its longest running and most successful franchises, has not been immune to the effects of controversy and criticism. Games likeBattlefront 2andBattlefield 5each getting its own respective controversies show the publisher may need to make some serious adjustments to its development pipelines and release schedules beforeBattlefield 6.
Battlefield 5had a lot of marketing hype on the way to its release, but quickly found itself under pressure from fans due to the live service approach being the source of many complaints. Over time the game struggled for a number of different circumstances, while games likeModern Warfaremostly saw praise. Even thoughModern Warfarehad its own share of problems, the game was very successful and is still riding great momentum.Battlefield 6may need to make some serious adjustments if the series is to mount a comeback.
RELATED:EA Knows Gamers Think Company is ‘Just a Bunch of Bad Guys’
Managing Expectations
Battlefield 5’s reveal and lead up to release genuinely had a lot of hype surrounding the game, despite igniting an equal amount ofcontroversy over its depiction of World War II. DICE’s development team was rolling out an ambitious update schedule based around real-life events from 1940-1945. Each expansion would emphasize several milestone events that occurred chronologically throughout the war. Conceptually, it was a radical and positively received idea, one that’d be worth revisiting, but the main issue withBattlefield 5was mounting stability issues and competition getting in the way of the game’s ambition.
EA CEO Andrew Wilson notes that delaying the game to November of 2018 instead of its intended October releasemeant the game faced stiff competition, but it was more than just its release date. Fans consistently criticized each update with performance degradation issues, and while many were resolved, the game had a lasting stigma of stability problems. Many new content updates saw delays as a result, which lead to criticisms for lack of content as well. EA’s concept of makingBattlefield Va proper live service experience was continuously marred by issues and complaints, but that doesn’t mean the series can’t bounce back in the next entry.
Meaningful Destruction
One thing in particular that newerBattlefieldtitles seem to gloss over isthe potential in functionally destructible environments. Sure, everyBattlefieldgame sinceBad Companyhas featured highly destructible environments, but never as functionally important as the first few iterations. Destruction quickly became a defining difference betweenBattlefieldandCall of Duty, but future iterations have subdued the importance of destruction. Earlier titles likeBattlefield 1942andBattlefield 2featured destruction in a limited form, only allowing for certain geometry (like bridges) to be destroyed while the rest of the landscape remained unchanged. With the advent of the Frostbite engine,Battlefieldgames were able to craft near-fully destructible environments for all geometry and not just certain objects.
“Functionally” is the key word there, as later games featured destruction as more of a gimmick rather than a pivotal game mechanic.Battlefield 4harkened back to this idea with its “Levolution Events” during certain Operations, but they were highly scripted and not as dynamic like theBad Companygames.The beauty ofBattlefield: Bad CompanyandBad Company 2’s destruction wasn’t in the mechanic itself, but how each map was designed with destructibility in mind. Strategy for rushing M-COM stations inBad Company 2could change depending whether it was worth it to plant a bomb, or if it was more feasible just to take the entire building down.Bad Company 2excelled at balancing environment design with destruction mechanics very well, a concept that’s been lost on recentBattlefieldgames.
Emphasizing Team Composition
2019’sCall of Duty: Modern Warfaremade an interesting change to class customization calledGunsmith, allowing greater customization of weapons and attachments. While Gunsmith was completely new for attachments inCall of Duty, it was very reminiscent of the loadout customization system introduced inBattlefield 3and expanded in subsequent entries. Integrating that much weapon customization was a first for the time, considering mostCall of Dutygames stopped at one attachment per gun unless players used something like the Bling perk. But whereBattlefielddistinguishes itself fromCall of Dutyin regards to weapons are the classes.
Team composition and/or dedicated roles inCall of Dutymultiplayer is a very rare thing. Average players will stick to their favorite guns and perks inModern Warfare, and the match will play out to various results. It’s a highly open-ended approach that’s proved to be the boon of the franchise thus far, butBattlefieldhandles things a bit more traditionally.
Classes inBattlefieldfit specific archetypes, designed to emphasize specific roles for players rather than allowing total class freedom. Engineers could sabotage and destroy enemy armor, medics support the rest of the squad, Recon are for the sniper-inclined, and Assault is the standard-fare class, each serving distinct roles in all skirmishes.Battlefieldhas always had the bones for emphasizing proper team composition, but it’s never been very important for the success rate of matches.
Reduce the Simulation Aspects
One thing recently thatBattlefieldgames have started to stray away from was the nature of simulation.Call of Duty, no matter how close it’s gotten to realism,has always embodied what an arcade shooter experience is like.Modern Warfaremade great strides towards realism, especially with its campaign, but it never truly gets there on purpose.Battlefieldon the other hand took the gritty simulatory approach very seriously, as evidenced byBattlefield3and4. But DICE did curb that notion withBattlefield 1quite well, taking plenty of creative liberties in its portrayal of World War 1.
It’s a bit of an abstract concept, butBattlefieldhas consistently focused on a strictly historical/realistic perspectivein its most recent iterations. That alone isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but it does make for a less creative or unique identity forBattlefield. At least in terms of gaming, it very quickly becomes just another game about the horrors of war, and less about people playing this game for entertainment. FutureBattlefieldgames don’t need to necessarily go crazy and be super campy likeBad Company, but for lack of a better expression,Battlefieldshouldn’t take itself too seriously. War is scary, butBattlefieldshould be fun first and foremost.
The nextBattlefieldgame may have some stiff competition in the future,especially withBattlefield 5’s support ending this summer. There are a few key areas that DICE and EA could explore and change to bring the series back, hopefully bringing back a time where the “Call of Dutyvs.Battlefield” arguments return. Until then, fans will have to see what’s in store forBattlefield 6in the future.
