Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Monaco 
1 
1 
167,880 ratings 
In comparison, Battlefield 2042’s movement was way too fast. This isn't an issue here.
In the current pre-alpha, all classes are open, but in the beta, there will be two modes:
One with class-restricted weapons, and a second one, in which all weapons are open to any class.
In my opinion, Battlefield works better when weapons are restricted by class.
Too many people want “modern” things, not realizing that’s exactly what has been ruining the franchise over the last unfortunate entries.
A military game should stay true to its military roots — not add made-up elements, just because someone wants to play that way, and go off the beaten path as a result. 1/5
Not that exaggerated stuff where your character moves like they’re on steroids.
If they stick to the formula that worked, Battlefield will make a strong comeback.
The problem nowadays is that many players ask for nonsense, and even when the developers give them exactly what they asked for, they will complain regardless.
Now I see plenty of people saying, “It looks like 2042,” without even playing it.
Well, I did play it — and it doesn’t feel anything like Battlefield 2042.
Some people talk as if we’ve never played Battlefield before, themselves included.
I started caring about Battlefield less and less after BF4, because the games that followed simply weren’t on the same level.
Of course, as someone who grew up with the franchise, I still played them. 2/5
Hell, even when I wanted to leave the franchise behind, after the disaster that was Battlefield 2042, I couldn’t forget the amazing experiences from Bad Company 1, Bad Company 2, Battlefield 3, and Battlefield 4.
That kind of feeling, be it a mixture of nostalgia and "cautious hope" stays with you, and it makes you want to try every new one, just to see if it brings back that magic.
I'll say it again; watching is not the same as playing.
Why do you think trailers are so convincing?
Because in trailers, you only watch — you don’t play the game yourself.
Obviously, the game still has some things that need to be fixed, but in my opinion, they’re rather minor, and Battlefield isn't Battlefield without a little bit of jank. 3/5
And in that regard, the gunplay in this game is so much better than in any of the recent Battlefields, including Battlefield 1, which was liked by many.
It also has top-tier destruction, which shouldn't really come as a surprise, since the initial reveal trailer covered that... thoroughly! Still, after the disastrous 2042, it's worth noting.
People are complaining way too much, when this game actually gives off that proper military shooter vibe from earlier entries to the series — modern, but still military.
Like I said, it feels like BF3 and BF4, and the kill effects even remind me of 2042.
Call it Battlefield 4.5, if you will, and I mean that in the best way possible. 4/5