Some interesting theories posted here about why publishers of successful games over time fail trying to release successful iterations of those titles.

Mine is simple. Yes the old ones who designed and coded the originals have retired. The new production execs and devs above all else want to make a name for themselves in the industry by creating something new and original. They consider working on a new version of an old title, low status and something that will not further their career, the choices they see are:

* Just use the original title but create a completely different original game hoping they stand out for having a creative original idea.
* Avoid, postpone or negotiate to publish something else they have original ideas for
* If top management insists, do it grudgingly, not caring about the quality, just as fast as possible to get it behind them.

Agent.X7 wrote on Jan 6, 2022, 23:06:

Sepharo wrote on Jan 6, 2022, 18:36:
1942 (and Vietnam on top of that base) were the last time the game wasn't a buggy mess, and that's not to say that it didn't have bugs, "red tag bug" existed back then too, but the game was mostly polished.
BF2 launched with horrendous problems and the "red tag" bug got even worse... 2142 was on top of that.
Then you had BC and BC2 which were fun but a bit of a departure from the old formula... but they feature a lot of destructible buildings and terrain which was cool.

Then BF3 was a buggy mess and that's when they started adding the extra meat-grindy close quarters maps where it was just grenades, machine guns, and a billion healthpacks in a small chokepoint until the map ended.
From then on out all of the games have just been BF3 with some new graphics to me...
I tend to pick one up about every other release... skipped BF4, Hardline, got BF1 because of the novelty of a WW1 game, and that was actually pretty decent, got BFV for the Battle Royale... but that was a mistake... skipping 2042.

You and remember BF: Vietnam very differently. That game was a buggy piece of shit that took them 6 months to make playable.

I have to assume I was done playing it before 6 months were up.
I got it at launch and played it a ton. Don't remember it having any major issues. One of my favorite in the series.

Paragon of Virtue wrote on Jan 6, 2022, 13:45:
Video gamers: "Say no to crunch! Devs work too hard! Damn execs!"
Also Video gamers: "Where's our new stuff? Work harder, dammit!"

Most people are reasonable, but that wouldn't be as dramatic as blaming all gamers for instant gratification outrage. Or actually admitting that Battlefield2042 is shit.

Good thing the original lead designer quit right after the game was released. Lol. Joke is on us.

I am not an expert on either franchise. I loved the first Call of Duty and have not been as much of a fan since. I loved Battlefield 2, haven't really gotten into any of the other games enough to have an opinion on them that is worth much. I will say this though, Call of Duty is really good at what it does. It just does slight variations on the same thing over and over and it works.

To not have a well received and money making Battlefield game out right now while Activision has Call of Duty basically on autopilot is not a good look for EA.

Sepharo wrote on Jan 6, 2022, 18:36:
1942 (and Vietnam on top of that base) were the last time the game wasn't a buggy mess, and that's not to say that it didn't have bugs, "red tag bug" existed back then too, but the game was mostly polished.
BF2 launched with horrendous problems and the "red tag" bug got even worse... 2142 was on top of that.
Then you had BC and BC2 which were fun but a bit of a departure from the old formula... but they feature a lot of destructible buildings and terrain which was cool.

Then BF3 was a buggy mess and that's when they started adding the extra meat-grindy close quarters maps where it was just grenades, machine guns, and a billion healthpacks in a small chokepoint until the map ended.
From then on out all of the games have just been BF3 with some new graphics to me...
I tend to pick one up about every other release... skipped BF4, Hardline, got BF1 because of the novelty of a WW1 game, and that was actually pretty decent, got BFV for the Battle Royale... but that was a mistake... skipping 2042.

You and remember BF: Vietnam very differently. That game was a buggy piece of shit that took them 6 months to make playable.

Paragon of Virtue wrote on Jan 6, 2022, 13:45:
Video gamers: "Say no to crunch! Devs work too hard! Damn execs!"
Also Video gamers: "Where's our new stuff? Work harder, dammit!"

Or you could say some video gamers want it one way while others want it the other.

But that obvious (duh) truth wouldn't be so dramatic, would it?

BTW have you guys seen ARC Raiders? It seems like perhaps, the key DICE devs left to make it, and it looks great. Which may explain some of why 2042 is such an incoherent mess if the best people left.

1942 (and Vietnam on top of that base) were the last time the game wasn't a buggy mess, and that's not to say that it didn't have bugs, "red tag bug" existed back then too, but the game was mostly polished.
BF2 launched with horrendous problems and the "red tag" bug got even worse... 2142 was on top of that.
Then you had BC and BC2 which were fun but a bit of a departure from the old formula... but they feature a lot of destructible buildings and terrain which was cool.

Then BF3 was a buggy mess and that's when they started adding the extra meat-grindy close quarters maps where it was just grenades, machine guns, and a billion healthpacks in a small chokepoint until the map ended.
From then on out all of the games have just been BF3 with some new graphics to me...
I tend to pick one up about every other release... skipped BF4, Hardline, got BF1 because of the novelty of a WW1 game, and that was actually pretty decent, got BFV for the Battle Royale... but that was a mistake... skipping 2042.

theglaze wrote on Jan 6, 2022, 17:20:

Tom wrote on Jan 6, 2022, 15:58:
BC2 was probably the peak IMO.

Agreed.

The development and management teams involved now, are so far removed from the best years of BF, the corporation has lost the memory and knowledge on how to build a "new" one. Corporate amnesia impacts most businesses over time, but I find it astounding to see it unfold so dramatically in the gaming industry. Unfortunately for us who remember those good ol' BF days, another developer has not filled that gameplay void.

Interesting; I enjoyed BFBC2, but I thought it was one of the 'least BF' Battlefield games... small maps, low sky cap, insanely dominant helos and... no jets? I think?

Best Battlefield was probably later BF3 and patched BF4. DICE completely shit the bed by not just doing upscaled BF4 with BFV's fortification and movement upgrades.

More on topic, BF2042 will get patched into working order eventually; it's already happening. But I think a lot of players are way too fickle now, and have already quit and moved onto Vanguard or some other lesser game. PC only servers are empty, I can only find a BF2042 game with crossplay turned on. And Console teammates are ATROCIOUS.

Paragon of Virtue wrote on Jan 6, 2022, 13:45:
Video gamers: "Say no to crunch! Devs work too hard! Damn execs!"
Also Video gamers: "Where's our new stuff? Work harder, dammit!"

Really feels like it, not that criticisms weren't valid, but if you want them to overhaul the game, it's gonna take some time.

Tom wrote on Jan 6, 2022, 15:58:
BC2 was probably the peak IMO.

Agreed.

The development and management teams involved now, are so far removed from the best years of BF, the corporation has lost the memory and knowledge on how to build a "new" one. Corporate amnesia impacts most businesses over time, but I find it astounding to see it unfold so dramatically in the gaming industry. Unfortunately for us who remember those good ol' BF days, another developer has not filled that gameplay void.

Bobby Kotick's of the gaming industry. He's not isolated nor is the gutting of teams for profit. As long as we were buying the games, they were happy to serve us shit. I'm smiling a bit to think that we might have some changes since this is probably not a profitable venture for them and hopefully the plug gets pulled like that BF: Hardline.

This wasn't by accident at all.

theglaze wrote on Jan 6, 2022, 13:09:
This video goes into detail https://youtu.be/2MKtgP7cHEk

Here's my quick breakdown...

• Senior BF devs starting leaving the team after BF4. Some claiming they knew what fans wanted because they were fans of the franchise, but management was calling the shots and controlling creative direction. The youtuber suggests corporate was focused on chasing the success of competitors, rather than building it's own unique content from within
• Design was focused on free battle royal because EA decided it NEEDED to compete in this space. It didn't know if Apex Legends could pull it off, and decided the BF name recognition was needed to attract fans to its F2P BR model.
• It took 3 times longer than anticipated to get BF on an upgraded Frostbite engine, so it started behind schedule
• More senior staff left BEFORE post-production started of BF2042, suggesting they knew it was going to be a steaming pile. Most people on the team have 7 years of experience or less, some new to Frostbite, new to BF, or new to both
• The switch from battle royale to full price 'traditional' BF experience happened a month or two before post-production.
• The UI team was so gutted by staff departures, it was almost entirely outsourced just a few months before the game was released.
• Covid protocols meant that workers were no longer going into the office as the team transitioned to remote working. Many devs didn't have the hardware at home (consoles or PC) to test their code and changes, because EA provided that gear in the office. Remote workers had to download a new build every day on home networks (100 times slower) and ask fellow coworkers to test their bug fixes on their personal PS5 or XB or PC
• Management hesitated to push out the launch, settled for a few weeks when everyone involved in development was asking for months

Thanks for the summary. Sounds painful. Hopefully they do some serious post mortem on this one, rebuild the team properly, and focus on the things that made BF great: working together as a squad, having epic battles with large team sizes, interesting and properly sized maps, vehicles that enhance the game instead of ruin it, a variety of fun game modes, satisfying progression that isn't too grindy, the right balance between casual and hardcore, and maybe even some destructible environments. Yeah it's a lot to ask for but they did it before. BC2 was probably the peak IMO.

Battlefield is a franchise that has been around for about two decades. How can you NOT know what gamers expect from a Battlefield game at this point? It's really not that hard...

Paragon of Virtue wrote on Jan 6, 2022, 13:45:
Video gamers: "Say no to crunch! Devs work too hard! Damn execs!"
Also Video gamers: "Where's our new stuff? Work harder, dammit!"

q.f.t.

Video gamers: "Say no to crunch! Devs work too hard! Damn execs!"
Also Video gamers: "Where's our new stuff? Work harder, dammit!"

Tom wrote on Jan 6, 2022, 11:32:
Was this one released too unfinished, poorly designed, poorly executed, or all of the above?

In any case, with 33% of Steam reviews positive and a 3.0 user score on Metacritic, it's a hard pass. Maybe it'll shake things up enough at EA to produce a good BF game next time around but I wouldn't count on it.

This video goes into detail https://youtu.be/2MKtgP7cHEk

Here's my quick breakdown...

• Senior BF devs starting leaving the team after BF4. Some claiming they knew what fans wanted because they were fans of the franchise, but management was calling the shots and controlling creative direction. The youtuber suggests corporate was focused on chasing the success of competitors, rather than building it's own unique content from within
• Design was focused on free battle royal because EA decided it NEEDED to compete in this space. It didn't know if Apex Legends could pull it off, and decided the BF name recognition was needed to attract fans to its F2P BR model.
• It took 3 times longer than anticipated to get BF on an upgraded Frostbite engine, so it started behind schedule
• More senior staff left BEFORE post-production started of BF2042, suggesting they knew it was going to be a steaming pile. Most people on the team have 7 years of experience or less, some new to Frostbite, new to BF, or new to both
• The switch from battle royale to full price 'traditional' BF experience happened a month or two before post-production.
• The UI team was so gutted by staff departures, it was almost entirely outsourced just a few months before the game was released.
• Covid protocols meant that workers were no longer going into the office as the team transitioned to remote working. Many devs didn't have the hardware at home (consoles or PC) to test their code and changes, because EA provided that gear in the office. Remote workers had to download a new build every day on home networks (100 times slower) and ask fellow coworkers to test their bug fixes on their personal PS5 or XB or PC
• Management hesitated to push out the launch, settled for a few weeks when everyone involved in development was asking for months

2042.

I feel i am just going to get made saying anything about bf at this point just go play Cod its predictable but at least they give you some consistency.

Yeah, because expecting to have a fun and fully functional games for AAA prices is just brutal.

Seems to me EA's expectations of major profits for minimal effort is what's really brutal.