One of my most anticipated games this year is the next one battlefield, Not for any specific title innovation or features I can’t wait to explore, but for existing games. I like “Battlefield”, there really is no other shooter who can replicate the scale, destructive power, marksmanship, combined weapon combat and unforgettable moments of the series.
Rumors about the development direction of the next edition of “Battlefield” often appeared in the months before the game was announced. This time, there was a one-year rumor that DICE was remaking “Battlefield 3″ so that people would stay until the next mainline entry. This seems to have become another rumor: DICE is replacing it from ” Inspirational game in “Battlefield 3”.
I’m not really here to comment on the validity or even the possibility of the rumors themselves, but this makes me think about a special feature of rumors. Battlefield 3 Finally defined it for me, I hope DICE can use it in “Battlefield 6”, regardless of the similarity in mechanical or design. I have discussed some before, but one thing about “Battlefield 3” has withstood the test of time and is outstanding, and that is the lack of focus on the careful management of the game.
It is no exaggeration to say that the environment released by “Battlefield 3” and some of the surrounding environments are similar in many respects to those waiting for “Battlefield 6” today. The 2011 game appeared when “Call of Duty” (Call of Duty) dominated AAA shooting games, and EA insisted on competing with “Battlefield 3” for this market share.
“Battlefield 3″‘s faster pace, shorter TTK and more attention to close combat, partly to attract the “Call of Duty” crowd. This push is even reflected in game decisions, such as minimaps. Although Battlefield has a positioning system, it still draws on the rules of Call of Duty. But DICE also knows that this will not only lag behind the core “Battlefield” community, so the marketing of “Battlefield 3” has played a role in both. On the one hand, it shows the large-scale and all-out war on the border of the Caspian Sea. It also assures those who rarely consider “Battlefield” that BF3 is a game and their “Call of Duty” skills can be seamlessly transferred, such as Metro and Grand Bazaar.
Ten years later, DICE fell into a similar situation. “Call of Duty” has re-emerged, thanks in large part to the excellent restart of modern warfare and its sub-theaters. “Call of Duty” is important throughout the year, a status it has never enjoyed since the original “Modern Warfare” and “Black Ops” came out.
EA may have long given up on the task of overthrowing Call of Duty, but after attracting a large audience, it is more motivated than ever, just like Apex Legends is a PUBG competitor. EA is also likely not to be excited that many of the visible Battlefield communities (YouTubers, Twitch streamers, and long-term voices associated with their brand) are now the spokespersons of Warzone. If nothing else, the battlefield can attract the attention of those people.
This brings us back to the micro-focus design of Battlefield 3, and I hope this can be repeated in the new game.
From a distance, “Battlefield 3” actually looks disjointed and scattered. Some maps cater to the needs of one community and encourage certain styles of play, while others target another group of people.
Its marksmanship is lethal, with a weapon with higher recoil-quite skilled. But BF3 is still a game where you can smear the screen with petroleum jelly whenever you are shot. It fundamentally rewards the attackers for their mistakes and cleverly allows them time to shoot. Class interdependence is a long-term tenet on the battlefield. It changes shape and meaning in every game. The course of “Battlefield 3” restores the simplicity of the role of “Bad Company 2,” while providing viable weapon and gadget options for all courses to make it easy to use.
Similarly, the vehicle is easy to control-enough to allow ordinary players to participate in the chaos in Battlefield, and deep enough to satisfy long-term vehicle administrators. Everything feels like splitting in the middle, which often leads to twists and turns of the game and not doing anything well. But this is exactly the opposite of what this method did for “Battlefield 3”. I will not claim to know how to achieve this goal. The relaunch of Modern Warfare made me feel frustrated by refusing to adopt a style, so I can say that I should feel the same about “Battlefield 3”.
Of course, things rarely get so dry. I like to imagine that “Battlefield 3” goes well on this line, because DICE manages to put these different fun elements into its own pockets. There is a well-designed close-range map in a pocket, suitable for fans of that style. It has enough action and some meat grinders to make you forget that this is a battlefield game. In the other one, there is a big map, a favorite of the avant-garde-the type that screams “Battlefield”.
Both are a suitable place, and to some extent, both form a good integration with the marksmanship and class structure of “Battlefield 3”. This is largely why different people have different memories of “Battlefield 3”. Ask anyone who has played it, and you can clearly know which part of the game they are involved in. This is why Damavand Peak, Grand Bazaar, Seine Channel and even the terrible Metro are juxtaposed with the Caspian Sea border, Firestorm and Noshar Canal.
The number of additional components has also doubled, and each DLC pack follows a clear theme. One of them is entirely focused on CQC, reaching a level that has never been seen before in “Battlefield”. The other pushes the ratio closer to a classic game. If one DLC cannot meet your requirements, the next DLC may meet your requirements. It’s always interesting not to find a permanent location map in my rotation, and I can revisit it for a few hours to see how they differ from the games I have invested more than 100 hours in.
I think the same method can be replicated in “Battlefield 6”. After careful consideration, the upcoming game may also be very attractive to “Battlefield”. The crowd who is chaotic every minute is the person who dumped “Infinity War” for “Battlefield 1”. “Battlefield 6” can and can bring back those salty, tired and mistaken series fans who have been roaming the shooting field to seek the same high point, but to no avail.
I fully admit that doing so does not make it perform well in any aspect, let alone raise the bet on DICE. But maybe the next “Battlefield” shouldn’t be a game that does well in all aspects. In a sense, this should be a restart. The game can remind existing fans why they fell in love with “Battlefield” in the first place, and it looks attractive enough, so novice and reluctant players have no choice.