How many weapons? VGO MMG, Selbstlader 1906, AG m/42 AR, M1897 shotgun, Ribeyerolles 1918 AR, ZK-383 SMG, Modele 1944 AR, M1922 MMG, MKIII bolt-action rifle; total 9
Vehicles? Sturmgeschutz IV tank, Archer tank, Mosquito MK IV, Ju88c; total 4
Maps? Firestorm, Panzerstorm; total 2
Game Modes? Firestorm, Rush, Combined Arms; total 3 Grand total: 18 new items
39 weapons available as of this date.
BF1 as of DLC 1 released
1 DLC with:
Weapons? Ribeyrolles 1918, RSC1917, Lebel Model 1886, Chauchat, Sjogren Inertial, and Mle 1903; total 6
Vehicles? Saint-Chamond and Char 2C; total 2
Maps? Fort de Vaux, Soissons, Rupture, Verdun Hights; total 4
Game modes? Frontlines; total 1
New Campaign; Prise De Tahure; total 1
**Grand Total:**14 new items
BF1 had ~20 iirc (feel free to correct me here) before the first DLC.
I’m kind of unsure as to how people feel like there’s a lack of content here. There’s MORE content in this game than ever. More customization. More guns. More everything except maps. BF1 launched with 9 maps and 6 modes. BFV launched with 8 maps and has had more content dropped in identical time periods over BF1.
.
It’s difficult for me to see that it’s literally not maps anymore. It’s something else. Requesting this is not very good of you guys as a community.
.
(I’m obviously leaving out cosmetics because it’d be a little bit unfair in BFV’s favor otherwise.)
Firestorm doesn’t count as a map for those of us who only play Battlefield as it’s BR only, which you know very well I’m sure.
Fact is DLC1 for BF1 contained 4 quality maps while here in BF5 we got 1 map: Panzersturm, which as a map causes a lot of folks to leave whenever it pops up as next map.
It seems to me you’ve made it your life mission to defend DICE here in this forum. Bias is never a good thing. There are good and bad things about most things in life, DICE and BF5 included.
I think with BFV, the lack of playable factions at least can be partly attributed to the “staleness” (note the quotation marks) of the game.
If you’re not playing as the Brits, you’re playing as the Jerrys and if you’re not playing as the Jerrys, you’re playing as the Brits.
Hearing the same dialogue on the same maps over and over again contributes to that innate sense of repetition players have been experiencing I think.
By no means is BF1 the golden prized child with perfect everything but it did manage to shake things up a little with its factions and maps. On launch, you had the British, the Americans, the Germans, the Italians and the Ottoman Turks. Map wise we got a massive desert (Sinai Desert), a dense atmospheric forest (Argonne Forest), a giant mountainside (Monte Grappa), a coastal Italian(?) town (Empire’s Edge) and a destroyed city (Amiens). The point is that no two maps looked or felt the same.
On the other hand, BFV’s maps possess a kind of “core similarity” in their design. I’m not talking about using the same assets, textures or any of those surface resemblances but rather how some maps can be almost ‘grouped’ together because they seem to parallel each other indirectly. Now of course, it would be objectively and factually incorrect to say that the maps are completely identical to each other - I’m not saying that. I personally think that certains maps can be viewed side by side together like: Panzerstorm, Twisted Steel and Arras (vegetation heavy maps featuring grassy plains), Devastation and Rotterdam (war-torn urban cities), Fjell and Narvik (icy, snow covered mountain-ish maps). Aerodrome and Hamada are the only maps that weren’t listed as admittedly, they are pretty unique to the game (regardless of their popularity with players). Great effort by the devs!
It also isn’t exactly ideal that a portion of the weapons were taken straight from BF1 and slightly modified to suit BFV. It emanates a ”content for the sake of content” kind of vibe to it. I am no historian by any means but I can at least say that WW2 was a period of great technological innovation and that new weapons were being developed left and right so there really isn’t any shortage of weapons to add either. Once again, the unique guns and vehicles added to the game proves that this game has great potential; players just want more of the “WW2 stuff” and not just a cut and paste + a few modifications from BF1.
A lot of weapons feel like copy paste and some are even straight from BF1. The maps while there are a few a lot of them feel to similar to each other and the rest are terrible. If I see Areodome I immediately leave for example. I never did that with BF1.
I’m not really sure as to why this matters. They’re new weapons in the game. They’re a new experience on a new game. Who cares where they came from right? Players are so easy to say “We want realism!” but when it comes to using guns from previous wars, it’s “not good” or something and people dislike it.
Isn’t it disingenuous to compare game modes and vehicles to maps?
I will concede that weapon wise there isn’t much to complain about as they have a degree of parity. However, a tank doth not equal a map. Not only is it something only a small percentage of the players will be able to access at any time (if allowed at all), the variety you get from it is fairly limited.
I mean, if you factor in all the game modes you could get per map then maps blow it out of the water completely.
It’s identical in scale. Sure, you can say a map has more detail and more area, but this entire “BF1 had more content” stuff is incorrect and I wanted to call it out. We are getting 2 more maps in the coming month or two (Mercury + 1 other). When BFV started with 1 less map at launch than BF1 and got a map within a month of launch and people still demand “More maps” yet still say that we aren’t “splitting up the community” or something, it’s entirely hypocritical.
.
A map is a map. A gun is a gun. A vehicle is a vehicle. The point of this post was to show that the content is there. Just because it’s not the exact content the community wants (maps) doesn’t mean it’s not there. It takes nearly 3 or so months for anything to get approved. New maps are coming, but since the lack of maps feedback really picked up in early January, They’re right on track to release another this month (April - 3 months after January) and in June like their original roadmap promised.
Honestly this has bugged for awhile. I loved BF1 and bought the season but cant sit here and act like for the 6 month drought period( you guys know Im referring to) we had absolutely NOTHING! No new guns, maps, modes or anything! At least in BFV’s case they add something every one or two months to keep the game interesting!
But I aint no BFV defender now, I like the game and honestly I know that given time this WILL probably the best battlefiled game since BF3 if they continue adding new stuff over 2 years. Dice needs to work on ALOT of things( no not maps cause we already there coming) , but dont be mad that the OP is spitting facts
“There’s MORE content in this game than ever. More customization. More guns. More everything except maps.”
maps are the only REAL CONTENT, thats why people are complaining. jeez, how can any1 defend this bs?
even if “older bf’s” had a “similiar” amount of maps - this is 2018/19, not 16/17. the claims of the gamers has risen.
I think the OP did a nice job comparing the 2 games, I do have a few comments though. And yes, I’m one of those who thinks BFV lacks content, to the point where I’m considering a long break from the game.
BF1 was critizised for lack of content as well, I recall multiple “It’s been out X months now and nothing…” - threads on the old BF1 forum. Wasn’t it just one measly map we got till March?? So argueing BFV is slightly better than BF1 is not really saying that much.
listing Firestorm as a new map is a bit of a stretch to me. Can I play CQ, Breakthrough or even tdm on it?
a pet peeve of mine; far to many re-used weapons in BFV from BF1. I find it almost embarrasing, as if they were pressed for time. I think this re-used fact should be mentioned in your weapons comparison. Just saying.
Thanks for your comparison (I didn´t know, that we got so much new stuff). In my opinion we should not compare the two games by their general amount of Content, but instead compare every Kind of Content, so we can get a better Picture of what the majority of the Players thinks is the Problem with “the lack of Content”.
Lets try to sum Things up:
Which of this two games has had fewer Problems with this “lack of Content”-Thing nearly everybody is complaining About? What are the differences between These games in fact of the Kind of new Content?
Lets say: Bf1 was subjective seen better than BFV. The differences are: BF1 had have less weapons, less vehicles, less gamemodes, but more Maps. So, it could be, that the Major amount of Players can´t see, that in General bfv have more Content, because for them it is more important to have more Maps.
I totaly agree that we got a lot of stuff in BFV till now, but - as hard it sounds - this won´t help if the subjective opinion of the playerbase isn´t changing by bringing them the stuff they want.
Also the mainquestion is, if bf1 was realy better as bfv now is? If it is the other way arround you can see, that the exisiting System of providing new Content works.
You are tendencially right, since you count every piece they delivered for ToW, which is not unreasonable. However there is a perceived lack of content in the quality department. BF1 is also not a prime example for great content, as there everything, just as in BFV arrived late and underwhelming. The lack of weapons there in particular needs to attributed to the era, too.
.
Here is a comparison map for map content that did arrive with the last four iterations of the franchise: https://www.reddit.com/r/BattlefieldV/comments/b1e5d2/battlefield_map_release_timelines/
What you can see is the difference of added map content, which adds variety and keeps the game fresh in a way that can not be achieved simply by new modes or alterations of existing modes.
.
A skin for a weapon that you get every week or so, is content, but adds nothing beyond equipping the skin on the weapon. A new weapon might convince a couple of people to switch for a couple of hours and keep them occupied, but a map, especially when well done, will affect all players for large amounts of time. I hate Panzerstorm with a passion, but even I spend 4 hours on it, so that gave me more than the napalm skin for the Drilling, if you get my drift.
.
Also things like the SP, Firestorm and CA, is definitely content, yet was developed totally around the core people and is therefore (with Firestorm being the esception) a waste of resources. Even if Coop had been good, or the SP more intriguing, it is just not worth it, because it occupies the average player for much less than a map, while costing a lot to produce. Firestorm is an exception only, because the market is so damn big that even a small margin will trump the core BF community.
This game offers very little besides infantry play on small/medium size maps, which are poorly designed. Vehicle play is boring and there are really nothing you can do beside running in circles or camping and shoot people. It becomes very boring very fast.
That’s why it lack content imo. It’s not about the number of maps or weapons.
