I remember in battlefield 4 no 2 levels were similar each level had new and different building’s good Lord are you guys lazy now. Mercury is basically aerodome with a beach instead of sand… It’s very clear this is not the dice from 7 year’s ago smh go out of business already God you guys are terrible at your jobs.
Maps don’t look the same and certainly don’t play the same. I wanna buy whatever you’re smoking though.
Yeah its like Achi Baba from bf1, Aerodrome and those 2 airstrip from the first war stories, all mixed together with the colour blue.
There is a chunk of it that feels lifted out of aerodome.
To be fair…you can see this sort of thing on pretty much any BF map.
But you can see a Rotterdam canals type of backdrop area, hut to hut fighting like we had in BF1’s Suez and C&D flag on Sinai area plus some Ali Baba meets Cape Helles areas.
Sorry? Have you played that map? The only thing I am not sure about whether it is a new asset is the radar station on C. The Hangars, as I recall, that only appear on Breakthrough, are smaller and open compared to the Aerodrome which also features the hallways on the side.
And BF4 certainly reused assets for different maps, there is nothing wrong with that either. Propaganda, for example reused the barracks from Paracel Storm, as did Nansha Strike. So that is the same asset in three DLCs at least. Outbreak uses the same huts as the China Rising DLC, too. Dragon Valley uses the same houses as Golmud, and I think there are on Oman as well.
It doesn’t play like Aerodrome. That said, Mercury is below average in terms of quality. Small, linear, terribly balanced and buggy. I don’t know what have they been doing for the past 7 months, but if I have to wait another 2-3 months just to get mediocre map, I might aswell give up entirely.
Not seeing it apart from the hangers am afraid.
DICE have been re using assets for more than 7 years but hey, all aboard the BFV hate bandwagon right?
Recycled assets like houses etc. don’t make a map disappointing. But a conquest map that feels like playing TDM maybe does answer that description. When I think back to some of the stunning maps in BF2-3-4, and I compare Mercury to those, well, not even close. It isn’t that Mercury is necessarily a bad map, it just doesn’t feel like a map they worked on for over half a year.
Considering how long it’s taken them to come up with a new map it should have been outstanding, that kind of delay should mean a really memorable map. Mercury is not that map. It isn’t bad, it just doesn’t feel like a map it took them half a year to design. Think back to maps like Dragon Valley, or Caspian Border, or Damavand Peak, or Giants of Karelia–those maps were nothing short of spectacular, visually stunning and with a wide variety of terrain and buildings that provided intense action in some locations while allowing room to flank in others. Mercury feels more like a meat-grinder map where you’re under fire seconds after the round begins and there always seem to be snipers and prone machine-gunners behind you somehow. I don’t mind it so much as a Conquest map, but I’m forced to play Breakthrough on it as well, DICE now believing that pushing less popular modes is something they need to do. For 64 players it should have been bigger, and it looks like it once was but DICE changed that–look how much of the map is unplayable water, what’s the point of that?
I find myself less interested in whatever new maps they have in the pipeline because Mercury has just been okay rather than great. This isn’t The Map That Saved Battlefield V.
I haven’t played it enough to form an opinion either way yet.
The linearity is what kills the flow, any flow of a map. DICE pumping 64 players unto the map doesnt help either. It just makes the meatgrinder more ‘‘meaty’’ and repetitive.
He might be a little harsh but this map was designed in a week.