Battlefield V launched this week to what feels like a bit of a dulled response compared to Battlefield 1. Is it deserved?
The hype going into Battlefield V certainly feels a little stunted when compared to 2016's Battlefield 1, at a time when gamers seemed fatigued by the volume of sci-fi shooters the big publishers had been pumping out. Exploring a rarely-charted time period in gaming, World War 1, Battlefield 1 took the franchise to new heights, beating combined week-one sales of Battlefield 4 and Battlefield Hardline. The landscape looks a little different now.
With "battle royale" as the new hotness, EA's decision to delay its own Battlefield V battle royale mode into 2019 leaves the $60 package without some of its headline content. Combined with an invariably weak single-player campaign, and "World War fatigue" following Battlefield 1 and Call of Duty: WW2, that $60 price tag might seem hard to swallow.
However, Battlefield is more than just a mere shooter. No multiplayer first-person shooter (FPS) on the market brings such an epic, large-scale sense of dynamic, cinematic conquest like Battlefield, except for DICE's other headline franchise, Star Wars Battlefront. Huge, iconic maps, elevated destruction mechanics, dynamic fortification building, and a variety of tweaks coalesce to make Battlefield V one of the best in the series, even if it's one of the least ambitious.
Full story from the WindowsCentral blog...
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram