the finals is what battlefield could never be

The playtest for The Finals is over, but I'm still thinking about it. Let's talk about how it might just meet potential that Battlefield never did.
Special thanks to @Zoltiboi for the thumbnail!
Special thanks to Kevin from @PixelLit for voicing the developer interview quote.
Video Games Are Badder - • when the wind pushes y...
---
This video is not monetised.
---
Games in order:
-Battlefield 2042
-Battlefield 3
-Battlefield Bad Company 2
-Battlefield 1
-The Finals
-Counter Strike: Global Offensive
Music:
-Hustle and Bustle from Great Pretender
-Snowy Mountains from Battlefield Bad Company 2
-The Storm from Battlefield Bad Company 2
-Main theme from Battlefield 1942
-Menu Music from The Finals
Views are my own.

[@samhyatt4863]

just coming across this video, and I don’t think I’ve ever agreed more with a video essay like this. Looking through these comments, it’s amazing how many people miss your point about “who really knows what Battlefield is?” They are proving the point of Battlefield has been so many things across the years, that everyone has formed their own definition of it. This has resulted in every new battlefield title getting lots of backlash, because every time dice tries something different, or tries something based on previous things that people loved, there’s always a minority crowd that thinks it isn’t battlefield that always manages to convince the entire internet that what they think battlefield is, is what battlefield is. The goalpost is always moving. 2042 was the culmination of the devs embracing the funny moments and lighthearted sandbox gameplay that exploded on the internet back in the golden days of BF4. But with that, they have made a game that isn’t gritty and grounded, and so of course, there is a large portion of the community that thinks battlefield is a gritty, tactical, milsim, which of course, 2042 is not. whether people realize it or not, there is a large community of 2042 enjoyers that live it’s total sandbox gameplay and love all the random chaos and battlefield moments it brings. when the next battlefield arrives as a gritty, tactical milsim, I promise there will be another revolt of people screaming “BRING BACK BF4 AND 2042!!” until the battlefield community can realize this, and let each battlefield title be its own thing apart from the others, then each new game will never satisfy everyone enough.

[@SocraTetris]

You lied, this is a good video

[@KaraNoKami]

I love your Videos, mate. Wish you the best!

[@keystrokecascade]

It looks like a great game, but I'm not sure I agree on the premise, or at least on what Battlefield is. I have no claim to being an og fan; I started with the campaign of BC:2 a while after its launch and didn't even have xbox live at the time. I got 4 when I finally got a PC well after its prime (before BF1 but the servers were barely more active than they are now) and fell in love. Conquest is not just an excuse to throw players together, its a game mode that allows squad-based tactics to thrive in a map large enough to include combined arms warfare without feeling insanely unbalanced to either side. The objectives don't just provide reduced ticket bleed to fight over, but I would argue are primarily fought over for the forward spawn point and additional vehicles capturing one usually provides. Even rush is fun, though maybe more for just the absolute chaos of bodies building up around an mcom due to the reduced but still rather silly amount of players fighting over just 2, then 1 objective. I don't see its amount of players as a game design issue either; while you may not have much effect as an individual being only one out of 32 players on a team, it makes a lot more sense when you look at squads, of which there are only 8 per team. A single squad working together can massively affect the tide of a game, meaning just like The Finals, you only need a couple of people -- or even just a buddy -- to have a blast. This even works fairly well in solo play, as not only is there the squad objective points bonus and the squad leader orders, but squad spawning ensures that if youre attacking an objective, spawning on a squadmate is the fastest way to get back into action. I am disappointed with where the series has gone; 1 was decent but lost the customisation I love, I didn't even bother with V, and 2042 has been the biggest let-down of all, with 128 players proving too much, from both a gameplay and performance standpoint, and its identity feeling muddled with the specialists, lack of weapons, massive maps with little cover, and poor weapon and vehicle handling. Destruction is really the only thread I felt you drew between Battlefield and The Finals, and I would argue destruction wasn't really Battlefield's whole soul in the first place (4 would still work fairly well, if not better in some cases without it). The Finals seems more closely related, but still distant from, the more survival-extraction offshoot of battle royal games (Tarkov, Hunt: Showdown, and more recently Nine to Five) and as someone who liked the Bad Company 2 campaign and still loves Battlefield 4, this doesn't speak to me in the same other extraction-shooters don't. Sorry for dumping a wall of text, just wanted to express how I felt about this and if you're reading this then I guess you've read all of it. Found you from Adam Millard and loving your stuff, keep it up! ❤

[@RatEnjoy3r]

based this channel sucks ass tho

[@sebbychou]

oh man, Medic as Assault Class was the design in Battlefield2 (and Bad Company 2 IIRC?) and it was the best. It removes the most selfish class and turn it into the "most important person" that glue a fireteam, which is exactly the fantasy Assault Class is meant to provide.

[@KyoKusaka]

This video could have WAY more views and likes if all Bad Company 2 players were not retired from gaming lol ... The Finals is really the pinacle of what BC2 could have become.

[@David.Marquez]

Have you played Ravenfield? It's kind of like old battlefield with a little more ragdoll physics.

[@KekusMagnus]

They are completely different games it's somewhat innapropriate to compare them. Battlefield is an immersive and casual military shooter designed to encourage team-play. Destruction is just one mechanic that adds to the immersion and occasionally changes up gameplay but you can have a perfectly good Battlefield game without it. BF2 comes to mind as arguably the most complete entry in the series yet it completely lacks destruction. The large-scale combat, semi-realistic gunplay, rock-paper-scissors vehicle balance and squad-oriented class dynamics are what make it work. The Finals is a cartoony fast-paced arena zoomer-shooter with destruction as a core gameplay element. Aside from the destruction physics and being an FPS it has nothing in common with Battlefield.

[@ImNotFine44]

You sound very offended

[@Bruno-cb5gk]

Those are mostly differences in theming, from a game design standpoint they are much more similar than most other games. It also has classes, squads, objectives, relatively similar gunplay and reviving. Similarity isn't surprising as it's literally made by the same people who made the older BF games. It's more different from BF2 because as mentioned in this video, it's more of a continuation of the direction BF games took starting with BC2. Once you drop the expectation of being somewhat realistic you can remove vehicles since with smaller playercounts they become too opressive, you can remove fall damage which makes destruction less frustrating, you can have 4 teams instead of 2, you can have a more complex objective etc. This is actual game design. I have 635 hours in BF games and enjoy them a lot, but they have a lot of fundamental issues caused by this "more is better" mentality and a questionable balance of realism vs arcade elements.

[@Spark412]

@@ImNotFine44 And you sound very uneducated.

[@Nebo8ful]

You didn't watch the video did you ?

[@KekusMagnus]

@@Bruno-cb5gk If you remove what makes BF games unique in the first place it's no longer the same game, doesn't matter if the mechanics are similar The immersion and partial realism should always come before balance. I'm sick and tired of every game trying to be a overly-balanced e-sport. If you run into a tank unprepared you should die, end of story. No sweaty moves or magic hero abilities to save you. This was true in Bad Company games as well I have thousands of hours into various BF games. There is nothing wrong with the battlefield formula. BF3 and BF4 did basically everything right, all BF needs is more of that but with better graphics, more polished movement, etc...

[@Fraserhansen]

This aged well!!

[@IceGuadian]

Looks like a mix of Gotham city imposter and brink with destruction

[@spinarakfan137]

unfortunately for me I don't have any online friends to play with so I guess ama solo queue forever :,)

[@DayOneNoob]

Clean video man, keep it up!

[@elitecatsus6478]

here is my thoughts on THE FINALS too small max 12 players As a Bf3/4 player i will pass this one with the full knowledge that THE FINALS will fail to retain any player base just like Battlefield Hardline As EA trying to forget lol will give it a Year Max to die off and that being said don't get hyped for what is going to fall and crumble to be forgotten

[@vojtapiskacek5963]

Title: Play it Me: I wish i could

[@PixelLit]

Hey that’s my voice in the videooo

[@Spark412]

Yeah no. This tiny ass game will never be what Battlefield is.

[@donovanjoseph737]

This man has never heard the definition of a hyperbole

[@covvvex]

it feels you are pulling facts to your ideas. I am not sure why do you think that gamers in Battlefield have to coordinate and work together to achieve something. The intention of Battlefield was always chaos with mass distraction and constant action and nothing else.

[@LabiaLicker]

Looks good