It's time for Battlefield to stop experimenting, and they know it

I've spent the last few days mainlining Escape From Tarkov. We're at that messy point of the wipe where quests are getting arduous. I was going to write about my frustration when games spend the entire time trying to get you to do dumb stuff for progress, but then IGN dropped some information on the next Battlefield. 

It's a light piece but has some good quotes, and I've tried not to reproduce the whole thing here. The big news is that Battlefield is returning to the modern day. The message I'm getting is that EA (and Respawn head Vince Zampella) want to go back to basics for a bankable Battlefield game.

The sole piece of concept art has a similar colour scheme to Battlefield 3 and 4, and the location feels Mediterranean, perhaps along the Balkan coast. This is amateurish guessing though, and I'd swear off of taking any of this as news until we hear more.

IGN's interview has more solid information. Zampella explained that the return to the modern day is an attempt to recapture the series' peak. He says: "I mean, if you look back to the peak or the pinnacle of Battlefield, it's that Battlefield 3... Battlefield 4 era where everything was modern. And I think we have to get back to the core of what Battlefield is and do that amazingly well, and then we'll see where it goes from there. But I think for me, it's that peak of Battlefield-ness is in that Battlefield 3 and 4 days. So I think it's nostalgic for players, for me, for the teams even. Those are kind of the heyday...although I would say 1942 also."

Zampella also floats the possibility of a step away from 128 players, saying that the team is "testing everything around what's the most fun," and said that "doing the number for the sake of the number doesn't make any sense." Broadly, I'd agree. 128 players is fine in theory, but I found that 64 players a side often meant I was spending my entire time running away from a swarm of vehicles. Later balance patches made this more bearable but I still found the 64-player games (32 v 32) felt a lot more engaging.

Not so special forces

Similarly, Specialists are out. Zampella says that he "wasn't there" for 2042, so doesn't know the rationale for including them. “Not everybody liked it, but you got to try things,” he explained. “It didn't work. It didn't fit. Specialist will not be coming back. So classes are kind of at the core of Battlefield, and we're going back to that."

Put this all together and you've got a Battlefield that wants to recapture its glory days rather than try new things. I'd agree with Zampella and say that trying new things is good in game development, but it's been a long time since 2013's Battlefield 4 and in the time since we've had Cop Battlefield (Battlefield Hardline) and iterations set in World War 1, World War 2 and The Near Future. Each of which has had cool ideas, but it just feels like a good time for the team behind Battlefield to make a solid modern military shooter again.

It feels like time for an adjustment. Battlefield 2042 was a disappointing package at launch. EA had reviewers in to play it every evening for a week, and while my review was damning, what I remember more sharply was being grouped up with an entire week with the same journalist and fellow Battlefield fan, who was just exhausted by having to review the thing, let alone play it for fun. 

Zampella claims that Battlefield 2042 wasn't a "failure of the game", and I'd agree. 2042 found its feet and eventually became fun, although it has since lost that magic again. Such is the nature of live service games, but it's clear that the people working on Battlefield know how to make a fun game, but 2042 felt like a mishmash of different elements. 

So, this is a recalibration of a Battlefield series that has, in my opinion, lost its way past Battlefield 4. I'm buoyed by Vince Zampella's involvement: he's been involved in several of the games that defined my teenage years, and is credited as one of the key creative forces behind Medal of Honor: Allied Assault, the Call of Duty franchise and even Titanfall 2.

Battlefield feels like a diminished force, in a world where it was once shoulder to shoulder with Zampella's own Call of Duty franchise. Several other games scratch a similar sort of itch for me, but nothing has captured the same feeling of charging around the map with a squad ticking off objectives. If Battlefield can come back with a strong showing, I'm here for it.

I've seen some comments around this announcement declaring that this is the team behind Battlefield going back to what worked out last because they don't know how the industry works these days. I'd agree, but that's only because no one really knows how the industry works. I think of Concord's recent public failure, and even Sega's cancelled Hyenas from last year. It's easier to fail than ever before, and I can understand the urge to find a "safe" option. But it's an option that isn't served anywhere else. As more noise around the new game starts to ramp up I'm expecting this new, as yet untitled, Battlefield to hew close to the beats of the classic entries in the franchise. This is good news. If EA can capture the magic from series high point Battlefield 3 and update it with modern tech and sensibilities, it could have something special on their hands. 

I just hope EA they sticks the landing. Battlefield 2042 felt like a failed response to games like Rainbow Six Siege and Overwatch, with its sole shining beacon at launch being the Battlefield Portal, which offered a way for fans to play older games in the series. The message, in my mind, is simple. If it's not broke, don't fix it. It's time for Battlefield to drop the experimentation and make a conservative entry to bring back fans that feel alienated. 

Everything else

• Roguelike shooter Sulfur is looking pretty good, isn't it? Katherine Castle at Eurogamer seems to think so.
• I wrote about Gray Zone Warfare's upcoming Night Ops update, and how I'm hoping it can revitalise the game. Good work, me. 
• I've been thinking about Netflix movie Rebel Ridge since I saw it. Aaron Pierre is excellent as former U.S Marine Terry Richmond, the last person on earth you would want to mess with. When some corrupt cops mess with him anyway, they come thoroughly unstuck. I've found myself fascinated with the way the film's characters often flinch away from violence, and when things do come unstuck and hit a situation where violence is the only answer, the way the characters react to everything unspooling is nothing short of exceptional. Also Roy from The Office is in it somehow?

Have a great week, and remember that feedback / questions / thoughts are always welcomed. I've just reinstalled Squad, so expect that's going to feature somewhere in next week's entry.