If you enjoyed Battlefield 3 and 4, you will most likely like this one too. It is a Battlefield-like game, and since DICE hasn't been able to make a good Battlefield in a decade , what else could scratch that need for this kind of gameplay?

However, this game has its flaws, and it is not a traditional Battlefield. It has a lot of tactical elements that are not usual for Battlefield games, more on that later.

What is good:

*"Only in Battlefield" (tada ta tada-ta tada ta-ta) experience is present here to a degree.

*Good performance even on low-end PCs (although sometimes there are random frame drops, mostly due to foliage).

*Responsive gunplay. The shooting feels good, which is obviously very important for a shooter game. It kind of resembles PAYDAY 2 gunplay but with more recoil (a bit too much for my taste).

*Good map design (mostly). A lot of verticality allows the tactical aspects of the game to flourish and rewards tactics such as flanking and ambushing. For those who are familiar, it's kind of like a mix between Bad Company 2 and Planetside 2. It sounds weird, but it works.

*A simple building system, paired with Battlefield-like destruction, allows for some interesting scenarios and makes the maps dynamic.
_______________________________________________________________________
What is not so good/controversial:

*Simple graphics decrease system requirements, but they're at a Roblox level of visuals. Obviously, gameplay is what makes a game, and this simplicity is what makes this game even possible and working (insert 2042 joke). However, it may look too poor for some.

*All vehicle controls are awkward and feel sluggish and unresponsive, especially for aircraft. As far as I understand, this is an attempt to make them more realistic, but it doesn't quite achieve that, It just makes it weird. If you liked playing tanks, helicopters, etc., in Battlefield games, you will be disappointed.

*Even though the map design is generally good, some maps are way too big and could result in a lot of walking, which is frankly boring. If you are familiar with the Armored Kill maps in Battlefield 3, that's mostly it. However, Battlefield 3 didn't suffer as much from this due to its faster-paced gameplay (spawning near action, abundance of good transportation).

*The levels of destruction could feel lacking in comparison to what Battlefield players have experienced before. Not all walls can be broken, not all fences can be crushed, etc. But mainly, the lack of terrain deformation is what's missing here.

*Lack of guns and gadgets. This is probably a temporary issue, but it's bad, like very bad. The developers' current solution to this makes it even worse. Basically, you get meaningful unlocks every 15-20 hours of gameplay or so (yeah-yeah, you get something every 5 levels, but it's mostly a whatever unlock, like a new pistol which is basically the same as a previous one or a new nade that you won't ever use). For example, you get 2 starting rifles at level 0, the next rifle unlock is at level 15, and it's just an improvement on one of the starting rifles. The next unlock after that is at level ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ 50, then 75 (takes about 30-40 hours to get level 50). This is quite sad, to be honest, but it will most likely be resolved soon enough. For now, the grind is mind-numbing, and it also makes it harder for new players. On top of having to play against more experienced opponents, these opponents have superior weapons that require dozens of hours to unlock.

*The TTK (Time to Kill) is weird due to the armor-helmet mechanic and significant damage drop-off with distance. Enemies sometimes feel like bullet-sponges. Also, the "accuracy" value in guns is redundant. It adds randomness to a spray pattern on top of random recoil, making long-distance engagements worse than they could be.

*Gun balance is not ideal. SMGs dominate the meta to a ridiculous degree because they have a much faster fire rate and far less recoil than rifles, with damage not much lower than rifles. SMGs become the weapon of choice. SMG dominance and underperforming rifles (mostly due to too high recoil and a significant damage drop-off with distance) create an environment that promotes very short engagement distances, which do not correlate with the size of the maps. Basically, rifles are not much better than SMGs at longer ranges and are far worse than them at close range. Also, DMRs feel useless. With a need to place multiple shots while having such high recoil and high enemy movement speed, plus an abundance of cover, they become way too niche and almost unusable.

How basic game design logic dictates balance to be :
Very long range - sniper rifles
Long range - DMR
Medium range - assault rifles
Short range - SMGs

How it is
Very long range - sniper rifles
Long range - sniper rifles
Medium range - SMGs
Short range - SMGs

*Medics are too strong, and spam revive is meta. It's Battlefield 3 Metro level bad. Medics can revive way too many people way too fast. A good solution would be to limit how many times a player can be revived per respawn, limit revive charges per medic more, and create revive exceptions like headshots (giving more value to snipers) and explosions (it is quite stupid that a tank can paint a wall with a direct body HE hit, and then a jumping fairy-medic drags the body behind a corner, applies a magic bandage for 1.5 seconds, and the eviscerated fella is as good as new). Also, the support class feels unnecessary and out of place, lacking a purpose.

*And the most important flaw/controversial point - this game has an existential crisis. It feels like it doesn't know what it wants to be: an arcade-like Battlefield shooter or a sim-like Insurgency/Squad game. Those two shooter types don't mix well. It's way too fast and arcadey for a sim, and the abundance of sim elements severely hinders the high-octane Battlefield gameplay. The bleeding mechanic with long bandaging time, long reload times on all weapons, and the need to combine ammo from magazines do not fit a Battlefield game. And overall "arcadiness" in the flow of gameplay (shooting, moving, etc.) is simply not meant in a sim game. It's not a "best of both worlds" situation; it's a bipolar disorder , and I can't see an easy fix for this. Arcade shooter players will find Battlebit way too slow, while sim shooter players will find it way too fast.

Overall, this game has two huge advantages that give it a positive review:
A development team that is in touch with reality (hello DICE)
And it's a Battlefield game. The last good one was 10 years ago , and the need for such a gameplay experience is so bad that a lot of flaws can be just ignored and tolerated. I, alongside the Battlefield fans, have high hopes for this game. It could become the salvation we need and deserve.

Thanks to those 2.5 people who read this.

[h1] Based (cringe) review [/h1] If you enjoyed Battlefield 3 and 4, you will most likely like this one too. It is a Battlefield-like game, and since DICE hasn't been able to make a good Battlefield [b] in a decade [/b], what else could scratch that need for this kind of gameplay? However, this game has its flaws, and it is not a traditional Battlefield. It has a lot of tactical elements that are not usual for Battlefield games, more on that later. [b] What is good: [/b] *"Only in Battlefield" (tada ta tada-ta tada ta-ta) experience is present here to a degree. *Good performance even on low-end PCs (although sometimes there are random frame drops, mostly due to foliage). *Responsive gunplay. The shooting feels good, which is obviously very important for a shooter game. It kind of resembles PAYDAY 2 gunplay but with more recoil (a bit too much for my taste). *Good map design (mostly). A lot of verticality allows the tactical aspects of the game to flourish and rewards tactics such as flanking and ambushing. For those who are familiar, it's kind of like a mix between Bad Company 2 and Planetside 2. It sounds weird, but it works. *A simple building system, paired with Battlefield-like destruction, allows for some interesting scenarios and makes the maps dynamic. _______________________________________________________________________ [b] What is not so good/controversial: [/b] *Simple graphics decrease system requirements, but they're at a Roblox level of visuals. Obviously, gameplay is what makes a game, and this simplicity is what makes this game even possible and working (insert 2042 joke). However, it may look too poor for some. *All vehicle controls are awkward and feel sluggish and unresponsive, especially for aircraft. As far as I understand, this is an attempt to make them more realistic, but it doesn't quite achieve that, It just makes it weird. If you liked playing tanks, helicopters, etc., in Battlefield games, you will be disappointed. *Even though the map design is generally good, some maps are way too big and could result in a lot of walking, which is frankly boring. If you are familiar with the Armored Kill maps in Battlefield 3, that's mostly it. However, Battlefield 3 didn't suffer as much from this due to its faster-paced gameplay (spawning near action, abundance of good transportation). *The levels of destruction could feel lacking in comparison to what Battlefield players have experienced before. Not all walls can be broken, not all fences can be crushed, etc. But mainly, the lack of terrain deformation is what's missing here. *Lack of guns and gadgets. This is probably a temporary issue, but it's bad, like very bad. The developers' current solution to this makes it even worse. Basically, you get meaningful unlocks every 15-20 hours of gameplay or so (yeah-yeah, you get something every 5 levels, but it's mostly a whatever unlock, like a new pistol which is basically the same as a previous one or a new nade that you won't ever use). For example, you get 2 starting rifles at level 0, the next rifle unlock is at level 15, and it's just an improvement on one of the starting rifles. The next unlock after that is at level fucking 50, then 75 (takes about 30-40 hours to get level 50). This is quite sad, to be honest, but it will most likely be resolved soon enough. For now, the grind is mind-numbing, and it also makes it harder for new players. On top of having to play against more experienced opponents, these opponents have superior weapons that require dozens of hours to unlock. *The TTK (Time to Kill) is weird due to the armor-helmet mechanic and significant damage drop-off with distance. Enemies sometimes feel like bullet-sponges. Also, the "accuracy" value in guns is redundant. It adds randomness to a spray pattern on top of random recoil, making long-distance engagements worse than they could be. *Gun balance is not ideal. SMGs dominate the meta to a ridiculous degree because they have a much faster fire rate and far less recoil than rifles, with damage not much lower than rifles. SMGs become the weapon of choice. SMG dominance and underperforming rifles (mostly due to too high recoil and a significant damage drop-off with distance) create an environment that promotes very short engagement distances, which do not correlate with the size of the maps. Basically, rifles are not much better than SMGs at longer ranges and are far worse than them at close range. Also, DMRs feel useless. With a need to place multiple shots while having such high recoil and high enemy movement speed, plus an abundance of cover, they become way too niche and almost unusable. How basic game design logic dictates balance to be : Very long range - sniper rifles Long range - DMR Medium range - assault rifles Short range - SMGs How it is Very long range - sniper rifles Long range - sniper rifles Medium range - SMGs Short range - SMGs *Medics are too strong, and spam revive is meta. It's Battlefield 3 Metro level bad. Medics can revive way too many people way too fast. A good solution would be to limit how many times a player can be revived per respawn, limit revive charges per medic more, and create revive exceptions like headshots (giving more value to snipers) and explosions (it is quite stupid that a tank can paint a wall with a direct body HE hit, and then a jumping fairy-medic drags the body behind a corner, applies a magic bandage for 1.5 seconds, and the eviscerated fella is as good as new). Also, the support class feels unnecessary and out of place, lacking a purpose. *And the most important flaw/controversial point - this game has an existential crisis. It feels like it doesn't know what it wants to be: an arcade-like Battlefield shooter or a sim-like Insurgency/Squad game. Those two shooter types don't mix well. It's way too fast and arcadey for a sim, and the abundance of sim elements severely hinders the high-octane Battlefield gameplay. The bleeding mechanic with long bandaging time, long reload times on all weapons, and the need to combine ammo from magazines do not fit a Battlefield game. And overall "arcadiness" in the flow of gameplay (shooting, moving, etc.) is simply not meant in a sim game. It's not a "best of both worlds" situation; [b] it's a bipolar disorder [/b], and I can't see an easy fix for this. Arcade shooter players will find Battlebit way too slow, while sim shooter players will find it way too fast. Overall, this game has two huge advantages that give it a positive review: A development team that is in touch with reality (hello DICE) And it's a Battlefield game. The last good one was [b] 10 years ago [/b], and the need for such a gameplay experience is so bad that a lot of flaws can be just ignored and tolerated. I, alongside the Battlefield fans, have high hopes for this game. It could become the salvation we need and deserve. Thanks to those 2.5 people who read this.