• Dudewitbow@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    As much as i can enjoy battlebit, you arent giving battlefield enough credit

    The populations of the games at the current moment arent even that far off, Battlebit is at 8k, 2042 is at 5k+whatever the number plays on origin.

    Battlefield has a LONG history of always releasing in a shit start and getting better overtime. This trend has happened for the past several games (since after 3 I believe)

    • gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      No, I’m giving battlefield all the credit it’s current incarnation deserves:

      It is not as good as a game made by 3 guys on Unreal. I tried it again last week out of curiosity and it’s flat out not worth getting when BattleBit exists, in my opinion

      And a long history of releasing trash and getting to decent only proves the point, BattleBit actually started as an enjoyable and decently content filled product whereas battlefield you KNOW won’t next time it comes around

      • Dudewitbow@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The point is it’s playerbases are in a similar tier in size. Of course its your opinion that battlebit is better (and is mine too), but that doesnt stop the idea that there are plenty of people playing 2042 now (especially vs launch). I have a friend who has both games, but when hes playing alone, he more often boots up battlefield more often then battlebit, and he spends a LOT of time playing those games more tham the rest of his library.