53
votes
Can we talk about BattleBit Remastered? It's kind of a big deal.
Three devs just made one of the best selling games this year. A throwback to when games were more about actual gameplay than story or graphics. I think it's pretty cool.
What do you think so far? What are your favorite classes/loadouts? Any sneaky/funny shenanigans you feel like sharing?
Did you know the PP19 quick mag is horribly bugged and so the gun has the lowest recoil in the game? It isn't the best weapon, but it is pretty much a laser.
I played the open beta. And I used to play alot of Planetside 2 and Battlefield 2/3.
Maybe I'm a basic bitch but I don't like the aesthetics. It doesn't feel cool. It's not immersive.
And shooting bad guys is cool but there are many games that have that. So let's say Battlefield 3 was a 8/10 Battlebit is a 6/10 for me only due to my previous comments.
I get that. I am not a fan of the aesthetics, but I am a fan of easy frames, and less focus on distracting environmental effects.
I feel these are big + marks for me. I don't really love the blocky aesthetic, but when it comes to Battlefield games, my favorites are the older titles (BF1942 and Vietnam specifically) and visibility was one of many reasons.
What’s interesting for me is that when I start playing battle bit for the first 5-10 minutes I noticed the graphics a lot but after playing it for maybe half an hour I don’t even notice that the graphics are bad. I guess because I get so into the gameplay, my mind doesn’t even register the Minecraft graphics.
This is sort of why I don't pick it up. I don't play BF for the mechanical quality, it's for the spectacle and visuals. Remove those from battlefield and I'm sure you have a fun game, a fine game, but not what I'm personally looking for in a large scale shooter
There is a reason every YT multiplayer settings video involves:
Ambient Inclusion off
Motion blur off
Depth of field off
...
Etc.
😂
For someone who doesn't play the call of duty or battlefield games, but did enjoy some PlanetSide 1 and 2 (sci Fi is my jam), do you think it would be up by alley?
I've seen people excited about it, but I'm curious what appeal it might have to someone who doesn't play multiplayer FPSes much.
*Accidentally posted before finishing my comment, apologies!
I know you don't know my tastes, but I guess the question I wanted to drift toward is to ask what it does that might intrigue someone who isn't entirely averse to big multiplayer FPS games, but who also isn't eager to play a new one.
I am enjoying it a lot as an avid PS2 player (2k hours or something embarrassing) . I would say it is like PS2, but has some extreme differences. Main one being zero scifi :( and then....
Overall I would say give it a shot, but don't expect exactly the same experience as PS2. The amount of deaths one endures is a bit more stress inducing than PS2 also. Switching to SMG medic can help with this, although it's my least favorite loadout.
Thanks for the detailed reply specifically in contrast to Planetside 2!
Sounds like it might not be the game for me: Faster TTK is a plus in my book, but the easier sniping puts me off. Also I generally like fast/quirky movement (Tribes, anyone?), accessible vehicles, and in games like Overwatch I default to support/healer (which it sounds like healing isn't as game-y).
I guess I'm really picky about FPS games, but I'm still in awe that this game has been developed by such a small team, and it sounds perfect for folks with a different taste than my own! Especially neat is the environmental destruction: that's something I've been waiting to see in more games since Red Faction.
Been a long time since I have seen anyone post about Tribes! Man I miss that game so much, skiing was such a fun feature
Marathon, Avara, Tribes, PlanetSide, and Mount and Blade: Warband are probably the biggest influences on my judgment of games. None of them super amazing graphics, but the environments and gameplay were amazingly in depth or unique given the fairly simple controls/gameplay combined with the freedom of vaguely sandboxy games (Avara and Marathon both had editors that were reasonably easy to build your own maps or mods).
I do kinda wish someone would make a sort of Tribes-PS2-MechWarrior-BattleBit synthwavey Tron vector graphic open continent persistent battlefield MMOFPS with mechs, jetpacks,and VTOL heli-aircraft. I know it sounds ridiculous, but I think it would be pretty cool.
You just described my ideal multiplayer game: let's make it! I'm a decent artist, know some programming, and there's probably a third thing about me that's relevant. I'm sure there's others reading this we could rope in.
Oh boy. I have a lot ideas, and basically zero skills related to making a game xD.
The usual classes: Assault, medic, engie, support, recon. Sniping would be very limited, projectile physics, no scope zeroing, but accurate elevation/lead ticks if you can roughly distance your enemy based on their size compared to the crosshair ticks. Everyone gets jetpacks, maybe assault gets jetpacks and grappling hook?
Aircraft: Spitfire/A10 type futuristic fighter. You get a front cannon, and free fall bombs that inherit momentum. A transport/gunship with one side MG or cannon.
Mechs: Light, Medium, and Heavy. Light with MGs + powerful jump jets; Medium with cannon, rockets, shield, and mild JJs, Heavy with....I dunno, hitscan DOT lasers and artillery?
I guess obviously you'd have to include 2 seater light bikes like in Tron. Trails and all.
Could do some kind of vector (Spectre Supreme style) destructable environment where the glowiness of building outlines shows their strength, then even apply that to vehicles/mechs with outer armor vs. internals/weak points.
Keep the weapons simple, 2-3 of each type, but allow attachments for customization.
I have a pretty clear visual in my mind, but no idea how to actually create it :(
I love the ideas! Well, we can always throw together a design document and beg proper coders for help...
Could do.....I have written business plans for ugrad/grad school before.
Yeah, it may not be. I totally get the quirky movement and vehicles. Tribes 2/Ascend and PlanetSide 2 are three of my favorite games ever. It saddens me that Battle Royales kinda took over the FPS space. There's so much more that could be done, and be way more interesting.
Same, and I happen to like most BR games. But man, to go from skiing at 200+ MPH or jetpacking over walls to.. I don't know, sliding in Apex? It's fun enough sure, but I feel like shooters have really regressed in the last ten or so years.
I try not to express too much saltiness online about how slow the movement has gotten in shooters (to the point that people look back and call Halo "fast"). But believe me, the saltiness is there. And I want to blame console controllers for it, because I can't bring myself to believe that people would actually prefer slow movement to all the fantastic snappy multiplayer FPS games the industry was still experimenting with a couple decades ago.
There are still a few FPS games that attempt actual fun movement, but they market themselves as "movement shooters" and never quite seem to focus on the same aspects of fast movement that I liked about old arena shooters or tribes or whatever. Or they remain a single-player arcade sort of experience.
And I'm not really old enough to have played those old games in their respective heydays, instead only playing them some years afterward, so I'm not sure it can all be chalked up to nostalgia.
The sluggish "tactical" movement and priority of cover+peek strategies over all else in any battlefield-style games is a big part of why I've never gotten into them much, unfortunately.
Tactical movement, leaning and proning definitely slowed games down way too much. Not a fan... But as you kind of implied, there aren't many new options. Also most new movement shooters have clunky transitions between movement types, nowhere near as simple/smooth as Tribes (or even PS2 with icarus jets and understanding of game physics/bugs).
I think part of the issue is that when you get into super advanced movement it really raises the skill ceiling to the point that it can cause problems for new players. I'm thinking of Quake III here (which was lightning fast and while they've tried to revive it a couple times, it's very difficult bc new players get absolutely fucking destroyed by diehards) and Titanfall 2 (which went into new territory with all the fast climbing, wall running, jetpacking and it just becomes overwhelmingly to a lot of people in a multiplayer setting).
Both of those games are great in my eyes but I understand why they struggle to find an audience nowadays.
I understand that too, yes. I'd still rather have Quake III movement in mainstream games even if it hurts accessibility. At first I felt like maybe I was being an elitist for feeling that way, but then I remembered that accessibility in slow shooters isn't there out of altruism, but by profit motives. So now I don't feel so bad.
In a better world, we'd just have both sorts of games keeping pace with each other in the industry.
Only good thing about Apex was Pathfinder grapple slingshots IMO. Very well done movement mechanic. Can you imagine Tribes skiing + grapple sling shotting + mid air spin fusor shots? It would take three simple game mechanics and end with a skill ceiling at the edge of the knowm universe.
Here are some video's to tell you about it in a quick and short format.
jackfrags - Battlebit is ruining every other game right now...
LevelCapGaming - 3 People Made A Better Battlefield Game - BattleBit Remastered
For sure, it's a lot of fun
I played it with some friends on Friday and had a decent time.
I think we played the wrong mode though - 254-player conquest was a bit too chaotic and unreadable. It ended up just being fatiguing and meat-grindery. We'll probably try the 128-player mode this week and I expect we'll have a better time - we play Battlefield and similar games for the chaos and craziness but the sheer amount of it made it less enjoyable.
For me, in particular, I'm a compulsive medic so big meat-grinder sections (such as the subway tunnels, I forget what the map is called) just turn into me holding the revive and heal buttons which is less fun.
The map you are thinking of is probably Frugis, and I agree with you on all points. The 254 player mode is fun every now and then but 64v64 is honestly better balanced and the maps are better designed for the player count.
Frugis is one of my least favorite maps. Way too many angles to watch for.
Yeah. I am used to that from Planetside 2. I did take a step back and filter out the non 64 and 128 player servers until I felt more comfortable. 256 is okay now, but sometimes I do just switch servers if there is too much chaos either due to a steam roll, or all the squads on my team constantly spawning into areas where they arw surrounded.
Something I don't see anyone mentioning, which is a really big deal, is that Battlebit gutted their Linux/Steam Deck version by changing their anticheat! My friend had to refund the game because he wasn't able to play it anymore! Roblox similarly had an update a few months back that gutted Linux/Steam Deck support. It's so messed up to see devs do this...
I was mildly annoyed when I saw their decision to go in this direction, but as it turns out they're working with the Faceit devs to use a version that works on Linux. So there's that.
Yeah, that is unfortunate. EAC doesn't really work on Asian servers though. The number of cheaters and length of ban wave lists you see (and specifically the language you see the most in the banned players names) is insane. I can understand why they might move to an anti-cheat they think is better.
Wait did this just happen? I’ve been playing on Arch with no issues, but haven’t played in 2 days. Will have to get a refund if so.
I love it! Super fun with friends, but less stress than something like Escape from Tarkov. You can be more competitive in the smaller servers or you can treat it as a mindless shooter on the larger. There's no real punishment for dying or losing, so personally it scratches a lot of itches for me.
I played a few hours, but I just never got into it. Seems like a massive learning curve, and I'm too old to spend that kind of time learning a new mechanic. 🤷♂️
I got it to play with a friend and was a little surprised with how much I liked it. It sounded like it was getting overhyped to an extent but there is a lot of content and progression already built into the game. I think the battle pass era of multiplayer progression has gotten pretty stale, battlebit has brought back how multiplayer used to feel and it’s great.
Of course the game isn’t perfect but it’s still in early access so hopefully consistent patches continue and more content is added.
One of my friends has been absolutely obsessed with this game lately. He keeps saying it’s the Battlefield he’s been wanting. I guess I’ll have to finally accept his pleas to check it out for myself
It's definitely a throwback to earlier battlefield games. I only have 10 hours or so into Battlebit, so I'm still trying to learn the maps and unlock things.
The gun gameplay feels very good. You have to aim your shots, have to include drop and leading targets. If you hit the helmet it'll disappear first, but if you hit their face they die, etc. Tanks and RPGS can destroy buildings. I got 12 kills by throwing 1 grenade at the right place, I've killed bunches of people in a meat grinder throwing out my machine gun. There's always angles you need to look out for or be cognizant of. I've been in games with people who know how to move and watching them know where they can get all of the move speed in order to get a crazy jump is wild everytime.
I’m that friend with my friends. So far I haven’t been able to get a ton of people to play it but everyone who has was surprised how much they enjoy it. It’s also at a price that makes it not so risky to try.
It's probably closer to BF1942 (the oldddd one), but more players, and less vehicles. Helicopters are kinda lame IMO compared to WW1/2 planes.
I only played it a bit the other day. Quite a bit of time has passed since I played BF3/MW2 in a somewhat good fashion, but I've still had fun on the larger Lonovo map.
I think it strikes a nice balance between milsim and arcade, so they are more than covered on that front.
Definitely going to play it more when I've got the time.
I'm not really playing competitive multiplayer games anymore, but I still want to scratch that Battlefield itch sometimes. For its price, Battlebit is decent.
I just wish the TTK was bit higher because right now it feels like call of duty: the player who engages the fight will almost certainly win it; I find it quite exhausting and frustrating, but I might simply be "too old"... I just wish the game was a bit more casual.
The maps also feel kinda bland and uninspired, and not really interesting to traverse (contrary to battlefield). Its ok to have simple graphics, but it's not far from ugly.
Yeah I wish the TTK was higher too. You have to follow the PS2 rule of "if they shoot first, disengage immediately and re-engage later". I think it's worse in Battlebit. As soon as you take a hit you need to prone/run for cover, and bandage... Then find a medic to heal. Trying to return fire rarely works (maybe 5% or less).
It looks like a game I'd have fun with for like an hour or two for the novelty. I like me an epic large scale multiplayer shooter but the aesthetics and immersion matter a great deal to me and this game just looks like a joke.
I got over the minecraft style pretty quick. But understandable it's not for everyone.
Ehh. It's effectively an exact copy of bad company 2 with much worse graphics tbh. I realize it's an "aesthetic" but what it really is is a cheap and easy way to make character models. When you rip off 100% of the mechanics of another incredibly successful game, one that people have been champing at the bit for a remake of, you're gonna be successful.
Currently, there is really not much reason to play anything other than medic.