Battlefield 5 NEW Content Roadmap (Pacific, Maps, 5v5, Metro Remake?)

earn by taping

 

Battlefield V Roadmap Reaction. NEW Maps, weapons, modes, theatres, coop, incursions 2.0 and more. Let me know your reaction below. Leave a LIKE and a comment, thanks for watching.

Please follow and like us:
error

64 comments

    1. I think what they are trying to say is as far a development time is concerned firestorm is so big it should count for like 4 or 5 maps I will make this clear that I would much rather even just two maps instead of firestorm

    2. We already got one map, then they’ll launch firestorm, then we’ll get 2 maps. not to mention the greatest bf addition ever… Combined arms

    1. +Craig Mauger if dice make a map during d day then it has to be Juno or sword and gold because Omaha is being done to many times. And for grand operations for day then I want to see the airborne landings on d day

    2. Or maybe Utah but the factions for the allies are British so maybe no Utah beach just gold sword or juno. Juno was for the Canadians though but yeah

  1. I expected this game to remake all the iconic battles in the frostbite engine and all we got was recycled weapons, sub-par maps and a painfully slow drip feed of unwanted content.

    1. honestly the best “new content” so far has been that last war story, and it was pretty trash, visually I mean, with all those imperial german flags flying around over the streets and stuff

  2. If they wanted to make a WWII game, they should have just remastered BF1942. People would have loved that and it would have probably been a lot easier for them to do.

    1. Although if they just remade 1942 people would hate it. All those that doesnt have nostalgia for it would hate it as it is so much different from the more modern games. Games does rarely age well, there are so many new mechanics and stuff that we take for granted that is not existing in older games. Like strafing or vaulting for example.

    1. +Captain Price, although majority of those were from the help of Americans. Russians had no problem. Could Britain have beaten Germany by herself? Without American help (lend lease and such)… I don’t believe so. Sure, Africa was a great campaign, but mostly due to Italy’s incompetence.

    2. Jaysen Angel so for starters it’s Britain and not England. And secondly every historian every believes that Britain and Russia could have took out the axis without American help. The British destroyed the nazis in Africa and basically destroyed the Italians. They destroyed the Luftwaffe and the kriegsmarine. After DDay (which was planned by Brits) the British never suffered a retreat. They took out 90% of German Armour on the western front. Market Gardenmight have succeeded too if it wasn’t for Colonel Gavin of the 82nd Airborne not prioritising the bridge at Eindhoven. The British helped in the Battle of the Bulge, and were joint-first to cross the Rhine.

    3. Except it was that for the first two years. Even then, America never did much in the Western Front of the war. They were more focused in the East. England did nothing but keep the war going, while it was the Soviets that took out Germany.

Leave a Reply to RedHabour79 XBL Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *