Battlefield Vietnam Review
Originally published 2004-05-06 by Atomm.
Initial Impressions
Ever since I heard a rumor about EA registering the name Battlefield Vietnam with the trademark office, I have been intrigued by the prospect of a new game based on similar mechanics as Battlefield 1942, but in a Vietnam setting. As my imagination took hold, I dreamt of what I thought the game would be like. Sure, I loved playing BF42 and Eve of Destruction was my personal favorite mod for Battlefield, but we all know no matter how good a mod is, the pro’s usually seem to due them one better.
I’m sure it’s no surprise that I pre-ordered the game. I may have not been the first kid on my block to have it, but I was kicking butt by week’s end. What I thought of Battlefield Vietnam has changed drastically since that first day. Who knows, I may change my mind even further another two months down the road. Either way, I felt obliged to give a die-hard Vanilla Battlefield 1942 fan’s review of Battlefield Vietnam.
My initial impression of BFV was it was similar to BF42, but it was definitely a different game. I tried to fight head to head in BFV and found I did not survive as long as I did in BF42. Matter of fact, it was at that point that I realized this game had a faster killing pace than BF42. You may notice that I didn’t say the game was faster paced. Initially I thought it was, but I soon realized the trick to this game was learning to be more covert. The coverage was the key to surviving longer than one kill. Approaching a flag from somewhere other than the normal approach was very important in BFV.
Another trick to surviving longer than one kill was to fight with at least two people. From what I have seen, you can walk the first guy into a situation and his chances of survival are very slim. The person who gets the jump on the other tends to have an advantage in this game, but with a second guy, you guarantee you will kill the first enemy you see. Well, usually. He may have an M60, but more on that later.
Something else that caught my eye about BFV was the way the flags are captured. There are no uncapturable flags. As a fan of CTF in BF42, I am all for suppressing an uncapturable base, but in BFV, all the “whiners” can no longer complain, because all flags are fair game. You may think that doesn’t seem fair, but DICE did a good job of assuring balance when they made the main bases take 3 times longer to capture than a normal base. Of course, there is a catch. The more people you have on a flag, the faster you can capture it. That is very important in this game. If you put three guys on a flag, it takes seconds instead of 30 seconds. The teamwork aspect of BFV is definitely improved over BF42.
To be honest, my initial impression was not very good. In the first two weeks, I really didn’t care much for the game. That would change the longer I played.
Let’s move on to three things I like about Battlefield Vietnam.
Three Things I Like About Battlefield Vietnam
1.) The game engine in BFV seems to run smoother than it did in BF42. I cannot put my finger on it, but there is something about BFV that just feels better than BF42. It’s like comparing a 1998 Corvette to a 2002 Corvette. Sure they are both Corvettes, but something just feels newer about the 2002 model. That’s the way I feel about comparing BF42 to BFV. Make sense?
2.) I really enjoy the covert aspect of the game. Right now, for me, being covert is the key to survival. If you can shoot the other guy before he figures out where you are, chances are he will be dead before he knows it.
3.) The flag capture system promotes teamwork unlike BF42. I think this is the biggest improvement of BFV over BF42. Heck, I wish they would backwards implement the flag system into BF42. I especially like the way they took out the uncapturable spawn camping issues by making all flags capturable, while rewarding players for working together to capture a flag.
Three Things I Do Not Like About Battlefield Vietnam
1.) Let’s get this out of the way in the beginning. The M60 in BFV is not an accurate representation of the real thing. Heck, it’s not even close. It seems the more I play, the more people I see using M60’s. Heck the NVA guys usually pick them up because they are so powerful. Add to this, the LAW’s ability to kill you from half way across the map without actually getting a direct hit and you have the UberClass of BFV. In comparing the M60 in BFV to the M60 in Eve of Destruction, I think the M60 in EoD is perfect and the M60 in BFV is like a 100 bullet M16 with a longer reload time. The good news is DICE realizes this as the first patch version 1.01 is supposed to address this UberClass. I hope they get it right, the second time.
2.) I find the maps included in BFV lack a certain characteristic that BF42 maps had. To be honest, they are somewhat boring. I live for the action in BFV, but the maps don’t inspire me like BF42 did. I played the Wake Demo until BF42 was released. To this day, I love playing Wake. It has character. El Alamein; It has character. There isn’t a single map in BF42 that I do not love to play. This is not the case with the maps in BFV. I have had a very hard time learning the name of the maps because they lack individual character. This, in my opinion, is going to be the eventual downfall of BFV. Maybe it will inspire more custom mapmakers and mod makers and actually cause players to support them, unlike the small community supporting custom maps and mods in BF42. I can only hope so.
3.) The ground action in BFV is very intense, but the vehicles don’t seem as exciting to me initially as they did in BF42. The BFV planes seem slow and laborious for jet fighters and the tanks really suck, especially against infantry. HUH? You heard me correct; tanks against infantry are a pain in the arse. You either need to use your machine gun to kill infantry or score a direct shot with the main gun. Splash damage is almost worthless in BFV. My favorite aspect of BF42 was tanks and BFV has left me high and dry in this category.
Recently I found myself wondering if I were the designer of Battlefield Vietnam, what would I have done differently? That is a really tough question. For one thing, there are a lot of things right about BFV and the things that are wrong with it can be fixed with a patch or two. The map situation is a tough one because it’s hard to have character when there is only one theatre of war and it’s all jungle. To answer my own question, I think I would have play tested the game longer. It’s a good game, but the play balance is too far skewed with the M60/LAW UberClass and it is really starting to ruin a pretty good game. Down the road, the UberClass will be a memory, but I am not sure that BFV will have the staying power that BF42 had. Maybe I am just reminiscing about found memories and I do not have a clue about what I am saying; only time will tell if BFV is truly a classic like Battlefield 1942.
In closing, I’d like to say the longer I play Battlefield Vietnam, them more I enjoy it. Of course, it is not BF42, but I can always jump in and play BF42 when I like. It is nice to have two games that are similar, but different to play. I cannot wait to see some of the exciting mods coming out for BFV. I really hope some of the WWII mods move over to BFV because I do think the game engine is better. My ultimate dream is for DICE to offer an official port of BF42 to the BFV engine. Yea, I’d pay money for that.
For fans of Desert Combat, I think the Helicopters will fulfill your needs and the action is definitely faster like DC, but minus the M60/LAW UberClass, everything appears to be fairly balanced. There are still some issues that need to be resolved, but BFV is a lot further along than BF42 was when it first came out. Once the first patch comes out, this should be a great game. Since my review is over the initial release, this BF42 fan can only give it a rating of 4/5 Skulls. If the patch does what is say’s it will, then I might raise the score to a 4.5/5. We will have to see.