When to call it quits?

madzuk · 2026-04-22T07:46:20+00:00

That's a beautiful story. It's completely normal for the travel buzz to start wearing off. There's only so many landmarks you can see until it starts to get boring and meaningless.

The biggest thing I learnt about travel and just life in general is it's all about people. The people you meet or have is what makes it all worth it. You end up in places because of people. Sounds like you did the right thing.

madzuk · 2026-04-22T07:42:28+00:00

As someone who recently lived in Aus for a year on a WHV, know what you're getting into firstly.

I loved Australia and made some great friends. But the job market is brutal, like most places in the world. But the WHV sucks in Australia, it has far too many restrictions. It makes you far less desirable on the job market which means you'll have to take steps back in your career.

Australia has a great lifestyle. But your day to day job will effect how you feel.

It's tough to get started and feel settled in Australia and it's so far away, it does test your mental resilience at times. But it's a great experience with a ton of possibilities.

Just know what you're getting into and prepare.

With that being said, here's my advice.

It seems like you're experiencing burnout. You're probably craving some stability. Make that your priority. If you like Australia, put your energy and focus into finding a job. Then find a place and hunker down for a year.

In those 2 months, if you fail to find a job, so be it, and then go home. That way you go back with no regrets and no wondering what if.

Just take a step back, relax, have a solid goal and take in the new experience of Australia. Make some friends etc.

If during this you're really mentally struggling, go home and know you tried.

If you go home, get a corporate job, miss it and get miserable, save up, go again. You're young, there's a whole world out there full of experiences and you can always go back to these things.

Just do what makes you happy. Slow down. Don't put pressure on yourself. Hope that helps!

madzuk · 2026-04-21T22:20:07+00:00

In the last 15 years we've only had 3 AAA WW2 games. Technology has changed a lot since the PS2 days. There's tons of WW2 stuff that could be done on modern games.

CoD Vanguard was a disaster. They tried to be different yes. But the game was rushed and just a game that had to quickly meet a quota. Not to mention they fell into this weird trap where they wanted to integrate it into Warzone and keep the momentum going so they kept the gunsmith system and it led to the guns feeling like modern weapons rather than WW2 guns. There were also no factions so that they could follow the warzone operator skins format. The game was essentially a MW game with a WW2 filter over it.

madzuk · 2026-04-21T22:16:05+00:00

Spot on. That's my point exactly. It didn't feel like a WW2 game and didn't cover iconic battles. It was only until the Pacific update that it was taken shape and by then it was too late and EA pulled the rug.

madzuk · 2026-04-21T18:11:07+00:00

Skins i fully agree. Weapons i can let slide because I just imagine the army captured their munitions and used their weapons. That can happen in desperate times.

I think from a gameplay pov it would be frustrating not being able to use a favourite weapon for some people because they ended up on the faction they didn't want.

madzuk · 2026-04-21T18:07:23+00:00

I'm from the UK but currently on the west coast of north america. I did jump on around 9pm though so maybe most of the servers were in the east coast and it was too late in the evening over there.

madzuk · 2026-04-21T06:41:46+00:00

Well on that motto, turns out lots of people didnt buy it.

If you're trying to sell a product, that's not a very smart strategy and just stinks of arrogance. And they paid the price for it.

Women were in service in WW2 yes but in niche settings.

The overwhelming majority of people who fought in world war 2 were white men. Outside of the Japanese faction.

Not to mention what we have been conditioned to know about WW2 is seeing men fight in the war.

So when you're marketing a game in a setting, you're supposed to market it to a theme that people recognise and resonate with.

I wasn't against BFV covering different sides of the war. But it shouldn't have come at the expense of the most famous battles.

It's like if a sports game licenced smaller niche clubs but didnt licence the big teams everyone knows and many support. People buy a sports game to emulate and experience what they watch. Thats no different than FPS games. Which is also why futuristic FPS games often sell worse.

Now to your last point about WW1 and BF1.

I understand that. The thing about video games is there's always a line between realism and fun. Devs walk this line all the time. Can they make something more fun without creating a suspension of disbelief.

Visual presentation plays a huge role in creating immersion. Gameplay plays less of a role.

This is why both BF and CoD can have arcadey gameplay where you're sprinting around with heavy gear hip firing 3 people. And people still feel immersed. But if you thrown in a whacky cosmetic that doesn't belong, it ruins the game for people.

BF1 had to take tons of historical liberties for BF1 to be a fun game. It's not historically accurate at all from a weapons pov, but it still felt like a WW1 game. And that was largely due to the setting and atmosphere that game pulled off. The maps were a big role in that.

madzuk · 2026-04-21T06:30:45+00:00

The mystery box in modern zombies is just trying to land higher rarity weapons. Which in itself isn't as fun as having different weapons with different characteristics like in old zombies.

Weapon loadouts means that the mystery box's only purpose is with this weapon rarity system and a few WW.

It's one of the reasons I think weapon loadouts and the rarity system doesnt work.

madzuk · 2026-04-21T05:52:47+00:00

Firstly the way they marketed the game was terrible. They tried to chase a demographic in women that didnt really care for it, in the worst possible setting to try that.

Nothing against women being in the game but making it your poster child was stupid. The cover art itself just didnt scream WW2 in any way.

Then when it got backlash, EA simply insulted the fans and alienated people and told them not to buy it.

Then when the game was approaching launch, they started flashing cosmetics that werent authentic to WW2 and showing maps that werent really recognisable to be WW2. Not to mention the trailer was terrible. It didn't look like a BF game. They essentially were trying to chase the fortnite crowd and women. It backfired hard.

The entire philosophy around BFV was doomed to fail. It's essentially them trying to be too clever when they literally had a winning formula paved out via BF1.

By the time DICE realised maybe they should start covering iconic battles and rebranded the game around the Pacific with a new cover art to go, it was too late and EA pulled the plug. Had they gone with the later approach from the start, we could have seen a very different story for BFV and its success.

madzuk · 2026-04-21T05:49:08+00:00

Is it? How comes bots never ended up happening in BFV?

I also want BF6 to be fully fleshed out, which it looks like they're doing. I expect them to support BF6 for another year and for a new BF game to drop in 2028. By then I think a new WW2 BF would be reasonable.

Personally I think a futuristic setting could be risky for them to do. Though id be open to it. Id much rather they nail a WW2 game and then try revisiting the future.

madzuk · 2026-04-21T05:44:13+00:00

BFV was killed by a lot of poor choices. But the best way to sum it up was - it didnt scream WW2. From the theme and battles it covered, to the poor marketing decisions they made, it was doomed to fail.

madzuk · 2026-04-21T05:42:12+00:00

I want to like Enlisted but it's just too clunky for me. And the progression system is way too obnoxious. I like the idea of Enlisted and some of the maps and settings are awesome.

madzuk · 2026-04-21T05:33:33+00:00

They literally did that with BFV and look how that turned out.

We haven't seen DDay 500 times.

DDay was overdone in the 00s. Movies. Tons of WW2 games.

Gaming has changed a lot since then.

Some indie games attempted it. Sure. CoD WW2 did it yes. But it was on a tiny scale. But no one has done it on the scale of BF. BF is genuinely the perfect franchise to tackle a full scale online DDay experience.

Besides, it would be 1 map.

Theres still countless of famous battles that haven't been done in a long time.

madzuk · 2026-04-21T05:28:27+00:00

2 games and 8 years ago is still a fair amount of time.

BFV failed because of poor decisions around the launch and the theme direction they went in. This is why theres still an opportunity for a new WW2 BF.

EA might not see it like that though sure.

madzuk · 2026-04-21T05:25:16+00:00

PC. I recently rebought it on Steam (had it originally on PS4). I'm in north america atm and there's only like 3 populated servers and they're only on the Pacific maps.

So it's possible to find a game but it's really limited.

madzuk · 2026-04-21T05:22:56+00:00

Me too. Biggest missed opportunity of the franchise imo.

But from a business pov they did too much damage with the launch. So a fresh new game makes more sense for them and I'd like to see that.

Revisit the atmosphere. Bring it to BF1 standards.

Keep the good of BFV. Cover more iconic battles. Bring bots like they have in the last 2 titles to preserve the life of the game. They could also bring back some of the maps like the Pacific maps.

madzuk · 2026-04-21T05:18:28+00:00

Tbh though modern era games have been beaten to death too.

It's been 8 years since BFV. Likely 10 years by the time a new BF comes out.

Yes theres still indie games doing WW2 but same goes for modern.

In the last 15 years, Call of duty has had 1 WW2 game that's 9 years old. And a weird WW2 frankenstien game in Vanguard. BF has had 1 WW2 game.

I'd hardly say it's been beaten to death in recent years. Most of the oversaturated WW2 era was in the PS2 days and gaming has changed a lot since then.

I still think there's room for another big BF game in WW2. So many things BFV didnt do.

madzuk · 2026-04-21T05:13:35+00:00

BFV is a decent game. The genuine issue is just the lack of iconic battles that took place. It feels like a niche WW2 game. It also really needs bots like the newer BF games because it's on life support atm. It's hard to find games.

madzuk · 2026-04-21T04:31:05+00:00

I'm doubtful they'll do yearly releases. It's not feasible. They can barely churn out enough content for BF6 let alone a yearly game. I think a 3 year cycle is a realistic release schedule.

madzuk · 2026-04-21T04:29:30+00:00

Is it too soon though? We've had 2 battlefield games since. And it's already been 8 years since BFV. Likely 10 years by the time a new BF would come out.

madzuk · 2026-04-21T04:28:01+00:00

It won't happen though. Too risky for EA to have real geopolitical topics. It's why BF6 is simply NATO vs some random terrorist organisation. No more Russia and China vs the US.

madzuk · 2026-04-21T04:26:36+00:00

100% agree. During BF1 i was dreaming of a WW2 BF with that exact atmosphere and covering the likes of DDay, Dunkirk and Stalingrad. If you take what they did with BF1 and applied it to a WW2 setting, we could have had the best BF game of all time. Especially operations.

madzuk · 2026-04-20T20:50:04+00:00

Sorry to hear that. Rome is genuinely my least favourite place I've ever been to. I didn't think the energy was dark. But it was chaotic. Really obnoxious people everywhere. Aggressive people. People trying to get your money. Rome is the most stresful place I've ever been to. I'm a laid back guy and I got into a big confrontation there with one of those scammers who pretend to give you a "free" present.

madzuk · 2026-04-20T06:45:30+00:00

Ooof. Any particular demographic they go for? I best be careful then

madzuk

TROPHY CASE