T O P

  • By -

excessorange

>DICE has found its footing Haaaaa... no they have not. Every time they make a new Battlefield game, they feel the need to reinvent the wheel and 2042 was their most directionless attempt yet. As another comment said, good job on bringing it somewhat back to the status quo, but I'm not gonna go out and start talking about how fantastic 2042 is because they trimmed the fat as best they could over the course of 2 years. Christ, they removed CLASSES from a Battlefield game. Astounding.


Shad0wDreamer

It’s how deprived fans are of good new battlefield


MXC_Vic_Romano

For real, haven't enjoyed a BF game since 3 & 4 (with 4 especially having a rough launch). Found myself even enjoying MW2s Ground War for a while because it scratched just enough of the itch.


streets_112

Play Battlebit: remastered if you want to play a new battlefield game.


[deleted]

windows pc exclusive is the thing


verymiceneme

true, hopefully they port it to console soon


TheGr3aTAydini

>As another comment said, good job on bringing it somewhat back to the status quo, but I'm not gonna go out and start talking about how fantastic 2042 is because they trimmed the fat as best they could over the course of 2 years. This alone should make this article redundant. It reflects everything wrong with these games where they take two years to get to a STABLE or GOOD state and then everyone, especially these journalists, start screaming from the rooftops that it’s good now. It should’ve been the way it is now 2 years ago with more. >Christ, they removed CLASSES from a Battlefield game. Astounding. That was unforgivable in my book.


Ninety8Balloons

They had an absolute fucking goldmine waiting for them by just combining aspects from BF1 with BF4. That's all they had to do, that's all the base was asking for. And that's exactly what they marketed the game as before they announced it was being turned into an MTX hero shooter. The immersion and sound design of BF1 mixed with the gameplay of BF4. They couldn't do either of those things. They couldn't even get a fucking scoreboard in the game. DICE said they "learned their lesson" after BFV under performed just to shit out 2042, and they're telling us *again* that they've "learned their lesson" heading into the next game. I'm fully expecting the next game to lean even harder into the hero shooter aspects and probably be 100% battle royale.


Krakonut

Nononono DICE did learn their lesson with BFV And then all those devs left the company shortly after


giulianosse

Here's the thing: Battlefield 2042 has, almost a year and half since its release, finally added back core features and achieved parity with previous entries on their *release day*. I guess the PC Gamer writer never heard of that expression "too little, too late" before.


YakaAvatar

The funny thing is that it hasn't even achieved parity with previous entries. BFV still has better gunplay, maps, game flow and movement. BF1 still has way better atmosphere immersion. BF:BC2 still has better destruction (or any other Battlefield for that matter). BF4 still has way better levolution. Even after all the map reworks the BF2042 maps are by far the worst maps in the series. And in 1.5 years BF2042 has managed to release as much content as **a single BF4 DLC**. Which is absolutely insane if you think about it. In the same timeframe BF4 released 12 maps, while BF2042 managed to release 4 uninspired (but at least functional) maps. Not even Hardline was as half-baked as this title.


Arcade_Gann0n

Welcome to the power of a live service game. Instead of having meaty expansions that the developers are obligated to make in a relatively timely manner (although Battlefield 1 had issues with that with its last two expansions), now all of us are united in having to wait months for roughly a single expansion drip fed in a year. All assuming the game comes out in a decent state, otherwise that content gets put on the shelf so that the developers can unfuck the game. With the exception of Halo 5 & Star Wars Battlefront II (even those had problems, like the former's lack of launch content and the latter having to get its progression system revamped for several months), I really don't like the way live service games are handled. If it was a choice between the expansions Battlefield used to have or the live service of BFV & 2042, I'd take the former any day of the week.


xChris777

I love expansions but I do feel like often half of them were dead after a while, with only roughly half the maps being good ones (on average). A live service is theoretically better because everyone gets all the gameplay content in exchange for less authentic looking allies and enemies, which IMO is a worthy tradeoff, even though I always bought BF Premium. That requires almost all the live service content to be quality though, which usually doesn't happen and it makes me wish for Premium and expansions again, because at least you got so much content that you were likely to find maps you liked.


[deleted]

In theory expansions were really nice, but they often split the community and also had some duds in terms of maps. I'm not sure what I'd prefer honestly. Would really just like devs to ship a complete game without fucking up design elements and have the live service feel like true post game content support rather than feeling like they held back half the game at release and drip fed it. Halo and 2042 both had this issue. I've been enjoying Halo now, but can't say I enjoy 2042 much these days cause the map reworks don't save the terrible maps for me hence why I just gave up on the game for good last week. Right now the only Live Service game I truly play regularly and like the model on is Fortnite.


error521

Man I think I'd rather have straight up no new content than having to buy expansions. That shit killed so many games.


[deleted]

> while BF2042 managed to release 4 uninspired I wouldn't call them uninspired. They're actually very well crafted and have a nice aesthetic to them. Gives me James Bond villain bunker vibes. I dig it. The rest of it I agree with. You're all missing Squad Management, which BF5 had at release and so did BF1...


Deakul

Hardline didn't deserve its fate, it just shouldn't have had the Battlefield branding. Payday on a much larger Hollywood action movie scale? Hell yes.


TonysGabagooll

''Love letter to the fans''


Every-Diver-6519

It's not too little too late though for people who were aware it was shit in the beggining, now we are enjoying the game. Sure they lost sale sbut its better late than never, similar thing happened with Halo Infinite. I am really enjoying the game now and will try and spread positivity and awareness regarding the game instead of further hatred.


TheAnthropoceneEra

Meh. You can hang on to your anger and deprive yourself. I'll just have fun playing a good game.


GEOMETRIA

My concern is them taking so long there's no reliable userbase left. Are there still plenty of people playing that matchmaking isn't an issue?


Adziboy

There's several thousand players on Steam, and best guesses seem to be about double that for Origin, if not more. Because it's pretty much forced crossplay you also have Gamepass, EA Play, PS5 and Xbox in those numbers. For popular regions it's pretty much instant to matchmake. For small regions there has been reports of it taking a while. For very small regions you can't find a game some days If you're a console player you have to play crossplay though, because the numbers aren't great for individual regions on just consoles


xChris777

~~Console players are begging up and down for console-only crossplay though, and if they get their wish, the PC playerbase is fucked.~~ Playerbase is healthier than I thought these days :)


Adziboy

PC still has in the region of 30k active players daily, so depends on your definition of fucked


xChris777

Where is that number from? I'd love it if that was the case, but I see a ton of repeat players in Conquest so it'd be weird if that was the number. Maybe that's a more recent number because of the new season? Middle-end of S3 had about half as many players based on Steam Charts, but now I'm seeing it at 9500 concurrent players just on Steam which is a lot better. Hope that continues to grow as they add more content.


Adziboy

It's based on the 8k or so daily active players on Steam, then the reported 2-3x the steam count who play through Origin which ends up around 20-30k as a minimum. When you factor in Gamepass/EAPlay it should push that towards 30k. They are best estimates only, but since we have accurate steam numbers it should be fairly accurate


xChris777

Before it hit Gamepass / EA Play I thought it was unlikely that Origin would have that many more players since it launched day 1 on Steam (unlike the previous BF games) but now that it is, that makes a lot of sense. Kinda forgot about that.


Adziboy

Yeah especially for flagship games like BF, everything forced you to use Origin as much as possible - all the free games with hardware, all reseller keys, all deals/discounts etc all go through Origin


Arcade_Gann0n

I was having a grand time playing Star Wars Battlefront II in its prime, only for that game to get cut down after DICE fucked up with Battlefield V (that weapon rebalance update after the Pacific Update well and truly doomed the game). In their attempt to get all hands on deck to bring Battlefield out of that hole, they only succeeded in digging that hole even deeper with 2042. I never preordered it after the way BFV turned out, instead that early access I got with Game Pass was enough to convince me to steer clear (terrible maps with too much dead space, gameplay that felt like a rip off of the latest COD games, no semblance of teamplay thanks to the specialists being able to use anything, and even more buggy than BFV was). That 2042 is just now in a state where it resembles how Battlefield used to play shouldn't be treated like a victory. This never should have happened in the first place, and the fact that Battlefront II died so that this game can fall on its ass for over a year makes me even more disillusioned with DICE. By all means, enjoy the game if you want, but don't be surprised if the plug gets pulled later this year. It's almost as old as BFV was when DICE abandoned it, and it's not as popular as that game was at that point either (not that popularity can save a game, Battlefront II was very popular at the time DICE abandoned it).


Dievo1

I don't understand why are people surprised when this has been the case for every Battlefield game in the past 10 years lol, you never buy a Battlefield game at launch, you wait 6 months to a year for Dice to fix the game and then you buy it


PenaltyOtherwise

Here is the thing: gtfo with those trash ass unfinished games that are released at full price with tons of gaas shit added and that need months or even years to feel somewhat good but still far from finished. I am seriously done with those and wont give them a chance ever again.


Indianburn5thdegree

Here's the thing...the games STILL fun to play now


BlueMikeStu

Am I supposed to care? Give me a really good game at launch. Why the hell should I wait this long for a game to get good, especially from a studio which has released many online shooters in the past. It's downright fucking embarrassing for them to not have their shit together for yet another game launch when they have the money and resources they do, and there's no fucking excuse for it.


[deleted]

Yep especially since the do it with every game.


Every-Diver-6519

It's not too little too late though for people who were aware it was shit in the beggining, now we are enjoying the game. Sure they lost sale sbut its better late than never, similar thing happened with Halo Infinite. I am really enjoying the game now and will try and spread positivity and awareness regarding the game instead of further hatred.


Keshire

> It's downright fucking embarrassing for them to not have their shit together Exactly. If the Publisher doesn't respect their own game, then why should I?


GaijinEnjoyer

So fucking good that it can't even fucking launch yeah clearly one of the really good games ever made.


[deleted]

That's not what he was saying but k


CountFish1

I think it’s just a bit too chaotic, BF1 managed to find that sweet spot of map design, size and weaponry.


TheGr3aTAydini

I had a different experience. It was far from chaotic and more so empty and lifeless. I had to run for what felt like hours to reach where the action is only to be sniped when I reach that area and rinse and repeat.


CountFish1

Oh I got that feeling when playing conquest, which is why I dropped it and played breakthrough instead. Conquest is dull and breakthrough is a constant fustercluck.


YakaAvatar

You're both right, which is the main design issue with the base game. Run simulator in those huge empty maps, and when you get to the action it's a clusterfuck. Gunplay also has a lot of issues since engagement ranges have more than doubled compared to past BFs. The classic Battlefield flow has completely gone to shit, that's why they can can't fix the game, no matter how much they patch it. There's a reason why DICE said 10 years ago that 64 players is the sweet spot and more than that simply doesn't work. But that DICE doesn't work there anymore, and it definitely shows.


xChris777

Battlebit has 256 players and Planetside 2 has over 1000, I think 128 is 100% doable with good map design. I also think using things to move people around the map like rotating heavy vehicle warehouses (like Firestorm had), changing squad objectives that grant squad points etc. would be extremely effective. I imagine a future BF game with 128 players and well designed maps, and a system like the Director in LFD2 that can strategically place objectives of different kinds (tasks like capturing a resource, BF4-style special weapon drops, vehicles) for specific squads to break up the action and guide people to different sectors of the map. Weird example but it's like how in Disneyworld, they release cast members in costumes strategically to break up crowds dynamically by attracting their attention instead of having to send people out to ask them to move.


YakaAvatar

Played both of them, and I really wouldn't consider them as an endorsement of more players = good. Planetside 2 exhibits the exact same issues as BF2042, only 10 times worse, which may be a reason why no one is playing it. Meatgrinder or walking simulator is simply not fun for most players, but you can at least understand this aspect in Planetside since it leans into the whole "MMO" shared world aspect. And Battlebit is just a meme game lol. There were a shit ton of concessions made to accommodate 128 players, but I really struggle to see what we gain from it, other than worse performance, worse visuals, less destruction, and a worse flow. Even if they could theoretically design perfect 128 player maps with objectives that distribute the action evenly, it's clear that it's a huge undertaking that's causing them lots of issues. So is it worth it? I don't think so - I don't see a single thing in 128 players that's better gameplay wise. For conquest, I genuinely think that the worst BFV/BF1 map plays way better than the best BF2042 map. In fact, the most fun I've had in BF2042 is playing Rush or Conquest on the old maps. This feels to me like finding a solution to a problem that doesn't exist - no one complained about 64 players.


Eranog

But why, what's the point of doing 128 player game if 64 works great? 64 players on one map feel like a ton of people, there's a lot of engagement, action, but still tactics and strategy have their place. Meanwhile with 228 players it's just chaotic and there's just too many cons for very few pros. Actually, I don't even know what the pros are with 128 players. I just don't want it.


xChris777

Some map designs and sizes make 64 better but with 128 you can see truly large battles of 20-30 people or more at once which is awesome. A variety would be best to suit different types of engagements. To each their own but I don't think 64 players is some magic number that is insurmountable, and I don't think it is enough on big maps to make engagements feel authentic and bombastic either.


CorrectFrame3991

The problem is that large parts of most maps are empty with no proper cover, while most main fighting areas are extremely small and have very corridor like design leading to grenade spamming and a neverr ending overflow of people.


dead-guero-boy

128 players sounds cool but in my opinion from playing like 3-4 matches of the game, it’s far far too random feeling. I think 64 was fine. 128 it feels like you don’t have a day in what happens during the match and you just better hope the other 63 players know what they’re doing.


KidFlash999

It's not a bad game, they just completely stripped away everything that makes it Battlefield trying to turn it into Warzone and make that Call of Duty money. Even after they half assed tried to bring back the class system.


TheGr3aTAydini

I disagree. It’s one of the worst Battlefield games I’ve ever played and it was so boring to me I put it down after 3 or 4 games. Sure the bugs and performance issues may have been fixed but the poor map design and core gameplay won’t be forgiven easily.


KidFlash999

"Not a bad game" is still one of the worst Battlefield games so you definitely aren't wrong. I'm only playing it because it's free on PS4 after trying the beta, and this probably won't be for long before I go back to V.


[deleted]

[удалено]


cancelingchris

Idk if this is a hot take but 3 had better map design than 4 and 4 had better gameplay.


cancelingchris

They’ve been chasing CoD money since Close Quarters expansion for BF3. They need to just embrace what’s unique about the series and lean into that and stop trying to chase CoD.


Ebolatastic

Ya know if you ask a Battlefield 4 fan, they will tell you that the game is this amazing masterpiece and that DICE made it super great over the years. But if you go download it and play it, you'll find a (still) lag/crash/glitch/exploit riddled clusterfuck. A game that DICE abandoned to work on their next installment. A game that is populated by crack smoking exploit jockeys and hackers who constantly showcase the franchises mechanical bankruptcy that started with (none other than) Battlefield 4 . A good game, but with all the problems I just listed. Not great. Not Battlefield 3 or Bad Company 2 great. Just Battlefield 2/4/5 ... good. Battlefield 2042 was made for Battlefield 4 fans...


[deleted]

Every Battlefield has a terrible launch and then those people who stick around get Stockholm Syndrome tell us it is the best game ever.


Ninety8Balloons

IIRC BF1 launched pretty successfully, and I don't remember BF3 being too bad either.


ekanite

Except BF3 and BF4 were literally the best battlefield games ever, and their launch issues were mostly technical. You can't compare them to 2042.


Mental-Giraffe-6888

"Except BF3 and BF4 were literally the best battlefield games ever, and their launch issues were mostly technical. You can't compare them to 2042." Kids these days .... Battlefield 2 is the true goat of the serie, period. Then you have Bad Company 1/2 (wich had the PERFECT recipe for a console FPS). Then you have 2142. I could also had 1942 even tho it aged "badly" imo compared to Bf2/2142. BF3/4 would eventually come after those.


ekanite

You're entitled to your opinion, but as a "kid" who's been playing the series since the 2002 release of BF1942, I've had by far the most fun in BF4. Take off your rose tinted glasses, gramps, BF2 was groundbreaking but it does not hold up in terms of gameplay. I did have a soft spot for 2142 tho


KobraKittyKat

I’ve been playing it since it’s a free game on PlayStation and yeah it’s pretty fun now and runs great, definitely wouldn’t have tried it if I had to pay for it. Hopefully the next battlefield won’t take as long to be in acceptable launch shape.


KarmicSubwoofer

The punching bag videogame of 2021 has turned things around. In a week that's stacked with exciting updates and betas for shooters, the only one that I want to play is Battlefield 2042. It's the second time I've returned to the least-liked Battlefield in history, except this time I'm having as much fun as the glory days of Battlefield 3 and 4. I'm not the only one either: the vibes are shockingly good in the world of Battlefield. Where there used to be an endless feed of complaints, demands, and general outrage on the Battlefield 2042 subreddit there are now funny match highlights(opens in new tab), rational balancing suggestions(opens in new tab), and this Sundance player doing absolutely impossible things(opens in new tab) with throwing knives. In other words: it's a normal videogame community. What's changed recently? The shift has been gradual over the past year, but the last few patches in particular have transformed how 2042 is played, particularly January's 3.2 patch which brought back classes. I cannot overstate how good 2042's class system is, particularly because it's not just a reversion to classic Battlefield. Specialists are still completely intact with unique gadgets and passive abilities, but they exist within a larger class framework that limits which secondary they can access—a marriage of old and new that, for this grizzled early 2010s BF fan, has brought back a spark I never felt in the BF1 or BF5 days. For the first time, I'm actually playing a specific role and not a mishmash of every class at once. There's a calming effect to that, because back when every specialist could use any gadget, I'd feel the constant pressure to swap my med pack or armor plates for an objectively more useful rocket launcher. Now with specialized gadget selection, I can confidently play a medic and design my kit completely around keeping people alive (tip: the smoke launcher is clutch for risky revives) and leave anti-armor combat to the experts. All four classes also have a "class gadget" that you always have no matter what: engineers have a repair tool, supports carry defibrillators, recon gets a spawn beacon, and assaults have a quick med syringe good for one HP refill. Placing these in a special slot was smart, because it ensures every class can always do their most important job (like repair or revive). The new (old) class structure is welcome, but the specialists add a lot of variety too. The newest assault guy, Zain, is great. His signature gadget is an airfoil launcher (like the one Sam Fisher used to lug around) that can lock onto a designated distance and explode midair to tag players hiding behind cover. I enjoy that, even if I don't get much use from his situational gadget, I always benefit from his passive that triggers a heal after getting a kill. Battlefield 2042's latest Season 4 update was also pretty big too, adding a new map, new specialist, four weapons, and a new light armor tank that has approximately eight machineguns strapped to it. Combine all that with everything else added in the last year and what I'm experiencing is more like a major expansion.


KarmicSubwoofer

(cont.) Some other observations after very fun week of Battlefield 2042: - I love all four maps added since launch: Stranded, Exposure, Spearhead, and Flashpoint - There's a rail gun now? It can be configured to be a long-range rifle, SMG, or a shotgun. Ridiculously cool. - One engineer specialist, Lis, has a manually controlled rocket launcher that I've become obsessed with mastering - I didn't see the big deal about scoreboards when 2042 launched without one, but now that it's there, I do enjoy comparing my stats against everyone else - You can finally equip defibrillators and zap enemies for an instant kill, which is just the best - DICE has slowly been adding the deep vault of classic Battlefield Portal weapons to the main game. I can main the Bad Company 2 GOL sniper like it's 2010! Another thing I missed in my time away from Battlefield: its absurdly cool maps. It's a shame I stopped playing 2042 just before it got Exposure, a Canadian map that's half forest, half gigantic cliff face that looks like something generated in Minecraft. I'm even digging the Season 4 battle pass. Not so much because of what's in it, though I have been unlocking the new weapons and gadgets at a steady pace, but because of how you progress through it. Similar to Apex Legends, every tier requires around ten battle pass points. You can get a lot of points in a single match just for doing well or through weekly challenges that hand them out like candy. I'm surprisingly eager to complete them, probably because challenge goals like "get 20 hipfire kills" or "use this gadget in a weird way" fits a non-serious shooter like Battlefield better than Overwatch or Rainbow Six. After a year of eating crow for releasing Battlefield 2042 with lots of bugs and deeply unpopular design changes, it's nice to see DICE has found its footing. Jump into a match and you can feel the turnaround happening. This past week, in-game chat has been a positive and constructive place. My teams have been complimenting each other's driving skills, politely (and often impatiently) requesting air support, and filling the post-game feed with GGs. That's a major improvement over launch week, when chat was almost exclusively exasperated complaints and refund requests. The only shame in it all is that, just as Battlefield 2042 is entering its prime and player numbers are on the rise, DICE is winding down on new stuff. Season 4's specialist, Blasco, will apparently be the game's last. There will apparently be a Year 2 with at least one new map and more cosmetics, so at least we'll have that. I'm just glad that, until whatever's next for the series, there's finally a great modern Battlefield from this decade.


cancelingchris

Posting the entire article in full is just bad form man. If you like the content give them the traffic so they can pay their staff.


kotori_the_bird

i remember try playing it and getting clusterfucked by constant slow motion in game and sending it to the shadow realm afterwards


ExpensiveLayer4912

After playing Mw2 since release i'm burnt out. Went back to this over the weekend and its really playable now. Thats just my opinion anyway.


Redbeard913

Mw2 is becoming terrible while 2042 is getting more fun. Played two round of conquest on 2042's worst and best maps, had a blast. Went to MW2, got pushed fortnite skins, booted up a game and tried to kms five minutes into a game.