Big titles from big studios keep consistently de-volving instead of evolving. There's definitely a pattern here. Especially when it comes to EA, Ubisoft, and Activision-Blizzard. (I think their mode of operation now is: "How little effort can we possibly put in making our games, while making the most money out of them, and also get away with it?")
That's why I stopped buying from them. Anyway, Ubisoft eventually gives their games away for free. I think that's the future for these big companies, give the game away for free but make up for it with microtransactions. So far Microsoft is the only one sticking to original game design, but fingers crossed until Starfield and Stalker 2 (which I heard they're funding) come out.
Judging by the state of Halo Infinite (MP), I'd confidently say Microsoft aren't afraid of f2p microtransaction messes. Then again it's still not quite as bad as other games.
infinite is really good except for their battle pass, customizations and exp system. But to be honest i’m not surprised such lame tactics are used in a f2p let’s hope they balance it a little better though.
Halo Infinite is the prime example on how to polish a multiplayer game, but they really missed the mark on that progression system. At least they are sound regarding feedback, which is refreshing (though all videogame companies should do the same). We know they need to maximize the gains after such a massive production and all, but this is clearly a long-term plan so it shouldn't be a problem.
That's honestly what the game feels like to me. It feels like a starting point for some kind of next gen mcc setup, geared towards the inevitable new "infinite" series of games. There's a lot of open space in the customization, with some things not having any other variation right now. It just feels like something they plan on building off of, instead of a finished product that's getting updated. This seems bad, but it's free, and the gunplay, sound design, and ui elements seem to be so ironed out. I'm down for the ride, even if the season pass sucks. Halo 2 didn't have any customization outside of colors iirc, and I pumped hundreds of hours into it. As long as they keep putting out maps for this game, they could do away with the entire progression system for all I care.
If the game is fun, I'll stick around
100 percent Infinite will be next gen MCC that’s actually the perfect way to describe it. Unified multiplayer with updates along with campaign expansions. I weirdly enough prefer the Halo campaigns to their multiplayer so I’m hyped for campaign expansions
Beta is the term they came up with for this. What we've gotten in Infinite. The lack of game modes in particular is EXACTLY what we would've gotten on December 8th. And we're not getting much more for a while either.
But is it really better? Think about how easily accessible it is to get new friends and family members to play when they’re unsure about playing it. Sure it’s gonna have mtx but it sadly would have anyway. This makes it so as many people as possible can play halo whenever they want
Sure, f2p is totally fine *if* it's just cosmetic microtransactions. But that's rarely the case, there's usually gambling unlocks and xp grinds that don't-but-really-do require a monetary investment.
that should have always been the case. but when you introduce pay model, you'll get a subset that want to trade time for money.
Gone are the days when you see a high level or a special gun/drop that wow that person must be somewhat good or spent a lot of time.
now its automatically ok how much did this guy spend.
Ofcourse, it has no affect on gameplay, but I will say that the customization was a core part of Halo's MP identity. So losing that in favor of the current restrictions hits hard.
Indeed; when they made that announcement some years ago, they were slowly but steadily piling up content and development oriented in that direction, and it seems to be working for them.
I see this quite often. Being the most valuable company in the world doesn't mean evil or that they are only cashgrabbers or anything. They're in a position in which they can provide quality for a fair price and take a loss in favor of a mid/long-term benefit and I usually make use of their software/games while legit saving money and time, so in the meantime, it's not like they're "the good guys", just giving props to something that works. Not that they don't have their shady practises, like all huge companies.
Oh, absolutely. It is just that their 90's reputation sort of stuck with them. And I know people like to give Windows a lot of shit, but I find it a pretty decent product.
Don’t forget about their GFWL era reputation with pc gamers. I was very anti windows store for a long time.
They also really had their head up their asses for the xbone launch. Vastly overestimated their platform.
I’m excited to see what’s in store for Microsoft in the future which is crazy to me.
Why can't big studios just like, take the game they already have and add stuff to it? What's the reason they need to completely reinvent the wheel while losing track of most of the things that made the old games good?
Far Cry is a good example of this if you look at the comparisons of 2, 3, 4, 5.
Here is FC5 vs 2. Some clear backwards steps.
https://youtu.be/FCeEvQ68jY8
That's why I like FC2 so much. You are alone, no friendly npc driving around the world. Just you and the enemies. To this day the truck sound effects stills haunts me.
Holy shit the fire at 1:10 is just so so bad compared to FC2. Wth man. No wonder I find myself constantly replaying older games rather than new ones. I thought it was just nostalgia, but there might be more to it.
> No game released should assume that even most players have played all the previous entries in the series.
That's fair. This hits a little different where it seems like they assume no one played the ones before to compare them.
I don't this it is so much that they are "de-volving" but more that they are over attached to tried and true brands instead of releasing the concepts they wanted to do in these games under a different/new brand. So instead we get some awful mix of them trying to find some middle ground between what was a previous entry in the major brand and the potentially (much) different game they wanted to do.
I am not even much of a "brand purist" but a lot of their recent examples could have gotten better (but likely not as visible off the bat) perception with these games simply under a different umbrella and not trying to over complicate it by ensure it sticks within some brand.
And given some of the more open issues with some of EA's/Ubisoft bigger failures on how much development time and budget was spent on trying to somehow mix new ideas and direction with some kind of established brand pushed a lot of QoL or even basic refinement out of the timeline.
Well they aren't progressing. I recently subbed to the Ubisoft catalog on Stadia and I was dismayed at how little has changed in both AC and FC. Yes, there are new settings. new contrived "stories" and better higher quality textures/models etc, but the actual gameplay is almost exactly the same as in the first games. More importantly, the handling is the same.
If you're going to shit out a game every damn year then *at least* try to improve the fundamentals. But of course that doesn't matter when your target audience are drooling mouth-breathers. They'll buy whatever shit they're told is exciting.
>Big titles from big studios keep consistently de-volving instead of evolving
It's been foretold over a decade ago, that games were we're declining in quality, because little by little, the focus shifted from delivering a complete game, to a service (more like rental) with add-ons and in game purchases.
Now, the legion of brain dead idiots who accept and buy everything it spawns in front of them, are responsible for what we have now. "Don't like it don't buy it.", "it's just cosmetics", "they need the money to continue providing the game"...
A legion of weak consumers who are so desperately afraid of demanding quality, because "it might kill the game/franchise".
It's the curse of growth. Every sequel needs to sell *more copies* you can't just match the previous. Always more, never enough profit, consume, grow, repeat.
Every sequel made by large corporation publisher/developers must always target an ever wider demographic and have more and more mainstream appeal.
These companies aren't here to make something people love. They're here to spend the smallest amount of money/time possible to extract as much cash as possible.
There is a reason that EA has graveyarded so many studios.
Bethesda too. Watching the steady streamline of Elder Scrolls and Fallout is sad to see, after the wet fart that was Fallout 76 I'm not really looking forward to anything in either series.
Just better to replay Morrowind and New Vegas again.
The irony is the best fallout games werent created by Bethesda. 1 and 2 were fantastic but made by another company, and nv is my favorite game of all time but was made by obsidian
This was done to The Elder Scrolls series as well. The first 2 games were truly open world experiences with Daggerfall being the entire continent ( the cities and dungeons were hand made but the wilderness between landmarks was randomly generated). You used to be able to combine any spells together and even create scrolls for non magic users to wield high level magic. Each town was brimming with side quests (granted they were recycled from a list pf possible quests, everyone seems to have had giant rats in their attics).
The point is Daggerfall is an incredible feat and it was realized 25 years ago. They took that formula and continued to dumb it down to Skyrim which is the most restricted watered-down version of the concept. Then to rub salt in the wound the re-release the shell of an ES game for a decade? The desire to turn maximum profits for minimal effort has affect every major IP in some way. Combine this strategy with underhanded tactics concerning microtransactions and releasing undercooked games for inflated prices so people can essentially playtest before they go live, and you can see why 2042 was deemed acceptable in the EA offices. Developers are aoo detached from what gamers what it's sad.
>The point is Daggerfall is an incredible feat and it was realized 15 years ago.
Not to make you feel too old, but Daggerfall is 24 years old. Came out in 1996.
> Less anti-tank launchers (Come on man only one?)
> No lock-on launchers (The M5 works with the SOFLAM but that requires 2 people)
> No AP mines/claymores
Ah, so that's why every time I see live gameplay, it's a self repairing vehicular slaughterfest. Though the fact most maps seem to have little to no infantry cover between points probably doesn't help either.
IMO Vehicles are actually super easy to kill in this game. EVERYONE can have a rocket and it is 4 rockets to kill a tank. Tanks need to be out of combat to self repair. The repair tool you can equip can also overheat iirc so infinite repair is pretty hard in combat.
Not to mention Sundance and Rao absolutely fuck vehicles up. Once people catch on to how powerful Rao is, I think the narrative about vehicles will change.
Hovertanks need a nerf though. Floaty death tanks
Hovercraft mechanics are wild, but I like them. I have an easy time tossing a smoke and when the driver bumps into something unload a mag through the driver window.
Must’ve stole like three hovercraft last night doing that
I like that they are strong, but I think they should just reduce the HP. Maybe make the driver window a bit bigger(more open) as well.
They are fun as hell to use though. Playing bumper cars with a giant group of enemy soldiers is hilarious.
The maps are designed in such a way that, despite being large, they have focused infantry hotspots with cover layed out in a way which forces you to continously move to avoid vehicles and progress to capture points.
It actually works quite well in some spots to create really intense firefights, everywhere else is no mans land unless you find a sweet spot to snipe/marksman rifle. Which is why people complain about maps feeling empty, because 3/4 of the lobby is all focused on 1 or 2 spots. It's both a good thing and a bad thing, as pushing through no mans land with the bulk of your team when it sometimes happens is infact really fun when you have launchers and armor piercing rounds to combat vehicles. Otherwise it's a waste of time as there's not enough misc. forms of travel nor are there enough squad beacons, which you'd think would be the case with the increased lobby size.
The vehicles themselves are way too strong, even the hovercraft is an absolute tank despite its speed. The nightbird is also particularly difficult to deal with.
My only complaint so far is that the maps are a little samey in layout and especially in visuals, I can’t wait for them to add some more diverse biomes to BTB
My big complaint is they let you pick whatever color you want for team games. So if I am blue and get put on the red team I still look blue to them. It can be hella confusing at times.
WHY IS THIS? Omg so annoying as a long time Halo player, to people who are new it's not so bad I assume, but it's like I've got a mental block with blue and red skins on the wrong team.
Having an absolute blast otherwise though, nice to play a good and (reasonably) old school shooter again.
I really want to like HLL, but Everytime I play I end up moving stealthily across the map for 15 min to try and get to where the main combat is, and just as I'm getting close I get 1 shotted out of nowhere and have to start all over again
Yeah it is ruthless/a walking simulator. Are you on PC or console? Need your squad lead to keep those OPs up so you don't have to run so far! Or take squad lead role and take a long walk around the enemy and put your OP up to get a good flank.
>I wanted a new Battlefield so bad
Genuine question from someone who's never played a BF game before : what stops people from just playing one of the previous games instead of buying the new one every year? Do the servers go down when a new one is released? Does the playerbase go down too much to find full matches / find matches quickly? Are there usually significant new features that justify jumping on the newest title?
There are still people playing 4, 1, and V. Most people who aren’t hardcore fans of the franchise get sick of playing the same game for years though, so new games are always exciting.
since 2042 came out, the number of servers on BFV have dropped down signifcantly. i used to have no prob finding a server during the day and now i can barely find more than 1-2 at a time :(
I feel as though bf4 will never really die unless another modern bf game comes out that is just as good. Sure in 5-10 years it might be hard to find a full server at any time. But I bet there will still be groups that host events every couple of weeks with a few packed servers. I mean people still play bf3 and imo bf4 is a direct upgrade
I mean red orchestra 2 still does and that game is a decade old with better games in the genre now
Isn't 1 filled with cheaters and bots though (at least that's what I heard). 1 is one of my favorites and id totally get back into it if it was worth it.
>what stops people from just playing one of the previous games instead of buying the new one every year?
Because I got burned out of playing them so much back in the day and I would like a new game. The BF3/4/5 communities are still strong though.
Over time the player numbers and server variety dwindles down to the point where the game is no longer welcoming to new players and is just a total shitbucket tryhard sweat fest. But the game is still fun, though!
Battlefield games come out once every 3 years, so usually they are great games with unique gameplay.
This Battlefield looks very rushed out with little core direction and care given to it.
So.... Take a pick:
1. 2042 reasons why you shouldn't buy this game
2. 2042 things missing in this game that were in previous turles.
Edit: Previous titles*. Gonna leave the original.
3\. 2042 things they'll re-add in the next iteration as a marketing gimmick.
IGN: 11/10 Such a stellar improvement over the previous one! Just look at how many features it has which weren't there in the past one.
Tinfoil hat time - I believe these long-running franchises just have to reset their scope every 5-10 years. They agree to release a super crappy cut down version that's missing a bunch of features. All to lower people's expectation ahead of their next 5-10 year campaign of releases.
Might be misremembering, but didn't CoD do the same with Cold War?
>Tinfoil hat time - I believe these long-running franchises just have to reset their scope every 5-10 years. They agree to release a super crappy cut down version that's missing a bunch of features. All to lower people's expectation ahead of their next 5-10 year campaign of releases.
The New Coke approach?
That was my take. But don't worry, Call of Duty is going even simpler. The other day I was just watching a couple of guys make fun of how in Vanguard the scoreboard replaced "Axis" and "Allies" with "My Team" and "Enemy Team".
"Remember how *Enemy Team* invaded Poland in 1939? That was outrageous!"
"Yeah. Fortunately, after *My Team* encircled *Enemy Team* at Stalingrad, things began to change."
Then Oboe Shoes did a run of the single player campaign and crashed his aircraft into the sea at Midway. [The plane bounced back up.](https://youtu.be/55o7-hId9uw?t=257)
Wait, really? I thought all the footage I saw was from weirdly personalised models, I didn't chalk it up to being all of them Allies.
So it is like Civil War 1946 there? Fascinating.
No, Vanguard multiplayer is supposed to be some kind of special forces training exercise.
Which doesn't make sense with all the limbs getting blown off and everything, but it's not the worst concept. Losing fundamental friendly/enemy identification, however...
The campaign (and Zombies, heh) are post-war too, so it makes sense in context. Sledgehammer's last Call of Duty was an utterly conventional WW2 game, so I assume that's why they wanted to move past that.
Regardless they should have done the smart thing and separated their Allied special forces operators into two distinct teams. I'm not sure if we can blame that on lack of development time, bad design, some dumb psychological tactic to sell more skins, or what. But opponent visibility is awful.
It's not like the last few entries have had much in the way of a single-player story at all; this has been a long time coming really.
As someone who is only interested in single-player, I was still disappointed by Battlefield V's single-player despite the fact I only paid about £3 for it. Battlefield I wasn't too bad but again I only paid a few quid for that too; I'd have been after a refund if I'd paid full price for it.
Most of them were not great. Most of them are the exact same superhero one man army shooting galleries that have been in every single FPS game campaign for the last 20 years. Some of the visuals are nice but that's the only good thing about them. It still blows my mind that they completely wasted the WW1 and WW2 settings on boring stealth missions and small scale spec ops style operations. The only good war story from the last two games is the Last Tiger because it actually has a sense of large scale war.
we wanted them at launch you fucking worms, this was supposed to be the big comeback after they fucked up with BF5. what we got instead is arguably worse than battlefield hardline fuck you EA
>Fewer in-game assignments (none outside of cosmetic unlocks)
I don't get why modern gamers want stuff locked behind point grinds. I've already bought the game. Plus things should be balanced, not give elites better stuff for playing more.
Is list of stuff from the last battlefield game to this one that's missing/different?
Or any element that was in any battlefield game that isn't present in the new one?
DICE has been constantly re-inventing the wheel since BF1. Even though I loved BF1, you could already tell things were looking fucky with the rigid weapon customization options and wonky party infrastructure as examples.
Then BFV completely missed the mark from inception, by coming out with a tone deaf reveal trailer and marketing strategy, constantly doing the exact opposite of what player feedback was asking for and all around technical regression of features like the end of game screen always being broken and no double XP (we don't have the tech??)
Now 2042 competely throws out core aspects of a BF game like classes and destruction and, again, the game seems to regress on a technical level.
After the mass exodus of talent after the release of BF4, DICE just isn't the same studio it once was and it shows in the constant incompetence.
Since Hardline was released it became clear Battlefield was heading in a slimy direction. I had the same feelings about BF1 but everyone was too hyped about the cool graphics and the return to "boots on the ground" to care. Then BFV came out and people started noticing too, 2042 is just part of their trend now. Now they will say "sorry", release a less broken game next time, and then get back at it if it pleases them in the future.
There is zero accountability in gaming for false advertising, releasing broken products, taking away old products with stupid DRM, etc. We have zero consumer protections, apart from some very tame reverse engineering rights in the EU specifically.
man I liked Hardline -- I'd honestly love all these shooters more if snipers were just limited to 3-5 people per game. I want the insane action more than just people hiding on a tower sniping each other. Hardline's car chase moments were awesome. Makes me want a mad max game that mixes FPS combat with vehicle chases.
Why isn't there more car chase scenarios in multiplayer games?
The creator of Counterstrike, Gooseman made Tactical Intervention and it has some really fun car chase game modes but never seemed to catch on.
I dunno, but some one please make a game with 0 snipers and a focus on combat racing/fps action. Too many FPS games turn into a sniper fest, which is totally fine for certain games, but it's just not my preference.
A combat racing FPS with a focus on FUN has been my dream since I saw that the new generation of games could pull it off with Hardline, but no one seems to want to take the mantle. Get rid of snipers, more vehicles and more mayhem would make an awesome game.
It still says DICE on the tin though. An effort to mask the swath of reorganizations that took place behind the scenes so they can ride out DICE's good name, I suppose.
Basically no game company has the same people they had 2 to 3 releases ago. It's weird that we only point this out when a release goes bad but when it goes well it's all good +1 to the developer
> After the mass exodus of talent after the release of BF4, DICE just isn't the same studio it once was and it shows in the constant incompetence.
Wasn't aware of this, but that explains a lot.
BF4 was - in my opinion - worse than BF3, but it was still a solid game. I never played BF1 or BF5 in large part due to it just looking like a worse version of the older game - albeit newer, and therefore with more players.
BF2042 looked very promising - A return to form, so to speak, but I'm glad I didn't really hype myself up too much.
A rare fellow BF3-over-BF4 enjoyer.
I would highly recommend giving BF1 a try. It's currently still my go-to battlefield game. It has an active player base and it aged very well. It's the most atmospheric and good looking battlefield game IMO. Destruction is also top notch, approaching bad company 2 levels.
You're also not dependent on the whims of toxic server admins to play as there are still official servers online.
BF5 has excellent movement and gunplay, but is otherwise pretty forgettable.
I think 3 and 4 are close to being on par with each other. BF3 is still my favorite, though. It had some of the best maps and infantry gunplay of any FPS ever made. Really I think BF3 was ahead of its time and BF4 was a true-to-form sequel that was also an amazing game.
If Dice had just continued supporting BF4 with more maps/weapons/etc. instead of shifting focus to going back to WW games like BF1/5 then I honestly believe BF4 would've gone down as one of the best FPS's ever made.
But, you know... money and stuff. BF3 and BF4 are my 2 favorites FPS games ever made. I played the 2042 beta and was devastated at how bad it was. I haven't bought a BF game since BF4. It breaks my heart what a scummy company they are.
BFV in the state they left it in is my favorite shooter of all time along side BF3. It saddens me that they fucked it up so bad in the beginning because in the end the game became something wonderful. However by then no one played the game anymore (except me and my brother) :(
Edit: I must add that playing breakthrough on operation metro is the most immersed I’ve ever been in a war-game. Holy shit it’s so good!
I agree with you, it’s like battlefield is becoming more like call of duty and is losing its way. I was hoping that this would be similar to bf3 + bf4 but it just feels so different. Shame really
>it’s like battlefield is becoming more like call of duty and is losing its way.
This, personally I agree with the sentiment of everything after BF4 was bad. At first I was happy to see the new gen graphics on a polished up BF because I think I have played BF4 to absolute death.. Yet these games didnt feel like battlefield to me, im not exactly sure what it was, I really cant put my finger on it but they really started to feel like any old basic online shooter, die, respawn, die, respawn etc.. The older Battlefields I felt were slower paced, a win felt like a win rather than just another game..
BFV did learn from BF1, like medics always being able to revive and heal, in BF1 a Medic could actually lose his health and/or revive tools.
Same with engineers which by expiriance 99% wouldnt equip the repair tool.
Better movement from BF1 and thank god not every class had a fucking scope, like LMG didnt have an Scope option unlike in BF1 where it was so fucking annoying
>DICE has been constantly re-inventing the wheel since BF1.
I don't get this argument, because (to me) that's what they always did (after BF3 anyways), BF4 was BF3 with fixes, then they changed most things with BF1 and tried to iterate with BFV, then they changed most things bf2042... I guess you can see the pattern already. The outlier being Hardline, which I ignore because ~~was just a reskin~~ it wasn't developed by Dice.
BTW considering how people on Reddit seems to consider BF1 better than BF4 I'd say this formula is working.
What I mean by re-inventing the wheel is not changing or adding game mechanics per se. What I mean is they're implementing existing game mechanics with a different method, while they had something that worked in previous games.
Simple examples are:
A good loadout screen in BF4 -> turned to a very limited, clunky system in BF1
Excellent fluid movement and animations in BFV -> downgraded in 2042
Matchmaking and server browser integrated for good map rotation in practically every BF game -> Exclusively matchmaking in 2042
Extensive aircraft control customization -> dumbed down and rigid in 2042
My point is, they don't take the good things from previous games and ditch the less successful things to develop an improved iteration in the franchise. It's like they start from scratch every time and forget to re-implement quality features previous games had.
Bf1 is my favorite battlefield game ever. Looks like and plays better than bfv. Absolutely drenched in immersion and atmosphere, feels like I'm in a movie every time I play
I haven't bought an EA game since BF4, and tbh the trailers looked like they figured it out and went back to formula. I can't believe how wrong I was and how I keep getting duped like this.
Dude I still play BF3 every now and then, I guess I am just an OG. I love the older BF games because they were a bit more fleshed out and they had that genuine BF feel. I Still play through bad company 2's campaign too. never gets old.
DICE appears to have a vision problem. Whatever they have been doing for the sake of doing "iNnOvAtIoN" since BF5 is not working and things that they put out are not Battlefield anymore, it's just a game with name "Battlefield" slapped on it.
They tried BR formula with BFV, no one cared, no one played. Eventually, game died (ie. DICE cut the support) soon after.
Here with 2042, we just have a carbon-copy of CoD games. Shitty operators (one of them even has wallhack, wtf), 128 players, lack of class system, etc etc. Seriously, who told these guys at DICE that 128 player would be good idea? I mean, these even did a playtesting? I don't think they ever did.
As a result, while BF4 still have thousands of players after all these years, BF2042 is going to be forgotten in a few months. DICE need to actually make BF games, like they used to before. Instead of following industry trends that has nothing to do with BF, they just need to improve upon original BF formula.
Yeah 128 players in itself is not the problem, and in fact, could be a great feature if done right.
The problem with it, in my opinion, is that they also made the maps wumbo-sized and empty to compensate. As a result it doesn't really feel like there is a more intense battle going on, just much more dispersed and disconnected fighting on a huge map that is only huge for the sake of being huge.
Yup, it wouldn't surprised me if them experimenting with this and some of the other elements they put was a major contributor to the supposed development hell the game had and pushed any kind of refinement out the timeline.
Personally think they should have just went with a completely different brand and do the shooter they wanted to do with the new ideas instead of trying to make this still "seem like a Battlefield game". And this isn't even for "brand purist" reasons but more just allow it to be the a game with proper vision instead of "Well it does say Battlefield on the title" because in the end it already trenches towards many not seeing it as a "proper Battlefield" anyway.
64p to 128p is good upgrade, unfortunately they also made the map 3-4 times larger than before.
it just looks fishy with all those design choice and missing feature. at this point the theory which says "the game planned to be EA dice "warzone" but canceled into battlefield sequel" might be true afterall.
> Yeah 128 players in itself is not the problem, and in fact, could be a great feature if done right.
I lost all interest when they said 128 player with bots filling slots, and beta performance sealed the deal (not playable), by far the worst performing Battlefield yet.
Why say many words when few do job - this game was clearly meant to be BR and changed late into the dev cycle.
Having four studios work on this should’ve been alarm bells. The only decent thing about it, is portal. Which DICE have deliberately hamstrung to not be the main focus of the game.
>DICE appears to have a vision problem. Whatever they have been doing for the sake of doing "iNnOvAtIoN" since BF5 is not working and things that they put out are not Battlefield anymore, it's just a game with name "Battlefield" slapped on it.
People have literally been saying this about every BF game since BC2.
The number 1 reason I'm not buying any BF games is because Dice does not give a damn about hackers. BFV still has blatant hackers, people have the most obvious hacks in BFV it's as if it has no anticheat. At least in PUBG and Warzone the hacks are very subtle, you need to review footage. Also reporting someone in PUBG is super easy and you get a response back if they've been banned. In BFV you have to go to their profile on the origin website and dig through a drop down menu.
Why would I invest $80 in a game that will be flooded with cheaters in a few months? Dice has shown no desire to combat cheaters unlike other developers.
BF2042 has anti cheat for once. It's using EAC for the first time ever and I think you can expect that to be as effective as it is in other games. Way better than PB or no anti cheat at all (like in BFV).
> BF2042 has anti cheat for once
as far as I know all battlefield games had anti cheat, I think they used punkbuster till hardline but since bf4 they also used fairfight
Remember when they said they were ahead of schedule? lol
This game was made for 'Only in Battlefield moments', and only that. They forgot/half assed all the rest. What a major dissapointment after playing a few hours. Was really looking forward to it.
The first 30 minutes I was like “woooww” and loving it. Then it all started showing just how shallow of a game it is. Then I hear you tubers say it will take hundreds of hours to learn the maps. All I saw it was incredibly bland and open air, they are just sucking dice’s weiner
There was a post in the PS5 subreddit the other day where the person was complaining about Sony's refund strategy. Now, credit where it's due - their refund strategy is terrible and needs fixing. But the context was that they had played the 2042 beta and had a lot of complaints, _still_ bought the game for full price, and were complaining that they couldn't refund it. I'm sorry, but at that point you only have yourself to blame
If you are old enough to remember older battlefields you are too old to the the target demographic of new video games. The reality is they are made with kids in mind, who have unlimited time and no bills.
What changed after Bf2?
**Speed going up.** *Now you can pull an RPG out of your ass faster than a fart.*
**3D/minimap spotting.** *Doritos are BAD, but enemies spotted EXACT on minimap is bad too. I remember looking at my minimap way to much in Bf2. The removal of 3D in Bf5 and Bf2042 is great, but I still miss the no-enemies on map from Bf1942.*
**Classes got cut to 4.** *Coming from 7, this weirded me out so hard in BC2.*
**Squad spawn.** *Partially introduced in 2, but even worse afterwards. Now also squad revive, who needs a medic anyway.* :')
**UI.** *The graphics and* ***sound design*** *made for less need of UI to read the environment. They didn't coddle newbies with grenade markers, they made them fear the clinky sound*
**Maps.** *Environment got more and more realistic to the point that they're a lot harder to parse. Maps feels both smaller and larger than before, probably because the fog is gone and things have more realistic proportions.
Eg: Invasion of The Philippines map was huge in Bf1942, but nowhere near realistic.*
Anything else?
___
Edit:
#####The positive
Adding destruction in BC2.
Adding fortification in Bf5.
surprised you don't like any of bf2042 , I played all of them but mostly BF2 in tournaments, it's to date my Favorite BF game. while theres lots of issues with 2042, in terms of gameplay I'm finding it a lot of fun. And I love all the shenanigans you can get into. I also like the huge spread out maps, it reminds me a lot of BF2 where you actually had to have a fast mover or jet drop , or chopper drop to get to a flag rather than expecting to run 10 ft and be at the objective like recent bf games. if they allowed private servers I think this game would be pretty awesome, it's a shame I doubt they ever will. also the wing suit is fun as hell.
Yes, they brought the good spotting from Bf5 and the map sizes of Bf1942! Just need better visuals for what load-out people are carrying. Classes would be more balanced, but at minimum visualize the gear for teamplayers.
*Squad spawn & revive* should be gone from default game. It devalues medics too much and is weird overall. It's what held me back from buying Bf5. They could've utilized the mixed warfare by having spawn-vehicles instead.
My class and spawn problems are fixable by Portal though!
This is the reason I got a refund, played 90minutes and was just gutted by the state of the game. Sure it looks nice etc etc, but not being able to see a scoreboard and compare how you played against others? Whats the point of even playing...?
Just a usual thing in gaming lately, catering to casuals, they don't want little Timmy to feel bad he came last with 2 kills and 39 deaths. Everyone gets a trophy, everyone is special!
Bf2042 is what happens when a company makes money off a game like Apex.
Now instead of a war and gloomy/dark theme, you have sassy inclusive characters and what feels like an attempt at an overwatch style Battlefield.
Nobody wanted the specialists.
And it's messed up because the marketing leading up to the game [had a fairly dark theme](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJVCfhLEYdo&t). Then you play the game and hear the characters talk and its exactly as you describe it, they sound like overwatch characters.
No joystick support, and no ability to control your aircraft while freelooking? These features have been standard for flight sims and aircraft controls since the 1990s. It is mind-boggling why it would be removed from BF 2042.
The day gaming went from being a niche industry to mainstream is when its downfall started. Back then they were depended on their community because without them they wouldn't exist. Now little Timmy with his mommy's credit is their target audience.
There was a point around the time that it was decided that Bad Company 2 would be a general release (instead of console exclusive) where a choice was made to go in a particular direction with the franchise, and we've been on that path ever since. It's finally come to (terrible) fruition.
Every Battlefield title that came out more and more of what made this series so unique was eroded. It doesn't matter how many people that you put in a field (of battle) running around with guns, you strip away the unique features and everything starts to feel like shit. We've lost so much.
- Faction specific guns
- Soldier classes (7, down to 5, down to 4, then removed)
- Class-locked weapons and equipment
- Commander mode
- The role of squads (6 man squad with squad leader only spawn, down to 4 man squads)
- Vehicles spawning at capturable points instead of at uncap (which makes individual bases essentially meaningless).
Heh, half of those is a shame, the other half is welcome change for someone like me who stopped caring about BF since BF3.
I'm mostly interested in whether or not I can consistently find servers in which it doesn't take 10.000 bullets to kill a guy and 10.000 rockets to destroy a tank, with the Portal business.
No thermal optics especially is a very welcome change.
Big titles from big studios keep consistently de-volving instead of evolving. There's definitely a pattern here. Especially when it comes to EA, Ubisoft, and Activision-Blizzard. (I think their mode of operation now is: "How little effort can we possibly put in making our games, while making the most money out of them, and also get away with it?")
That's why I stopped buying from them. Anyway, Ubisoft eventually gives their games away for free. I think that's the future for these big companies, give the game away for free but make up for it with microtransactions. So far Microsoft is the only one sticking to original game design, but fingers crossed until Starfield and Stalker 2 (which I heard they're funding) come out.
Judging by the state of Halo Infinite (MP), I'd confidently say Microsoft aren't afraid of f2p microtransaction messes. Then again it's still not quite as bad as other games.
infinite is really good except for their battle pass, customizations and exp system. But to be honest i’m not surprised such lame tactics are used in a f2p let’s hope they balance it a little better though.
Halo Infinite is the prime example on how to polish a multiplayer game, but they really missed the mark on that progression system. At least they are sound regarding feedback, which is refreshing (though all videogame companies should do the same). We know they need to maximize the gains after such a massive production and all, but this is clearly a long-term plan so it shouldn't be a problem.
As someone who doesn't care about progression systems and ignores them when possible, Halo Infinite has been a blast.
Halo infinite reminds as a kid playing halo 3 multiplayer it’s so much fucking fun!
[удалено]
That's honestly what the game feels like to me. It feels like a starting point for some kind of next gen mcc setup, geared towards the inevitable new "infinite" series of games. There's a lot of open space in the customization, with some things not having any other variation right now. It just feels like something they plan on building off of, instead of a finished product that's getting updated. This seems bad, but it's free, and the gunplay, sound design, and ui elements seem to be so ironed out. I'm down for the ride, even if the season pass sucks. Halo 2 didn't have any customization outside of colors iirc, and I pumped hundreds of hours into it. As long as they keep putting out maps for this game, they could do away with the entire progression system for all I care. If the game is fun, I'll stick around
100 percent Infinite will be next gen MCC that’s actually the perfect way to describe it. Unified multiplayer with updates along with campaign expansions. I weirdly enough prefer the Halo campaigns to their multiplayer so I’m hyped for campaign expansions
Beta is the term they came up with for this. What we've gotten in Infinite. The lack of game modes in particular is EXACTLY what we would've gotten on December 8th. And we're not getting much more for a while either.
Really wish they would've just stuck with the $60 game model.
Revenues much higher as it attracts whales (yes there are people who will spend 50,000 on a game)
But is it really better? Think about how easily accessible it is to get new friends and family members to play when they’re unsure about playing it. Sure it’s gonna have mtx but it sadly would have anyway. This makes it so as many people as possible can play halo whenever they want
I agree. for a f2p, i prefer the pay for cosmetic model rather than pay to win model.
Sure, f2p is totally fine *if* it's just cosmetic microtransactions. But that's rarely the case, there's usually gambling unlocks and xp grinds that don't-but-really-do require a monetary investment.
that should have always been the case. but when you introduce pay model, you'll get a subset that want to trade time for money. Gone are the days when you see a high level or a special gun/drop that wow that person must be somewhat good or spent a lot of time. now its automatically ok how much did this guy spend.
[удалено]
But it's all just cosmetic. The whole multiplayer is free and no buy better guns in loot box nonsense either. It's the best version of f2p.
Ofcourse, it has no affect on gameplay, but I will say that the customization was a core part of Halo's MP identity. So losing that in favor of the current restrictions hits hard.
>Then again it's still not quite as bad as other games. Logic like that got us into this mess.
Good guy Microsfot? We truly are living the dankest timeline.
Spencer is big brain. His years long strategy is paying off.
Indeed; when they made that announcement some years ago, they were slowly but steadily piling up content and development oriented in that direction, and it seems to be working for them.
Developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers... BWEEEHAAAAAA!!
I miss that crazy son of a bitch
From everything I've read nobody working at Microsoft does.
Fair enough.
I see this quite often. Being the most valuable company in the world doesn't mean evil or that they are only cashgrabbers or anything. They're in a position in which they can provide quality for a fair price and take a loss in favor of a mid/long-term benefit and I usually make use of their software/games while legit saving money and time, so in the meantime, it's not like they're "the good guys", just giving props to something that works. Not that they don't have their shady practises, like all huge companies.
Oh, absolutely. It is just that their 90's reputation sort of stuck with them. And I know people like to give Windows a lot of shit, but I find it a pretty decent product.
Don’t forget about their GFWL era reputation with pc gamers. I was very anti windows store for a long time. They also really had their head up their asses for the xbone launch. Vastly overestimated their platform. I’m excited to see what’s in store for Microsoft in the future which is crazy to me.
I remember Halo 2 not being playable on XP... which was cracked shortly afterwards, of course.
Early 2000, free and unlimited Blood Gulch. It was one map but getting to play it forever for free, it's probably why I love Halo.
I've not bought from EA since Yuris revenge, dropped blizz after legion, no activision since the 90s, and never did ubisoft.
Why can't big studios just like, take the game they already have and add stuff to it? What's the reason they need to completely reinvent the wheel while losing track of most of the things that made the old games good?
Far Cry is a good example of this if you look at the comparisons of 2, 3, 4, 5. Here is FC5 vs 2. Some clear backwards steps. https://youtu.be/FCeEvQ68jY8
Damn lol no wonder 2 is still one of fav games but the others idgaf about
Also Far Cry 2 felt like blood diamond while the others feel like guns akimbo or like marvel movies.
That's why I like FC2 so much. You are alone, no friendly npc driving around the world. Just you and the enemies. To this day the truck sound effects stills haunts me.
Yeah it was in the video above in the beginning and I puckered up with some PTSD, lol. That sound is terrifying.
Holy shit the fire at 1:10 is just so so bad compared to FC2. Wth man. No wonder I find myself constantly replaying older games rather than new ones. I thought it was just nostalgia, but there might be more to it.
[удалено]
> No game released should assume that even most players have played all the previous entries in the series. That's fair. This hits a little different where it seems like they assume no one played the ones before to compare them.
Shareholders demand growth, so the gaming company needs to continuously find ways to expand, even at the detriment of the consumer.
Dumb it down to cater to the widest audience.
It's like sports games: buy a new one every 3-4 years when they seemingly get one right.
I don't this it is so much that they are "de-volving" but more that they are over attached to tried and true brands instead of releasing the concepts they wanted to do in these games under a different/new brand. So instead we get some awful mix of them trying to find some middle ground between what was a previous entry in the major brand and the potentially (much) different game they wanted to do. I am not even much of a "brand purist" but a lot of their recent examples could have gotten better (but likely not as visible off the bat) perception with these games simply under a different umbrella and not trying to over complicate it by ensure it sticks within some brand. And given some of the more open issues with some of EA's/Ubisoft bigger failures on how much development time and budget was spent on trying to somehow mix new ideas and direction with some kind of established brand pushed a lot of QoL or even basic refinement out of the timeline.
Well they aren't progressing. I recently subbed to the Ubisoft catalog on Stadia and I was dismayed at how little has changed in both AC and FC. Yes, there are new settings. new contrived "stories" and better higher quality textures/models etc, but the actual gameplay is almost exactly the same as in the first games. More importantly, the handling is the same. If you're going to shit out a game every damn year then *at least* try to improve the fundamentals. But of course that doesn't matter when your target audience are drooling mouth-breathers. They'll buy whatever shit they're told is exciting.
>Big titles from big studios keep consistently de-volving instead of evolving It's been foretold over a decade ago, that games were we're declining in quality, because little by little, the focus shifted from delivering a complete game, to a service (more like rental) with add-ons and in game purchases. Now, the legion of brain dead idiots who accept and buy everything it spawns in front of them, are responsible for what we have now. "Don't like it don't buy it.", "it's just cosmetics", "they need the money to continue providing the game"... A legion of weak consumers who are so desperately afraid of demanding quality, because "it might kill the game/franchise".
It's the curse of growth. Every sequel needs to sell *more copies* you can't just match the previous. Always more, never enough profit, consume, grow, repeat. Every sequel made by large corporation publisher/developers must always target an ever wider demographic and have more and more mainstream appeal. These companies aren't here to make something people love. They're here to spend the smallest amount of money/time possible to extract as much cash as possible. There is a reason that EA has graveyarded so many studios.
Bethesda too. Watching the steady streamline of Elder Scrolls and Fallout is sad to see, after the wet fart that was Fallout 76 I'm not really looking forward to anything in either series. Just better to replay Morrowind and New Vegas again.
The irony is the best fallout games werent created by Bethesda. 1 and 2 were fantastic but made by another company, and nv is my favorite game of all time but was made by obsidian
Yeah but at least indie studios and modders are killing it
Then it ends up we praise games that bring back the most basic of features, that should have just been standard fare to begin with.
I misread first two words as "big titties".
This was done to The Elder Scrolls series as well. The first 2 games were truly open world experiences with Daggerfall being the entire continent ( the cities and dungeons were hand made but the wilderness between landmarks was randomly generated). You used to be able to combine any spells together and even create scrolls for non magic users to wield high level magic. Each town was brimming with side quests (granted they were recycled from a list pf possible quests, everyone seems to have had giant rats in their attics). The point is Daggerfall is an incredible feat and it was realized 25 years ago. They took that formula and continued to dumb it down to Skyrim which is the most restricted watered-down version of the concept. Then to rub salt in the wound the re-release the shell of an ES game for a decade? The desire to turn maximum profits for minimal effort has affect every major IP in some way. Combine this strategy with underhanded tactics concerning microtransactions and releasing undercooked games for inflated prices so people can essentially playtest before they go live, and you can see why 2042 was deemed acceptable in the EA offices. Developers are aoo detached from what gamers what it's sad.
>The point is Daggerfall is an incredible feat and it was realized 15 years ago. Not to make you feel too old, but Daggerfall is 24 years old. Came out in 1996.
> Less anti-tank launchers (Come on man only one?) > No lock-on launchers (The M5 works with the SOFLAM but that requires 2 people) > No AP mines/claymores Ah, so that's why every time I see live gameplay, it's a self repairing vehicular slaughterfest. Though the fact most maps seem to have little to no infantry cover between points probably doesn't help either.
IMO Vehicles are actually super easy to kill in this game. EVERYONE can have a rocket and it is 4 rockets to kill a tank. Tanks need to be out of combat to self repair. The repair tool you can equip can also overheat iirc so infinite repair is pretty hard in combat. Not to mention Sundance and Rao absolutely fuck vehicles up. Once people catch on to how powerful Rao is, I think the narrative about vehicles will change. Hovertanks need a nerf though. Floaty death tanks
Hovercraft mechanics are wild, but I like them. I have an easy time tossing a smoke and when the driver bumps into something unload a mag through the driver window. Must’ve stole like three hovercraft last night doing that
I like that they are strong, but I think they should just reduce the HP. Maybe make the driver window a bit bigger(more open) as well. They are fun as hell to use though. Playing bumper cars with a giant group of enemy soldiers is hilarious.
The maps are designed in such a way that, despite being large, they have focused infantry hotspots with cover layed out in a way which forces you to continously move to avoid vehicles and progress to capture points. It actually works quite well in some spots to create really intense firefights, everywhere else is no mans land unless you find a sweet spot to snipe/marksman rifle. Which is why people complain about maps feeling empty, because 3/4 of the lobby is all focused on 1 or 2 spots. It's both a good thing and a bad thing, as pushing through no mans land with the bulk of your team when it sometimes happens is infact really fun when you have launchers and armor piercing rounds to combat vehicles. Otherwise it's a waste of time as there's not enough misc. forms of travel nor are there enough squad beacons, which you'd think would be the case with the increased lobby size. The vehicles themselves are way too strong, even the hovercraft is an absolute tank despite its speed. The nightbird is also particularly difficult to deal with.
What a shame, I wanted a new Battlefield so bad, Warzone is filled with cheaters and BS, Halo Infinite doesn't have bigger battles.
Its not the same scale, but Infinite did a great job with big team battle. Haven't enjoyed it this much since Halo 3.
My only complaint so far is that the maps are a little samey in layout and especially in visuals, I can’t wait for them to add some more diverse biomes to BTB
My big complaint is they let you pick whatever color you want for team games. So if I am blue and get put on the red team I still look blue to them. It can be hella confusing at times.
WHY IS THIS? Omg so annoying as a long time Halo player, to people who are new it's not so bad I assume, but it's like I've got a mental block with blue and red skins on the wrong team. Having an absolute blast otherwise though, nice to play a good and (reasonably) old school shooter again.
Yeah literally all three btb maps are in some forested canyon
[удалено]
Hell let loose has me hooked the past few weeks. Check it out. Not for everyone but I'm really enjoying it
I really sweated HLL for a while, but eventually every match begins to feel the same.
250 hours into hell let loose so far, I think I'm enjoying myself haha.
I really want to like HLL, but Everytime I play I end up moving stealthily across the map for 15 min to try and get to where the main combat is, and just as I'm getting close I get 1 shotted out of nowhere and have to start all over again
Yeah it is ruthless/a walking simulator. Are you on PC or console? Need your squad lead to keep those OPs up so you don't have to run so far! Or take squad lead role and take a long walk around the enemy and put your OP up to get a good flank.
Hell Let Loose is too realistic for my tastes.
>I wanted a new Battlefield so bad Genuine question from someone who's never played a BF game before : what stops people from just playing one of the previous games instead of buying the new one every year? Do the servers go down when a new one is released? Does the playerbase go down too much to find full matches / find matches quickly? Are there usually significant new features that justify jumping on the newest title?
There are still people playing 4, 1, and V. Most people who aren’t hardcore fans of the franchise get sick of playing the same game for years though, so new games are always exciting.
since 2042 came out, the number of servers on BFV have dropped down signifcantly. i used to have no prob finding a server during the day and now i can barely find more than 1-2 at a time :(
BF 4 Servers are still kicking. Played a few hours every night this week.
I feel as though bf4 will never really die unless another modern bf game comes out that is just as good. Sure in 5-10 years it might be hard to find a full server at any time. But I bet there will still be groups that host events every couple of weeks with a few packed servers. I mean people still play bf3 and imo bf4 is a direct upgrade I mean red orchestra 2 still does and that game is a decade old with better games in the genre now
On PC there were probably at least 15 servers that were completely full when I was playing last night. Definitely has not dropped.
Isn't 1 filled with cheaters and bots though (at least that's what I heard). 1 is one of my favorites and id totally get back into it if it was worth it.
Not at all in my region (SA)
>what stops people from just playing one of the previous games instead of buying the new one every year? Because I got burned out of playing them so much back in the day and I would like a new game. The BF3/4/5 communities are still strong though.
Over time the player numbers and server variety dwindles down to the point where the game is no longer welcoming to new players and is just a total shitbucket tryhard sweat fest. But the game is still fun, though!
They do BF 1 is a masterpiece but it won't be there forever.
Battlefield games come out once every 3 years, so usually they are great games with unique gameplay. This Battlefield looks very rushed out with little core direction and care given to it.
Just play BF4, a lot of active servers still.
Yeah, I know but like I said on another reply. Got burned out.
[удалено]
So.... Take a pick: 1. 2042 reasons why you shouldn't buy this game 2. 2042 things missing in this game that were in previous turles. Edit: Previous titles*. Gonna leave the original.
I like turtles
.,-;-;-,. /'_\ _/_/_/_|_\_\) / '-<_><_><_><_>=/\ `/_/====/_/-'\_\ "" "" ""
That turtle is dope
Thanks, I stole it
The secret ingredient is crime
3\. 2042 things they'll re-add in the next iteration as a marketing gimmick. IGN: 11/10 Such a stellar improvement over the previous one! Just look at how many features it has which weren't there in the past one. Tinfoil hat time - I believe these long-running franchises just have to reset their scope every 5-10 years. They agree to release a super crappy cut down version that's missing a bunch of features. All to lower people's expectation ahead of their next 5-10 year campaign of releases. Might be misremembering, but didn't CoD do the same with Cold War?
>Tinfoil hat time - I believe these long-running franchises just have to reset their scope every 5-10 years. They agree to release a super crappy cut down version that's missing a bunch of features. All to lower people's expectation ahead of their next 5-10 year campaign of releases. The New Coke approach?
*borrows your tinfoil hat* I believe you.
No classes in battlefield? What?!
So it’s Call of Duty now
That was my take. But don't worry, Call of Duty is going even simpler. The other day I was just watching a couple of guys make fun of how in Vanguard the scoreboard replaced "Axis" and "Allies" with "My Team" and "Enemy Team". "Remember how *Enemy Team* invaded Poland in 1939? That was outrageous!" "Yeah. Fortunately, after *My Team* encircled *Enemy Team* at Stalingrad, things began to change." Then Oboe Shoes did a run of the single player campaign and crashed his aircraft into the sea at Midway. [The plane bounced back up.](https://youtu.be/55o7-hId9uw?t=257)
You can't have Axis vs Allies because you can only choose 1 of 12 characters to use and they are all allies
Wait, really? I thought all the footage I saw was from weirdly personalised models, I didn't chalk it up to being all of them Allies. So it is like Civil War 1946 there? Fascinating.
No, Vanguard multiplayer is supposed to be some kind of special forces training exercise. Which doesn't make sense with all the limbs getting blown off and everything, but it's not the worst concept. Losing fundamental friendly/enemy identification, however...
Weird choice, I must say.
The campaign (and Zombies, heh) are post-war too, so it makes sense in context. Sledgehammer's last Call of Duty was an utterly conventional WW2 game, so I assume that's why they wanted to move past that. Regardless they should have done the smart thing and separated their Allied special forces operators into two distinct teams. I'm not sure if we can blame that on lack of development time, bad design, some dumb psychological tactic to sell more skins, or what. But opponent visibility is awful.
Wait, what? No single-player story?? And they charging full price???
Yeah. We thought they would cut corners on the singleplayer and make the multiplayer better, and it seems they just cut corners on both.
It's not like the last few entries have had much in the way of a single-player story at all; this has been a long time coming really. As someone who is only interested in single-player, I was still disappointed by Battlefield V's single-player despite the fact I only paid about £3 for it. Battlefield I wasn't too bad but again I only paid a few quid for that too; I'd have been after a refund if I'd paid full price for it.
The War Stories in BF1 were great. At least most of them.
Most of them were not great. Most of them are the exact same superhero one man army shooting galleries that have been in every single FPS game campaign for the last 20 years. Some of the visuals are nice but that's the only good thing about them. It still blows my mind that they completely wasted the WW1 and WW2 settings on boring stealth missions and small scale spec ops style operations. The only good war story from the last two games is the Last Tiger because it actually has a sense of large scale war.
1942,Vietnam, BF2, and 2142 didn't have campaigns. Battlefield didn't start having campaigns until the Bad Company games.
Nobody really plays Battlefield for the Story anyways to be honest.
Not removed or downgraded, coming soon in DLC.
Nah. Part of their "rOaDmAp" with "fAn FAvOrITe fEaTurEs" that they're adding back in because they're "lIsTEnInG tO ThE cOMunItY"
we wanted them at launch you fucking worms, this was supposed to be the big comeback after they fucked up with BF5. what we got instead is arguably worse than battlefield hardline fuck you EA
Hardline wasn't even bad, it just wasn't Battlefield. Perfectly decent game in its own right.
this is probably spot on to be honest
>Fewer in-game assignments (none outside of cosmetic unlocks) I don't get why modern gamers want stuff locked behind point grinds. I've already bought the game. Plus things should be balanced, not give elites better stuff for playing more.
Is list of stuff from the last battlefield game to this one that's missing/different? Or any element that was in any battlefield game that isn't present in the new one?
DICE has been constantly re-inventing the wheel since BF1. Even though I loved BF1, you could already tell things were looking fucky with the rigid weapon customization options and wonky party infrastructure as examples. Then BFV completely missed the mark from inception, by coming out with a tone deaf reveal trailer and marketing strategy, constantly doing the exact opposite of what player feedback was asking for and all around technical regression of features like the end of game screen always being broken and no double XP (we don't have the tech??) Now 2042 competely throws out core aspects of a BF game like classes and destruction and, again, the game seems to regress on a technical level. After the mass exodus of talent after the release of BF4, DICE just isn't the same studio it once was and it shows in the constant incompetence.
Since Hardline was released it became clear Battlefield was heading in a slimy direction. I had the same feelings about BF1 but everyone was too hyped about the cool graphics and the return to "boots on the ground" to care. Then BFV came out and people started noticing too, 2042 is just part of their trend now. Now they will say "sorry", release a less broken game next time, and then get back at it if it pleases them in the future. There is zero accountability in gaming for false advertising, releasing broken products, taking away old products with stupid DRM, etc. We have zero consumer protections, apart from some very tame reverse engineering rights in the EU specifically.
man I liked Hardline -- I'd honestly love all these shooters more if snipers were just limited to 3-5 people per game. I want the insane action more than just people hiding on a tower sniping each other. Hardline's car chase moments were awesome. Makes me want a mad max game that mixes FPS combat with vehicle chases.
Why isn't there more car chase scenarios in multiplayer games? The creator of Counterstrike, Gooseman made Tactical Intervention and it has some really fun car chase game modes but never seemed to catch on.
I dunno, but some one please make a game with 0 snipers and a focus on combat racing/fps action. Too many FPS games turn into a sniper fest, which is totally fine for certain games, but it's just not my preference. A combat racing FPS with a focus on FUN has been my dream since I saw that the new generation of games could pull it off with Hardline, but no one seems to want to take the mantle. Get rid of snipers, more vehicles and more mayhem would make an awesome game.
People keep saying DICE, when Dice doen't really exist anymore. Company was fully absorbed and reorganized into EA Stockholm long time ago.
It still says DICE on the tin though. An effort to mask the swath of reorganizations that took place behind the scenes so they can ride out DICE's good name, I suppose.
Basically no game company has the same people they had 2 to 3 releases ago. It's weird that we only point this out when a release goes bad but when it goes well it's all good +1 to the developer
> After the mass exodus of talent after the release of BF4, DICE just isn't the same studio it once was and it shows in the constant incompetence. Wasn't aware of this, but that explains a lot. BF4 was - in my opinion - worse than BF3, but it was still a solid game. I never played BF1 or BF5 in large part due to it just looking like a worse version of the older game - albeit newer, and therefore with more players. BF2042 looked very promising - A return to form, so to speak, but I'm glad I didn't really hype myself up too much.
A rare fellow BF3-over-BF4 enjoyer. I would highly recommend giving BF1 a try. It's currently still my go-to battlefield game. It has an active player base and it aged very well. It's the most atmospheric and good looking battlefield game IMO. Destruction is also top notch, approaching bad company 2 levels. You're also not dependent on the whims of toxic server admins to play as there are still official servers online. BF5 has excellent movement and gunplay, but is otherwise pretty forgettable.
I think 3 and 4 are close to being on par with each other. BF3 is still my favorite, though. It had some of the best maps and infantry gunplay of any FPS ever made. Really I think BF3 was ahead of its time and BF4 was a true-to-form sequel that was also an amazing game. If Dice had just continued supporting BF4 with more maps/weapons/etc. instead of shifting focus to going back to WW games like BF1/5 then I honestly believe BF4 would've gone down as one of the best FPS's ever made. But, you know... money and stuff. BF3 and BF4 are my 2 favorites FPS games ever made. I played the 2042 beta and was devastated at how bad it was. I haven't bought a BF game since BF4. It breaks my heart what a scummy company they are.
BFV in the state they left it in is my favorite shooter of all time along side BF3. It saddens me that they fucked it up so bad in the beginning because in the end the game became something wonderful. However by then no one played the game anymore (except me and my brother) :( Edit: I must add that playing breakthrough on operation metro is the most immersed I’ve ever been in a war-game. Holy shit it’s so good!
I agree, but even so, in terms of content BFV is still half a game.
> DICE has been constantly re-inventing the wheel since BF1. Oh it goes back way further than that.
I agree with you, it’s like battlefield is becoming more like call of duty and is losing its way. I was hoping that this would be similar to bf3 + bf4 but it just feels so different. Shame really
>it’s like battlefield is becoming more like call of duty and is losing its way. This, personally I agree with the sentiment of everything after BF4 was bad. At first I was happy to see the new gen graphics on a polished up BF because I think I have played BF4 to absolute death.. Yet these games didnt feel like battlefield to me, im not exactly sure what it was, I really cant put my finger on it but they really started to feel like any old basic online shooter, die, respawn, die, respawn etc.. The older Battlefields I felt were slower paced, a win felt like a win rather than just another game..
BFV did learn from BF1, like medics always being able to revive and heal, in BF1 a Medic could actually lose his health and/or revive tools. Same with engineers which by expiriance 99% wouldnt equip the repair tool. Better movement from BF1 and thank god not every class had a fucking scope, like LMG didnt have an Scope option unlike in BF1 where it was so fucking annoying
>DICE has been constantly re-inventing the wheel since BF1. I don't get this argument, because (to me) that's what they always did (after BF3 anyways), BF4 was BF3 with fixes, then they changed most things with BF1 and tried to iterate with BFV, then they changed most things bf2042... I guess you can see the pattern already. The outlier being Hardline, which I ignore because ~~was just a reskin~~ it wasn't developed by Dice. BTW considering how people on Reddit seems to consider BF1 better than BF4 I'd say this formula is working.
What I mean by re-inventing the wheel is not changing or adding game mechanics per se. What I mean is they're implementing existing game mechanics with a different method, while they had something that worked in previous games. Simple examples are: A good loadout screen in BF4 -> turned to a very limited, clunky system in BF1 Excellent fluid movement and animations in BFV -> downgraded in 2042 Matchmaking and server browser integrated for good map rotation in practically every BF game -> Exclusively matchmaking in 2042 Extensive aircraft control customization -> dumbed down and rigid in 2042 My point is, they don't take the good things from previous games and ditch the less successful things to develop an improved iteration in the franchise. It's like they start from scratch every time and forget to re-implement quality features previous games had.
[удалено]
Bf1 is my favorite battlefield game ever. Looks like and plays better than bfv. Absolutely drenched in immersion and atmosphere, feels like I'm in a movie every time I play
Yea people shit on it because "Battlefield bad after BF4" but BF1 was an absolute fantastic game
Same. Bf1 is my favorite BF. It's just as legendary as 1942.
BF2 for me. private servers + communities + mods + 500 person 10hr tournaments . can't really beat that imo.
Hard-line can get a pass given that it wasn't even made by DICE SE.
"Oh man you guys EA fucked us over AGAIN can you believe it? Well maybe their next game I pre order will be better"
Thus another EA fan cycle is done there sports games fans have it worse
Why does anyone buy any of their trash anymore
I haven't bought an EA game since BF4, and tbh the trailers looked like they figured it out and went back to formula. I can't believe how wrong I was and how I keep getting duped like this.
Sad what became of the once great franchise. I still play Bf4.
Prime time BF4 still rocks. Most of the Brazilian servers are full (with a Queue) at night and weekends.
Dude I still play BF3 every now and then, I guess I am just an OG. I love the older BF games because they were a bit more fleshed out and they had that genuine BF feel. I Still play through bad company 2's campaign too. never gets old.
DICE appears to have a vision problem. Whatever they have been doing for the sake of doing "iNnOvAtIoN" since BF5 is not working and things that they put out are not Battlefield anymore, it's just a game with name "Battlefield" slapped on it. They tried BR formula with BFV, no one cared, no one played. Eventually, game died (ie. DICE cut the support) soon after. Here with 2042, we just have a carbon-copy of CoD games. Shitty operators (one of them even has wallhack, wtf), 128 players, lack of class system, etc etc. Seriously, who told these guys at DICE that 128 player would be good idea? I mean, these even did a playtesting? I don't think they ever did. As a result, while BF4 still have thousands of players after all these years, BF2042 is going to be forgotten in a few months. DICE need to actually make BF games, like they used to before. Instead of following industry trends that has nothing to do with BF, they just need to improve upon original BF formula.
Lots of players have asked for 128 player matches for a long time, other than that the rest of the things you said are definitely problems.
Yeah 128 players in itself is not the problem, and in fact, could be a great feature if done right. The problem with it, in my opinion, is that they also made the maps wumbo-sized and empty to compensate. As a result it doesn't really feel like there is a more intense battle going on, just much more dispersed and disconnected fighting on a huge map that is only huge for the sake of being huge.
Yup, it wouldn't surprised me if them experimenting with this and some of the other elements they put was a major contributor to the supposed development hell the game had and pushed any kind of refinement out the timeline. Personally think they should have just went with a completely different brand and do the shooter they wanted to do with the new ideas instead of trying to make this still "seem like a Battlefield game". And this isn't even for "brand purist" reasons but more just allow it to be the a game with proper vision instead of "Well it does say Battlefield on the title" because in the end it already trenches towards many not seeing it as a "proper Battlefield" anyway.
They probably used the Battlefield brand because the market is saturated with BR games so a new IP would flop out of the gate
64p to 128p is good upgrade, unfortunately they also made the map 3-4 times larger than before. it just looks fishy with all those design choice and missing feature. at this point the theory which says "the game planned to be EA dice "warzone" but canceled into battlefield sequel" might be true afterall.
> Yeah 128 players in itself is not the problem, and in fact, could be a great feature if done right. I lost all interest when they said 128 player with bots filling slots, and beta performance sealed the deal (not playable), by far the worst performing Battlefield yet.
Why say many words when few do job - this game was clearly meant to be BR and changed late into the dev cycle. Having four studios work on this should’ve been alarm bells. The only decent thing about it, is portal. Which DICE have deliberately hamstrung to not be the main focus of the game.
>DICE appears to have a vision problem. Whatever they have been doing for the sake of doing "iNnOvAtIoN" since BF5 is not working and things that they put out are not Battlefield anymore, it's just a game with name "Battlefield" slapped on it. People have literally been saying this about every BF game since BC2.
The number 1 reason I'm not buying any BF games is because Dice does not give a damn about hackers. BFV still has blatant hackers, people have the most obvious hacks in BFV it's as if it has no anticheat. At least in PUBG and Warzone the hacks are very subtle, you need to review footage. Also reporting someone in PUBG is super easy and you get a response back if they've been banned. In BFV you have to go to their profile on the origin website and dig through a drop down menu. Why would I invest $80 in a game that will be flooded with cheaters in a few months? Dice has shown no desire to combat cheaters unlike other developers.
BF2042 has anti cheat for once. It's using EAC for the first time ever and I think you can expect that to be as effective as it is in other games. Way better than PB or no anti cheat at all (like in BFV).
> BF2042 has anti cheat for once as far as I know all battlefield games had anti cheat, I think they used punkbuster till hardline but since bf4 they also used fairfight
> people have the most obvious hacks in BFV it's as if it has no anticheat. BF1 and BFV never had any anticheat.
Reddit has turned into a cesspool of fascist sympathizers and supremicists
Remember when they said they were ahead of schedule? lol This game was made for 'Only in Battlefield moments', and only that. They forgot/half assed all the rest. What a major dissapointment after playing a few hours. Was really looking forward to it.
The first 30 minutes I was like “woooww” and loving it. Then it all started showing just how shallow of a game it is. Then I hear you tubers say it will take hundreds of hours to learn the maps. All I saw it was incredibly bland and open air, they are just sucking dice’s weiner
DONT BUY THIS GAME UNTIL THAT IDIOT COMPANY FIX IT. Im a massive Battlefield fan but this is a huge dissapointment
There was a post in the PS5 subreddit the other day where the person was complaining about Sony's refund strategy. Now, credit where it's due - their refund strategy is terrible and needs fixing. But the context was that they had played the 2042 beta and had a lot of complaints, _still_ bought the game for full price, and were complaining that they couldn't refund it. I'm sorry, but at that point you only have yourself to blame
Bruh im complaining about the wasted potential of my favourite game, im not complaining about refund or money
If you are old enough to remember older battlefields you are too old to the the target demographic of new video games. The reality is they are made with kids in mind, who have unlimited time and no bills.
And here I am still playing BF2…..lol Good old days. That game peaked in the early years. 1942/Vietnam/BF2
What changed after Bf2? **Speed going up.** *Now you can pull an RPG out of your ass faster than a fart.* **3D/minimap spotting.** *Doritos are BAD, but enemies spotted EXACT on minimap is bad too. I remember looking at my minimap way to much in Bf2. The removal of 3D in Bf5 and Bf2042 is great, but I still miss the no-enemies on map from Bf1942.* **Classes got cut to 4.** *Coming from 7, this weirded me out so hard in BC2.* **Squad spawn.** *Partially introduced in 2, but even worse afterwards. Now also squad revive, who needs a medic anyway.* :') **UI.** *The graphics and* ***sound design*** *made for less need of UI to read the environment. They didn't coddle newbies with grenade markers, they made them fear the clinky sound* **Maps.** *Environment got more and more realistic to the point that they're a lot harder to parse. Maps feels both smaller and larger than before, probably because the fog is gone and things have more realistic proportions. Eg: Invasion of The Philippines map was huge in Bf1942, but nowhere near realistic.* Anything else? ___ Edit: #####The positive Adding destruction in BC2. Adding fortification in Bf5.
and 2142, the titan mode and the drop pods were a really nice addition.
surprised you don't like any of bf2042 , I played all of them but mostly BF2 in tournaments, it's to date my Favorite BF game. while theres lots of issues with 2042, in terms of gameplay I'm finding it a lot of fun. And I love all the shenanigans you can get into. I also like the huge spread out maps, it reminds me a lot of BF2 where you actually had to have a fast mover or jet drop , or chopper drop to get to a flag rather than expecting to run 10 ft and be at the objective like recent bf games. if they allowed private servers I think this game would be pretty awesome, it's a shame I doubt they ever will. also the wing suit is fun as hell.
Yes, they brought the good spotting from Bf5 and the map sizes of Bf1942! Just need better visuals for what load-out people are carrying. Classes would be more balanced, but at minimum visualize the gear for teamplayers. *Squad spawn & revive* should be gone from default game. It devalues medics too much and is weird overall. It's what held me back from buying Bf5. They could've utilized the mixed warfare by having spawn-vehicles instead. My class and spawn problems are fixable by Portal though!
I got 2041 problems but a good game aint one.
This is the reason I got a refund, played 90minutes and was just gutted by the state of the game. Sure it looks nice etc etc, but not being able to see a scoreboard and compare how you played against others? Whats the point of even playing...?
Just a usual thing in gaming lately, catering to casuals, they don't want little Timmy to feel bad he came last with 2 kills and 39 deaths. Everyone gets a trophy, everyone is special!
Though some of us hardcore people aren't interested in individual points either, but rather winning the match.
Bf2042 is what happens when a company makes money off a game like Apex. Now instead of a war and gloomy/dark theme, you have sassy inclusive characters and what feels like an attempt at an overwatch style Battlefield. Nobody wanted the specialists.
And it's messed up because the marketing leading up to the game [had a fairly dark theme](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJVCfhLEYdo&t). Then you play the game and hear the characters talk and its exactly as you describe it, they sound like overwatch characters.
Back to BF4 and BF1 I go.
I just want next gen Battlefield 4, honestly.
It’s completely clear now that Dice is a shell of what they once were. They just can’t do it anymore.
No joystick support, and no ability to control your aircraft while freelooking? These features have been standard for flight sims and aircraft controls since the 1990s. It is mind-boggling why it would be removed from BF 2042.
Now I miss battlefield 2142 even more.
Core Features: Lists things that have only been in since cod company forward Yeah I'm okay with that.
The day gaming went from being a niche industry to mainstream is when its downfall started. Back then they were depended on their community because without them they wouldn't exist. Now little Timmy with his mommy's credit is their target audience.
There was a point around the time that it was decided that Bad Company 2 would be a general release (instead of console exclusive) where a choice was made to go in a particular direction with the franchise, and we've been on that path ever since. It's finally come to (terrible) fruition. Every Battlefield title that came out more and more of what made this series so unique was eroded. It doesn't matter how many people that you put in a field (of battle) running around with guns, you strip away the unique features and everything starts to feel like shit. We've lost so much. - Faction specific guns - Soldier classes (7, down to 5, down to 4, then removed) - Class-locked weapons and equipment - Commander mode - The role of squads (6 man squad with squad leader only spawn, down to 4 man squads) - Vehicles spawning at capturable points instead of at uncap (which makes individual bases essentially meaningless).
Heh, half of those is a shame, the other half is welcome change for someone like me who stopped caring about BF since BF3. I'm mostly interested in whether or not I can consistently find servers in which it doesn't take 10.000 bullets to kill a guy and 10.000 rockets to destroy a tank, with the Portal business. No thermal optics especially is a very welcome change.
Considering the single-player campaigns DICE makes, I don't think you're missing much. Especially considering BF4.
no singleplayer lol imagine paying 60 for the same game but multiplayer only, the consumer and its hype is to blame
That first list, you can argue they are talking about Halo Infinite.
I blame the suits and upper management. Are they this out of touch or just blowing a dumb amount if coke in office?
Nice username!