Battlefield 2042

Chris_B

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 29, 2001
Messages
5,282
orbital was really chaotic considering its size compared to narvik. I guess the 5 second respawn timer didn't help. I'm glad the beta is over, that was a nightmare I want to put behind me and hope for better things in the future lol.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Gabe3
like this

DPI

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
12,173
An interesting post doing the rounds on reddit and on the offical forums, is it possible this was a battle royale game initially then suddenly reworked into a battlefield game?
Not sure why it would be so interesting. Theres a tendency for infantry-only players to assume everything is about and should be catering to them.

The vehicles are there for a reason. Leverage them.
 
Last edited:

WorldExclusive

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 26, 2009
Messages
11,419
orbital was really chaotic considering its size compared to narvik. I guess the 5 second respawn timer didn't help. I'm glad the beta is over, that was a nightmare I want to put behind me and hope for better things in the future lol.
Hope is correct. It was chaotic because there was no real defensive or offensive front. You're attacked from all directions, which doesn't happen in war.
There's a point of resistance that comes when one team has taken over one side of the map. It never happens on Orbital because control of the objectives rotate all the time.

Chaos seems fun at first but then realize that we're just chasing our tail the whole round.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gabe3
like this

DPI

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
12,173
Well, we don’t know that the “maps” are too big. We’ve only seen one.
Big fan of the bigger maps. Sense of size and scale that's impressive with fights happening both up close and far in the distance, sounds of distant explosions etc. It deminds of what used to be impressive about Planetside 2, the scale.
 

BassTek

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 13, 2002
Messages
6,231
I have played it. And had no problems finding a gun fight.
Ya I didn't either, and if a point was successfully defended it was usually pretty easy to call in a vehicle and drive to the next firefight.
 

Chris_B

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 29, 2001
Messages
5,282
Not sure why it would be so interesting. As usual infantry-only players assuming everything is about them.

The vehicles are there for a reason. Leverage them.

It's interesting given the mass changes to elements of the game that have been there from the start, class system has been shit canned, vehicle damage system thats been in the game since bf3 has been shit canned, the loadouts seem more indicitative of what you'd expect in a BR type game, random civillian vehicles scattered about to use like a BR game. You can't deny it has a lot of BR specific elements, wouldn't surprise me at all if the op was correct about the game. As you mentioned infantry, why dumb down vehicle gameplay so much? Vehicles now regen to 100%, they don't appear to have any area specific damage so they function as normal even when down to a couple of % "health".

There used to be consequences for getting caught out in a vehicle if you got your tank tracks damaged you could be swarmed by infantry, now you just turn your ferrari tank around and run away at 60mph whilst being on fire and with 5% "health" remaining. :confused: Is this 2002 or 2021, as the vehicle gameplay seems to think its 2002.
 

Flogger23m

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
12,331
My main problem aside from leg with the beta is the FOV. Something just looked so wrong to me. Everything looks so tiny, hard to see, and had a fisheye type effect. It makde spotting enemies in the distance very hard especially as infantry. In previous BF games I could easily see and shoot at enemies 150-200 meters away. In this game that is much harder. Default FOV was 25 so I turned it up, but this never seemed to go away regardless of what I set it at.

Anyone else experience similar?
 

Chris_B

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 29, 2001
Messages
5,282
My main problem aside from leg with the beta is the FOV. Something just looked so wrong to me. Everything looks so tiny, hard to see, and had a fisheye type effect. It makde spotting enemies in the distance very hard especially as infantry. In previous BF games I could easily see and shoot at enemies 150-200 meters away. In this game that is much harder. Default FOV was 25 so I turned it up, but this never seemed to go away regardless of what I set it at.

Anyone else experience similar?

Someone mentioned elsewhere that around 65 fov was more like 100, maybe you had it set too high? Or maybe model sizes have been scaled dowen to make maps feel larger. I always remember bad company 2 looking odd, everything felt much larger, tanks, player models etc, then in bf3 things felt smaller again.
 

b1rd

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 19, 2021
Messages
251
And level dik (level cap) is great, I watched his video,50% of the opponents he kills is AI, he brags about how big his face is, he knows how to play great,he is a top pilot,new battlefield 2042 is perfect for him, there are no flaws at all, the best ever,epic game...must shit when he obviously got good money,everyone would shit like that and he has a bunch of followers who are the same as him.
And realistically this is a much worse game than bf hardline, hardline didn't have a war theme but the game is ten times better than this shit called bf 2042.
 

Flogger23m

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
12,331
Someone mentioned elsewhere that around 65 fov was more like 100, maybe you had it set too high? Or maybe model sizes have been scaled dowen to make maps feel larger. I always remember bad company 2 looking odd, everything felt much larger, tanks, player models etc, then in bf3 things felt smaller again.

Yeah 65-75 looked far too high so I set it to 50 if I recall, which still looked odd. Felt like I was squinting the whole time.
 

DPI

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
12,173
It's interesting given the mass changes to elements of the game that have been there from the start, class system has been shit canned, vehicle damage system thats been in the game since bf3 has been shit canned, the loadouts seem more indicitative of what you'd expect in a BR type game, random civillian vehicles scattered about to use like a BR game. You can't deny it has a lot of BR specific elements, wouldn't surprise me at all if the op was correct about the game. As you mentioned infantry, why dumb down vehicle gameplay so much? Vehicles now regen to 100%, they don't appear to have any area specific damage so they function as normal even when down to a couple of % "health".

There used to be consequences for getting caught out in a vehicle if you got your tank tracks damaged you could be swarmed by infantry, now you just turn your ferrari tank around and run away at 60mph whilst being on fire and with 5% "health" remaining. :confused: Is this 2002 or 2021, as the vehicle gameplay seems to think its 2002.
These are all good points, but correlation isn't causation. The maps take a long time to build, and there's no way there was that long a stretch in 2042's development where they were deadset on the game being BR - and throwing out their bread and butter modes - but then suddenly decided to scrap it 100%, and then not even leave BR as a bolt-on game mode? The maps were built for CQ 128.

They've pushed for and we've seen huge maps before in most of the BF games. Doesn't mean they were built for BR but then they changed last minute.

If there are gameplay elements borrowed from BR, that's a different argument. Doesn't mean the maps were built for BR. I'm sure every developer building a shooter is always going to consider the popular style of the moment when making their design decisions.

The pivot from classes to specialists also doesn't mean it must've been meant for a BR game. That seems more about monetization and wanting people to buy or grind for specialists. Not excited about this change personally.

I'm still optimistic about this game, there were a lot of things to like, massive potential. Hard to judge it on one map, looking forward to the full picture with all the modes and maps and specialists.
 
Last edited:

WilyKit

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 18, 2020
Messages
357
Ya I didn't either, and if a point was successfully defended it was usually pretty easy to call in a vehicle and drive to the next firefight.
Seems people forget the scale of BF and are looking for a COD like experience. Good news for them is COD comes out every year.
 

Chris_B

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 29, 2001
Messages
5,282
These are all good points, but correlation isn't causation. The maps take a long time to build, and there's no way there was that long a stretch in 2042's development where they were deadset on the game being BR - and throwing out their bread and butter modes - but then suddenly decided to scrap it 100%, and then not even leave BR as a bolt-on game mode? The maps were built for CQ 128.

They've pushed for and we've seen huge maps before in most of the BF games. Doesn't mean they were built for BR but then they changed last minute.

If there are gameplay elements borrowed from BR, that's a different argument. Doesn't mean the maps were built for BR. I'm sure every developer building a shooter is always going to consider the popular style of the moment when making their design decisions.

The pivot from classes to specialists also doesn't mean "it must've been a BR game first" as the reddit post you referenced wants to believe. That pivot seems more about monetization and wanting people to buy or grind for specialists. Not excited about this change so far.

I'm still optimistic about this game, there were a lot of things to like, massive potential. Hard to judge it on one map, looking forward to the full picture with all the modes and maps and specialists.


We'll have to wait and see, but even that reddit video points out the things the game is missing vs previous incarnations. Seems to be massively simplified in a lot of aspects vs bfv and bf1, can't even mount weapons anymore. Which to me suggests that originally this game had a very different direction.
 

primetime

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
7,291
serious question. Did i forget how to fly heles since bf4 or did they seriously change the flight controls in 2042? did they invert one or more of the controls or have i been away from bf4 to long?
 

WilyKit

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 18, 2020
Messages
357
Big fan of the bigger maps. Sense of size and scale that's impressive with fights happening both up close and far in the distance, sounds of distant explosions etc. It deminds of what used to be impressive about Planetside 2, the scale.
I Agree, the ambient noises of firefights in the distance when I’m defending a control point that isn’t being attacked at the moment gives the game an ambiance that is unmatched.

There’s no doubt the game is buggy and has some performance issues. DICE will need to figure all that out. There’s also little doubt some of the design decisions, particularly around the specialists are a bit… perplexing, to say the least. The game was still enjoyable though. Once I figured out how to stop the game from hitching every 2 seconds, I mostly forgot about its imperfections.
 

Chris_B

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 29, 2001
Messages
5,282
serious question. Did i forget how to fly heles since bf4 or did they seriously change the flight controls in 2042? did they invert one or more of the controls or have i been away from bf4 to long?

They've changed them, when you go forward now you automatically gain altitude so it's hard to keep on target when it keeps pitching upwards.
 

Zorachus

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 17, 2006
Messages
10,087
Off topic; just bought BF1 it’s on sale for $4.99. Never played it before. Seems pretty cool and smooth.

How’s BF V now? Haven’t played it since last year. I like WW2 stuff, but the game seemed rather buggy and played choppy or just not right when I was playing it awhile back.
 

WilyKit

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 18, 2020
Messages
357
Off topic; just bought BF1 it’s on sale for $4.99. Never played it before. Seems pretty cool and smooth.

How’s BF V now? Haven’t played it since last year. I like WW2 stuff, but the game seemed rather buggy and played choppy or just not right when I was playing it awhile back.
BFV ran fine for me last I played. Have not played it with my 3080 but it ran perfectly fine on my 1080Ti. Had it's slow downs when that 1080Ti was paired with a 3770k but not so with the 3900x
 
D

Deleted member 143938

Guest
Off topic; just bought BF1 it’s on sale for $4.99. Never played it before. Seems pretty cool and smooth.

How’s BF V now? Haven’t played it since last year. I like WW2 stuff, but the game seemed rather buggy and played choppy or just not right when I was playing it awhile back.
I did what research I could on reddit since no one here was willing to bite - opinion is so mixed, it's unreal. Some people say BF1 is so kuch better, others say BF5 is so much better. Then again reddit is mostly teens and pre-teens so their opinion might not work for the older generation. It sounds like BF5 had better gameplay though. Both pale in comparison to BF4 it sounds like.

How much derision both bf1 and bf5 got, I decided to not bother with either. Sounds like BF4 was the last game you could spend a lot of time on =/ unless you're more of a casual, then I'm sure 5 or 1 would be enjoyable for a bit regardless and worth the $5 easily.
 

DPI

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
12,173
Off topic; just bought BF1 it’s on sale for $4.99. Never played it before. Seems pretty cool and smooth.

How’s BF V now? Haven’t played it since last year. I like WW2 stuff, but the game seemed rather buggy and played choppy or just not right when I was playing it awhile back.
BF1 and BFV both hold up. Be sure to play the SP campaign in BF1 -- it's brilliant.

Admittedly I haven't spent much time in either of the two games, but certain streamers I respect (MassiveG for example) still consider BF1 and BFV polished games worthy of playtime.

Neither scratch the BF4 itch for most of us though, they're their own thing.
 

readeh

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 1, 2013
Messages
353
I did what research I could on reddit since no one here was willing to bite - opinion is so mixed, it's unreal. Some people say BF1 is so kuch better, others say BF5 is so much better. Then again reddit is mostly teens and pre-teens so their opinion might not work for the older generation. It sounds like BF5 had better gameplay though. Both pale in comparison to BF4 it sounds like.

How much derision both bf1 and bf5 got, I decided to not bother with either. Sounds like BF4 was the last game you could spend a lot of time on =/ unless you're more of a casual, then I'm sure 5 or 1 would be enjoyable for a bit regardless and worth the $5 easily.
I have a bunch of hours in both BF1 and BF5 and they are quite different from each other. BF1 has an amazing atmosphere and probably the prettiest battlefield to date and it's generally a lot of fun to play. It also has elite classes which can be a lot of fun to play as and play against. One big problem BF 1 has is random bullet deviation.. Which can be quite infuriating at times depending on the weapon you use, but overall it's still a lot of fun.

BF 5 has a lot of good stuff about it, especially weapon handling and shooting which is by far the best in any BF to date. It also introduced all classes being able to revive each other (takes longer than the medic class, much longer) but I quite liked it.
It did not have random bullet deviation and overall the movement/shooting felt more 1 to 1. The movement in-game is by far the best to date.
Maps were not the best and a lot of times they felt kinda small and restricted. New content was slow to come out and the game got a little long in the tooth when nothing new released as Dice had promised they would.
The TTK changes from Dice were infuriating and they kind of started to dumb down the game to appeal to new players by constantly changing TTK and when the community started whining about it they turned it up again, and then down, and then up.. Yup! Dice never really stood firm on any decisions in BF 5 which eventually made me stop playing completely.
Overall BF5 was still very much enjoyable and the the many weapons to choose from had their own feel.
I heard BF5 is in a really good state now so probably worth trying out.

I'd say both BF1 and BF5 are fun games and you can easily get lost in them for a few hours a day.

When it comes to BF 2042.. I'll be honest and say that it's probably the most disappointed I've ever been in a battlefield game.. Although it's early to form an opinion, I still can't figure out why it feels so dumbed down and "consolized"
The weird fisheye effect is over the top, the movement feels like ass and I would get stuck in places that I shouldn't get stuck in, even while running up a hill. The weapons feels generic and totally unusable at further distances no matter what sight or scope I use. The bots don't belong in the game at all, especially because there is no offline play and filling up servers have never been a problem in BF.
What I'm mostly confused about is how Dice did not build on top of the previous battlefields like BF5's weapon handling and movement, BF1's lighting and beautiful maps, BF3/4's factions and classes, including bigger squads and the vehicle damage. Instead they scratch everything and start from new while they completely forget what made the other battlefields good in their own way.

All battlefield games are casual from my perspective (started playing when 1942 released) I usually have some fun in them with friends and that's it.

Edit: forgot to mention that the grappling hook is absolutely atrocious and feels so out of place in a battlefield game.
 
Last edited:

readeh

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 1, 2013
Messages
353
BF4 was the champ, so good
BF4 had Dice almost giving up on the game. They couldn't fix the game and eventually said fuck it! threw it at Dice LA which at that time only did DLC's and maps for Dice Sweden. Eventually Dice LA fixed the game after a whole year of being unplayable for a lot of people and even improved a lot on it, but it's the roughest battlefield release to date and I think people forget how terrible it was for a long time after release.
With time those glasses do get that rose tint tho.
 
D

Deleted member 143938

Guest
I have a bunch of hours in both BF1 and BF5 and they are quite different from each other. BF1 has an amazing atmosphere and probably the prettiest battlefield to date and it's generally a lot of fun to play. It also has elite classes which can be a lot of fun to play as and play against. One big problem BF 1 has is random bullet deviation.. Which can be quite infuriating at times depending on the weapon you use, but overall it's still a lot of fun.

BF 5 has a lot of good stuff about it, especially weapon handling and shooting which is by far the best in any BF to date. It also introduced all classes being able to revive each other (takes longer than the medic class, much longer) but I quite liked it.
It did not have random bullet deviation and overall the movement/shooting felt more 1 to 1. The movement in-game is by far the best to date.
Maps were not the best and a lot of times they felt kinda small and restricted. New content was slow to come out and the game got a little long in the tooth when nothing new released as Dice had promised they would.
The TTK changes from Dice were infuriating and they kind of started to dumb down the game to appeal to new players by constantly changing TTK and when the community started whining about it they turned it up again, and then down, and then up.. Yup! Dice never really stood firm on any decisions in BF 5 which eventually made me stop playing completely.
Overall BF5 was still very much enjoyable and the the many weapons to choose from had their own feel.
I heard BF5 is in a really good state now so probably worth trying out.

I'd say both BF1 and BF5 are fun games and you can easily get lost in them for a few hours a day.

When it comes to BF 2042.. I'll be honest and say that it's probably the most disappointed I've ever been in a battlefield game.. Although it's early to form an opinion, I still can't figure out why it feels so dumbed down and "consolized"
The weird fisheye effect is over the top, the movement feels like ass and I would get stuck in places that I shouldn't get stuck in, even while running up a hill. The weapons feels generic and totally unusable at further distances no matter what sight or scope I use. The bots don't belong in the game at all, especially because there is no offline play and filling up servers have never been a problem in BF.
What I'm mostly confused about is how Dice did not build on top of the previous battlefields like BF5's weapon handling and movement, BF1's lighting and beautiful maps, BF3/4's factions and classes, including bigger squads and the vehicle damage. Instead they scratch everything and start from new while they completely forget what made the other battlefields good in their own way.

All battlefield games are casual from my perspective (started playing when 1942 released) I usually have some fun in them with friends and that's it.

Edit: forgot to mention that the grappling hook is absolutely atrocious and feels so out of place in a battlefield game.
Thanks, I decided to go ahead and just buy the BF bundle (4+5+1) for $13 on Steam (good to Oct 18)
I had a lot of great memories from BF4 around launch time.. maybe it's not such a bad thing that every BF plays differently. Otherwise they'd each just be a re-skin, huh.
Watched some JackFrags play 2042, I liked what I saw. But I'll definitely be waiting a while for it to get patched up and be better.

Agreed the hook is silly...
 

Blade-Runner

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 25, 2013
Messages
3,846
But that was exactly my point, I'm not in any way trying to be arrogant, these betas from Dice have always been shit yet people still seem to expect it to be pretty much the finished article....
No, your point is to conflate a "beta" label with what it actually is....a demo, because as has already been explained several times there is simply not enough time between now and release to meaningfully implement any feedback apart from minor bug fixes and polishing. And we have seen several times with BF games where there are major issues in the "beta" that are not addressed in the retail build, thus reinforcing the argument that these are purely exercises in marketing rather than testing the software.
 

AlexisRO

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 27, 2014
Messages
216
BF4 had Dice almost giving up on the game. They couldn't fix the game and eventually said fuck it! threw it at Dice LA which at that time only did DLC's and maps for Dice Sweden. Eventually Dice LA fixed the game after a whole year of being unplayable for a lot of people and even improved a lot on it, but it's the roughest battlefield release to date and I think people forget how terrible it was for a long time after release.
With time those glasses do get that rose tint tho.

Yeah, the funny thing was that the BF4 beta was better than the actual game at release. :bored: the same was said back then "oh it's just a beta" . I get a lot of deja vu from this beta.

From what i've played and my gut felling is to just wait this out at least a few months. I want to like, however it seems that there is no clear direction that they want to take. The BF formula is so diluted that i'm not sure that DICE can salvage this one. It's disappointing IMO.
 

Armenius

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
31,366
Is it me or does this have a BF3 style blue filter on? So far haven't gotten into a match that wasn't completely laggy.

And does anyone know how to turn off the blur when using scopes? I must've ticked a setting because I now see an annoying blur when looking down scopes. Wasn't there initially.

Started like this:
View attachment 401596

Ended up looking like this after I clicked something:
View attachment 401597


Also seems like there is a bad fisheye effect with FOV at 75 or 80 which is what I typically set all FPS games to.
My main problem aside from leg with the beta is the FOV. Something just looked so wrong to me. Everything looks so tiny, hard to see, and had a fisheye type effect. It makde spotting enemies in the distance very hard especially as infantry. In previous BF games I could easily see and shoot at enemies 150-200 meters away. In this game that is much harder. Default FOV was 25 so I turned it up, but this never seemed to go away regardless of what I set it at.

Anyone else experience similar?
If I'm not mistaken the FOV adjustment in Battlefield is for the vertical, not horizontal. So a setting of 59 would give you 90 horizontal FOV on a 16:9 monitor. 47 or 51 would equal 75 or 80. 74 would equal 106, which is what I usually use. If the game has perspective issues then this won't necessarily fix those issues, but it should help better set it up for you.
 

WilyKit

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 18, 2020
Messages
357
For those of you who think the maps are too big and can't seem to find a firefight.... I'm curious how you're playing the game? How are you picking your spawn points? Here's how I've always played BF...

If my team has a control point that is the process of being over run, I spawn at that control point or on one of my squad mates to help defend.

If neither of those is an option, I look for an enemy control point that we are about to cap and try and spawn on a squad mate near it to help capture.

If neither of those are options, I analyze the map and make a decision on if it's best to assume a defensive posture or an offensive one. If defensive, I'll spawn where I think the enemy may attempt to attack next and sit tight for a bit. If offensive I'll spawn at a sector or squad mate nearest to an enemy controlled sector that I want to attack.

I have never not been able to find a firefight, and a pretty intense one at that. It seems to me the only way you can manage to avoid a fight and complain that the map is "too big" is if you're picking some remote area to setup camp and roast marshmallows, then complain because you cannot spot anyone to shoot with your sniper rifles.

If you're not helping defend and you're not helping capture, you deserve to be bored.
 

WorldExclusive

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 26, 2009
Messages
11,419
For those of you who think the maps are too big and can't seem to find a firefight.... I'm curious how you're playing the game? How are you picking your spawn points? Here's how I've always played BF...

If my team has a control point that is the process of being over run, I spawn at that control point or on one of my squad mates to help defend.

If neither of those is an option, I look for an enemy control point that we are about to cap and try and spawn on a squad mate near it to help capture.

If neither of those are options, I analyze the map and make a decision on if it's best to assume a defensive posture or an offensive one. If defensive, I'll spawn where I think the enemy may attempt to attack next and sit tight for a bit. If offensive I'll spawn at a sector or squad mate nearest to an enemy controlled sector that I want to attack.

I have never not been able to find a firefight, and a pretty intense one at that. It seems to me the only way you can manage to avoid a fight and complain that the map is "too big" is if you're picking some remote area to setup camp and roast marshmallows, then complain because you cannot spot anyone to shoot with your sniper rifles.

If you're not helping defend and you're not helping capture, you deserve to be bored.
You missed the whole point. Finding a gun battle or firefight isn't war, it's TDM.
At no point on Orbital do you feel the full force of 64v64.
 

BassTek

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 13, 2002
Messages
6,231
You missed the whole point. Finding a gun battle or firefight isn't war, it's TDM.
At no point on Orbital do you feel the full force of 64v64.
He’s addressing the people that said they couldn’t find anyone to shoot so I think his point is valid. I’m not sure how people can complain about that, if you know how vehicles and spawn points work then there should be no reason to wander around the wilderness alone and lost for 20 minutes.

The spawn system is basically the same since BC2/BF3 so people should have figured it out by now.
 

chameleoneel

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
5,764
BF4 had Dice almost giving up on the game. They couldn't fix the game and eventually said fuck it! threw it at Dice LA which at that time only did DLC's and maps for Dice Sweden. Eventually Dice LA fixed the game after a whole year of being unplayable for a lot of people and even improved a lot on it, but it's the roughest battlefield release to date and I think people forget how terrible it was for a long time after release.
With time those glasses do get that rose tint tho.
I don't think it was quite that bad. The first 3 months or so after release, were really bad. Lots of bugs, performance issues, instability, frequent kill "trading", etc. After that, the game was highly playable until end of life.

There were, however, some people complaining about general bullet spread, damage-per-bullet Vs. distance, etc. And I remember there were a few patches which played around with various solutions which changed the damage characteristics across all guns. But I didn't feel like any of those changes REALLY affected me, that much. IMO the specific changes to LMGs were more impactful. However, when it was all said and done, I did feel like the changes sort of blurred many of the guns together. Save for specific LMG changes.
 
Last edited:

WilyKit

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 18, 2020
Messages
357
You missed the whole point. Finding a gun battle or firefight isn't war, it's TDM.
At no point on Orbital do you feel the full force of 64v64.
I think you missed the point. I’m literally talking about fighting in defense of an outpost or an offensive take over. Literally every one of my examples were in reference to the objective. I’m not sure how you could have possibly missed that.
 

Chris_B

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 29, 2001
Messages
5,282
So how many are still gonna buy this free to play game masquerading as a triple a game? I think I'd personally rather wipe my ass with the money then set fire to it than give it to ea for this half assed bare bones effort.
 
D

Deleted member 143938

Guest
So how many are still gonna buy this free to play game masquerading as a triple a game? I think I'd personally rather wipe my ass with the money then set fire to it than give it to ea for this half assed bare bones effort.
I think it's worth seeing where it's at 1. at launch with all whatever they have at that time available & 2. some months post launch, before deciding. Then again I haven't even played this beta. They might turn it around, who knows what they have in stock and planned and what changes they'll make!
 

Chris_B

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 29, 2001
Messages
5,282
I think it's worth seeing where it's at 1. at launch with all whatever they have at that time available & 2. some months post launch, before deciding. Then again I haven't even played this beta. They might turn it around, who knows what they have in stock and planned and what changes they'll make!

I find it hard to believe that they would be withholding the vehicle damage system, better destruction, weighted player movement, better aircraft and ground vehicle controls, the proper class system, among many other things for the release version. This was basically a playable advert for the game, if all that exists and was somehow turned off for the demo then they just shot themselves in the foot.
 

mgty23

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
1,664
Is worth a buy Battlefield 2042? I have only Battlefield 5,Crysis 2 and Anthem on origin.
 
Top