Battlefield 2042

RS_Surge said:
I'm one of the rare guys that liked bf1 more than bfv. Still play it to this day. Think I'm gonna skip the next one.
Click to expand...
BFV is the worst of the series in my opinion

BF4 > BF3 > BC2 > BF:Hardline > BF2142 > BF2 > BF1 > BFV

I didn’t play any of the others. I played 1942 and Vietnam well after their heyday, but not enough to have a valid opinion on them. And I’m in the minority on Hardline, I loved that game.
 
I give them credit for trying to bring us something new and focusing on some of the lesser know/glorified parts of the World War II. But it wasn’t well timed coming after BF1, which was a strange set-piece in World War I.

I was hoping Battlefield V channeled more of 1942. They had great maps they could have just recycled with the new engine and it would have been glorious. But maybe they felt that had been done already with 1943, which came to consoles years back but not PC.

I think when you combine new consoles with new graphics cards and a next gen battlefield promising to push said hardware (instant load times anyone?), that is something I am keeping my eye on before I start upgrading parts.
 
Porter_ said:
BFV is the worst of the series in my opinion

BF4 > BF3 > BC2 > BF:Hardline > BF2142 > BF2 > BF1 > BFV
Click to expand...

100%.

Porter_ said:
BFV is the worst of the series in my opinion
I didn’t play any of the others. I played 1942 and Vietnam well after their heyday, but not enough to have a valid opinion on them. And I’m in the minority on Hardline, I loved that game.
Click to expand...

Hardline was a total blast for a while, especially in the first couple months and during beta,, until they nerfed too many things I liked spamming - rampaging with the attack heli, spamming C4 on the road in the tunnel on the city map..so fast paced. But I never understood how so many people were missing the fantastic gameplay right under their noses. Its like if they aren't immediately CoD Rambo dominating, they determine they don't like it.

I also smile at the "BF3/BF4/whatever was totally broken at launch" line always repeated -- bish, that's the absolute best, most fun time to play, before they nerf everything and fix the fun exploits. You learn every bug and get creative with them. Some of my most hilarious BF moments in those times.

If DICE just did an evolving, GaaS modern Battlefield with jets- helis-tanks, and just kept adding maps and content plus engine and graphical improvements - like an ever-evolving BF4, I probably wouldn't play anything else.
 
Last edited:
The Chinese jungle map for BF V are really good the one with the Hut in the middle of the map Objective C.
 
Having played the entire BF series since 1942, I have to say that BF4 is by far my fav shooter followed closely by BF3 and 2. 1 and V really regressed in every area (imho) except in the graphics department.
 
The Cobra said:
Having played the entire BF series since 1942, I have to say that BF4 is by far my fav shooter followed closely by BF3 and 2. 1 and V really regressed in every area (imho) except in the graphics department.
Click to expand...

Pretty much. Problem is DICE has always been a bit incompetent and the release and updates are frequently bad. BF4 took a long of fixing from DICE LA to fix it up. If the end result is BF4 or similar, great. But that isn't happening in 2020/2021. Best you can hope for is BF4 style gameplay with a clown word aesthetic, like Siege and CoD.
 
RS_Surge said:
I'm one of the rare guys that liked bf1 more than bfv. Still play it to this day. Think I'm gonna skip the next one.
Click to expand...
Nope, I'm right there with ya. Still playing bf1 occasionally on my ps5, it had a good balance and the gameplay was fun.
 
EA has to find something else to keep screwing up after the loss of Star Wars exclusivity
 
  • Like
Reactions: travm
like this
This game was the biggest hype and disappoint I've ever personally experienced. And I love battlefield. This game sucked
 

EA promises next Battlefield later this year​

During Electronic Arts Q3 FY 2021 earnings call, CEO Andrew Wilson has promised the company will launch a new Battlefield game later this year which will be a return to ‘all-out warfare’.

Battlefield-6-wallpaper-e1612305258547.jpg



A new Battlefield is coming. EA CEO Andrew Wilson confirmed during the earnings call that the company is already planning ahead to share information on the next installment in the popular first-person shooting series.

Wilson mentioned that the game will the full advantage of the next-generation platforms and will offer immersive battles. He also added that the next Battlefield will feature maps with ‘unprecedented scale’ with more players than ever before. This likely means that the game will go beyond 64 players, which is the current limit on Battlefield V. More importantly, it was confirmed that the series will return to all-out warfare, which indicates a continuation of the Battlefield 4 modern warfare game style.

We’re looking forward to sharing a lot more about our plans in the months ahead, including our next Battlefield experience, which will mark a return to all-out military warfare. The game takes full advantage of the power of next-generation platforms to bring massive, immersive battles to life with more players than ever before. Featuring maps with unprecedented scale, the next edition of Battlefield takes all the destruction, player agency, vehicle and weapon combat that the franchise is known for and elevates it to another level. The team is focused and the game is ahead of our internal milestones. We’ll reveal the game in the spring, and deliver a defining Battlefield experience for our players in the 2021 holiday season.”
— EA CEO Andrew Wilson
Click to expand...
Battlefield V features NVIDIA DLSS technology which boosts framerate by artificially upscaling the resolution using machine learning algorithms. Currently, there is no alternative from AMD, but it would have been a perfect opportunity for AMD to launch its own technology just in time for BF6. The game also supports Direct RayTracing, which is supported on both NVIDIA Ampereand AMD RDNA2 architectures.

EA has reiterated its promises from November 2020 to launch the game in the 2021 holiday season. The next Battlefield game is already ahead of its internal schedule which means that there should be no delays:

“Formal guidance will follow on our Q4 call, but I can tell you now that the Battlefield team is doing an incredible job. They’re way ahead of where they were in prior product cycles, on track for their earliest feature complete in franchise history.”
— EA CFO Blake Jorgensen
Click to expand...
EA released Battlefield V in November 2018, while Battlefield 1 was released in October 2016. It appears that EA is now targeting to launch a new installment in the series every two years. EA CEO confirmed that we shall a reveal later in the spring. Next Battlefield is officially coming in the 2021 holiday season. It will likely debut on PC, PS5, and Xbox Series S|X.

Source: VentureBeat
 
Battle Royale games have snatched up a massive portion of the BF playerbase. Even the CoD series is now heavily focused on their BR mode, which is insanely popular.

If BF does another "just stick a BR mode in there" last ditch effort to keep players, it won't work. BR gamers don't want to play with authentic vintage style weapons from the early 20th century, they want modern military style weaponry, especially assault rifles, shotguns, smg's and long range rifles.

Nevertheless they shouldn't try to compete with the BR big boys, but rather continue to evolve the BF3/4 game and focus on the kinds of conquest style gameplay which they excelled at back in those days.

The biggest hurdle for them is pricing competition. Other shooter games you either pay once and play forever, or it's a free to pay financial model. BF releasing a full price game every couple of years ensured that over time they lost players to other games with more consumer friendly pricing structures.
 
Drexion said:
Nevertheless they shouldn't try to compete with the BR big boys, but rather continue to evolve the BF3/4 game and focus on the kinds of conquest style gameplay which they excelled at back in those days.
Click to expand...

I feel like this sort of contradicts your prior statements. "BR is what everyone wants now, but they definitely shouldn't do that." -- I agree that they shouldn't half-ass it like they did with BF V, but I also question how viable it is to launch a AAA, completive shooter in 2021 and not have BR. BR is all anyone is playing right now... do you think Battlefield has what it takes to topple the BR dynasty? I don't. I don't think they stand a chance without an answer to Warzone. And "...immersive battles to life with more players than ever before. Featuring maps with unprecedented scale..." screams BR to me. I really loved Joint Ops back in the day so the thought of 100+ player conquest is sick as hell, but I absolutely don't expect that's what is being worked on over at DICE. I'd be happy to be wrong, though.

Drexion said:
The biggest hurdle for them is pricing competition. Other shooter games you either pay once and play forever, or it's a free to pay financial model. BF releasing a full price game every couple of years ensured that over time they lost players to other games with more consumer friendly pricing structures.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't necessarily think that the full priced game model is to blame for their decline in popularity. Call of Duty did the same think, but annually instead of every 2-3 years, and never saw a decline in popularity. BF1 was just awkward. It didn't feel right to the period. Fans of historical shooters didn't like it because it wasn't accurate. Fans of modern shooters didn't like it because even though it felt modern(ish), it didn't look it. Then they doubled down with BFV, and again I think it was as miss. Admittedly, the modern gameplay felt more appropriate in a setting where semi-auto and automatic weapons were a lot more prolific, but it was still an awkward blend of not modern enough to be a modern shooter and not WW2 enough to be a historical shooter. Battlefield needs to go back to being a current day shooter. That's always been the series' high point (at least as far as the main-stream is concerned).

As for pricing, I would really be surprised if they didn't just straight up copy Warzone. F2P Battle Royale, $60 to get in on traditional BF multiplayer and single player. Maybe even a digital only a la carte option where you could buy only single player, or only multiplayer, with the retail version being a $60 bundle of the two? I don't see them going fully F2P with it... and truthfully, I don't want them to. I'd rather pay up front and not have loot boxes and cosmetics and four different types of currency jammed down my throat every time I play... let me pay ones and then stop annoying me.
 
Drexion said:
Battle Royale games have snatched up a massive portion of the BF playerbase. Even the CoD series is now heavily focused on their BR mode, which is insanely popular.

If BF does another "just stick a BR mode in there" last ditch effort to keep players, it won't work. BR gamers don't want to play with authentic vintage style weapons from the early 20th century, they want modern military style weaponry, especially assault rifles, shotguns, smg's and long range rifles.

Nevertheless they shouldn't try to compete with the BR big boys, but rather continue to evolve the BF3/4 game and focus on the kinds of conquest style gameplay which they excelled at back in those days.

The biggest hurdle for them is pricing competition. Other shooter games you either pay once and play forever, or it's a free to pay financial model. BF releasing a full price game every couple of years ensured that over time they lost players to other games with more consumer friendly pricing structures.
Click to expand...
It's only taken away from BF because the past few games have sucked.

As others have stated, if they got back to the roots, with big maps like in 1942 & BF2, and got away from the COD-like smaller maps/combat, they would draw people back.
 
Mchart said:
It's only taken away from BF because the past few games have sucked.

As others have stated, if they got back to the roots, with big maps like in 1942 & BF2, and got away from the COD-like smaller maps/combat, they would draw people back.
Click to expand...

I'm sure I'm in the minority here, but I actually liked some of the smaller maps. The Bf3 close quarters expansion was excellent. So was aftermath.
 
Viper87227 said:
I feel like this sort of contradicts your prior statements. "BR is what everyone wants now, but they definitely shouldn't do that." -- I agree that they shouldn't half-ass it like they did with BF V, but I also question how viable it is to launch a AAA, completive shooter in 2021 and not have BR. BR is all anyone is playing right now... do you think Battlefield has what it takes to topple the BR dynasty? I don't. I don't think they stand a chance without an answer to Warzone. And "...immersive battles to life with more players than ever before. Featuring maps with unprecedented scale..." screams BR to me. I really loved Joint Ops back in the day so the thought of 100+ player conquest is sick as hell, but I absolutely don't expect that's what is being worked on over at DICE. I'd be happy to be wrong, though.



I wouldn't necessarily think that the full priced game model is to blame for their decline in popularity. Call of Duty did the same think, but annually instead of every 2-3 years, and never saw a decline in popularity. BF1 was just awkward. It didn't feel right to the period. Fans of historical shooters didn't like it because it wasn't accurate. Fans of modern shooters didn't like it because even though it felt modern(ish), it didn't look it. Then they doubled down with BFV, and again I think it was as miss. Admittedly, the modern gameplay felt more appropriate in a setting where semi-auto and automatic weapons were a lot more prolific, but it was still an awkward blend of not modern enough to be a modern shooter and not WW2 enough to be a historical shooter. Battlefield needs to go back to being a current day shooter. That's always been the series' high point (at least as far as the main-stream is concerned).

As for pricing, I would really be surprised if they didn't just straight up copy Warzone. F2P Battle Royale, $60 to get in on traditional BF multiplayer and single player. Maybe even a digital only a la carte option where you could buy only single player, or only multiplayer, with the retail version being a $60 bundle of the two? I don't see them going fully F2P with it... and truthfully, I don't want them to. I'd rather pay up front and not have loot boxes and cosmetics and four different types of currency jammed down my throat every time I play... let me pay ones and then stop annoying me.
Click to expand...
agreed, if they dont release a F2P BR they are missing out on alot of money. I really think firestorm would be popular if it was free. the game was solid except for looting dead players.
 
Viper87227 said:
I'm sure I'm in the minority here, but I actually liked some of the smaller maps. The Bf3 close quarters expansion was excellent. So was aftermath.
Click to expand...
Yeah I had fun with the CQC expansion in BF3. I like the formula they used on BF3 and BF4, a mix of large combined-arms maps and smaller infantry style maps.
 
Viper87227 said:
I'm sure I'm in the minority here, but I actually liked some of the smaller maps. The Bf3 close quarters expansion was excellent. So was aftermath.
Click to expand...
Sure, we all had fun with that. However, the key success to BR style games is really just the large map size initially.

OG Planetside, 1942, WWII Online, etc were all successful because they were FPS's with massive map sizes and player counts. A lot of the younger people I talk to who really enjoy BR games were never old enough (Or alive) to play games like Planetside or 1942 back in their prime.

BF just isn't what it used to be.

If I want close quarters combat i've got a million other FPS's to play. Overwatch, COD: 69 Up in Fidel's booty, Future space flyer shooter 57, Tom Clancy's: Not Clancy's he's rolling in his grave, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gabe3
like this
They don't need battle royale. I have zero interest in it. CoD is extremely popular for the regular multiplayer.

With BF3/4 they were essentially two games in one:

- Massive vehicle and combined arms gameplay.
- Traditional infantry only TDM shooter.

TDM isn't going anywhere, games like CS and CoD are still massively popular. It is a great sell because if they do what they did in BF4 they'll cater to two different groups. There is obviously some overlap as I played both Conquest Large and TDM hardcore.

Another BR game will just flop as the market is crowded. BF has established gameplay and a player base so it isn't a new game coming out of nowhere. What will make the game flop is crappy server support, lame gameplay, boring vehicles, bad server browser (see BF1/5), garbage cosmetics and a crappy attitude towards these complaints. That is why BF5 failed and why BF1 didn't have the longevity of BF4.
 
Flogger23m said:
They don't need battle royale. I have zero interest in it. CoD is extremely popular for the regular multiplayer.

With BF3/4 they were essentially two games in one:

- Massive vehicle and combined arms gameplay.
- Traditional infantry only TDM shooter.

TDM isn't going anywhere, games like CS and CoD are still massively popular. It is a great sell because if they do what they did in BF4 they'll cater to two different groups. There is obviously some overlap as I played both Conquest Large and TDM hardcore.

Another BR game will just flop as the market is crowded. BF has established gameplay and a player base so it isn't a new game coming out of nowhere. What will make the game flop is crappy server support, lame gameplay, boring vehicles, bad server browser (see BF1/5), garbage cosmetics and a crappy attitude towards these complaints. That is why BF5 failed and why BF1 didn't have the longevity of BF4.
Click to expand...
theres room for a battlefield BR. firestorm was the middle ground game between pubg and warzone, but it wasn't F2P. warzone has 3x or more the amount of viewers that the regular MP has on twitch. I'm not saying BF needs BR but I'd like to see it. besides pubg there still isn't a BR thats somewhat realistic/slower paced and tactical. firestorm was the closest thing to that from a AAA game.
 
Y'all too young but the coolest ones were the 1942 mods like desert combat, forgotten hope, secret weapons (nazis with jetpacks!)

Bf2 and 2142 were the heyday of competition for battlefield. Cal and twl ladders were fun as shit.

Since then. The competition has gone away. Especially now that you can't have private servers with complete control. I don't have any hope that the good old days will ever return.

The closest I have come to going full retard these days is with planetside 2 vanu. Purple spandex ftw!
 
spaceman said:
Y'all too young but the coolest ones were the 1942 mods like desert combat, forgotten hope, secret weapons (nazis with jetpacks!)

Bf2 and 2142 were the heyday of competition for battlefield. Cal and twl ladders were fun as shit.

Since then. The competition has gone away. Especially now that you can't have private servers with complete control. I don't have any hope that the good old days will ever return.

The closest I have come to going full retard these days is with planetside 2 vanu. Purple spandex ftw!
Click to expand...
I remember all that, guess I'm old.
 
It sounds great, then you realize the gameplay implications.

You could literally ruin certain maps in Bad Company. Just turn them into 200 yard open fields of death because you spent 5 minutes knocking trees over.

Which is, I'm sure, why they toned it down in BF3.
 
IMO this game died when they stopped allowing dedicated servers. How the hell do you expect people have a community?.....I still have quite a few friends who play BF4 because of that.

I will look forward to seeing how it is.
 
Brackle said:
IMO this game died when they stopped allowing dedicated servers. How the hell do you expect people have a community?.....I still have quite a few friends who play BF4 because of that.

I will look forward to seeing how it is.
Click to expand...
My favorite part of BF3/4 was servers that had some obnoxious profanity filter that would kick you because you typed fuck.

edit:
Ironically as your character was screaming about how he's getting fucked up the ass after coming under fire.
 
Brackle said:
IMO this game died when they stopped allowing dedicated servers. How the hell do you expect people have a community?.....I still have quite a few friends who play BF4 because of that.

I will look forward to seeing how it is.
Click to expand...
Completely agree. Best part of BC2/BF3/BF4 for me was the community I played with that ran their own servers. Utter disgrace that feature left, takes away that community feel that keeps you coming back. People were invested in curating their communities and that enriched the game and made servers feel like real locations you went to for an experience and to connect with people, but that is not supported by EA apparently. It is the way of that world. Sad to see.
 
Not putting much faith into that, but "skyscraper" sounds like modern. Hopefully.

socK said:
It sounds great, then you realize the gameplay implications.

You could literally ruin certain maps in Bad Company. Just turn them into 200 yard open fields of death because you spent 5 minutes knocking trees over.

Which is, I'm sure, why they toned it down in BF3.
Click to expand...

Depends how it is done to. A 40mm grenade isn't going to blow a wall off a house. It will leave a tiny hole. If they make small arms destruction more realistic, and make heavy vehicles damage more dynamic (smaller/less parts) stuff will last longer.
 
Armenius said:
Criterion was pulled off the next Need for Speed to aid in BF6 development. They made Firestorm for BFV. Battle Royale confirmed? Lame, if so.

https://archive.vn/jBgvr
Click to expand...

I hope no BR. If history tells us anything, DICE needs all the help they can get ensuring bugs and server side issues are squared away. Last thing I want is them throwing that effort towards BR.
 
If DICE/EA had a half a brain they should go full nostalgia by making the new game look (updated graphics of course) and play like BF3/4 and hire the guys from Battlefield Friends to promote it! PROMOTED!! They should make the BFFs a single player campaign.



Edit:

They should also re-hire this guy to make ads showing off gameplay too.

 
Last edited:
I'm hoping for a F2P BR. I like BR but warzone is has too many gimmicks. I want to play conquest just as much, if not more too.
 
Krenum said:
I thought Bad Company 2 was the best. I had the most fun with that one. Strapping C4 to a ATV and using it as a mobile bomb was a "blast".
Click to expand...

Bad company is what ruined BF. It consolized the game and they ran with it for future games instead having seperate things.
 
Bigbacon said:
Bad company is what ruined BF. It consolized the game and they ran with it for future games instead having seperate things.
Click to expand...
And a fine job it did. Looked great on PC. Never played it for console.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top