Battlefield 2042

DPI said:
If only they let players use the grunt AI skins, would've been way more bad ass - like futuristic GI Joe.

Come to think of it, a defining GI Joe title, like if Battlefield had been rebooted with the GI Joe I.P. and the game was set in that universe, AND under the right project leadership with strict adherence to technical excellence - and no "creativity" or crowbarred inclusiveness for the sake of inclusiveness - seems like it could be the kind of game that would rain money on the publisher forever. I digress.

View attachment 421267
Click to expand...
I’d be all over a GI Joe game like battlefield.
 
TwistedMetalGear said:
You see them in 3rd person in vehicles and while gliding. But it's not all about seeing yourself. It's about other people seeing you. Not everybody wants to be seen as generic Sundance clone #3257.

Real life is first person as well but we still buy stylish clothes, put on makeup, and style our hair. Because that's our identity and we want others to perceive us as unique beings.
Click to expand...
I never cared about looking unique, I try to look good to attract the opposite sex. Something you don't need to do in a video game. If girls are trying to look unique, why do they all have long hair? why do they all choose blonde as the hair color of choice? why do they all wear tight clothes? why do they all shave their legs?
 
TwistedMetalGear said:
You see them in 3rd person in vehicles and while gliding. But it's not all about seeing yourself. It's about other people seeing you. Not everybody wants to be seen as generic Sundance clone #3257.

Real life is first person as well but we still buy stylish clothes, put on makeup, and style our hair. Because that's our identity and we want others to perceive us as unique beings.
Click to expand...

1639362669878.png
 
My experience with the 2042 is that it is "stable" meaning it doesn't crash, and my only complaints are that in custom/portal games, as "not the party leader" I get dropped when the map cycle changes. I have no problems joining in, nor accessing any running games. I don't know if I have a unicorn system or not, but aside from the gameplay aspects of the game, seem functional.

I will not agree that the game is "what we all wanted" and yeah, I do feel a little ripped off for a peer-pressure-induced pre-order, but I'm having a decent amount of fun playing portal games. I don't feel I got my money's worth though.

Honestly, right now, I'm grinding out guns and attachments, in my free time via the Co-op/SP mode, and I only do the clusterfuck multiplayer when my small group of friends play three times a week.

Its not broken, but damn, there was a serious misdirection taken with development.
 
they need to put a server browser in. and change the way auto join works. it always trys to put you into a fresh new round. the game has lost alot of players but its no where near dead, well, maybe "dead" for a AAA game. there are many healthy populated games out there like squad for example. it has 3500 players right now, I can look at the server browser and see its not really a dead game. 2042 has 15,000 playing just on steam right now. the problem is the match making/no server browser. also, americans don't see very interested in portal, most the the servers are European. and squad is somewhat the same way. many servers are in europe. I'm not sure if the demand for a battlefield game is very strong here in the states. which is potentially why this game went the route it did. although it plays like BF to me.
 
Did you serious just try to justify the drastic decline in player counts and the game dying on Americans supposedly not wanting a battlefield game?
 
FearTheCow said:
Did you serious just try to justify the drastic decline in player counts and the game dying on Americans supposedly not wanting a battlefield game?
Click to expand...

Without getting into politics too much, I think it has more to do with the clear political direction the series has taken since BF5. Americans would like a Battlefield game but overt pandering to politics in entertainment media doesn't sit as well here. Of course you'll see people use this as evidence that a Battlefield type game can't sell anymore. We've seen this in the past with other genres. Boneheaded designs or buggy? Nope, clearly, this type of game doesn't sell anymore!
 
Flogger23m said:
Without getting into politics too much, I think it has more to do with the clear political direction the series has taken since BF5. Americans would like a Battlefield game but overt pandering to politics in entertainment media doesn't sit as well here. Of course you'll see people use this as evidence that a Battlefield type game can't sell anymore. We've seen this in the past with other genres. Boneheaded designs or buggy? Nope, clearly, this type of game doesn't sell anymore!
Click to expand...
^^^BF1 is when the series went woketard.

I like 2042, have a good amount of fun with it...but it's also very hardware demandy...demands... not everybody is rocking a 5900x + 3090rtx
 
Well I can report that my entire BF group has abandoned the game and moved back to BF5. Maybe this will come around, but none of us are Fortnite fans.
 
WorldExclusive said:
Any game can be enjoyed. But for a multiplayer only game, you need a large player base.
If and when the player base falls off after December, AI bots will litter the lobbies on those barren maps, and you won't play anymore as well.
Click to expand...
I said this on November 16th, and I'm sticking by it.
 
Gabe3 said:
why do you need a large player base? I mentioned squad with its 3500 players atm. if you have enough people to fill a server, enjoyment can be had.
Click to expand...
If only you could pick a server outside Portal.
 
Gabe3 said:
why do you need a large player base? I mentioned squad with its 3500 players atm. if you have enough people to fill a server, enjoyment can be had.
Click to expand...
Squad is not the same. Squad has normal dedicated servers. Squad has tight-nit groups of people who intentionally choose to play together. Etc.

2042 has none of that. You need substantial random player counts to keep it alive.

The worst part of 2042 is that people can't even play together outside of the group of 4 people. It's impossible for a full clan to play together on a server. Even player with a single friend is a fucking nightmare. Half the time it'll kick your friends out of the squad for no reason, and there is zero squad management while in a server.

2042 is basically already dead at this point. I believe the numbers will continue to have a massive fall-off in the next few weeks as well since it's been 30 days and EA Play pro subscriptions are expiring.
 
Mchart said:
Squad is not the same. Squad has normal dedicated servers. Squad has tight-nit groups of people who intentionally choose to play together. Etc.

2042 has none of that. You need substantial random player counts to keep it alive.

The worst part of 2042 is that people can't even play together outside of the group of 4 people. It's impossible for a full clan to play together on a server. Even player with a single friend is a fucking nightmare. Half the time it'll kick your friends out of the squad for no reason, and there is zero squad management while in a server.

2042 is basically already dead at this point. I believe the numbers will continue to have a massive fall-off in the next few weeks as well since it's been 30 days and EA Play pro subscriptions are expiring.
Click to expand...

Ea will drop all support for this turd as soon as they can, this game wasn't released it was shat out in typical EA fashion in beta state at best. Then we find out that the bragging about 3 years of making the game and all these dev teams being involved was because it took around half the dev time getting it to run on the engine, and by that point they had to rope in everyone they could to they could to slap something together for a hilariously unrealistic release date. The game has no fucking identity, it doesn't know what it wants to be and is just a mish mash of gaming trends held together with copious amounts of diarrhea.

I seriously hope this series goes on hiatus for a few years, it'll take that long to get the stench of shit off the franchise.
 
Previously posted that I was going to buy Battlefield 2042 but my gut instinct told me not to. After reading numerous reviews and, more importantly - user reviews, I decided not to. Glad I didn't buy the game. Really sad to see developers ignore their player base.
 
Gabe3 said:
they need to put a server browser in. and change the way auto join works.
Click to expand...

Not always the case, the few games I joined were often mid match. But yes, that seems to be the case. Getting 128 players to queue up is stupid. You can start with 60 or 80. Hell, even 40. Fill it up as the match goes on. The problem is you can't seem to see how many are waiting. If there are 90-100 people in the server I'd be more likely to continue waiting. Because people can't seem to see I think most quit after 5-8 minutes. I'm currently waiting in a server that is trying to start. Just waiting for players. Been about 10 minutes.
 
AceGoober said:
Previously posted that I was going to buy Battlefield 2042 but my gut instinct told me not to. After reading numerous reviews and, more importantly - user reviews, I decided not to. Glad I didn't buy the game. Really sad to see developers ignore their player base.
Click to expand...
you dont need instinct or reviews, all you need is $1 for pc game pass to try it for 10 hours.

Flogger23m said:
Not always the case, the few games I joined were often mid match. But yes, that seems to be the case. Getting 128 players to queue up is stupid. You can start with 60 or 80. Hell, even 40. Fill it up as the match goes on. The problem is you can't seem to see how many are waiting. If there are 90-100 people in the server I'd be more likely to continue waiting. Because people can't seem to see I think most quit after 5-8 minutes. I'm currently waiting in a server that is trying to start. Just waiting for players. Been about 10 minutes.
Click to expand...
for all out war, which is what I only play pretty much. If I see that waiting for players for more than 20 seconds I leave, 99% of the time it finds me a full server thats just starting on the second try. now if its a map I don't want to play, I have to cancel it and do it over, and it will attempt to put me back on that same server I assume because last night I didn't want to play breakaway and I left it 3 times.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DPI
like this
Aireoth said:
Well I can report that my entire BF group has abandoned the game and moved back to BF5. Maybe this will come around, but none of us are Fortnite fans.
Click to expand...
BFV was the absolute worst in the series...I never had any fun in that POS. Never had any of those "battlefield" moments.
At best BFV was boring....at worst it just sucked. Some pretty good graphics, but felt like a COD to me. Hate that fucking game.

BF1 was way better than V IMHO.
 
Chris_B said:
Ea will drop all support for this turd as soon as they can, this game wasn't released it was shat out in typical EA fashion in beta state at best. Then we find out that the bragging about 3 years of making the game and all these dev teams being involved was because it took around half the dev time getting it to run on the engine, and by that point they had to rope in everyone they could to they could to slap something together for a hilariously unrealistic release date. The game has no fucking identity, it doesn't know what it wants to be and is just a mish mash of gaming trends held together with copious amounts of diarrhea.

I seriously hope this series goes on hiatus for a few years, it'll take that long to get the stench of shit off the franchise.
Click to expand...

LOL...well said...but all in all...I have had way more fun in this POS 2042 than BFV & BF1
 
l88bastard said:
BFV was the absolute worst in the series...I never had any fun in that POS. Never had any of those "battlefield" moments.
At best BFV was boring....at worst it just sucked. Some pretty good graphics, but felt like a COD to me. Hate that fucking game.

BF1 was way better than V IMHO.
Click to expand...
I never played it, doesn't seem bad in comparison (I hear it was patched a lot), at least it sounds way better. How did they screw up sound design so badly in 2042
 
Gabe3 said:
for all out war, which is what I only play pretty much. If I see that waiting for players for more than 20 seconds I leave, 99% of the time it finds me a full server thats just starting on the second try. now if its a map I don't want to play, I have to cancel it and do it over, and it will attempt to put me back on that same server I assume because last night I didn't want to play breakaway and I left it 3 times.
Click to expand...

I do Conquest. I tried the other main mode (Front lines?) same deal. Just one guy in chat complaining that he also couldn't get into a game. After around 20 minutes waiting for Conquest and around 8 minutes in the other mode I gave up.

Sadly Modern Warfare has an aiming bug, a loadout bug, and a killstreak bug at the moment as well due to their recent update. But at least I could get into games with that. Here is to hoping they patch that. I am going back to that because I simply cannot play 2042 at all. I can't play a game that doesn't let me join servers.
 
l88bastard said:
Machine guns SUCKED ASS in BF1....which was beyond annoying....but those two night maps looked EPIC on OLED and the PG32UQX
Click to expand...
I couldn't get into BF1 like I did with BF3/4 because of the machine gun nerf or bloom. I got tired of playing medic with DMRs and terrible optics. That game needed too many menu adjustments just to get your chosen loadout going. Atmosphere was amazing, but the gunplay was a major step down from BF4. First time I didn't reach Max rank in a BF game. But the game had the atmosphere right, unlike 2042.
 
they put out the 64 player version today and man it plays more like BF. the gun fights are more intimate. I killed 11 guys on a flag, I feel like I'm making a bigger impact compared to the 128 version. its hard to get a good kill streak in the 128 player version due to how many eyes are on you at once.

its suppose to be temporary but I hope it becomes permanent. seems like people are enjoying it more. this is what last gen consoles get to play. I'm also getting about 15 more fps sometimes
 
Last edited:
This game is definitely growing on me. I'm starting to see the ways of the r/lowsodium2042 community. Most of my complaints stemmed from the fact that I suck. But I'm slowly getting better.

Stodeh put out a video today on how good the SCAR is so I took his advice and damn. This thing is OP. The underbarrel grenade launcher specifically. Pretty much a guaranteed 1 shot kill without a need to be terribly accurate. Especially fun to just glide around as Sundance and rain grenades down on people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DPI
like this
Gabe3 said:
they put out the 64 player version today and man it plays more like BF. the gun fights are more intimate. I killed 11 guys on a flag, I feel like I'm making a bigger impact compared to the 128 version. its hard to get a good kill streak in the 128 player version due to how many eyes are on you at once.

its suppose to be temporary but I hope it becomes permanent. seems like people are enjoying it more. this is what last gen consoles get to play. I'm also getting about 15 more fps sometimes
Click to expand...
I'm still just farming bots/weapon unlocks on my off days, but the inclusion of 64player maps seems like a step in the correct direction. My only observation/complaint is that the 128player maps resemble a "BF2042 10k Run" every time you redeploy, if there's a squad-wipe/whatever. Did they compartmentalize the maps for the reduced player count?
 
The game is starting to run and play much better with the patches, even infantry is starting to offer a decent experience. But then, I did spawn under the map with a bunch of other people in my team in breakthrough and we pretty much insta lost on the past point. And the netcode is still struggling to deliver a smooth experience overall, despite me having fiber, 10-15ms and 100+ fps.

Guess I'll shortly be going back to BFV for infantry (I'm addicted to the movement and gunplay in that game) and BF4 for vehicles.

It's a shame because I'm one of those who actually likes most of the maps and the player count - but fuck the specialists and the pre-alpha state of the game.
 
Bullitt said:
I'm still just farming bots/weapon unlocks on my off days, but the inclusion of 64player maps seems like a step in the correct direction. My only observation/complaint is that the 128player maps resemble a "BF2042 10k Run" every time you redeploy, if there's a squad-wipe/whatever. Did they compartmentalize the maps for the reduced player count?
Click to expand...
a little, some of the flags are at different locations
 
Gabe3 said:
they put out the 64 player version today and man it plays more like BF. the gun fights are more intimate. I killed 11 guys on a flag, I feel like I'm making a bigger impact compared to the 128 version. its hard to get a good kill streak in the 128 player version due to how many eyes are on you at once.

its suppose to be temporary but I hope it becomes permanent. seems like people are enjoying it more. this is what last gen consoles get to play. I'm also getting about 15 more fps sometimes
Click to expand...
They probably wanted to test the waters first and see how 64p does, and analyze metrics, before declaring it permanent.

Most BF3 and BF4 CQ64 maps always felt kinda perfect with 48-50 players, but that was relative to map size, and the BF2042 128p maps cut in half may well feel best with 64-70p, since they're still bigger than BF3/BF4.
 
Gabe3 said:
they put out the 64 player version today and man it plays more like BF. the gun fights are more intimate. I killed 11 guys on a flag, I feel like I'm making a bigger impact compared to the 128 version. its hard to get a good kill streak in the 128 player version due to how many eyes are on you at once.

its suppose to be temporary but I hope it becomes permanent. seems like people are enjoying it more. this is what last gen consoles get to play. I'm also getting about 15 more fps sometimes
Click to expand...
Did they make the map boundaries smaller? You know so it can feel like small battles instead of All Out Warfield.
 
Gabe3 said:
yes
Click to expand...
Great. I hope they make it permanent but now we need the scoreboard and server browser when they get back from break.
Hopefully they'll let PC gamers rent servers again since crossplay hampers the PC experience. We need searchable and persistent servers for all game modes.

They get that done along with a few more patches, I'll try the game again.

Edit: Enabling 64 player mode means they are admitting the game was a huge failure in design. It erases many months of work to get 128 playable.
 
Last edited:
WorldExclusive said:
Great. I hope they make it permanent but now we need the scoreboard and server browser when they get back from break.
Hopefully they'll let PC gamers rent servers again since crossplay hampers the PC experience. We need searchable and persistent servers for all game modes.

They get that done along with a few more patches, I'll try the game again.

Edit: Enabling 64 player mode means they are admitting the game was a huge failure in design. It erases many months of work to get 128 playable.
Click to expand...

Even with making the maps smaller they're still utterly barren pieces of shit.
 
WorldExclusive said:
Great. I hope they make it permanent but now we need the scoreboard and server browser when they get back from break.
Hopefully they'll let PC gamers rent servers again since crossplay hampers the PC experience. We need searchable and persistent servers for all game modes.

They get that done along with a few more patches, I'll try the game again.

Edit: Enabling 64 player mode means they are admitting the game was a huge failure in design. It erases many months of work to get 128 playable.
Click to expand...
for what its worth, this limited time mode was announced to be coming 2 weeks ago. the battles are more epic on 128 players in my opinion. but this is a nice option. I think if its a permenant option I'll play them equally. I think for 128 players to play how this plays, they need to at least add more flags, which should be easy. in the 128 player version, there are parts of the map I'm thinking this could be a flag. after playing this 64 player version, the part I thought could be a flag is one. its like a new map in some ways because we're fighting in areas we weren't fighting in before. also, flying on hourglass for example I can survive much easier in the little bird across the map due to less people having AA rockets. in the 128 player version, I pretty much have to stick to the sky scrapers area. no doubt the 128 player maps need tweaking.
 
Last edited:
Gabe3 said:
they put out the 64 player version today and man it plays more like BF. the gun fights are more intimate. I killed 11 guys on a flag, I feel like I'm making a bigger impact compared to the 128 version. its hard to get a good kill streak in the 128 player version due to how many eyes are on you at once.

its suppose to be temporary but I hope it becomes permanent. seems like people are enjoying it more. this is what last gen consoles get to play. I'm also getting about 15 more fps sometimes
Click to expand...

How much smaller? 25 percent?
 
My other complaint about this game (and all Battlefields really) is how short the matches are. Just when I feel like I'm settling in the stupid end match music starts playing. I rarely get to visit all capture points because the match is over in like 20 minutes. With maps of these size, I'd like to see matches last an hour.
 


Its limited time edition 64 player maps they have nothing to loose this time.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top