Battlefield 2042

xDiVolatilX

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 24, 2021
Messages
1,170
If I’m following correctly, you pre-ordered, then upon release, played for three days before uninstalling. Fair enough, the game was pretty awful shit. Hit registration, movement faults, you name it, it was there, it was all true.
however, many of the issues were ironed out in the first few patches. It got really solid, really quick, but it did take until the following June. That part, is understanding unacceptable. However, your day 3 experience, does not mesh with my experiences past patch level 1.0. My issues that just lost my interest was the grind of the battle pass for core weapons. Console players were of no concern. Aim assist or not, M/KB just wrecks face.
I just lost interest about level 110.
I am mainly a aircraft player. I have 90,000 kills in the chopper in bf4 and a clan of 100 members. It was an amazing ride and some of the best times of my gaming life. Some of the best heli pilots in the world are my dear friends. So when I play aircrafts on 2042 it is horrible. The movement, the weapons, the counters, everything is terrible. Not a single one of my friends will touch the game. It's so sad. We waited for 2042 for years just for it to be the biggest flop in gaming history. I can't explain to you what a massive let down this game is. You get 0 satisfaction flying in 2042. It feels like an arcade game you play at the bowling alley lol.
 

Zorachus

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 17, 2006
Messages
10,712
We're the BF developers trying to cater to the crappy Call of Duty kiddy console type gamer? And ditch the serious keyboard + mouse mature shooter gamer?

Console kids don't know what a shooter is, they're used to a aim bot controller doing it all for them, plus no serious shooter fan would ever play on a X-Flop or GayStation.

First person shooters were born and bred on the PC, and I can never seriously look at a console person as a real gamer, besides stuff like Super Mario Bros or Zelda type stuff, which are cool in their own right.


Anyways, my point, did EA just think throwing out any modern type shooter would instantly sell no matter what? Are they in disbelief and shocked at how poorly BF2042 was received? Do they even know or realize?
 

Flogger23m

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
13,089
We're the BF developers trying to cater to the crappy Call of Duty kiddy console type gamer? And ditch the serious keyboard + mouse mature shooter gamer?

Console kids don't know what a shooter is, they're used to a aim bot controller doing it all for them, plus no serious shooter fan would ever play on a X-Flop or GayStation.

First person shooters were born and bred on the PC, and I can never seriously look at a console person as a real gamer, besides stuff like Super Mario Bros or Zelda type stuff, which are cool in their own right.


Anyways, my point, did EA just think throwing out any modern type shooter would instantly sell no matter what? Are they in disbelief and shocked at how poorly BF2042 was received? Do they even know or realize?

The irony here is BF 2042 was a down grade compared to MW2019 when it comes to shooting and movement. To be fair, the follow ups Black Ops Cold War and Vanguard weren't good either. 2042 didn't keep up with the times and instead of improving things it added a bunch of junk.

- Cosmetics
- Battle royale things
- No server browser
- Bad default game mode settings
- Too many players
- Too little vehicles
- No team death match
- Horrible GUI
- Made it all about the "heroes"
- Tiny amount of weapons
- Cumbersome loadout editor

So much more. I suppose graphically it looks a bit better than BF4, but that is where the improvements end. They put so little effort into anything worthwhile that they got their ass kicked hard by Call of Duty in 2019. But it seems like Activision is having trouble repeating that success themselves.
 

Zorachus

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 17, 2006
Messages
10,712
The irony here is BF 2042 was a down grade compared to MW2019 when it comes to shooting and movement. To be fair, the follow ups Black Ops Cold War and Vanguard weren't good either. 2042 didn't keep up with the times and instead of improving things it added a bunch of junk.

- Cosmetics
- Battle royale things
- No server browser
- Bad default game mode settings
- Too many players
- Too little vehicles
- No team death match
- Horrible GUI
- Made it all about the "heroes"
- Tiny amount of weapons
- Cumbersome loadout editor

So much more. I suppose graphically it looks a bit better than BF4, but that is where the improvements end. They put so little effort into anything worthwhile that they got their ass kicked hard by Call of Duty in 2019. But it seems like Activision is having trouble repeating that success themselves.


Yeah the no server browser idea was a big head scratcher for me, I was like WTF how do I join a game here?
Too little vehicles. Yep. To me Battlefield games are all about vehicles #1, Choppers and Tanks baby
The graphics looked ok, nothing amazing.
 

Flogger23m

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
13,089
Good. We need these tired franchises to die.

The problem is I don't see any developer ever doing something like BF2/3/4 again. Once a developer gets a big enough budget they will sell out. Or the teams will become bloated with the same idiots who make things like 2042 in the first place. Games require too many people these days to make. It is easy to get 30-40 guys onboard and have a single vision. But once you need 60-100? Not happening. "People's people" will get hired. They will end up running the show. Back when games were made by teams of 20-40 awkward dorks good results came. Once the team size expands that just isn't going to happen. And with higher costs no one is going to put that risk on the line.

We might get some indie dev BF like games but the graphics and whatnot will never reach AAA standards. And they'll put out maybe one good game before they implode and sell out. Military shooters just don't sell in the era of Twitch/youtube/microtransaction. I mean they can sell and be very profitable. But developers will realize if they can even improve margins by 5%, they will sell out.
 

grambo

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 10, 2011
Messages
1,200
Well, I bought 2042 on sale for $26CAD after the free weekend. I played 4 hours of the weekend across a mix of game modes and felt they fixed enough of the crap from the beta/release version a year ago to justify $26. I agree with everyone that is pales in comparison to BF4 (I put probably 1,200 hours total into BC2/BF3/BF4 combined) but it is a fun enough BF experience to me for that sale price. With graphics cranked and DLSS on Quality, it's impressive visually and the framerate is around 90 on my 9700K/3080 at 1440p. I'm not a pilot, but the armour feels... passable... so far.

So many dumb UI/UX choices, no server browser obviously, but also the fact most game modes kick you back to the menu after a round. Why doesn't Rush continue with the same teams or reverse attacker/defender on the same map?

I'll probably get 100ish hours out of this like I did with BFV. Definitely enjoyed BF1 more than BFV.
 

whateverer

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 2, 2016
Messages
1,810
Well, I bought 2042 on sale for $26CAD after the free weekend. I played 4 hours of the weekend across a mix of game modes and felt they fixed enough of the crap from the beta/release version a year ago to justify $26. I agree with everyone that is pales in comparison to BF4 (I put probably 1,200 hours total into BC2/BF3/BF4 combined) but it is a fun enough BF experience to me for that sale price. With graphics cranked and DLSS on Quality, it's impressive visually and the framerate is around 90 on my 9700K/3080 at 1440p. I'm not a pilot, but the armour feels... passable... so far.

So many dumb UI/UX choices, no server browser obviously, but also the fact most game modes kick you back to the menu after a round. Why doesn't Rush continue with the same teams or reverse attacker/defender on the same map?

I'll probably get 100ish hours out of this like I did with BFV. Definitely enjoyed BF1 more than BFV.


the problem here: you're the exception - everyone else can see the forest for the trees

once they took battlefield games out of the hands of DICE, they were doomed - by further making them pay-only, they're killing any possibility of the franchise saving itself - takes longer to fix Criterion's issues, while not being free kills any willpower to keep the input of new players flowing (at least beyond initial sales)
 
Last edited:

Flogger23m

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
13,089
the problem here: you're the exception - everyone else can see the forest for the trees

once they took battlefield games out of the hands of DICE, they were doomed - by further making them pay-only, theyre killing any possibilit of the franchise saving itself - takes longer to fix Criterion's issues, while not being free kills any willpower to keep the input of new players flowing (at least beyond initial sales)

Making it free to play will be the death blow to the series, if it hasn't already had it. There is absolutely no way a free to play game can make money unless they go the Fornite route. There is a reason why this has never been attempted before in video game history. If you make a game free, very few people will pay for it. They need to make money somehow. That somehow is by ruining the game. You'd have to take the worst features of 2042 and amplify them by 4-5 times. You won't save anything.
 
Last edited:

grambo

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 10, 2011
Messages
1,200
Did they even fix team voice squad chat? It felt so out of touch.
I think so? I've talked a few times but have never heard anyone else talk, there doesn't seem to be a visual indicator for mic use but there are key binds and settings (squad or party based VOIP). Comically embarrassing they didn't have squad/team VOIP at launch. Really it should be squad VOIP with squad leaders having a leader channel as well.

Was getting this really weird mouse input lag issue playing Rush last night, did some googling and sounds like having a 1000hz input polling rate could be the cause, will try lowering to 500hz tonight and making sure raw mouse input is on.
 

Jabroni31169

My Future Son-in-Law
Joined
Apr 19, 2000
Messages
9,987
Game is pretty good now, I've been enjoying it. Feels like what it should of been at launch. Yes squad chat works, you get a visual indicator as well but I've found most people aren't talking. I still miss the ability to talk smack to the other team.
 

Zorachus

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 17, 2006
Messages
10,712
Game is pretty good now, I've been enjoying it. Feels like what it should of been at launch. Yes squad chat works, you get a visual indicator as well but I've found most people aren't talking. I still miss the ability to talk smack to the other team.

Did they add a server browser yet? If not then it's still a no go.
 

Flogger23m

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
13,089
Then how do you know which map to choose to play on? You just randomly join a game already going and don't know the map until the game launches? That's BS.

You don't. Took me a week or so to try one of the maps I wanted to play. I am not exaggerating either. Like 30 frame rates, I'm sure not having a server browser is "more cinematic".
 

Gabe3

2[H]4U
Joined
May 23, 2006
Messages
3,730
I think they already got rid of the playlist for the new map. sucks, I wanted to play it.
 

xDiVolatilX

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 24, 2021
Messages
1,170
Stats are all thrown out the windows as soon as you introduce server browsers especially private rented servers. Players only play certain maps how is this fair for stats? Not that bf2042 even has stats? Lol. Stats and ranks should not affected by selectable maps or game modes. Map rotation should be fair and square for everyone at all times. Yes you can't pick what map you want to play. But this also means you need to get good at the servers maps in rotation. Good players can play well on all maps. Again yes I understand you don't get to choose. But that is a blessing in disguise. At least for ranks or stats. Just for casual gaming with no ranks or stats then yea picking game modes and maps is ok.
 

Flogger23m

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
13,089
No one cares about stats or ranks though. If for some reason someones does like looking at a number by their profile, BF3/4 had that with a server browser. Not sure what the problem is now.
 

xDiVolatilX

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 24, 2021
Messages
1,170
No one cares about stats or ranks though. If for some reason someones does like looking at a number by their profile, BF3/4 had that with a server browser. Not sure what the problem is now.
"No one cares about stats or ranks"

I'm not so sure about that. But what I do know is I never met a battlefield player prior to this disaster of a game that didn't care about their stats and rank. If that's the case that's why the game will die quick or never even have a chance to live. Look at the other competitive shooters thriving. Apex warzone overwatch all have proper stats and ranks. Meh either way I can care less 2042 is a flop in more ways than I can count or even worry about.
 

Zorachus

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 17, 2006
Messages
10,712
Apex and Overwatch are lame games. Total dog crap kiddy arcade shooters for lame-soles I mean consoles for kids.

Battlefield was a true PC game, a keyboard + mouse game the way first person shooters were designed to be.

And the added vehicles to jump in and control is the hallmark of the franchise, flying Choppers or driving Tanks and going to war is awesome. I'm still surprised no other company made anything similar. Call of Poopy doesn't count, that's just a silly console game.
 

xDiVolatilX

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 24, 2021
Messages
1,170
Apex and Overwatch are lame games. Total dog crap kiddy arcade shooters for lame-soles I mean consoles for kids.

Battlefield was a true PC game, a keyboard + mouse game the way first person shooters were designed to be.

And the added vehicles to jump in and control is the hallmark of the franchise, flying Choppers or driving Tanks and going to war is awesome. I'm still surprised no other company made anything similar. Call of Poopy doesn't count, that's just a silly console game.
I agree with everything except the apex and overwatch part. You get sick and tired of the military style shooter after 20+ years. Some variety is definitely needed for me. I like the futuristic or different types weapons and different characters. Throw star wars battlefront 2 in the mix too. Variety is a good thing and I enjoy them all, casually.
 

Flogger23m

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
13,089
I agree with everything except the apex and overwatch part. You get sick and tired of the military style shooter after 20+ years. Some variety is definitely needed for me. I like the futuristic or different types weapons and different characters. Throw star wars battlefront 2 in the mix too. Variety is a good thing and I enjoy them all, casually.

You can always play the Fornite things with retarded looking clowns and inaccurate, short range guns for those that can't aim properly. Yes they appeal to the average gamer and that is great for those that can't play properly and need to look at hats, dances and stats. TF2/Fortnite will always be around. But for others we want real gameplay and a real PC game. Not some console style match making game with a child-friendly aesthetic.
 

xDiVolatilX

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 24, 2021
Messages
1,170
You can always play the Fornite things with retarded looking clowns and inaccurate, short range guns for those that can't aim properly. Yes they appeal to the average gamer and that is great for those that can't play properly and need to look at hats, dances and stats. TF2/Fortnite will always be around. But for others we want real gameplay and a real PC game. Not some console style match making game with a child-friendly aesthetic.
Lol. I have never played Fortnite. Not interested.
 

Gabe3

2[H]4U
Joined
May 23, 2006
Messages
3,730
You can always play the Fornite things with retarded looking clowns and inaccurate, short range guns for those that can't aim properly. Yes they appeal to the average gamer and that is great for those that can't play properly and need to look at hats, dances and stats. TF2/Fortnite will always be around. But for others we want real gameplay and a real PC game. Not some console style match making game with a child-friendly aesthetic.
the skill gap in the build mode of fortnite is probably the biggest I've seen in any game
 

Drexion

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
1,482
You can always play the Fornite things with retarded looking clowns and inaccurate, short range guns for those that can't aim properly. Yes they appeal to the average gamer and that is great for those that can't play properly and need to look at hats, dances and stats. TF2/Fortnite will always be around. But for others we want real gameplay and a real PC game. Not some console style match making game with a child-friendly aesthetic.
This post reeks of insecurity. You can enjoy your games without needlessly bashing others. Not to mention since the Unreal 5.1 update a couple weeks ago, Fortnite is arguably one of the best looking games out there, period.
Take a sec and look at some screenshots, not bullshotted in any way.
screens 1
screens 2
screens 3
screens 4

The game also uses lumen and nanite, which gives real time RT/GI (global illumination) along with insane mesh quality even at far distances, something screens don't capture. I saw a comment on twitter earlier along the lines of "Never thought I'd say this but playing GoW Ragnarok after playing Fortnite left me disappointed with the GoW visuals."
 

Gabe3

2[H]4U
Joined
May 23, 2006
Messages
3,730
This post reeks of insecurity. You can enjoy your games without needlessly bashing others. Not to mention since the Unreal 5.1 update a couple weeks ago, Fortnite is arguably one of the best looking games out there, period.
Take a sec and look at some screenshots, not bullshotted in any way.
screens 1
screens 2
screens 3
screens 4

The game also uses lumen and nanite, which gives real time RT/GI (global illumination) along with insane mesh quality even at far distances, something screens don't capture. I saw a comment on twitter earlier along the lines of "Never thought I'd say this but playing GoW Ragnarok after playing Fortnite left me disappointed with the GoW visuals."
agreed, and bashing video games of all things? who gives a fuck what people like to play. being a hater isn't a good look.
 

Flogger23m

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
13,089
This post reeks of insecurity. You can enjoy your games without needlessly bashing others. Not to mention since the Unreal 5.1 update a couple weeks ago, Fortnite is arguably one of the best looking games out there, period.
Take a sec and look at some screenshots, not bullshotted in any way.
screens 1
screens 2
screens 3
screens 4

The game also uses lumen and nanite, which gives real time RT/GI (global illumination) along with insane mesh quality even at far distances, something screens don't capture. I saw a comment on twitter earlier along the lines of "Never thought I'd say this but playing GoW Ragnarok after playing Fortnite left me disappointed with the GoW visuals."

When replying to someone who self proclaims they are "sick of military" games, that is ironic. You can always go ahead and play the Fornites. Those are dime a dozen and always have been. Just leave the people who want a somewhat normal military shooter that is PC based alone. You can take your match making and ranking and Mr. Dew drinking streamers and enjoy that.

Just let us be able to join a server and select the damn map we want to play in peace.
 

legcramp

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
12,313
Apex and Overwatch are lame games. Total dog crap kiddy arcade shooters for lame-soles I mean consoles for kids.

Battlefield was a true PC game, a keyboard + mouse game the way first person shooters were designed to be.

And the added vehicles to jump in and control is the hallmark of the franchise, flying Choppers or driving Tanks and going to war is awesome. I'm still surprised no other company made anything similar. Call of Poopy doesn't count, that's just a silly console game.

I don't know about that... they are just as good as the best BF games and I've played all of them but it helps if you were actually good at FPS games though. ;)
 

Colonel Sanders

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 26, 2001
Messages
5,409
And the added vehicles to jump in and control is the hallmark of the franchise, flying Choppers or driving Tanks and going to war is awesome. I'm still surprised no other company made anything similar. Call of Poopy doesn't count, that's just a silly console game.
You know there are a bunch of other games (yes, PC-friendly) with the FPS + vehicles gameplay, right?
 

spaceman

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 7, 2005
Messages
14,894
Planetside 2 is like an open world BF. Certainly has its own share of issues but I enjoy playing still.
 

xDiVolatilX

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 24, 2021
Messages
1,170
You know there are a bunch of other games (yes, PC-friendly) with the FPS + vehicles gameplay, right?
Vehicles maybe, but I haven't seen a game that can compare to BF4 for Helicopters and Jets. The coordinated air strike attacks with aircrafts was by far my favorite aspect of BF4. I don't think we ever have or ever will have an awesome experience like that ever again.
 

Zorachus

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 17, 2006
Messages
10,712
You know there are a bunch of other games (yes, PC-friendly) with the FPS + vehicles gameplay, right?

Please name the game, I'd be interested in checking it out.

But as far as I know, there's no other military type shooter have that has vehicles like Tanks and Helicopters you can jump in and control and fly around the msp while assisting your teammates.

And I mean something somewhat newer, not a game from 5 or 10 years ago.
 

Flogger23m

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
13,089
Please name the game, I'd be interested in checking it out.

But as far as I know, there's no other military type shooter have that has vehicles like Tanks and Helicopters you can jump in and control and fly around the msp while assisting your teammates.

And I mean something somewhat newer, not a game from 5 or 10 years ago.

Emphasis on real world vehicles and weapons. There is World War 3, but that released in early access and probably never got finished. I believe it died long ago. I know there are a few indie WWII games but they probably have a tiny player base.
 

Colonel Sanders

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 26, 2001
Messages
5,409
Squad, Enlisted, Arma 3, Hell Let Loose, Post Scriptum. Squad is the only modern era multiplayer FPS I know of set in modern era with ground vehicles and helis (no jets though) outside of the BF series though
 

Flogger23m

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
13,089
Squad, Enlisted, Arma 3, Hell Let Loose, Post Scriptum. Squad is the only modern era multiplayer FPS I know of set in modern era with ground vehicles and helis (no jets though) outside of the BF series though

Squad is okay, but a lot more tactics based. It isn't something you can jump in and play, you really need coordination. They also insist having odd "realistic" features that are often not realistic at all. It is a niche game but that niche and fan base keeps it active. I can't get into it, I prefer more of a mix like the original Red Orchestra. More realistic than BF but still easy to jump into.

Enlisted. Never heard of it, looks okay but not great. Problem is it is free to play, and free to play games almost always suck. Most people just don't have time for them, as they are either expensive (8-10 times more than a paid game) or require you to dedicate your entire life.

ArmA 3. Not in the same category. This is all based on the mission editor and not consistent quick action that you can just join a server and jump into a few games. Also just very dated in so many ways.

HLL and PS look okay. I wonder how populated they are.


So nothing really that great out there. Certainly not with a populated player base. Squad is certainly nice if you love the extreme amounts of coordination required.
 
Top