Battlefield 2042

Zorachus said:
I thought BF3 was good, and BF4 the best of the newer Battlefield games.

But something changed since those games and it's just not the same.
Click to expand...


Most of the dev team followed Patrick Soderlund and fucked off to his new "embark studios". Ironic naming for sure.
 
Last edited:
Mchart said:
Because it proves what people have been saying for years, the new games suck. Generally, I’d say the series has been going downhill since BF2. Honestly, 2042 is so bad that BF2 doesn’t look that much worse.
Click to expand...
I agree with this. For me, BF2 was the best in the series. However, I still enjoyed some of the titles after that. I didn't care for BF4's multiplayer or BFV. 2042 is the worst in the series thus far. It's hard to imagine the same studio could miss the mark by so much but I'd have guessed its because none of the original developers are still there or there is too much interference from the EA overlords.
 
Dan_D said:
I'd have guessed its because none of the original developers are still there or there is too much interference from the EA overlords.
Click to expand...


Bit of both more than likely, EA don't give them enough time to get the game in a good state for launch as they're shit scared of missing the "holiday" sales, and a lot of the devs simply aren't there anymore. I'd love to know what the actual "vision" was for this game as it simply doesn't know what it wants to be, it's like a concoction of battlefield, cod and battle royale elements slapped together haphazardly in the pathetic hope a good game would come out of it. The big hazard zone reveal was also underwhelming as shit, they kept that close to their chests like it was going to be something special and it was just squad combat with some counterstrike elements attached to it.

Personally i think this series really needs a hiatus, it's so tainted with the games consistently being in rough shape for launch, the only game out of 3/4/1/V/2042 that released in half decent shape was BF1. Everything else has been a beta product that required multiple gigabytes of patches.
 
Chris_B said:
Bit of both more than likely, EA don't give them enough time to get the game in a good state for launch as they're shit scared of missing the "holiday" sales, and a lot of the devs simply aren't there anymore. I'd love to know what the actual "vision" was for this game as it simply doesn't know what it wants to be, it's like a concoction of battlefield, cod and battle royale elements slapped together haphazardly in the pathetic hope a good game would come out of it. The big hazard zone reveal was also underwhelming as shit, they kept that close to their chests like it was going to be something special and it was just squad combat with some counterstrike elements attached to it.

Personally i think this series really needs a hiatus, it's so tainted with the games consistently being in rough shape for launch, the only game out of 3/4/1/V/2042 that released in half decent shape was BF1. Everything else has been a beta product that required multiple gigabytes of patches.
Click to expand...
I never played Battlefield 1. But, every Battlefield launch I can remember from BF2 onward was always a bit of a shit show for at least the first couple of weeks until the patches got the game in a usable state. But again, the vast majority of the games were generally conceptually solid and you could see what the developers were trying to accomplish. In 2042's case, I think you called it. They wanted the game to be BF/CoD/Fortnite all in one and it doesn't emulate any of those games successfully. I think EA should cut their losses with this one but its likely we'll see it transform over time and assuming that it ever becomes half decent at anything, it will be time for the next installment to hit.
 
Dan_D said:
I never played Battlefield 1. But, every Battlefield launch I can remember from BF2 onward was always a bit of a shit show for at least the first couple of weeks until the patches got the game in a usable state. But again, the vast majority of the games were generally conceptually solid and you could see what the developers were trying to accomplish. In 2042's case, I think you called it. They wanted the game to be BF/CoD/Fortnite all in one and it doesn't emulate any of those games successfully. I think EA should cut their losses with this one but its likely we'll see it transform over time and assuming that it ever becomes half decent at anything, it will be time for the next installment to hit.
Click to expand...
What about 2042 is COD or fortnite? They took out the building that BF5 had to entice players to defend points. I'm sad to see it go.
 
Dan_D said:
I never played Battlefield 1. But, every Battlefield launch I can remember from BF2 onward was always a bit of a shit show for at least the first couple of weeks until the patches got the game in a usable state. But again, the vast majority of the games were generally conceptually solid and you could see what the developers were trying to accomplish. In 2042's case, I think you called it. They wanted the game to be BF/CoD/Fortnite all in one and it doesn't emulate any of those games successfully. I think EA should cut their losses with this one but its likely we'll see it transform over time and assuming that it ever becomes half decent at anything, it will be time for the next installment to hit.
Click to expand...

BF2 was a bit of a pain on launch yeah, this seems to be a dice staple which over time has got worse. It was one thing to download patches back in 2005, these days you're downloading gigs and gigs of patches of a product that has been released long before it was ever ready. Some of the stuff that makes it into the final game and has people raging is really baffling and you just know most of these so called games designers barely touch their own product. Gunplay with the exception of a couple of guns is basically broken, revives when touching any type of geometry is broken, flying\building climbing hovercrafts that inexplicably can take 4 tank shells to destroy are rampant, anti air is bugged and in some instances utterly useless. Most of this stuff was figured out literally minutes into playing the game yet it "somehow" slipped by internal testers...if that's even a thing anymore.


I honestly just give up with this company, inept is putting it mildly.
 
Gabe3 said:
What about 2042 is COD or fortnite? They took out the building that BF5 had to entice players to defend points. I'm sad to see it go.
Click to expand...
The feel 2042 of it is certainly CoD like at times. And isn't the hazard zone some battle royal bullshit?
 
Dan_D said:
The feel 2042 of it is certainly CoD like at times. And isn't the hazard zone some battle royal bullshit?
Click to expand...

Hazard zone is basically squads trying to get an objective back to their base so they get money for better weapons for the next round. Basically counterstrike.
 
Chris_B said:
BF2 was a bit of a pain on launch yeah, this seems to be a dice staple which over time has got worse. It was one thing to download patches back in 2005, these days you're downloading gigs and gigs of patches of a product that has been released long before it was ever ready. Some of the stuff that makes it into the final game and has people raging is really baffling and you just know most of these so called games designers barely touch their own product. Gunplay with the exception of a couple of guns is basically broken, revives when touching any type of geometry is broken, flying\building climbing hovercrafts that inexplicably can take 4 tank shells to destroy are rampant, anti air is bugged and in some instances utterly useless. Most of this stuff was figured out literally minutes into playing the game yet it "somehow" slipped by internal testers...if that's even a thing anymore.


I honestly just give up with this company, inept is putting it mildly.
Click to expand...
I agree with most of that, the hovercrafts could have been easily nerfed before launch with a text file probably. they did annouce they are getting nerfed with the patch thats coming the end of the week, and the reviving geometry bug. anti air is OP right now, I die so fast due to so many people having anti air launchers its ridiculous, and that doesn't include the jets and other enemy aircraft that are after me. especially on the open maps like hourglass I'm lucky to stay alive for more than a minute, the reload time on the flares is like 30 seconds.
 
Gabe3 said:
I agree with most of that, the hovercrafts could have been easily nerfed before launch with a text file probably. they did annouce they are getting nerfed with the patch thats coming the end of the week, and the reviving geometry bug. anti air is OP right now, I die so fast due to so many people having anti air launchers its ridiculous, and that doesn't include the jets and other enemy aircraft that are after me. especially on the open maps like hourglass I'm lucky to stay alive for more than a minute, the reload time on the flares is like 30 seconds.
Click to expand...

Helicopters are making it useless by hovering directly up just out of range and spamming cap zones with gunfire. Its bugged either way as you can get a missile incoming, deploy flares, the missile loses the lock then a few moments later you get an insta hit from the same missile that somehow locked on again.
 
Chris_B said:
Hazard zone is basically squads trying to get an objective back to their base so they get money for better weapons for the next round. Basically counterstrike.
Click to expand...
From the videos I have watched I wouldn't say it looks like counterstrike. The gameplay is essentially a team BR game but the objective is more like Dark Zone in the Division.
 
BassTek said:
From the videos I have watched I wouldn't say it looks like counterstrike. The gameplay is essentially a team BR game but the objective is more like Dark Zone in the Division.
Click to expand...

Similar overall theme as cs though, you have to get the data and get it back to your base to get money for better weapons for the next round. Either way its hardly anything new yet dice were guarding it like it was.
 
Dan_D said:
I agree with this. For me, BF2 was the best in the series. However, I still enjoyed some of the titles after that. I didn't care for BF4's multiplayer or BFV. 2042 is the worst in the series thus far. It's hard to imagine the same studio could miss the mark by so much but I'd have guessed its because none of the original developers are still there or there is too much interference from the EA overlords.
Click to expand...
Ya, we were into BF2 bigtime back when it came out.

IMG_7914.JPG
 
Dan_D said:
I never played Battlefield 1. But, every Battlefield launch I can remember from BF2 onward was always a bit of a shit show for at least the first couple of weeks until the patches got the game in a usable state. But again, the vast majority of the games were generally conceptually solid and you could see what the developers were trying to accomplish. In 2042's case, I think you called it. They wanted the game to be BF/CoD/Fortnite all in one and it doesn't emulate any of those games successfully. I think EA should cut their losses with this one but its likely we'll see it transform over time and assuming that it ever becomes half decent at anything, it will be time for the next installment to hit.
Click to expand...
BF2 was a huge letdown for me. Buggy as hell on launch and crap maps. Unlocks that were worse than default guns. Heh I remember how bad the first several patches were that they simply did not work for lots of people. Basically the game that made me hugely skeptical of buying another Dice game. And nothing has changed sadly.
 
Chris_B said:
Most of this stuff was figured out literally minutes into playing the game yet it "somehow" slipped by internal testers...if that's even a thing anymore.
Click to expand...
Why pay people to test it internally when you have people lining up to pay extra to play it early and test it for you.
 
Furious_Styles said:
BF2 was a huge letdown for me. Buggy as hell on launch and crap maps. Unlocks that were worse than default guns. Heh I remember how bad the first several patches were that they simply did not work for lots of people. Basically the game that made me hugely skeptical of buying another Dice game. And nothing has changed sadly.
Click to expand...
I disagree with some of this. I remember the maps fondly. I do remember the game was the usual shit show at launch and we had to wait about two or three weeks for patches before it worked worth a crap. I can't say I remember anything about unlocks being worse than the default guns.
 
keep having crash to desktop problems with my amd rig in the sig, giving it a break for now. only happens when trying to load a new match.
 
Dan_D said:
I never played Battlefield 1. But, every Battlefield launch I can remember from BF2 onward was always a bit of a shit show for at least the first couple of weeks until the patches got the game in a usable state.
Click to expand...

the strongest steel is forged in the fire of a dumpster
 
Bf2142 was the last great BF game. It wasnt a buggy mess at launch least i dont recall it being that way.

It was very well balance,.

Was all down hill after that. Bad company happened and kind of changed bf forever into a more consolized game. It is dead now. It shoukd be.

Need to go back to the roots to fix it. Slow the pace and make it not garbage.
 
Yeah Bad Company was not Battlefield, my opinion the worst of all in BF it did not belong.

Battlefield is a PC game, all about the vehicles and big outdoor maps allowing total warfare. In my opinion.
 
Last edited:
Bigbacon said:
Bf2142 was the last great BF game. It wasnt a buggy mess at launch least i dont recall it being that way.

It was very well balance,.

Was all down hill after that. Bad company happened and kind of changed bf forever into a more consolized game. It is dead now. It shoukd be.

Need to go back to the roots to fix it. Slow the pace and make it not garbage.
Click to expand...

I think 2142 ruled because they got a free pass to fearlessly do weird shit that benefited gameplay.
 
Dan_D said:
I disagree with some of this. I remember the maps fondly. I do remember the game was the usual shit show at launch and we had to wait about two or three weeks for patches before it worked worth a crap. I can't say I remember anything about unlocks being worse than the default guns.
Click to expand...
I specifically recall going for the assault G3A3 and just seeing no reason to use it over the typical rifle because the nade launcher was so good. It pissed me off. Helicopters and jets were also comically overpowered.
 
The Frostbite Engine is no longer a good tool to create games. It's fundamentally broken and every EA product that uses it has problems at launch. I won't buy another game that uses it. The height of it's powers was going from BF2 to BF3, now it's a universal engine that's used to create a variety of games. It was only a matter of time the engine was going to lose it's charm.

My strong assumption why DICE LA is now Ripple and only worked on Portal, probably didn't want to have a hand in 2042 base game and any BF games moving forward. Portal was a way to help but stay true to what they knew BF was.

The Frostbite Engine is DICE, but now it's property of EA, and the DICE we knew is finished.
 
mgty23 said:
ok soorry
Click to expand...
Nothing to be sorry, we're all friends here. But leave the trolling to the professionals.

Best thing is just experience a game yourself, it's only $1 to get Xbox Game pass, or cheap to get Ubisoft pass to play FC6. You can play all these games and evaluate for very low cost.
 
DPI said:
Nothing to be sorry, we're all friends here. But leave the trolling to the professionals.

Best thing is just experience a game yourself, it's only $1 to get Xbox Game pass, or cheap to get Ubisoft pass to play FC6. You can play all these games and evaluate for very low cost.
Click to expand...
oooooki :)
 
Dan_D said:
They wanted the game to be BF/CoD/Fortnite all in one...
Click to expand...

Ironically, BF4 ended up like that organically with TDM. It was its own thing in Conquest with combined arms gameplay, and a good military shooter that was better than CoD. In one game. Slapping the TF2/Fortnite crap on it didn't help, but 2042 seemed to try to merge everything into one game style. In BF4 TDM was separate, so it kept two different but often overlapping bases satisfied. Likewise with BF3 to a lesser extent, especially with the Close Quarters DLC.

I don't think 2042 even has TDM, I can't figure out the menus yet. So pretty much fail on both counts, but with TF2/Fortnite/Overwatch heroes. Yay.
 
You can tell they really tried to copy COD/fortnite, but with big maps and player counts. Then they dumbed everything down to Fischer price levels.

Specialists are COD operators, but in a setting that makes no sense.

Weapon customization was dumbed down to give basic weapon customization in a war zone like game at the expense of actual load outs.

Being able to call in a vehicle anywhere looks to be there shitty way of copying kill streaks.

I had been holding out some hope that some major patches and overhauls would be able to make this into an actual BF game. I am now 90% sure that the game is fundamentally fucked.
 
FearTheCow said:
You can tell they really tried to copy COD/fortnite, but with big maps and player counts. Then they dumbed everything down to Fischer price levels.

Specialists are COD operators, but in a setting that makes no sense.

Weapon customization was dumbed down to give basic weapon customization in a war zone like game at the expense of actual load outs.

Being able to call in a vehicle anywhere looks to be there shitty way of copying kill streaks.

I had been holding out some hope that some major patches and overhauls would be able to make this into an actual BF game. I am now 90% sure that the game is fundamentally fucked.
Click to expand...

The funny thing is about the player count, back before Battlefield 3 released there were questions about increased playercount. What was dice's response to the question? They done internal testing and found that 128 players just wasn't fun.

A lot of people ask us about 64 versus 128 or 256 players. Technically, we can go to 256, we’ve tried it. We play tested with 128. You’ve got to make a game that’s fun to play. And, arguably, we think that the most fun you can have is when it’s between 32 and 40 players. And we’ve done substantial research into this and tested 128 and that it’s not fun. Maybe we haven't done our design work good enough, but we just feel like there's no point in going higher than 64.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
In regards to playcount,

I recall playing 1942 back in the day with modded servers that supported 128 players? I thought 128 players was fine on the larger maps like Guadalcanal or Wake.
 
Chris_B said:
Most of the dev team followed Patrick Soderlund and fucked off to his new "embark studios". Ironic naming for sure.
Click to expand...
seems to be a good thing he left. the maps for BF were becoming smaller and smaller till 2042, and limited air space for flying. its good to see the franchise get back to some of its roots at least.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top