Battlefield 2042

kalston

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 10, 2011
Messages
1,343
The campaign of 3 was fantastic. They turned it into more of CoD set piece action in 4, but it was still decent.
BF single player always seems to get a lot of hate but it's not actually that bad. It's usually at least decent and pretty cinematic. I did like BF3's a lot too. It felt really satisfying with a great diversity of missions and locations, even some vehicle action.
 

learners permit

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 15, 2005
Messages
1,045
I can’t believe anyone still gives Ea money for the trash they sell. They just don’t give a shit once they got your money and that’s been obvious for nearly a decade now. It’s been nearly a decade since I swore off all Ea games and I can only hope other gamers do the same so they will just fade away into oblivion.
 

travm

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 26, 2016
Messages
1,836
I can’t believe anyone still gives Ea money for the trash they sell. They just don’t give a shit once they got your money and that’s been obvious for nearly a decade now. It’s been nearly a decade since I swore off all Ea games and I can only hope other gamers do the same so they will just fade away into oblivion.
It's not so much that they don't care after the sale, but that they release unfinished crap and then don't care.
 

Blade-Runner

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 25, 2013
Messages
3,895
The campaign of 3 was fantastic. They turned it into more of CoD set piece action in 4, but it was still decent.

I remember it being hot garbage, which was also the case with BF4 and BF1. Haven't tried BF5 yet, but so far the only BF campaign I consider worthwhile playing is Bad Company 2.
 

Mchart

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 7, 2004
Messages
5,533
Game will be dead by the late spring/summer. Calling it now. Unless they re-release the game with some massive update this spring that basically gives players a normal battlefield type game, no one is going to be playing this garbage that long.
 

Armenius

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
32,450
Even a cheating tool provider is abandoning this sinking ship.

https://nitter.domain.glass/_Tom_Henderson_/status/1481412486595325957
1642171686323.png


1642171714214.png


EDIT: Actionsack was removed from the Nitter instances. Updating link.
 
Last edited:

Zorachus

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 17, 2006
Messages
10,194
Will there ever be a report autopsy on how BF6 went wrong and changed to BF2042 Battle Royale-field?

Love to read a behind the scenes where they decided not to make a full on sequel to BF4 which originally would've been BF6, but somewhere along the road they thought it would be good to make Fortnite-field.
 

Bullitt

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
2,824
I remember it being hot garbage, which was also the case with BF4 and BF1. Haven't tried BF5 yet, but so far the only BF campaign I consider worthwhile playing is Bad Company 2.
Not hot garbage, but just linear and QTE. It tried, but I thought there were some MP rewards for the SP mode, but I ended up being wrong. Those co-op missions were somewhat tedious, and I never finished them, as the MP rewards didn't seem to be worth it.
Now, as a story, the BF3 campaign was somewhat entertaining, a little more grounded than your modern CoD campaign (re-watching a walkthrough as I only remembered the monotonous parts), but as a significant contributor to my $55'ish I spent (purchased in early 2012), it wasn't a compelling value add.

BF4 campaign, I slogged through it just to get the M249. I think I used the shit out of that gun in MP.

From those two experiences, I simply don't care about a 2-3hr single player experience.

edit: watched Jack Frags BF3 SP Playthrough just to make sure I wasn't jaded with 10+ yr old memories. I still felt the campaign was "on rails" but the story was okay. Not worth the effort for a 3.5hr slog, unless you were bored with BF3 multiplayer.....

Dice used to make great MP games, but they need to cool their jets with SP experiences.
 
Last edited:

grambo

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 10, 2011
Messages
1,193
So it sounds like no progress has been made in improving the BF2042 experience since launch? I'm a BF fan back to BC2 with BF3/4 probably being my favourite, but I massively enjoyed BC2, BF1 and still play BFV (despite the negative reviews of that game). I played the 2042 beta and it was... ok... but bland. I had thought about buying 2042 mainly for Conquest but also on the off chance Hazard Zone turned out well. The fact that Rush has been removed and HZ is supposedly dead/zero pop already is not encouraging. Overall server pop decline rate makes this a tough sell even at 50% off.

Maybe when it's $10 or something I'll grab it. Sad state of affairs how far this franchise has fallen. Echoing the majority view here, but they literally could've just updated graphics/new maps ontop of BF4 and I'd pay $80CAD for it.

Edit: is Portal mode usable? I.e. can you easily jump into BC2/BF3 games or is it impossible to populate sessions?
 

Gabe3

2[H]4U
Joined
May 23, 2006
Messages
3,689
So it sounds like no progress has been made in improving the BF2042 experience since launch? I'm a BF fan back to BC2 with BF3/4 probably being my favourite, but I massively enjoyed BC2, BF1 and still play BFV (despite the negative reviews of that game). I played the 2042 beta and it was... ok... but bland. I had thought about buying 2042 mainly for Conquest but also on the off chance Hazard Zone turned out well. The fact that Rush has been removed and HZ is supposedly dead/zero pop already is not encouraging. Overall server pop decline rate makes this a tough sell even at 50% off.

Maybe when it's $10 or something I'll grab it. Sad state of affairs how far this franchise has fallen. Echoing the majority view here, but they literally could've just updated graphics/new maps ontop of BF4 and I'd pay $80CAD for it.

Edit: is Portal mode usable? I.e. can you easily jump into BC2/BF3 games or is it impossible to populate sessions?
not much progress. there should be some news about what they are doing pretty soon since they just got back from vacation. this is the best place to go for latest info: https://twitter.com/BattlefieldComm

if hazard zone interests you have you checked out escape from tarkov?
 

Armenius

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
32,450
So it sounds like no progress has been made in improving the BF2042 experience since launch? I'm a BF fan back to BC2 with BF3/4 probably being my favourite, but I massively enjoyed BC2, BF1 and still play BFV (despite the negative reviews of that game). I played the 2042 beta and it was... ok... but bland. I had thought about buying 2042 mainly for Conquest but also on the off chance Hazard Zone turned out well. The fact that Rush has been removed and HZ is supposedly dead/zero pop already is not encouraging. Overall server pop decline rate makes this a tough sell even at 50% off.

Maybe when it's $10 or something I'll grab it. Sad state of affairs how far this franchise has fallen. Echoing the majority view here, but they literally could've just updated graphics/new maps ontop of BF4 and I'd pay $80CAD for it.

Edit: is Portal mode usable? I.e. can you easily jump into BC2/BF3 games or is it impossible to populate sessions?
There has been no communication or updates since McNamara's hissy fit. You can see what people are playing in Portal here: https://bfprime.gg/browser
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gabe3
like this

Bullitt

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
2,824
So it sounds like no progress has been made in improving the BF2042 experience since launch? I'm a BF fan back to BC2 with BF3/4 probably being my favourite, but I massively enjoyed BC2, BF1 and still play BFV (despite the negative reviews of that game). I played the 2042 beta and it was... ok... but bland. I had thought about buying 2042 mainly for Conquest but also on the off chance Hazard Zone turned out well. The fact that Rush has been removed and HZ is supposedly dead/zero pop already is not encouraging. Overall server pop decline rate makes this a tough sell even at 50% off.

So, in a nutshell, they nailed down a few of the more outstanding bugs since release, but there are still some issues, and of course, the features that aren't present. Right now, I've completely written off the 128 size games, as they are just pointless. There's some maps that, in my opinion, do not lend themselves unless you are throwing 20-30 players at an objective, especially in the Breakthrough mode. The 64player servers have a bit better flow, but there is still room for some objective tweaks. As for Hazard zone, they can just put that horse down. I didn't find that it offered a compelling Battlefield experience, and to have so much development time focused on that mode, was a mistake.
Portal is a mixed bag, where the server admins can tweak the settings to make it more to their liking, which is fine, but finding exactly what you want, is a real PITA sometimes. When the modes are "featured" they're typically more fleshed out and more fun, like TDM and Rush mode. I wasn't a big fan of rush in BF4, but it has grown on me in BF2042. Portal isn't this game's savior, however. Much like every other battlefield game, bring your own squad as PUGs are just freakin terrible. Lack on in-game coms really kill it.

I'm having fun with the Rush modes, and the 64player versions of conquest and breakthrough. Portal is Meh to Okay, and they (Dice) need to keep the 2042 rush mode in constant rotation.


Maybe when it's $10 or something I'll grab it. Sad state of affairs how far this franchise has fallen. Echoing the majority view here, but they literally could've just updated graphics/new maps ontop of BF4 and I'd pay $80CAD for it.

Edit: is Portal mode usable? I.e. can you easily jump into BC2/BF3 games or is it impossible to populate sessions?

Wait for a significant sale. I have 147ish hours in the game, but most of it was single-player bot-farming to get the weapons unlocked and kitted out. Trying to find the usable combination of attachments is obtuse, when the descriptions are wrong, or simply inaccurate. Also, I've leveled up faster playing my Agricultural Mode more than, you know, playing the game as intended.
 

WorldExclusive

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 26, 2009
Messages
11,419
I've never played the singleplayer of any battlefield lol
It's not about playing the mode, it's about the art direction of the game.
MP maps come from SP. Without SP, in a war game, devs can't create environments that make sense.

Fictional militaries and battlefields don't work. We need actual military superpowers and locations.
The tone of the game was lost by not creating a SP mode.

I don't believe not having a SP mode was the goal, DICE just didn't have time to fully pivot the game before for launch.
The game is clearly unfinished in everyway comparing it to their past work. I find it impossible they would create lore and not make it tangible on purpose.
 
Last edited:

Mchart

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 7, 2004
Messages
5,533
Man, they just are clueless, aren't they? It still looks like overcomplicated shit. It still doesn't show latency or deaths of other players, which is pretty much 50% of the reason why anyone wants a scoreboard in a multiplayer FPS.

They have absolute dogshit UI designers, that or the management is forcing them to do this. Either way, they really continue to dig the hole.

It would seem to me that the people working at DICE have never played a multiplayer FPS before, and it's also incredible how they can't just at least copy shit that has worked for decades from prior games. It really shows how arrogant they are with their design and plans.
 
Last edited:

dethred1

Weaksauce
Joined
Oct 15, 2016
Messages
75
Man, they just are clueless, aren't they? It still looks like overcomplicated shit. It still doesn't show latency or deaths of other players, which is pretty much 50% of the reason why anyone wants a scoreboard in a multiplayer FPS.

They have absolute dogshit UI designers, that or the management is forcing them to do this. Either way, they really continue to dig the hole.

It would seem to me that the people working at DICE have never played a multiplayer FPS before, and it's also incredible how they can't just at least copy shit that has worked for decades from prior games. It really shows how arrogant they are with their design and plans.
This; couldn't have said it any better.
 

Bullitt

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
2,824
Its a move in a more correct direction, IMO. The UI is still cluttered dogshit. The personal data is redundant since its replicated on the proposed chart, so that could be ditched. Ribbon progression, I couldn't give two shits about as I feel they're extra XP and not something to be pursuing mid-game.

The sector bleed and status, I'll give that a pass, I'm okay with it, as it gives you a more strategic overview of the team progressions. If they eliminate the personal stats (redundant) ribbon progression (PTFO, not the challenges/ribbons), they're left with a big-assed hole in screen real-estate that is either not utilized, or could be used for something else (spawn style mini-map, perhaps?)

Without a doubt this is a complete failure in management and missing the mark for what the community wanted. For 10 years, EA has been trying to chase CoD and you'd think that after all those fails, they'd just give up and give us a game that is what Battlefield is (multiple squad, larger scale, strategic shooter) instead of the run-and-gun FPS. Let CoD be CoD.
 

Gabe3

2[H]4U
Joined
May 23, 2006
Messages
3,689
Man, they just are clueless, aren't they? It still looks like overcomplicated shit. It still doesn't show latency or deaths of other players, which is pretty much 50% of the reason why anyone wants a scoreboard in a multiplayer FPS.

They have absolute dogshit UI designers, that or the management is forcing them to do this. Either way, they really continue to dig the hole.

It would seem to me that the people working at DICE have never played a multiplayer FPS before, and it's also incredible how they can't just at least copy shit that has worked for decades from prior games. It really shows how arrogant they are with their design and plans.
I'm a bit concerned this is what they are showing off for a larger patch at the end of feb. a scoreboard that doesn't show deaths is a joke. and even one that shows deaths isn't going to do much for this game. the maps and netcode need serious work. a scoreboard is about the least exciting thing I can think of lol.
 

grambo

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 10, 2011
Messages
1,193
not much progress. there should be some news about what they are doing pretty soon since they just got back from vacation. this is the best place to go for latest info: https://twitter.com/BattlefieldComm

if hazard zone interests you have you checked out escape from tarkov?

Thanks, following now. Haven't played Tarkov, watched a bit on Twitch and it looks interesting but not sure I have the time/patience to learn it. I mostly play Apex Legends and BFV for online shooters these days and some CSGO. Was mostly curious if Hazard Zone was a success and it sounds like the answer is a resounding no. Disaster given resources spent. It can't be as bad as Firestorm can it?

So, in a nutshell, they nailed down a few of the more outstanding bugs since release, but there are still some issues, and of course, the features that aren't present. Right now, I've completely written off the 128 size games, as they are just pointless. There's some maps that, in my opinion, do not lend themselves unless you are throwing 20-30 players at an objective, especially in the Breakthrough mode. The 64player servers have a bit better flow, but there is still room for some objective tweaks. As for Hazard zone, they can just put that horse down. I didn't find that it offered a compelling Battlefield experience, and to have so much development time focused on that mode, was a mistake.
Portal is a mixed bag, where the server admins can tweak the settings to make it more to their liking, which is fine, but finding exactly what you want, is a real PITA sometimes. When the modes are "featured" they're typically more fleshed out and more fun, like TDM and Rush mode. I wasn't a big fan of rush in BF4, but it has grown on me in BF2042. Portal isn't this game's savior, however. Much like every other battlefield game, bring your own squad as PUGs are just freakin terrible. Lack on in-game coms really kill it.

I'm having fun with the Rush modes, and the 64player versions of conquest and breakthrough. Portal is Meh to Okay, and they (Dice) need to keep the 2042 rush mode in constant rotation.




Wait for a significant sale. I have 147ish hours in the game, but most of it was single-player bot-farming to get the weapons unlocked and kitted out. Trying to find the usable combination of attachments is obtuse, when the descriptions are wrong, or simply inaccurate. Also, I've leveled up faster playing my Agricultural Mode more than, you know, playing the game as intended.

This is a very helpful and sobering post. Good to know about Portal as well, something fun to mess around with but not a serious game mode, i.e. may as well play BF4.

Man, they just are clueless, aren't they? It still looks like overcomplicated shit. It still doesn't show latency or deaths of other players, which is pretty much 50% of the reason why anyone wants a scoreboard in a multiplayer FPS.

They have absolute dogshit UI designers, that or the management is forcing them to do this. Either way, they really continue to dig the hole.

It would seem to me that the people working at DICE have never played a multiplayer FPS before, and it's also incredible how they can't just at least copy shit that has worked for decades from prior games. It really shows how arrogant they are with their design and plans.

It's frankly embarrassing to read those patch notes. The fact a scoreboard is a selling point. How on EARTH are they launching this game without ingame VOIP? They've had ingame VOIP in game what 10 years ago? It's not a new feature.

It's comical to compare BF2042 with Apex Legends in terms of dev responsiveness, new content and general bugs etc. I wonder how much more money Apex will make EA in 2021/2022 than BF2042 despite being F2P.
 

Comixbooks

Fully [H]
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
18,703
EA has to change the name of the next BF game to Battlefield Original OG RAW its the only way you can retain the player base from future screw ups. Nobody is going to preorder the next game fro sure.
 

Mchart

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 7, 2004
Messages
5,533
You can’t have a scoreboard that shows other players deaths. That leads to toxicity. Have to protect the snowflakes.
What they don't realize is the more they fisher-price their games, the more market they are going to lose.

Also, gotta love how illogical that thinking is. Can't show a K/D because of 'feelings' but you know, it's a game about murdering people en masse.
 

killroy67

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 16, 2006
Messages
1,364
You can’t have a scoreboard that shows other players deaths. That leads to toxicity. Have to protect the snowflakes.
I don't care if they show my K/D ratio, I try to keep it at least even, but I can have really good games, and I can have bad games. I also try to not worry about K/D and play the objective, and supply or revive my teammates. The K/D is only one part of the game.
 

killroy67

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 16, 2006
Messages
1,364
What they don't realize is the more they fisher-price their games, the more market they are going to lose.

Also, gotta love how illogical that thinking is. Can't show a K/D because of 'feelings' but you know, it's a game about murdering people en masse.
They made the game with the everybody gets a trophy mentality. I got one kill with the LMG, I get a trophy!!
 

dethred1

Weaksauce
Joined
Oct 15, 2016
Messages
75
Thanks, following now. Haven't played Tarkov, watched a bit on Twitch and it looks interesting but not sure I have the time/patience to learn it. I mostly play Apex Legends and BFV for online shooters these days and some CSGO. Was mostly curious if Hazard Zone was a success and it sounds like the answer is a resounding no. Disaster given resources spent. It can't be as bad as Firestorm can it?



This is a very helpful and sobering post. Good to know about Portal as well, something fun to mess around with but not a serious game mode, i.e. may as well play BF4.



It's frankly embarrassing to read those patch notes. The fact a scoreboard is a selling point. How on EARTH are they launching this game without ingame VOIP? They've had ingame VOIP in game what 10 years ago? It's not a new feature.

It's comical to compare BF2042 with Apex Legends in terms of dev responsiveness, new content and general bugs etc. I wonder how much more money Apex will make EA in 2021/2022 than BF2042 despite being F2P.
VOIP was native to BF2, and it may have been in 1942/Vietnam. All these missing things have been around for at LEAST 17 years. That means most of the interns that developed this game were about 3 years old when these features were considered as basic and necessary as keyboard and mouse support.
 

Mchart

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 7, 2004
Messages
5,533
VOIP was native to BF2, and it may have been in 1942/Vietnam. All these missing things have been around for at LEAST 17 years. That means most of the interns that developed this game were about 3 years old when these features were considered as basic and necessary as keyboard and mouse support.
I’m almost positive Vietnam had VOIP, but it’s been so long I could be wrong.
 

dethred1

Weaksauce
Joined
Oct 15, 2016
Messages
75
I’m almost positive Vietnam had VOIP, but it’s been so long I could be wrong.
Either way it was a hell of a game. Hanoi with that bomber in the pond, Hueys blasting ride of the Valkyries. Better than anything made in the past 8-9 years for sure.
 
Top