Battlefield 2042

Like is certainly the wrong word, but I don't roll my eyes at those as much as I do at people who get annoyed about the outro comments for not being "gritty". This idea that BF needs to be realistic and dark is tedious. It is a fun, chaotic game and some colour to the presentation is what it needs (not that the characters of the specialists are done well).

Then again, I'm also of the opinion that I would want them to do more futuristic settings or something with an element of the fantastical (such as steam punk), instead of going back to modern warfare. I'm not exactly inline with the opinions of the vocal "fans" of the series. The arcade element is why I gravitate back to BF. If it weren't, I could just play any number of indie imitators that heighten realism.

On the specialists in general, playing more I still don't have much of a problem with them. Some restriction on what gadgets each could carry is probably needed, but besides that I feel they play fine. From a gameplay perspective, they don't add much that you couldn't just do with classes, but it does add a touch of character that is potentially more interesting than just indistinct classes (again, that doesn't mean they have done it well).

The negativity seems to mostly come from the prospect of them monetising the specialists. As far as I know, they have said they will not be selling new specialists. Personally, doesn't really bother me if they want to sell skins that I won't ever buy.

Oh, and one thing that does absolutely infuriate me with regard to to the outro and posing screens is that there has obviously been a conscious decision not to allow for lobby persistence between rounds so as to foreground those scenes, presumably to encourage players to engage with the skin system and engender a desire to 'show off' in a cosmetic sense. A clear example of the desire to push microtransactions degrading the overall player experience.

Give me BF1 operations any day, tbh.

The comments about the maps are right. So many feel like a collection of distinct areas (sectors) with no real connection to each another. It’s why you don’t ever really feel the weight of 128 players because really there are several battles of 15-20 players going on at once across the map.
All the negativity has been quite draining for me. If you don’t like the game just go away and stop moaning about something you are not playing.
Guns generally are good, there is no real meta, there’s a SMG, an assault rifle, or a LMG that you can use effectively. You can have fun with shotguns and snipers. People moan about rangers, sentry guns, vehicles, but you know, there will always be something that kills you. I’m not a fan of nerfing vehicles into the ground like the hovercraft was. It’s pretty useless now, you just get shot at through the window. I know the Bolte is a pain but I like using it! Aircraft can be destructive until you get a few AA missiles out there or a SOFLAM and rocket launchers. They can be dealt with.
Specialists I don’t have an issue with except for Sundance. I just feel her movement breaks the ‘logic’ and flow of the frontlines. She moves across the map so fast it’s just not right. Mackay is different I can accept that but Sundance is like playing against The Flash or Superman.
I’m about level 85 or so and pushing for T1 Falck. Only about 500 revives and heals to go!

On Hazard Zone, is this PVE, or PVP+E? I saw a youtube vid which implied the latter, but I couldn't work out why the humans don't just work together to beat the AI, everyone's a winner?

I haven't got any friends who play it so I have no idea how squadding up works. But if anyone is playing on PC and wants to squad up let me know.

If getting a melee takedown is troublesome for anyone, just do what I did and use Sundance (spits). I jumped out of a helicopter and found it disgustingly easy to fly behind enemies and run up and stab them. God I hate Sundance!
The BF2042 subReddit is a horrible place. Like you say, toxic.

Although I'm still fairly enjoying 2042, this list really is quite bizarre.

www.gamespot.com/amp-articles/best-battlefield-games-ranked-where-does-battlefield-2042-place/1100-6496262/

To have Vietnam, 2142 and V all behind 2042 is very odd. No idea about Hardline, but that is the only one I could imagine ranking lower.

I also still can't understand the love for BF3. It is still the only game in the series I've played that I've found impossible to play because I die constantly out of nowhere without any clue where the enemies are. I see regular complaints about enemy visibility in 2042, which is really nothing compared to 3, in my experience. It also just generally felt like a very grey, bland and dreary looking game.

It put me off playing 4 for a very long time, only trying it about a year or so ago. Wish I had played sooner, as it is quite clear that 4 is excellent. Tempted to return to 4 and see if I can encourage a friend or two to join, once we are done with 2042 (which likely won't be very long).

Also surprised by how liked 1 is by people. Certainly a very polished game in contrast to the two that followed, but found the maps to be mostly bad, with too much reliance on infantry play and grenade spam. V had many problems, but I felt the maps were quite a bit of an improvent on 1.

I liked Hardline. It was probably a lot less vehicle dependant, so if you were more of a inventory player it was a nice change from being raped by choppers, tanks and the like.

Isn't dying without knowing where the enemies are what happens every single battlefield though?

I played a little last night and can't say I noticed much difference, although this patch was mostly about performance and mine seems to have never been too bad.

I've actually played a little more of the classic maps in Portal and I really think they need to get those properly polished and pushed over to the much more visible All Out Warfare section of the menus. I expect the reluctance to really push those is partial because they don't want to detract from the new bits, but I feel it is an easy way to add in the much needed variety that is lacking from the new content. At the moment, it feels like they are hidden away in Portal. It is rare to jump into a game of the classic maps and for it to not be half empty, which is an issue I never have with the All Out Warfare modes.

Yikes. Quite a few outlets and independents picking this up. Can't imagine what the internal situation is like if this is true.

I can only assume the list writer hasn't actually played any of the older ones and just guessed. And also the newer ones. BF3 first, lol.

F2P will introduce a massive hacking problem which is probably the last thing the game needs at the moment.

Not sure how I feel about this. No new content until summer is awful. It was bad enough with BFV, but this might even be a bigger gap than that gave us.

Having said that, I expect any content being released in the first 4 or so months after release is going to suffer from the same design problems that are in the launch content. Deciding to not keep digging with that and take another look at the drawing board is probably not a bad idea.

Not sure if I've said it here, but the solution to me really does feel quite simple. Get the legacy content into the more visible All Out Warfare section to add more variety to the mode that people actually play. Have a team dedicated to porting over old maps to build on that stuff. With the new content, move the specialists into specific classes and restrict gadgets and weapons to those classes.

As it is now, the specialists are basically just the second gadget slot and a skin. If they want to do specialists, they need to actually make them feel different, so adding some restriction with what each can carry is needed. Would likely also force players to adopt different roles for the team and actually encouraging team play.

Hazard Zone I don't really have interest in and haven't touched. Seems like that was going to be the main mode originally, doing a spin on battle royale. Just make that free to play. One of EA's development teams can pick it up and run with it (much like Firestorm never should have been packaged in BFV).

Similarly, I don't have much interest in Portal, besides the legacy pieces. I can see the appeal for some though and it should be a good selling point. The changes to scaling the XP gain depending on the settings used seems logical and good compromise. Besides that, perhaps they need to do more highlighting innovative modes by the community. Run some competitions and have rules of the month or something that get highlighted.

Edit - oh weird that has been deleted. It didn't really say much. There is an investor call later today for EA, so maybe the delay wasn't meant to be announced until after that.

It is certainly a mess, not as bad as CoD vanguard which both i and my lad are not keen on at all.