SatansReverence
Hipster Princess
down to 69 on opencritic and 73 on metacritic.
Dice leaning hard on that EGM review in their marketing
Dice leaning hard on that EGM review in their marketing
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Battlefield 2042 | Review Thread
- Thread starter Draugoth
- Start date
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
LOL. 10/10 EGM.
Michael Goroff. The same guy who gave Vanguard 3/5 stars, and Kingdom Come Deliverance 1/5 stars.
Michael Goroff. The same guy who gave Vanguard 3/5 stars, and Kingdom Come Deliverance 1/5 stars.
EDMIX
Writes a lot, says very little
lol thats the most questionable 10/10 I've seen thus far right next to some of those Cyberpunk 10/10s.
I love what I'm seeing from the game as BF fan and understand DICE will patch a lot of this stuff like they have many BFs before it, I like the risk taken with bigger maps, 128 players and Portal and believe the credit should be given to DICE and EA as a publisher for even delaying, not making BF a yearly IP and daring to do some different shit in a sea of yearly COD titles, that being said......when a game has this much issues, it just can't fall under a 10/10.
Even if one states THEY personally didn't have a single issue, when tons of other people are all voicing and showing videos of those issues, a score of 10/10 doesn't make sense, the review is to inform the public of the state of the game, not simply inform them of how you solely personally feel with zero outside influence. Even without playing it, I can see it just can't fall under a 10/10, all MP titles might have some issues at launch, all MP titles are not BF 2042 levels at launch.
Credit should be given that this isn't BF4 levels of bad considering that game as literally fucking unplayable, as in I couldn't even get in a server for weeks. I think rolling out a BF on like 6 platforms is madness and I think its great they delayed it to avoid launch of new hardware, but its clear having those teams work on that many versions has never turned out great at launch, even if it worked out in the end 1 year later like in the case of BF4.
I think in time they'll be just fine, but a 10/10 today simply can't be.
So it's dropped to 69 now after release, 67 reviews
BadBurger
Banned
After putting in another ten or so hours and really giving the bugs and design mishaps a chance to marinate, I'd have to caution against buying this game if you're thinking about it. I've never done such a 180 on a game before.
- It still performs atrociously on PC. There's no bottlenecks (I collected extensive performance logs, ran extensive network traces and tests). The game just straight up runs like dogshit on even the most powerful PC's with gigabit connections, one hop from their data center and with low latency and zero packet loss (like mine!)
- At first I was OK with specialists, but after my additional play time I can see that they were definitely meant for coop and solo modes. Some stake holder without much experience or good ideas but too much influence as a manager or executive probably forced this through. At first it seems cool, to simply pick a specialist and then design your build around their unique abilities. But really, losing classes eventually means a loss of the core Battlefield, team-work heavy gameplay. They need to be relegated to coop and solo, and classes should return. It's clear they're here to appeal to whales and to sell cosmetics (and later specialists themselves)
- The lack of voice chat really does remove any ability to coordinate with randos. When the game is fresh and new and one is running about wreaking havoc and doing dumb BF shit it's not noticeable, but once one tries to dig in and really enjoy the typical BF experience, well, half of that team enjoyment is gone right away
- Due to the lack of weapons, the meaningfulness of their possible customizations, and outright careless regards to their balancing, one unlocks everything worth unlocking by about level 20. And with how imbalanced some map and mode combinations are, if one keeps leaving matches until they find themselves as the attacker in an ideal map and mode, they can gain so much experience per match that they will hit level 20 in no time. I did in less than thirteen hours of playtime (and much of that time was idle, so, yea....)
- The tone is all wrong. Much of that has to do with the grating, Fortnite-generation inspired specialists, but it runs much deeper than that. It seems to make a mockery of war, tries to make it jovial and meaningless, while every other previous installment - through so many means - made war feel like the horror it is. If DICE is reading: if any stake holder with influence over design has dyed blue or purple hair, please fire them and do the exact opposite of whatever design decisions they introduced
- The map sizes would be fine if the cooldowns on smaller vehicle spawns were reduced by about a third
- It's stunning that they still have progression for solo, coop, and Portal modes disabled. This was a big selling point of the game - to be able to progress with your soldier while playing any mode, especially with friends. I figured they'd cleanup the experience-mill servers and take away the ability to so easily create them in a day or so (should have only taken a team an afternoon to do this, really), but here we are and they're still disabled
- Almost every vehicle station having some kind of spin-up and/or extremely limited ammo capacity per load not only feels un-Battlefield, it's just plain stupid. They also need to remove that dumb-ass blue filter they force upon vehicle users
- The lack of a server browser for core game modes is really becoming an issue. Another one of those missing features that I didn't realize was so important until I'd already dumped over a dozen hours into the game
I have many more criticisms but those are the biggies. Until all of the above are fixed I would not bother with this game. And the way DICE tends to approach fixing their own mistakes and how fragile they are when it comes to taking criticism, that will probably be a good three or four months from now unless their shareholders put on the pressure.
The unprecedented level of criticism this game is receiving on Steam is totally, completely deserved.
- It still performs atrociously on PC. There's no bottlenecks (I collected extensive performance logs, ran extensive network traces and tests). The game just straight up runs like dogshit on even the most powerful PC's with gigabit connections, one hop from their data center and with low latency and zero packet loss (like mine!)
- At first I was OK with specialists, but after my additional play time I can see that they were definitely meant for coop and solo modes. Some stake holder without much experience or good ideas but too much influence as a manager or executive probably forced this through. At first it seems cool, to simply pick a specialist and then design your build around their unique abilities. But really, losing classes eventually means a loss of the core Battlefield, team-work heavy gameplay. They need to be relegated to coop and solo, and classes should return. It's clear they're here to appeal to whales and to sell cosmetics (and later specialists themselves)
- The lack of voice chat really does remove any ability to coordinate with randos. When the game is fresh and new and one is running about wreaking havoc and doing dumb BF shit it's not noticeable, but once one tries to dig in and really enjoy the typical BF experience, well, half of that team enjoyment is gone right away
- Due to the lack of weapons, the meaningfulness of their possible customizations, and outright careless regards to their balancing, one unlocks everything worth unlocking by about level 20. And with how imbalanced some map and mode combinations are, if one keeps leaving matches until they find themselves as the attacker in an ideal map and mode, they can gain so much experience per match that they will hit level 20 in no time. I did in less than thirteen hours of playtime (and much of that time was idle, so, yea....)
- The tone is all wrong. Much of that has to do with the grating, Fortnite-generation inspired specialists, but it runs much deeper than that. It seems to make a mockery of war, tries to make it jovial and meaningless, while every other previous installment - through so many means - made war feel like the horror it is. If DICE is reading: if any stake holder with influence over design has dyed blue or purple hair, please fire them and do the exact opposite of whatever design decisions they introduced
- The map sizes would be fine if the cooldowns on smaller vehicle spawns were reduced by about a third
- It's stunning that they still have progression for solo, coop, and Portal modes disabled. This was a big selling point of the game - to be able to progress with your soldier while playing any mode, especially with friends. I figured they'd cleanup the experience-mill servers and take away the ability to so easily create them in a day or so (should have only taken a team an afternoon to do this, really), but here we are and they're still disabled
- Almost every vehicle station having some kind of spin-up and/or extremely limited ammo capacity per load not only feels un-Battlefield, it's just plain stupid. They also need to remove that dumb-ass blue filter they force upon vehicle users
- The lack of a server browser for core game modes is really becoming an issue. Another one of those missing features that I didn't realize was so important until I'd already dumped over a dozen hours into the game
I have many more criticisms but those are the biggies. Until all of the above are fixed I would not bother with this game. And the way DICE tends to approach fixing their own mistakes and how fragile they are when it comes to taking criticism, that will probably be a good three or four months from now unless their shareholders put on the pressure.
The unprecedented level of criticism this game is receiving on Steam is totally, completely deserved.
Last edited:
Kenpachii
Member
Played it for a day now.
How the game runs on ultra wide.
In short it runs absolute fantastic all the problems with beta performance wise seems to be solved other then low fps ( cpu optimisation needs to be done more ), DLSS is great it was needed and they implemented it well. RT is basically useless and just a CPU frame rate tanker so don't bother.
Anyway, the gameplay is great in my view, the maps are great to play and fun. The visuals are absolutely fantastic, the grass / forest / everything moves with the wind, everything basically can be destroyed which really adds towards it and animations are great.
The only problem i have so far right now is.
- No scoreboard
- tab gives you no useful information
- no server selection where u can select what u want to play instead u gotta basically cancel sign ins in order to get the map you want
- servers are way to fast done which means the moment real people are taking over the bots its all over. think about 15 minutes rounds its just not enough
- can't spectate which makes it a pain to benchmark
- hovercrafts are far to strong
- not a fan of those specialists or unlocking gear by getting experience
- battlefield portal is dead ( this screenshot involves release weekend normal times and a person in the EU ) kinda the reason i bought it, so thinking u would just play a old battlefield bad company 2 map or bf3 map is no beuno because they simple don't exist or u got to put up with insane ms to the point why even bother.
In short there is only 3 servers and all of them are dead.
This is also the reason why you don't get scoreboards / inspecting and server selection. People will realize on how absolute dead the game is. And it makes sense because battlefield always had problems even filling in 64 player servers. This is also why they introduced bots.
In short u always fight bots most of the time in those maps and when those bots are finally getting replaced the map is over. This is also why people get such high ping and weird shit glitches out because they are playing on a 200+ ms server.
And to give you a idea how bad 200+ms is, i get in every game about 140ms when i connect from netherlands towards the most west side of america, so i dunno where that 300ms server is placed on the moon? but it sure as hell isn't on this planet. In short its really really bad.
After playing the BF3 map with 40 players in rush becuase there simple isn't even a 64 conquest on this front, i must say ur better of playing the original game at this point as it has more people. Also no clue why metro wasn't remade that wake island and that one destruction map everybody played in bfbc2, its clear they never actually played there own battlefields, they made a pretty shit selection of remake maps.
How the game runs on ultra wide.
In short it runs absolute fantastic all the problems with beta performance wise seems to be solved other then low fps ( cpu optimisation needs to be done more ), DLSS is great it was needed and they implemented it well. RT is basically useless and just a CPU frame rate tanker so don't bother.
Anyway, the gameplay is great in my view, the maps are great to play and fun. The visuals are absolutely fantastic, the grass / forest / everything moves with the wind, everything basically can be destroyed which really adds towards it and animations are great.
The only problem i have so far right now is.
- No scoreboard
- tab gives you no useful information
- no server selection where u can select what u want to play instead u gotta basically cancel sign ins in order to get the map you want
- servers are way to fast done which means the moment real people are taking over the bots its all over. think about 15 minutes rounds its just not enough
- can't spectate which makes it a pain to benchmark
- hovercrafts are far to strong
- not a fan of those specialists or unlocking gear by getting experience
- battlefield portal is dead ( this screenshot involves release weekend normal times and a person in the EU ) kinda the reason i bought it, so thinking u would just play a old battlefield bad company 2 map or bf3 map is no beuno because they simple don't exist or u got to put up with insane ms to the point why even bother.
In short there is only 3 servers and all of them are dead.
This is also the reason why you don't get scoreboards / inspecting and server selection. People will realize on how absolute dead the game is. And it makes sense because battlefield always had problems even filling in 64 player servers. This is also why they introduced bots.
In short u always fight bots most of the time in those maps and when those bots are finally getting replaced the map is over. This is also why people get such high ping and weird shit glitches out because they are playing on a 200+ ms server.
And to give you a idea how bad 200+ms is, i get in every game about 140ms when i connect from netherlands towards the most west side of america, so i dunno where that 300ms server is placed on the moon? but it sure as hell isn't on this planet. In short its really really bad.
After playing the BF3 map with 40 players in rush becuase there simple isn't even a 64 conquest on this front, i must say ur better of playing the original game at this point as it has more people. Also no clue why metro wasn't remade that wake island and that one destruction map everybody played in bfbc2, its clear they never actually played there own battlefields, they made a pretty shit selection of remake maps.
Last edited:
BlackM1st
Banned
SatansReverence
Hipster Princess
CPUs that could push 200+ fps in BFV are dropping down into the sub 100s.
Such a well optimised game.
Jibran#one
Member
Breakthrough just doesn't work with 128 players especially as a solo player , u think more players would mean more fun but it's 100 times more frustrating , all the maps are wide open and ur getting fired from 20 different people and 20 different angles.
baphomet
Member
CPUs that could push 200+ fps in BFV are dropping down into the sub 100s.
Such a well optimised game.
It runs like actual dog shit.
Had my first chance to play yesterday on both PC and PS5 and its a very different experience between the two. Firstly I like the game, I don't much care for the complaints in terms of gameplay, I am sure balance and fixes will happen over the next few months to fix it. However on PS5 I can play a smooth game and really enjoy the experience however on PC I get teleported with some kind of rubber banding and horrendous moments of lag and freezes. I am running a Ryzen 3700X with 32Gb Ram and an RX 6800 which eats through any other game I play on it.
I guess I will wait for a decent fix on PC and enjoy on PS5 whilst I wait :-S
EDIT for anyone having stuttering and freezes on PC this actually works, (these things never work but this does)
I guess I will wait for a decent fix on PC and enjoy on PS5 whilst I wait :-S
EDIT for anyone having stuttering and freezes on PC this actually works, (these things never work but this does)
Last edited:
First I didn't like the scale of the maps, they are huge. It's like you have 5-10 main locations and then lot of empty space between. In this game you shouldn't try to walk to end of map like you could have in previous Battlefield games.
But I think it makes the game different and kind of more interesting, like you have to plan how you move from cover to cover so that some helicopter doesn't see you while you are running.
Also has ramifications for conquest and how should all those people divide into objectives. It probably doesn't make sense to storm one objective with 16 people when that leaves three objectives unguarded and it can take minutes to get there.
But I'm eager to see how they react to feedback and what kind of changes we'll see in coming months.
But I think it makes the game different and kind of more interesting, like you have to plan how you move from cover to cover so that some helicopter doesn't see you while you are running.
Also has ramifications for conquest and how should all those people divide into objectives. It probably doesn't make sense to storm one objective with 16 people when that leaves three objectives unguarded and it can take minutes to get there.
But I'm eager to see how they react to feedback and what kind of changes we'll see in coming months.
lee50_10
Member
Hellmaker
Member
Man I feel you! I die waaay too much cause I just can't hold attention to so many angles...
Luipadre
Gold Member
Despite its many obvious issues im having so much fun. I had a really great 5 hour session today on PS5. The server and client performance was great. Im really glad about the launch state of the PS5 version when it comes to technical stuff. 0 crashes and the game looks really great and runs really good
R6Rider
Gold Member
Opposite for me. People throw out both constantly when I'm playing. I see more healing and supply drops than past titles.
If I disable cross play on series x every server I go into will not fill and i cant play. If i enable cross play most of the time my loadouts and guns glitch out and I have to use defaults. So im screwed either way. Im liking the game but the bugs are almost as bad as bf4 launch.
j0hnnix
Member
Same. In the games I've played , only frustrating part is breakthrough and people not understanding to res helps alot keep everyone on point.
Luipadre
Gold Member
thats too bad. Never had issues with loadouts and i can find full matches on PS5 within 10 sec with crossplay off
Ill get it on ps5 too at some point but my kid wanted it on xbox so he could play on the our one x. Hopefully it gets fixed soon.
SJRB
Gold Member
Yeah Breakthrough sucks. Maps definitely don't feel designed with Breakthrough in mind.
There's no tactics involved, it's just a 128-player meatgrinder.
R6Rider
Gold Member
This is literally how Breakthrough has always been since its introduction.
Most maps offer plenty of room to flank and setup spots to hold down and draw attention.
Last edited:
SJRB
Gold Member
True, but with a good squad with proper loadouts you could really make a difference. Now it's basically 64 v 64 TDM, you can't even see what your squad is equipped with so squad play is extremely limited. Also doesn't help that almost no one is reviving, dropping health or ammo. There's a huge lack of teamwork, both in Breakthrough and in Conquest as well.
Some other tidbits I noticed:
- the PP29 is crazy OP, there's a reason everyone is using it
- that specialist with the x-ray view is just, wtf. What were they thinking
- the UI "glitching out" because a storm is nearby is extremely inconvenient
- equipping an item is right on d-pad, but pressing it again doesn't switch back to your primary - it does nothing. You need to press triangle. Very counter intuitive
- helicopters can hover high enough to be out of lock-on range from the AA missile, but they can still fire weapons, making them basically invincible unless a friendly helicopter happens to be in the area
- knife takedown animations take FOREVER and there are no i-frames so you can get shot halfway through the animation and you die and the enemy lives and the kill gets canceled. Trust me, they're not worth it
EDMIX
Writes a lot, says very little
Specialist won't be a paid thing .
'Battlefield 2042' Free Season Pass Is Packing A Massive Amount Of Content
Battlefield of dreams
One could argue that about the Bad Company stuff, BF has always had some silly characters adding some humor to a dark theme, I don't know how many will really care about this in a MP only title btw as I don't know if I care about them making jokes in a fictional thing lol, I care more about the core gameplay stuff going on so this has always been a "meh" thing to me. One could argue the tone is wrong in all BF titles, they don't take themselves too seriously.
I think this was something to do with some xp exploit that is still being worked out. They'll likely have some setting you need to have in Portal for XP to be gained, like ________ number of humans vs bots or something. If anything I'd say I'm surprised they didn't already have that done prior as allowing someone to make something thur Portal as open and complex as it is, they should have known clearly someone would be doing some XP farming shit lol
I think because if they remade Metro and Wake island instead, someone would just say "also, no clue why Arica Harbor and Caspian Border wasn't remade" lol You are just arguing about this wasn't done before that.... even the maps you just brought up in other BFs did not get remade day 1, they actually came post launch.
BF4 Metro came post launch
BF4 Caspian Border came post launch
BFV metro remake came post launch etc
So its not to say that one doesn't want those maps, its to say one should understand not all favorite maps would come day 1 and then zero maps made after lol Thats just massively unlikely and this is just more of a "this will come out "first situation. So its simply that was "wasn't remade"....yet.
Keep in mind, I agree with wanting Metro as its a crazy map, but simply look at past threads where we even talk about that map, not everyone agrees with it and they'd have their own hate section on it being put in the game day 1 lol I think it will appear later on as it has appeared post launch in other BF titles vs day 1.
Here is where I have to disagree man, I like the maps you are asking for too as they are my favorites as well, but the maps they selected to be remade are also huge fan favorites, I see no reason to make such a disrespectful comment. The maps they choose are for day 1, nothing was ever stated like "NEVER" going to add new maps or anything like that and them not picking 2 of your favorite maps or my own doesn't mean they are not fans of BF or never played their own titles or anything weird like that.
It bascailly screams "pick my 2 favorite maps or you don't know your own Battlefields" as if the very maps you and I want, are default for the entire community. I love em, but they are not a default type thing and lots of maps are community favorites. One could just as much argue where is Karkand? OHHHHHH it is YOU that don't know BF broz /s I feel its a bit much seeing how this is just for day 1, they are adding new maps for free, if years later we don't get Metro and Wake island, then shit I'd agree with you that maybe they dropped the ball, but I think they did fine with the selection.
Thedtrain
You got to start asking yourself why you are not doing that instead then... Any time I play BF, I do a role that i don't see being done to get the W. I just played BF4 for some hours and many people even with being the class won't throw out ammo or health or revive etc So all I have to say is that has nothing to fucking do with Call Of Duty and I know how DICE and FORCE people to do that, if they didn't do that in BF4 YEARS later, I don't know what to tell you man, its not a thing that has to do with any BF design or structure as to my understanding, those elements EXIST in this game, but in ALL BF TITLES, it is up to the person playing to support that role.In any BF game, someone is free to just ignore the role. That has nothing to do with anything in BF 2042 or the developers or anything odd like that. I've seen that during the launch of almost every new BF release, you will always get a lot of people who are playing BF for the first time that ignore that, but the fact that I even encounter that in a older BF like BF4, as in a dated game, with time for anyone to learn how its played.....means what you are suggesting isn't new to 2042, isn't exclusive to 2042, has nothing to do with Call Of Duty.
A player makes that choice sir lol I still til this day do not get this type of concern in terms of the development team, they can't control that aspect and I personally would NEVER ask for some design to force it. This has been a topic for eons in the BF community. I don't wish to have some feature where its like "you are kicked if you don't throw out ammo or health or revive after xyz amount of time". Many reason exist why someone won't do that, they might throw ammo to help someone, but if they have the LMG they might throw it to themselves instead if they need it, someone might not revive if they are under fire and don't wish to revive you if it means themselves getting killed losing a ticket, lots of reason exist why someone would do something less or more. I'd say this is a thing where someone needs to just trust that their team can learn the game over time, lead by example and be that person spamming ammo and health
Last edited:
BadBurger
Banned
This didn't improve overall performance for me, I am still hovering between 65 - 72 fps while in-game and in action. But it did remove the drastic rubberband type effect I was experiencing.
Lightjolly
Neo Member
So you're telling me, this was the year that dice could have taken the pain to Call of Duty, which released one of their weakest titles yet and they retaliated by releasing one of the weakest BF titles ever. A race to the bottom of the barrel
Last edited:
JoeBudden
Member
That shit is a fucking laser lmao. Shit is way too OP.
JoeBudden
Member
Breakthrough is actually the best mode imo. Shit is unreal when you get to a vantage point and see like 30 people directly below you. Definitely a camper's game though.
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
Saw videos since I wanted to see for myself the accuracy. Pretty close to MW2 ACR.
R6Rider
Gold Member
PC has lots of performance issues, compared to the console versions. That aside, some people do not like it and some people do. Everyone I've played with online has said they really like it, but also everyone agrees it has plenty of problems.
It's far from perfect, but it's also damn fun to me, despite the problems.
Last edited:
Phase
Member
Last edited:
EDMIX
Writes a lot, says very little
EA probably regrets launching it on Steam.
nah, they don't regret money bud. One can't force people to leave positive reviews and its part of the business, I'm sure they are fine with its sales vs if it was just on Origin. I'll likely double dip and get the PC version later on anyway because its on Steam vs if they just kept that Origin thing btw.
Not everyone gives a shit about such things lol
Uh oh, what do we have here?
This situation could be what they needed to get this game off the ground after the rework. I'm rooting for it now.
A game from 2018? nahhhhhhh lol
"could be what they needed to get this game off the grou-" no .
They need a good game to get it off the ground. The issues I see in BF 2042, don't have me looking to this game to solve it as if THIS game is going to meet all my needs or something.
Would be like saying this is what BFV needs to get it off the ground.
VN1X
Banned
WW3 is basically being re-developed/updated and re-released soon btw.
Comes out in March 2022 proper but you can gain closed beta access until then. And to top it all off the full release will be free to play!
I'm cautiously hyped as both CoD and BF have been dreadful this year so the bar isn't exactly high to top those releases lol.
Last edited:
EDMIX
Writes a lot, says very little
Of a game that released in 2018 or early access 2018?
I hope they do well with the updated, re-release, early access final or what ever they want to call this attempt, but I don't buy games based on reactions to other games lol
They are not DICE..... simply trying to be them and the reviews don't help when they've also had years to play that game to give out that view vs BF2042 just releasing. They had their bite at the apple and I don't want to play a game solely based on my love for the BF series or something, I'd rather play it based on what it does differently, not who they are trying to pretend they are.
We've heard this many, many times where some game by some small team is in beta or alpha or early access etc and folks to plug in the game to piggy back off of another game having issues lol Its like......ok, but a fucking game LOOKING like it can be good, doesn't mean I'll just go to that instead of sticking with BF.
BF 2042 has a lot of issues that need to be worked out, doesn't mean my next move is to go with a game in early access for years made by the team that did this Get Even lol
Thats like saying The Division 2 needs to be patched and updated...shame, this coming out soon btw lol
We've heard it many times, but people generally still buy games based on what that game offers vs knee jerk reaction to ANOTHER game lol
EDMIX
Writes a lot, says very little
With that much MP goodness, it would be criminal to add a 4th lol
Theses days I keep my MP gaming to a minimum of 1 IP now. I might actually get that Back 4 Blood game to support Turtle Rock if some good deals show up for Black Friday. I don't know if I'll have the time to play much of it though let alone also BF 2042
VN1X
Banned
Of a game that released in 2018 or early access 2018?
I hope they do well with the updated, re-release, early access final or what ever they want to call this attempt, but I don't buy games based on reactions to other games lol
They are not DICE..... simply trying to be them and the reviews don't help when they've also had years to play that game to give out that view vs BF2042 just releasing. They had their bite at the apple and I don't want to play a game solely based on my love for the BF series or something, I'd rather play it based on what it does differently, not who they are trying to pretend they are.
We've heard this many, many times where some game by some small team is in beta or alpha or early access etc and folks to plug in the game to piggy back off of another game having issues lol Its like......ok, but a fucking game LOOKING like it can be good, doesn't mean I'll just go to that instead of sticking with BF.
BF 2042 has a lot of issues that need to be worked out, doesn't mean my next move is to go with a game in early access for years made by the team that did this Get Even lol
Thats like saying The Division 2 needs to be patched and updated...shame, this coming out soon btw lol
We've heard it many times, but people generally still buy games based on what that game offers vs knee jerk reaction to ANOTHER game lol
Did you actually play Get Even? 'Cause I finished it and thought it was great.
Also not sure why you're so hung up on this 2018' argument' . The team has undergone many changes, they've gotten a huge injection of funds from being supported by a proper publisher and even if we were to go on your 2018 shtick I'd argue that there are plenty of FPS titles from that that year or before that shit all over BF 2042 lol.
Edit: also you don't think 2042 is in Early Access right now? The fuck?!
Last edited:
EDMIX
Writes a lot, says very little
I'm sure its great, doesn't mean I'll trust a large scale MP title in their hands. Looking at the Steam reviews, I don't know that I have much trust in them to do that concept well.
Cause its dated. I'm doubtful talking shit about BF 2042 is going to help a game in development hell since 2018 on early access with people saying stuff like "Got it on launch, the network was so backed up it wouldn't allow anyone to join, some people's systems couldn't handle the "optimization" resulting in freezing, myself included. Ended up running over 2 hours of playtime and not being able to refund it. Was really upset with that so did everything I could to run it. 14 hours of "playtime" is honest to God only 30 minutes of in game playing. Just redownloaded November 1st, 2021, game is not only dead but is still unplayable. I genuinely wish well for this game. I hope that the dev's raise it from its grave"
Even the fucking people who want it to do well, are unable to play it. Not able to refund it, they TRIED to get it to work.
None of that shit sound like some hope to me or I should wait for this vs BF, I'd have better luck waiting for the next BF then for a team thats never done this before, to get it done better then the team that has been doing this for almost 20 years.
BF2042 officially came out literally days ago vs YEARS in early access.
If a game needs to bank on ANOTHER game being received poorly just to do well, something is already wrong there as it should be able to stand on its own regardless. This game was a flop before BF2042 was even fucking revealed to be a thing, but hey, the re-re-re-release will REALLY be it by the team that never put out such a game?
Ok bud. I have nothing against new IP and will gladly support even this game, but I don't buy games based knee jerk reactions to another game as if by spite they can do better simply cause someone is talking shit about BF2042, thats like me buying a game based on not liking Call Of Duty....sir, I don't care for Call Of Duty, doesn't mean I'll buy some no name FPS in early access with folks saying the game literally can't run. Be like "OH BUT CAL DA DUTZIES DIS YEAR" lol fuck that have to do with this game not being able to run and in early access for YEARS?
Both EA and Activision and even MS will have issues in many areas with online games, but I don't think some no name team will fair any better in that department. With online networking, I got to support longevity and established teams on this one. If it was just a single player game, I'd be open to new ideas, but with online...you really need an actual team that has a history of doing it and knows what the fuck they are doing. If DICE and Sledgehammer can have issues with this, not sure how a early access game from 2018 is one I need to look out for in response to this lol
IbizaPocholo
NeoGAFs Kent Brockman
Last edited:
sainraja
Member
I played it some more (still had my trial time left on my XSX) and the more I explore it's options....the more, well, how can I say....I don't think I will be able to invest time in it. I think Destiny 2 is going to continue being my main online PVE & PVP game for a while.
EA probably regrets launching it on Steam.
EDMIX
Writes a lot, says very little
I think its best to wait on it, especially if you already have a main MP title.
With updates, patches etc, some of the things you like or get used to, might be changed or removed anyway. It was always a day 1 for me as I don't really play any other MP series anymore like I did generations ago.
I stopped with Destiny after the first game, put like 90 or so hours in, after that I've just been playing 1 IP for MP lol That isn't to say I won't change my mind if Destiny 3 is amazing or something, anything can change. I find I get more from MP titles when I'm all in vs like 5 MP games going around some cycle lol
MaKTaiL
Member
Played it for a day now.
How the game runs on ultra wide.
In short it runs absolute fantastic all the problems with beta performance wise seems to be solved other then low fps ( cpu optimisation needs to be done more ), DLSS is great it was needed and they implemented it well. RT is basically useless and just a CPU frame rate tanker so don't bother.
Anyway, the gameplay is great in my view, the maps are great to play and fun. The visuals are absolutely fantastic, the grass / forest / everything moves with the wind, everything basically can be destroyed which really adds towards it and animations are great.
The only problem i have so far right now is.
- No scoreboard
- tab gives you no useful information
- no server selection where u can select what u want to play instead u gotta basically cancel sign ins in order to get the map you want
- servers are way to fast done which means the moment real people are taking over the bots its all over. think about 15 minutes rounds its just not enough
- can't spectate which makes it a pain to benchmark
- hovercrafts are far to strong
- not a fan of those specialists or unlocking gear by getting experience
- battlefield portal is dead ( this screenshot involves release weekend normal times and a person in the EU ) kinda the reason i bought it, so thinking u would just play a old battlefield bad company 2 map or bf3 map is no beuno because they simple don't exist or u got to put up with insane ms to the point why even bother.
In short there is only 3 servers and all of them are dead.
This is also the reason why you don't get scoreboards / inspecting and server selection. People will realize on how absolute dead the game is. And it makes sense because battlefield always had problems even filling in 64 player servers. This is also why they introduced bots.
In short u always fight bots most of the time in those maps and when those bots are finally getting replaced the map is over. This is also why people get such high ping and weird shit glitches out because they are playing on a 200+ ms server.
And to give you a idea how bad 200+ms is, i get in every game about 140ms when i connect from netherlands towards the most west side of america, so i dunno where that 300ms server is placed on the moon? but it sure as hell isn't on this planet. In short its really really bad.
After playing the BF3 map with 40 players in rush becuase there simple isn't even a 64 conquest on this front, i must say ur better of playing the original game at this point as it has more people. Also no clue why metro wasn't remade that wake island and that one destruction map everybody played in bfbc2, its clear they never actually played there own battlefields, they made a pretty shit selection of remake maps.
Portal server browser is actually not the preferable way to play Portal. Only custom servers show up there. If you want to play on Official Portal servers make sure you select one of the fours experiences in the front page to matchmake into official servers.
eastcoastkody
Member
nah. that sucks tho. Because they still kept some of the 2042 stuff in the official ones. Like the bleed out mechanic is still in their version of bad company 2.
u have to make a custom game or find one. To play actual good classic BF experiences
ResetEraVetVIP
Member
This game is awesome tbh so much fun.