Let's try to actually talk about this game objectively

[kurasol]

From what I see, there are lots of people on both sides that are both very emotional about this game so let's actually talk about this game's problems and good parts without strong emotions or calling eachother anything.

I'll start. This is my response to one of the discussions and I believe it summarizes many of the points. I would like people to voice their opinions in the same manner.

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย strrin:

Okay, let's restart this discussion from here, but with less insults and sarcasm.
(Some parts are out of context so be aware of that)

First of all, there will obviously be people that will call a game bad without reason, but they're most of the time not the majority so writing off the entire class as trolls does not contribute to the discussion and only serves to write off people with legitimate complaints.

I'll start with the good.

The beta had lots of bugs, most of which, from what I've seen, are not present in the current build. Though there are still are a lot of issues, it's not as bad as the beta. Some people say it's one of the more stable launches especially compared to Bf4 and BfV.

Customization tools like those seen in portal have never been available in any other Bf game. Some people will buy this game purely for Battlefield Portal.
Personally, I've tried it and I definitely don't like it as much as other people because when I played it, I felt like I was just playing conquest 2042 with a different skin.

Hazard zone is much more stable than conquest and specialists are used to their best effect there.

Now the bad.

Bf2042 launched with 22 weapons not counting portal. Bf4 currently has 103 weapons. Not all of those were at launch, some were added with updates and if we exclude dlc weapons (22), there will be 81. Besides this, there are also 48 gadgets, 9 of which were from dlcs, so 39 without dlc. The number of vehicles is around the same if you exclude boats. It will get more weapons in the future, but it's not really much of an excuse.

Traditionally, classes were distinguished by both their weapons and their gadgets. Different weapon classes had different ranges so these classes were on different distances from the fight. Supports and medics were a bit behind the assaults, medics, and engineers while recons were further back (depends on which game you're talking about).
Because there are no gadget and weapon restrictions, recon-engineer-support-assault distribution is not balanced and people are incentivized to go for self-sufficiency. Because of this, there are a lot more rocket launchers on the field than in other games.

Strong vehicles also is something that most of the battlefield games had, however almost every review and post I've seen about vehicles talks about how they're overpowered.

Maps are now much bigger, but unfortunately also emptier and with less destruction/levolution. Pulling from my personal experience, most map objectives are structured like this: access to the roof through a ladder, a flight of stairs, or a zipline, sometimes all 3; big empty room with some cover; roof/skylight/windows are present to make it easier for helicopters to have influence over the objectives. Sometimes the objective is a flat location with lots of cover.

I have also seen several reports that helicopter controls feel floaty and unresponsive, but cannot confirm or deny those because I haven't piloted a heli much in 2042. They were taken most of the time anyway. This might be fixed in the future, but again, it's not an excuse at the moment.

Bullet spread is overtuned to a ridiculous degree, but will likely be fixed soon in the next patch.

On reddit, most people are now complaining that there is no all chat, scoreboard or way to change to a particular squad. Most of these are not big problems, but with so much disappointment floating around, these are an indication to people that DICE does not care about them anymore, which is a theme with a lot of things concerning this game since alone, they aren't that big of a problem, but together coupled with high expectations, they don't seem so small anymore even individually.

(Continuing from the last point) This game has a lot of big problems, in my opinion, and it will get better. Question is: how much will it get better and how long will it take?

Edit: this is an ongoing thread, if you have opinions that you have to voice about the game, you can voice them here, but be sure to back them up with something.

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย strrin:

It seems like this discussion has changed its course so let's set it straight again.
If you have anything to say or add regarding these topics, then please do so.

What are your biggest problems with Bf2042 at the moment?

What did you enjoy the most about the current build of Bf2042?

If there are any changes that you would like to see that haven't yet been mentioned, what would they look like?

[Styles]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย strrin:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Sexy Dangers:

Game is ♥♥♥♥

This is a discussion. If you're not going to explain your point, don't say anything.

The game is really ♥♥♥♥

[kurasol]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Waldherz彡:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Anders:

I dont like how each map has to have a gimmick. Like, Dubai or whatever it is. It cant just be a city map, it has to be a city swallowed up by a sand storm. Now, while it looks cool, it also makes the maps weird. Or parts of the ocean dried up, leaving an oil tanker. This is 2042, not 2142. I feel like its too futuristic. Its all set pieces, that sounds cool on paper.

I mean, while I wouldnt have complained about a new 2142, they also would have had to add laserweapons and mechs again.

Im not sure how well that would work out in the current market.

I think the theme of 2042 fits with the current events because of the climate change and stuff. We can't even be sure that our world in 20 years wouldn't look like this.
I mean it's exaggerated, but it's not like videogames haven't predicted real world events before and, while this one comparatively unlikely, it can still happen.

[Edifier]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Devin:

Just looked at the reviews on Metacritic.. Safe to say anyone who stills gives money to EA should be pretty embarrassed at this point. Im sure you guys will do the exact same thing this time next year

Metacritic hasn't meant anything for like the past 10 years. It's just full of people who want to review bomb nearly every single game the moment they find ONE problem in it.
Then we have people who try to counter the review bombing by giving it 10 instead of 0.

But the even then there are at most about a thousand reviews in total compared to Steam where games have around 100k reviews on popular games.

Anyone basing their buying options by looking at Metacritic should feel pretty embarrassed.

[LIAM]

anyone remember bf5? ea does not care players. they only care about money. do you think ea will leave time for 2042?

[kurasol]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Edifier:

Metacritic hasn't meant anything for like the past 10 years. It's just full of people who want to review bomb nearly every single game the moment they find ONE problem in it.
Then we have people who try to counter the review bombing by giving it 10 instead of 0.

But the even then there are at most about a thousand reviews in total compared to Steam where games have around 100k reviews on popular games.

Anyone basing their buying options by looking at Metacritic should feel pretty embarrassed.

People do like review bombing stuff so you can't really tell much from some scores, but games that had no controversies and were not review bombed have reliable scores there. Also, you don't have to take these reviews at face value. While they don't convey exactly how good or bad a game is, they show how the community of the game is divided.

[kurasol]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย LIAM:

anyone remember bf5? ea does not care players. they only care about money. do you think ea will leave time for 2042?

We don't know yet if they will leave 2042 like that, but it's really hard to trust them at this point. BfV being left without updates is really unfortunate because I personally think it's one of the best in the series because of it's gunplay, vehicle balance, and just generally how it feels.

[Bishop]

To me it feels like they made the maps large, then realised it was boring having to run longer distances so increased the sprint speed. Then with so much of the game being about running between large empty spaces they increased the TTK so that you could generally survive the larger distances between cover.

For me the highs in battlefield are when you run around the corner and come up behind 3 players and while the TTK and BTK increase is only small it's enough that most guns don't comfortably hold 3 kills in a mag and the 3rd guy has a much longer time to notice you dumping on the first and second. Flanking is less viable than previous titles and I'd rather play Hell Let Loose which properly rewards positioning and the risk taking involved in getting into that perfect position.

[RubrumCustode]

How do you develop a multiplayer-only game and not have multiplayer tools built into it? This isn't even getting into actual gameplay; there's no multiplayer support from the star.

[Anders]

Does anyone know if DMR have glare or if thats only sniper rifles?

[Incredible Sexy Apex]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Anders:

Does anyone know if DMR have glare or if thats only sniper rifles?

Using a high power scope will give the glare. For example, if you slap an iron sight on a sniper rifle it won't have the glare. Using an 8x scope or higher does.

[Photo]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Incredible Sexy Apex:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Anders:

Does anyone know if DMR have glare or if thats only sniper rifles?

Using a high power scope will give the glare. For example, if you slap an iron sight on a sniper rifle it won't have the glare. Using an 8x scope or higher does.

That glint is satisfying to see, and IMO opinion it helps create more fights and balance things out a bit.

[kurasol]

It seems like this discussion has changed its course so let's set it straight again.
If you have anything to say or add regarding these topics, then please do so.

What are your biggest problems with Bf2042 at the moment?

What did you enjoy the most about the current build of Bf2042?

If there are any changes that you would like to see that haven't yet been mentioned, what would they look like?

[Myztkl©-Kev]

I'm enjoying the game, if I'm playing by myself or with a couple friends. I don't hate the specialists, I just hate that it's only specialists with no actual classes and I can't even make a traditional class loadout properly. They made the models for generic class dudes and they look badass, but only AI's use them, they could easily have basic classes, and insert the specialists into those classes, it would break up the characters more, feel more immersive and you can bet many people would use them and PTFO. There are so many basic no-brainer features missing (that list someone posted above that I keep seeing everywhere is pretty accurate but I don't agree with everything), but my main issues with the game is that you currently can't get more than 4 people in the same game together, and even doing that is a chore most of the time, and my other problem is how the game now caters more to the one-man-army sweaty boys that play games like COD, armor plates, med syringe, lack of proper scoreboard and xp rewards and the stupid "look what I did" screen at the end with all the annoying quips. People have been saying for years that battlefield is becoming COD and I've never agreed with that until now (I hate cod, but have tolerated it for the last year and a half). All these things reward being selfish in a team game. I am noticing more people starting to play the game traditionally, but the amount of times I'll be in the middle of nowhere and run into a solo player with armor plates is just ridiculous. Oh and gun bloom, that crap has no place in a game like this. so 3 things I guess. If they fixed those 3 things, I could live with the 80 other oversights because at least I could play with all my friends.

[Myztkl©-Kev]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Bishop:

To me it feels like they made the maps large, then realised it was boring having to run longer distances so increased the sprint speed. Then with so much of the game being about running between large empty spaces they increased the TTK so that you could generally survive the larger distances between cover.

For me the highs in battlefield are when you run around the corner and come up behind 3 players and while the TTK and BTK increase is only small it's enough that most guns don't comfortably hold 3 kills in a mag and the 3rd guy has a much longer time to notice you dumping on the first and second. Flanking is less viable than previous titles and I'd rather play Hell Let Loose which properly rewards positioning and the risk taking involved in getting into that perfect position.

I really hope they will release some smaller maps that play more like BF4 maps, you still had to travel in those, but it didn't take 5 minutes to get to the next point. one of my favourite maps currently is the smallest map in the game.

[mti_]

Is there anyone actually excited by 128 players? I would have taken better netcode, higher server tickrate and more performance budget dedicated to detailed map design over more players any day.
There is no real infantry play (let alone Infantry only servers), cap zones in Breakthrough are the same number and size as before but now camped by twice the defenders, vics reign supreme yielding easy kills while losing them has zero implication to the team as respawns are pretty much instant, seats in the mobile spawn have been drastically reduced rather than doubled, attacker die in a constant carpet bombing and non-stop crossfire.
Attackers never win.
They hide the K/D because people would be shocked to find out how little impact their own contribution actually has to the outcome of the game and how bad you are doing in general. What good are your 25 kills if you lost the team 15 tickets in deaths? How much objective play can you really pull off as an individual with ~32 defenders on cap?
It has been 3 days and none of my friends that I played all the BFs with over the years are online right now to play more of this.
Unless they introduce game modes that value the players' efforts and reward skill and strategy this game will disappear into obscurity in no time.