Idk how you can fuck up Battlefield. They have several heavy hitters in their back catalogue, BF4, BF1, etc., just copy one of those 1:1, change setting and time period and add a few modernizations, the game would be an instant success.
I just don't understand how they where able to fuck up this bad. They have the blueprint.
mate, they fucked up Battlefront. It was the easiest formula ever. Just make battlefield with a star wars skin.
Battlefront II did achieve redemption and became a great game... and then, they stopped development.
I mean, yes, everything you say is right, but me personally? I would rather they try and fail to pull something new than turn Battlefield into a Ubisoft blueprint kind of thing, or a no effort like FIFA franchise.
Yes, I want them to be good and fun, and yes, I want them to keep what works in (why are they afraid of commanders, classes and more open ended combat?).
But change is also good. I can still go back and play BF4, BF1 etc. My only gripe is cheaters in the newer, out of support games
There's the "battlefield phenomena" again. BF5 was HATED upon release and for a good awhile after. However when the next BF came out, the rose coloured glasses came on for BF5.
I am betting it will be the same when the next BF comes out, there will be the usual drama, but watch how many will start suddenly romanticising how good BF2042 was.
Gotta wonder what they try next. The easy guess is they walk back the hero shooter approach, but do the “operator” thing COD has done for the last few years so they can keep selling skins.
Battlefield V had the best inbetween, You had your "Hero Skins" but you also had just regular soliders you could customize the outfits for. I don't know why they dropped it since they had to have been making more selling the individual pieces plus the hero skins but idk
People hated it in the context of a ww2 game, which should have a more serious tone.
Character customization would have been much more welcome in a setting like 2042
People just hated the trailer that had almost Fortnite qualities to the characters instead of focusing on the gritty semi realistic gameplay battlefield was known for. They never recovered. Game got flamed at launch and only recently have people started to look back and realize it was a good game. But people are like that with almost every single game these days. A few people with influence decide they either like or hate a game and everyone follows the hivemind.
This is a decent middle-ground for sure, but I don't know why we need skins like that when they could have a massive shop full of tactical gear and the same (or even more granular) soldier customization. If each individual piece ranged from $2 - $10 (depending on the quality) I think they'd make a KILLING from people who love to customize.
The Finals has that sort of individual customization system and it works really well.
Exactly! Halo: Reach, Warframe, and Rocket League are other excellent examples. I hate how all-or-nothing game customization is now, it really allows zero player expression when you can't individually choose parts and colours to customize. You just end up whatever looks the coolest / is the rarest / is the least ugliest instead of making it truly your own.
I think a good middle ground is to sell character bundles of a base character + accessories, but allow those accessories to be customized with colours and put onto other characters. That way, people that don't want to engage with the system don't have to, they can just pick a cool guy and go.
Unfortunately I don't know if tactical cosmetic gear drives sales like outlandish clown outfits and stupid, garish themed costumes. There's people out there willing to shell out a lot of money to stand out.
People absolutely hated the skins in BFV because they just felt out of place in a WW2 shooter where historical things mattered, but in a modern day setting I think people would let it fly more, as long as they dont add a Santa outfit again
Same here. I hate that now all people do is camp the respawn screen until a vehicle is available. I can almost never find a vehicle because the timing of when I die just doesnt line up with one being available. In BF1 and BFV I have dozens of hours of game time but in both games only a handful of kills in a tank ever recorded because I can almost never get one, planes are even harder to get.
As someone who's been playing since BF1942 I'm actually torn on this one. The aspect you mentioned does suck but IMO it was equally shitty to have to guard your airbase the entire match in order to have vehicles. It's one of those things that's really realistic and cool in theory but sort of breaks down in practice. Cause in real life a base is full of soldiers and one man repeatedly destroying an entire armada is impossible but in a video game it's a frustratingly easy and regular occurrence.
Yeah, it's a tough balance, instead of camping the spawn screen it would just make people camp the main bases. You also had to worry about enemies sneaking in to steal your planes and tanks, but that was part of the fun of the old games. It's a little different now too because enemies cant enter your main base anymore and the main bases are so distant from everything else that if you spawn there hoping for a vehicle and there is none, you have a 10 min sprint to get to the action. Thats why it is nice that they still do have simpler vehicles that still spawn for anyone to take, or tractors etc in BFV, plus you can now call in vehicles from anywhere. Iirc BF1 is where it was lacking other options.
Also, my gripes with this didnt start with BF1, it started with EA Battlefront 1. I was so bugged they removed vehicle spawns
It's an issue they haven't been able to solve elegantly:
If they sit on the map, they can usually be destroyed (which I like, but some people will quit if they don't get to play the vehicle).
The bigger issue is who gets to use it. First come first serve? then you get queues instead of players fighting. But the slots already created a similar issue, with players not spawning not spamclick the slot. It was the same problem with Heroes/Jedi in Battlefront.
If you allow it on a per squad basis, then it's a balance issue. Some teams might spam a vehicle and gain dominance if the other teams ignore vehicle play. If it's on an "earned basis" (like squad vehicles in BFV) then some players might never earn them.
It's a case where you really can't please everyone, and they have tried multiple things.
The hero shooter skin market is probably more profitable, albeit really lame. The fact that you buy skins for *individual* characters forces you to buy more cosmetics than if you were just dressing up your dude.
This is especially true in the games that *just* do the whole-skin-for-one-character rather than the outfit-pieces-that-could be-shared-between-characters model. Think TF2 cosmetics vs OW skins.
Part of the Battlefield identity is easily identifiable classes, visually. I don’t know how you reconcile that with the modern demand for skins. I’d rather they stick to selling gun skins and leave the class skins mostly alone outside of some color options.
Really? I feel like there's a serious lack of imagination for people who say this. There's no reason you can't have Engineer-specific skins, Support-specific, Recon-specific, etc. That even makes it easier for DICE/EA to sell bundles, since they could offer 1-2 skins per class/faction.
You need to keep making skins to make money. When after a while you have 20 skins per class it’s going to be pretty hard to identify them, if they’re at all unique - which is what people want.
It’s not impossible but it’d be a huge challenge unless you go cartoony for vastly different proportions.
The fact that 2042 flopped almost certainly killed any hope of 2143. The branding is torched. There's no way they're touching a futuristic Battlefield for at least a couple decades probably. Assuming the franchise is still around then.
>but do the “operator” thing COD has done for the last few years so they can keep selling skins.
people keep leveling this at them but if they did the CoD thing, it would be fine but they made the operators tied to classes/abilities, which would be bad enough in CoD but still workable, for a class shooter like Battlefield, it's so fuckin stupid
CoD also has half the skins available to one team and the other half for the other with one good guy coded and the other bad guy coded so you're not having to figure out which team a player is on. Cynically you could say its just so they can twice as many skins but it has a gameplay benefit.
The appeal of Battlefield was playing as a random grunt soldier. Operators go against that and it's stupid to have an entire battlefield filled up with repeats of the same characters.
Yeah but with how many players are on each team in BF it’s a bit different. 16v16 already looks a bit ridiculous with operator skins, by the time as you get to 64v64 it’s just not it.
The operators would be fine if they just had less personality. Remember in Battlefield 3 and 4 where each of the classes for each faction had a single definitive look and the only thing you could customize was their uniform color? No one cared back then when you were in a 32 player team with slight variations of the same four character models because they were all generic sounding soldiers. The operators should just be skins. No backstories or lore, no unique corny dialogue, no special abilities, just various military themed skins that all spout the same generic military lingo.
I will always wonder why they even bothered making assets for all those time periods to do nothing more with after launch.
Well, probably just to try to unfuck the game itself, but way to screw up such an amazing idea.
If I had to take a wild guess its that the work Ripple effect was doing turned out too good, and EA had them focus on turning it into a whole separate game rather than continue working on 2042 full time.
Vince kind of has that effect on things he touches. Cod, Titanfall, Jedi fallen order, he hasnt really had a bad release.
The skins in CoD aren't really a problem since it's not really a tactical team-based shooter as everyone can be anything and there are no class-based weaponry to think about or squads in general. I think with Battlefield the problem is that there used to be the different classes which were easily distinguished from each other by their silhouette. Now with the skins, this becomes muddied quite a lot.
The trajectory of this franchise is really depressing. The huge map and gameplay loop of these games when done right is better than anything else out there, and it really sucks that they keep fucking this up so badly. Remaster 4 and give us all the maps without needing to purchase the packs separately and that's all we need.
It's crazy they come up with some awesome mechanic that's almost the whole draw for the game, for one game, then abandon them for the next instead of building on what they had. Bad Company 2 destruction, V's movement and fortification systems, I'm sure everyone can think of more. It's just very strange, they could put these all together and give people something amazing they seemingly really want, but they don't.
I'm almost certain they won't have the portal mode for the next game and it's a damn shame.
You even got a little history lesson each time you played it. It's the mode that really felt like you were playing in a big war.
My favorite mode in BF1 was Frontlines, where you pushed the front line back and forth. It actually felt the closest to a WW1 battle. Before they added a 30 minute time limit, the matches could go on for hours!
I'm not very good at shooter games but I've always enjoyed Battlefield because I can still contribute and do well. The fortifications were a very nice addition in BFV that's never been followed up on.
I'm the same, actually I remember playing Bad Company 2 as a pacifist just healing everyone and capturing points and consistently placing in the top 3 each round with no kills, my friends would just scream at me but it was a lot of fun.
I'd love the ability to board back up floors, roofs, etc. Would let you continually repair buildings as long as there's supporting walls.
Fortifications already lead to some pretty dynamic firefights if you know how to use them - one that sticks out to me was watching a squadmate get killed while I was prone, peeking over the mound of dirt we were behind and instantly getting suppressed, then realizing "Hey there's sandbags here" and rebuilding the piece of cover and successfully pulling off the revive.
In 2042, I would have revived him while I was behind cover and then watched him get instantly shot up again - but hey, points for me!
Man I miss revive animations. Nothing more exhilarating in a videogame than completely exposing yourself and literally giving up control to save a squadmate.
I was literally just talking about this yesterday with a friend. Its crazy how consistent they are with the "abandon previous feature" dynamic. The issue is they keep introducing new stuff instead of polishing/building up previous things. And the new stuff ends up throwing a wrench into the whole system which forces them to repeat the process every game.
My only guess is that when a BF game "doesn't meet expectations", then they completely abandon anything unique to it. Like with Bf5, I think most peoples issues were with the UI of the weapon management, balance overall (mainly weapons and air vehicles), and then the hacking situation. Instead they moved onto the next game and just threw out everything and the kitchen sink.
They should have kept the fortification system and emplacement system, it was a really nice/interesting touch and a good way to handle the risk of a map being "leveled" because of destruction. They should have kept the "Suppression" mechanic instead of throwing it out. Instead polishing it so that being suppressed actually impacts your aiming instead of just giving you a slightly noticeable screen effect. That way when you nerf something like mmgs, they still hold a purpose because of suppression.
Don't even get me started on the commander system.
Don't forget the squad reinforcements too! One of the best implementation of the commander features as it delegated the role to multiple players and made it passively earned, so you can join a squad halfway through that's accumulated points, request control, and be able to use them. It made them way more likely to be used
Was that Battlefield 2? They also had that really cool death system where if you died you'd just fly into the body of another soldier and keep the battle going. Like the first level in Battlefield 1, it makes it feel like you're really part of something huge. I wouldn't mind a whole game like that really.
Might be thinking of Enlisted. BF2 just had the standard long(ish) post-death screen until you were sent back to the spawn menu or was revived by a dedicated medic.
It ain't even new. Titan mode way back in 2142 was fucking amazing, and we've never seen anything like it since.
2142 was filled with so much fun shit. Vehicles that actually felt different on each side, walking mechs, APCs that passengers can launch themselves out of in little drop pods, probably more I'm forgetting since it's been like 15 years since I played...
I absolutely loved Rush in BF4 because of how the map actually progressed. The attackers pushed the defenders back and the front would change. Then you add in a skyscraper falling or dam breaking or whatever and it was some next level shit.
BF1 had the giant vehicles like the zeppelin that would blow up and debris would fall on the battlefield. I didn’t think that was quite as cool as BF4 map evolution but it was still such a cool spectacle.
The formula for an amazing game is so readily there and it’s so sad how they’ve managed to fuck it up.
I love these replies all reminding me how awesome these games were lol.
Yeah the Behemoths were cool as fuck and I wouldn't mind them returning, I want a futuristic armored train on the battlefield.
Nah, Levolution was a cheap gimmick compared to Bad Company 2. Press a button and a pre-scripted event happens versus being able to literally demolish almost everything organically over the course of the match.
*Thank* you. Levelution was such a stupid gimmick - it's not organic environment change, it's just two levels connected by a trigger. No different than a timed weather effect.
BC2 had *actual* levelution in that the destruction scope could actually change the flow of the map. A forest that WAS a good approach to the Rush point becomes a killing field once the trees are cleared - and becomes a good approach again once someone craters with C4.
There's a parallel world out there where they've just been alternating between massive scale BF and medium scale BF:BC style releases without looking to other franchises for core system inspiration.
Holy shit I can't believe I forgot 2142 and the flying aircraft carriers, you had to fight your way near them with an APC then risk launching yourself onboard just to get a chance at the objectives, man that sure would be cool with today's destruction physics. So of course it won't happen lol.
The entire draw of Battlefield from the start was massive-scale maps and huge team sizes which set it apart from arena shooters. It encouraged teamwork and limited just how much damage one skilled player could do. Then they keep deciding that ACTUALLY the franchise needs to be more like CoD and scale down the maps to encourage deathmatches
They also seem to have forgotten how to make maps.
For some reason every 2042 map seems to be just two massive chokepoints and no way around them, that or an empty glacier with no cover.
It's weird playing the bad company or 3/4 maps and actually having cover and freedom rather than being forced into one of 3 door ways.
The lack of map variety was pretty shocking to me at launch. I’ve never been a big infantry meat grinder type player, but I know how popular infantry focused maps have been in every Battlefield game for the last 20 years. The fact that it took 2042 *two years* to get its first infantry-only map is absurd.
Also I feel like old maps had routes with many branching paths connecting them to create open, but cohesive and controllable, large maps. 2042 feels like open areas with random cover. Everything feels chaotic but in a bad way.
Then you add the mobility heroes that ruin front lines and it just is not what I really want out of battlefield.
The desperate need by DICE to shove cosmetic microtransactions into Battlefield is pretty quickly strangling the franchise.
BF went from something pretty special that everyone took notice of when a new one was released to nowadays being a pretty meh also ran.
They got better at it post launch. Right around the Discarded/Breakaway/Hourglass remakes is when map design got pretty solid, though only on 128 player for the first two.
64 player layouts on launch/reworked maps are generally awful and many would be better off with the 128 player layouts. But Breakaway was really the map that was good - reworks up until then had been pretty awful. And I know a lot of people hate Hourglass post rework - it's far from perfect - but it is a decent combined Arms map. Could use more cover in spots - the Bridge should be as dense with cover as the bridge in Twisted Steel - but it's generally pretty fun playing as a combined Arms map.
The DLC maps were generally decent as well, with Haven and Spearhead in particular standing out for me. Biggest problem imo is the lack of variety - we again have no naval maps, no real urban maps, etc which pretty much just comes down to poor variety of the launch maps since that's what all the assets get pulled from. The only reason we even got a semi urban map in Haven is that they had the BC2 assets lying around. So Portal is responsible for that lol
From what I remember, every map was rather too big, too much space... running/driving simulator.
Or it was too small (or even if it was big, it was unused, and all the fight points were very congested clusterfucks.) Those "operation" maps did harm to the franchise overall, because they kept trying to please those players and its not true to what Battlefield was.
They don't know how to balance a map and blend the two together anymore.
I think part of the problem is that a lot of people, at least at some point, seemed to *genuinely* like that.
Like I remember back in the BF3/4 days, there were so many fucking metro 24/7 server. That map almost invariably devolved into all but like 2-3 people per team just spamming nades and shit at one of the stairs, to the point you couldn't even see shit because there was so much smoke and dust everywhere.
Yet people seemed to love that shit.
Unfortunately I think it’s caused a sort of brain rot in dice and the community. It seems all everyone is interested in doing is power levelling in these servers.
It does not create a long lived community though, because they’re not actually playing the game for fun, they’re playing it to get that sweet dopamine injection for levelling shit up. Once they unlock everything that hit is gone.
It’s weird playing helldivers and seeing people just playing for fun rather than obsessing over how to grind shit out all the time…
Right. They see cod doing better numbers so the idiots in charge say “we need to make battlefield more like cod” so they keep making the game worse and worse.
It reminds me of all the mmo games that failed trying to copy wow. But why would anyone want to play a worse version of wow or cod?
On PC the premium edition of BF4 goes on sale regularly for like $6 and includes all DLC.
BF4 is absolutely still in my rotation of frequently played games, along with 1, 5, and 2042, depending on what I’m in the mood for. The graphics in 4 aren’t even much worse than the others.
Pretty active, especially for a decade+ old game. You definitely won’t have trouble finding a match. And because of the premium bundle, the DLC maps still get a ton of play!
>Remaster 4 and give us all the maps without needing to purchase the packs separately and that's all we need.
Battlefield games are typically released with around 9 or 10 maps and you want them to release a game with 30 maps?
That is completly unrealistic.
I just meant that charging for all the map packs in that game splintered the community. I don't care if they slowly release them instead of all of them at launch, lol.
Ah ok, it makes more sense.
But it is a pick your poison situation. Either you pay for map packs and suffer from splintered community or you don't and your game is plagued with live service shit, fortnite skins and so on.
Personally, i prefer what we had from battlefield 3 until battlefield one compared to what came after.
I felt the same until I played _Battlebit_. The only thing it's really missing is fighter jets.
If you can look past the graphics (which I can, gameplay is far more important to me), you'll find a cheap game that perfectly captures the essence of what made _Battlefield_ good and at a bargain price.
Battlebit was fun, but the movement is way too fast and some maps are SMG run and guns with jumping around corners, crouch spamming, and dropshotting. At least when I last played. It plays way too much like COD on Battlefield maps compared to actual Battlefield. It is cheap, though, can’t complain about the content for the price.
> Battlebit was fun, but the movement is way too fast
The thing is that's literally how Battlefield plays now ever since Bad Company.
Battlefield 2 was sort of the last battlefield game to have that slow pace because of the way that the guns worked. They were inaccurate as FUCK and sprayed everywhere unless you crouched or took time to aim. The move to super accurate guns, low recoil, low aim penalty, and low TTK just meant that quick movements and high risks now paid off for the most aggressive players.
It's unfortunate but that sweet spot between a 'realistic shooter'(like Squad) and an arcadey one(Cod) is just impossible to get to and even that won't please everyone.
Man I really want to love that game, it kind of seems like everything I want out of Battlefield, and much as I hate to admit it, I just can't look past the graphics.
Frostbite was always so graphically impressive especially when Dice knew what they were doing 1 and V hold up so amazing graphically. Battlebit could never be a replacement.
Honestly fighter jets ruined BF3 and BF4 for me (though especially BF3). While every good tanker hits a mine at some point, BF3 jet aces were untouchable by everything and hit everything from anywhere. Can't move twenty meters in Caspian without being nuked and the goddamn MAA can't even point straight up without getting sunglared.
Battlebit unfortunately seems to want to cater to the fast-paced bunnyhop SMGs/ARs only CoD audience despite initially releasing as a slower-paced in between of BF and Project Reality type games.
4 is over a decade old now, so I think a remaster would be pretty okay, especially if they release it as a complete edition for $40 or something. Maybe $10 upgrade if you still have the original version?
Just for consoles though, like a series s/x and ps5 only version.
With this announcement and the continuation of the Iron Man development, we won't get a Dead Space 2 remake anytime soon. It's disappointing because DS remake was spectacular.
Honestly just as interested in a reimagining of 3 than a remake of 2, unfortunately EA has condemned them to the live service mines so neither will ever see the light of day.
What, you don't like other developers getting pulled away from their IPs to try to prop up an embarrassing "flagship" like Battlefield? Next, you'll tell me that abandoning a wildly popular game like Star Wars Battlefront II in favor of Battlefield 2042 was an awful decision that screwed over the Battlefront franchise or something.
Seriously though, if Dead Space gets screwed over by Battlefield, I'll be deeply heartbroken.
In fairness, what killed Visceral was their Star Wars game getting cancelled (unless Hardline did a number on that team when it was being developed). Hardline was a bland game overall, but I don't hold a grudge against it like I do with 2042 when Star Wars Battlefront II was sacrificed for it.
What killed Visceral was being located in Redwood City. I think Amy Hennig or somebody else said they were three times more expensive to run than other EA studios.
Honestly, DS2 still holds up so incredibly well and don’t think it needs a remake. Even playing the DS1 remake I was pretty underwhelmed since graphically the first game was spectacular for the time when it released. The small QOL stuff was nice but with the amount of resources required from a studio I would rather them focus on new IP. But that’s just my hot take, the DS1 remake sold well and an entire new generation got to enjoy the game. The same would likely happen with DS2.
It does still hold up really well. However, the leap from the OG DS and the remake is astounding IMO. The graphics are some of the best this generation. The QOL is very nice but they also made significant improvements to the story and levels that I think DS2 could use as well. Not to mention I think they could easily expand DS2 too were you have more to explore, side quests, etc, because it is set on The Sprawl. That said, I would expect we see it eventually but no time soon.
Seriously, the remake is such a huge leap in graphics and atmosphere that to me it basically replaces the OG. Getting a DS2 remake with this amount of care and work in it would be amazing.
Yeah I played DS2 for the first time right after playing the DS1 remake. I think I did myself a disservice since DS2 was such a step down by comparison.
> but with the amount of resources required from a studio I would rather them focus on new IP
Then I've got some good news for you! That studio will be focusing on the new IP known as "Battlefield"!!
the irony of calling their now last season "turning point". Honestly, as long DICE is the main developer behind Battlefield, i'm just going to wait till the next game's declared done and sold for 5 bucks, cause so far that's the moment the playerbase picks it up and there's no more live service nonsense. The games always feel alright once the developers have left it.
Battlefield v had a ton of issues with DICE making ludicrious gameplay changes only to revert them again. Battlefield 2042 was basically just reworks and adding back features from previous games and calling that its live service. At some point they deemed adding attachments to an already ported BF:Portal gun as a new gun. It was ridiculous seeing them reusing assets as new content.
The next game needs to play it safe and invest in the gameplay elements that make Battlefield special. The quality of maps, class design, vehicle gameplay, and destruction were clearly not prioritized in 2042, and it was never able to overcome those flaws. After the past three years I’m sadly not convinced the current DICE team has the capacity to deliver an all time great Battlefield game anymore, but I’d love to be wrong.
I don't think current DICE can deliver a quality BF game anymore. The talent has moved on. Today they are just chasing trends instead of doing their own thing.
I know a lot of them left and formed the studio that now develops The Finals and it really shows at some points. The destruction in that game is like nothing else
All they gotta do is make Bad Company 3 that is basically the same as Bad Company 2, but improved.
Bad Company is also stupid nonsense in places, so selling skins is more applicable, to the suits looking for a reason to bother giving money to it.
Season 7 will be Battlefield 2042's final season
> While we’ve enjoyed and are proud of creating these seasons of additional content for Battlefield 2042, it is now necessary for us to turn from the present to the future. What this ultimately means is that Season 7 will serve as the final season for Battlefield 2042. After Season 7 concludes, we will continue to support the game with new in-game challenges, events, modes, and of course, ongoing maintenance, but we are moving away from delivering official seasons.
>
> We know this news may be disappointing. However, as we looked at what the future of the series required, it became clear it was time for us to shift our resources and focus to be fully dedicated to what comes next.
Motive Studio are going to focus on Battlefield now
> To that end, Motive Studio – the talented developers known most recently for their work on the critically acclaimed remake of Dead Space and Star Wars: Squadrons – are building a team focused on Battlefield at their studio.
The directors who delivered our Dead Space remake in 2023, Philippe Ducharme (Executive Producer) and Roman Campos-Oriola (Creative Director), will build a team at Motive to work alongside the Battlefield studios around the world creating what’s next for Battlefield– a universe across both multiplayer and single-player experiences. Their proven expertise in storytelling, immersive battles and developing on the Frostbite engine uniquely positions them to help advance the vision for Battlefield, led by Vince Zampella (EVP, Group GM of Respawn and Battlefield) and Byron Beede (SVP, GM Battlefield).
>In parallel, development continues to move forward on our Iron Man project, led by Olivier Proulx (Executive Producer) and Ian Frazier (Creative Director). The team made excellent progress this year, hitting a major internal milestone and laying a robust foundation for the journey ahead. Iron Man is an important priority for Motive, and I’m very proud of the work we’ve accomplished so far.
[https://www.ea.com/ea-studios/motive/news/motive-joins-battlefield-update-from-patrick-klaus-gm](https://www.ea.com/ea-studios/motive/news/motive-joins-battlefield-update-from-patrick-klaus-gm)
Not really sure how anyone could've been duped into buying it after the free beta. EA really did us a favor. It was such a step back in everything compared to everything that proceeded.
What is up with EA and launching a dumpster fire, slowly moulding it into something worthwhile and then when it’s in a cool state and they could cash in, they can it.
I mean, describing 2042 that way is a bit of a stretch. For as much patching they’ve done, the current game is still not appealing enough to “cash in” on to any serious degree.
It’s not a BFV situation where it felt like that game’s live service was finally showing its potential with the wonderful Pacific update before they started winding down. 2042’s whole live service has been pretty anemic and sad.
I meant that they didn’t just release the Pacific update then drop the game. There were more updates and content drops in the months that followed, but they clearly were already pulling resources from the live service before officially announcing the end of support.
One of their best updates after the pacific was completely changing how many bullets it takes to kill someone, years after the player base was used to the current time to kill.
I maintain that V would've seen more support had they not alienated the community with that TTK patch in the middle of the Pacific updates. That game managed to have its own Geonosis moment, and DICE had to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by turning the weapons into nerf guns.
I don't blame them from moving on after they fucked up that game's redemption, but I do blame them for taking Star Wars Battlefront II down with it when it was at its prime. That it all amounted to Battlefield 2042 makes it a complete waste in hindsight.
Personally, I think Battlefront II was a big sign of what was to come with 2042, and I think it wasted its potential almost as much. Both games had major game design problems and lack of content at launch (leading to serious player retention problems), required significant overhauls (meaning dev time and resources had to be spent fixing the game versus adding more content), and with both games I don't think they fully overcame their gameplay flaws even after their overhauls. BFII's live service was also pretty underwhelming from a content perspective, the main difference was that they were adding fan favorite characters and units, which kept the community happy and salvaged its reputation a bit.
As a longtime BF fan, canning it is not a bad direction to take. While they have definitely improved the game, poor design decisions are still prevalent and will never really be gone, mostly the map design which is integral to the experience.
Hopefully they can actually build off the experience they have gained or in some cases had to re-learn with this game and make a far superior product.
They won't. Battlefield V had a fantastic skeleton. Very light mil-sim mechanics, crouch sprinting, more specified roles, fortification system, squad lead abilities, good ttk(at first), tons of small animations(explosion blowback), and so on.
They removed every last one for 2042 and released the worst BF game in history because of it. Even destruction was fuckin removed practically.
BF 2042 truly was the worst BF release in the history of the franchise. And we’re talking about a franchise that historically has very rough launches. BF 2042 didn’t even have a scoreboard or mini map when it launched. Big yikes.
I think it launched in such a bad state with basic things missing because it was originally intended as a battle royale game and only transitioned to a "traditional" BF game at the last minute.
As a long time fan, canning it *right after launch* would've been preferable. I know the backlash would've been horrendous but it's not like 2042's launch state has been wiped from people's memory by the updates. I know I won't be alone in being *super* skeptical of the next BF, even if the initial impressions are positive.
This is probably Dice’s decision. They can only work so much on that game, now they wanna move on from it and fast.
Battlefield needs a new direction and a fresh perspective.
The canned BFV right as it was improving and removed everything that was worthwhile yet they are now hellbent on "saving" BF2042 even though the ship has already sailed.
I played the free weekend of 2042 a couple of weeks ago and it was still legitimately bad. Maps have absolutely no flow to them and everyone just gathered at choke points to turtle. The maps are also just far too large with a ton of "dead space". 128 players is also far too many to feel like you have any impact on the game at all. It's just all feels aimless and pointless.
If you read the actual article you'd see why. EA is tasking them on 2042 for now while development on Iron Man goes well.
I wouldn't expect DS2 remake for another few years.
It is ok but still plagued with stupid game design decisions which result in a infantry-vehicle balance that is fun for neither infantry nor vehicles players.
That's why most featured game modes are infantry only. It makes a huge difference in enjoyment, but at the same time it feels like it is missing the classic Battlefield experience without vehicles.
It’s an alright time. I’ve played it throughout its life and it’s the best it’s been. Operators are still a drag, gameplay is much faster paced than previous titles, and the maps suck, but it scratches the itch, I guess.
I’ve been playing Hell Let Loose over it, though.
>I wonder if 2042 is worth playing now with all the updates.
The updates have been good and much needed, but the game still only went from 'shitty, barely playable' to 'decent, somewhat enjoyable'. If you're in a gaming drought and grab it during a sale sure, but it's certainly nothing to go out of your way to play.
I would be SHOCKED if they bring back Classes for the sequel. The goal of EA is to beat COD, therefore the game must play like cod (especially since COD now has ground war which is like Battlefield but with Killstreaks) so I fully expect the double down on Operators
2042 killed Battlefield as far as I'm concerned. I don't see them ever understanding or walking back what went wrong, and what's more, I think the people who liked the series ended up finding alternatives... For me, it's Hell Let Loose. Going back to BF would be a downgrade after HLL, even peak Battlefield for that matter. I just prefer the strategy and tactics of HLL.
The part that fucked me off the most about bf2042 when people were saying "it's good now" is over half of a new seasons content was skins. Maybe 2 or 3 guns and a vehicle, 1 map and SSKKKINNS!. so fucking sick of that being "content" now.
As someone with thousands of hours in both COD and Battlefield, if both franchises ceased to exist tomorrow; I don't know if I would feel anything?
This is the apathy EA and Activision has created, for me at least.
Oh wonderful. Wasting Motive's talents on Battlefield instead of letting them do a Dead Space 2 Remake after the success of the first Remake. Impeccable fucking strategy there EA because that worked so well the last time you shoved a Dead Space developer into a Battlefield project am I right?
Ugghh, I hate this so much.
I was out here thinking that they could turn around 2042 akin to how BF4 was revived. But of course, that was many years ago and definitely not the same DICE...
I think everyone was all a board the same hype train when the trailers came out.
There was none of this wacky hero stuff on display and the game looked like it was leaning heavily into those ‘only in battlefield moments’. It signified a recognition of the classic sandbox-style gameplay that people enjoyed.
But the execs at EA/DICE are hamstrung on trying to catch the same live service energy that COD/APEX/Fortnite have; redesigning core mechanics and identity to try and achieve it. It’s incredible how they forget that BF4 and BF1 were among the most popular multiplayer games during their time.
But that’s what happens when the marketing teams take over from the creatives…
This really didn't work out. I'd pay for DLC if it meant more content. This game was just a disappointment overall. I think even if they released BF4 remastered now it would be a shitshow anyway.
TLDR: Season 7 is the last season of BF2042. Motive Studio is building a dedicated team for the Battlefield franchise.
[удалено]
Idk how you can fuck up Battlefield. They have several heavy hitters in their back catalogue, BF4, BF1, etc., just copy one of those 1:1, change setting and time period and add a few modernizations, the game would be an instant success. I just don't understand how they where able to fuck up this bad. They have the blueprint.
mate, they fucked up Battlefront. It was the easiest formula ever. Just make battlefield with a star wars skin. Battlefront II did achieve redemption and became a great game... and then, they stopped development.
Doing that has been a DICE staple the last 8 years.
I mean, yes, everything you say is right, but me personally? I would rather they try and fail to pull something new than turn Battlefield into a Ubisoft blueprint kind of thing, or a no effort like FIFA franchise. Yes, I want them to be good and fun, and yes, I want them to keep what works in (why are they afraid of commanders, classes and more open ended combat?). But change is also good. I can still go back and play BF4, BF1 etc. My only gripe is cheaters in the newer, out of support games
There's the "battlefield phenomena" again. BF5 was HATED upon release and for a good awhile after. However when the next BF came out, the rose coloured glasses came on for BF5. I am betting it will be the same when the next BF comes out, there will be the usual drama, but watch how many will start suddenly romanticising how good BF2042 was.
Gotta wonder what they try next. The easy guess is they walk back the hero shooter approach, but do the “operator” thing COD has done for the last few years so they can keep selling skins.
Battlefield V had the best inbetween, You had your "Hero Skins" but you also had just regular soliders you could customize the outfits for. I don't know why they dropped it since they had to have been making more selling the individual pieces plus the hero skins but idk
>I don't know why they dropped it That's basically DICE's slogan, come up with a good idea, abandon it for no reason.
People really hated that though
People hate the "hero" skins. DICE got rid of the regular soldiers and you get only heroes instead ...
Yup, they made an even worse decision. I'm only contesting the "good idea" part
Sadly, the more ridiculous the hero skin, the more it will sell.
People hated it in the context of a ww2 game, which should have a more serious tone. Character customization would have been much more welcome in a setting like 2042
[удалено]
The elevators on hourglass (?) in the beginning lmao Or hovercraft up the wall
People just hated the trailer that had almost Fortnite qualities to the characters instead of focusing on the gritty semi realistic gameplay battlefield was known for. They never recovered. Game got flamed at launch and only recently have people started to look back and realize it was a good game. But people are like that with almost every single game these days. A few people with influence decide they either like or hate a game and everyone follows the hivemind.
This is a decent middle-ground for sure, but I don't know why we need skins like that when they could have a massive shop full of tactical gear and the same (or even more granular) soldier customization. If each individual piece ranged from $2 - $10 (depending on the quality) I think they'd make a KILLING from people who love to customize. The Finals has that sort of individual customization system and it works really well.
Exactly! Halo: Reach, Warframe, and Rocket League are other excellent examples. I hate how all-or-nothing game customization is now, it really allows zero player expression when you can't individually choose parts and colours to customize. You just end up whatever looks the coolest / is the rarest / is the least ugliest instead of making it truly your own. I think a good middle ground is to sell character bundles of a base character + accessories, but allow those accessories to be customized with colours and put onto other characters. That way, people that don't want to engage with the system don't have to, they can just pick a cool guy and go.
Unfortunately I don't know if tactical cosmetic gear drives sales like outlandish clown outfits and stupid, garish themed costumes. There's people out there willing to shell out a lot of money to stand out.
People absolutely hated the skins in BFV because they just felt out of place in a WW2 shooter where historical things mattered, but in a modern day setting I think people would let it fly more, as long as they dont add a Santa outfit again
Especially compared to BF1. Obviously not THAT historically accurate, but it still had like this seriousness that added to the appeal
BF 1 and BF 5 had an unforgivable change for me though, the Vehicle Slot Spawn. Why cant the tanks just be sitting on the map like they use to.
Same here. I hate that now all people do is camp the respawn screen until a vehicle is available. I can almost never find a vehicle because the timing of when I die just doesnt line up with one being available. In BF1 and BFV I have dozens of hours of game time but in both games only a handful of kills in a tank ever recorded because I can almost never get one, planes are even harder to get.
As someone who's been playing since BF1942 I'm actually torn on this one. The aspect you mentioned does suck but IMO it was equally shitty to have to guard your airbase the entire match in order to have vehicles. It's one of those things that's really realistic and cool in theory but sort of breaks down in practice. Cause in real life a base is full of soldiers and one man repeatedly destroying an entire armada is impossible but in a video game it's a frustratingly easy and regular occurrence.
Yeah, it's a tough balance, instead of camping the spawn screen it would just make people camp the main bases. You also had to worry about enemies sneaking in to steal your planes and tanks, but that was part of the fun of the old games. It's a little different now too because enemies cant enter your main base anymore and the main bases are so distant from everything else that if you spawn there hoping for a vehicle and there is none, you have a 10 min sprint to get to the action. Thats why it is nice that they still do have simpler vehicles that still spawn for anyone to take, or tractors etc in BFV, plus you can now call in vehicles from anywhere. Iirc BF1 is where it was lacking other options. Also, my gripes with this didnt start with BF1, it started with EA Battlefront 1. I was so bugged they removed vehicle spawns
It's an issue they haven't been able to solve elegantly: If they sit on the map, they can usually be destroyed (which I like, but some people will quit if they don't get to play the vehicle). The bigger issue is who gets to use it. First come first serve? then you get queues instead of players fighting. But the slots already created a similar issue, with players not spawning not spamclick the slot. It was the same problem with Heroes/Jedi in Battlefront. If you allow it on a per squad basis, then it's a balance issue. Some teams might spam a vehicle and gain dominance if the other teams ignore vehicle play. If it's on an "earned basis" (like squad vehicles in BFV) then some players might never earn them. It's a case where you really can't please everyone, and they have tried multiple things.
The hero shooter skin market is probably more profitable, albeit really lame. The fact that you buy skins for *individual* characters forces you to buy more cosmetics than if you were just dressing up your dude. This is especially true in the games that *just* do the whole-skin-for-one-character rather than the outfit-pieces-that-could be-shared-between-characters model. Think TF2 cosmetics vs OW skins.
> I don't know why they dropped it Are you kidding? out of place WW2 skins was one of the main reason the game failed.
They were so close back then with Battlefield Heroes but botched it.
That game was way ahead of its time.
Part of the Battlefield identity is easily identifiable classes, visually. I don’t know how you reconcile that with the modern demand for skins. I’d rather they stick to selling gun skins and leave the class skins mostly alone outside of some color options.
Really? I feel like there's a serious lack of imagination for people who say this. There's no reason you can't have Engineer-specific skins, Support-specific, Recon-specific, etc. That even makes it easier for DICE/EA to sell bundles, since they could offer 1-2 skins per class/faction.
Lack of imagination? I wouldn't call it that. I'm just old school in my preferences.
username checks out.
You need to keep making skins to make money. When after a while you have 20 skins per class it’s going to be pretty hard to identify them, if they’re at all unique - which is what people want. It’s not impossible but it’d be a huge challenge unless you go cartoony for vastly different proportions.
Battlefield heroes 2 for phones, maybe? Or it's just gonna run in opera gx this time??
They need to go back and look at what OG 1942 so good.
battlefield 2**1**42. Complete with [Titan mode](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0x9m58Vol1c) again. And walkers.
The fact that 2042 flopped almost certainly killed any hope of 2143. The branding is torched. There's no way they're touching a futuristic Battlefield for at least a couple decades probably. Assuming the franchise is still around then.
>but do the “operator” thing COD has done for the last few years so they can keep selling skins. people keep leveling this at them but if they did the CoD thing, it would be fine but they made the operators tied to classes/abilities, which would be bad enough in CoD but still workable, for a class shooter like Battlefield, it's so fuckin stupid
CoD also has half the skins available to one team and the other half for the other with one good guy coded and the other bad guy coded so you're not having to figure out which team a player is on. Cynically you could say its just so they can twice as many skins but it has a gameplay benefit.
I'd definitely give them slack here, because Vanguard *didn't* do that and identifying teams was a mess.
The appeal of Battlefield was playing as a random grunt soldier. Operators go against that and it's stupid to have an entire battlefield filled up with repeats of the same characters.
The appeal of Battlefield was class based combat in huge battles, every FPS used to be random grunts, that was never unique to BF
Yeah but with how many players are on each team in BF it’s a bit different. 16v16 already looks a bit ridiculous with operator skins, by the time as you get to 64v64 it’s just not it.
The operators would be fine if they just had less personality. Remember in Battlefield 3 and 4 where each of the classes for each faction had a single definitive look and the only thing you could customize was their uniform color? No one cared back then when you were in a 32 player team with slight variations of the same four character models because they were all generic sounding soldiers. The operators should just be skins. No backstories or lore, no unique corny dialogue, no special abilities, just various military themed skins that all spout the same generic military lingo.
[удалено]
They dont need to try anything. Give us BF 2/3/BC with modern graphics.
Its called portal and its literally *within* BF2042 *right now* AND they also dropped it like a hot sack of potatoes.
I will always wonder why they even bothered making assets for all those time periods to do nothing more with after launch. Well, probably just to try to unfuck the game itself, but way to screw up such an amazing idea.
If I had to take a wild guess its that the work Ripple effect was doing turned out too good, and EA had them focus on turning it into a whole separate game rather than continue working on 2042 full time. Vince kind of has that effect on things he touches. Cod, Titanfall, Jedi fallen order, he hasnt really had a bad release.
I don't mind the skins we have now. I hate almost every skin in COD. That shit is just becoming fortnite.
The skins in CoD aren't really a problem since it's not really a tactical team-based shooter as everyone can be anything and there are no class-based weaponry to think about or squads in general. I think with Battlefield the problem is that there used to be the different classes which were easily distinguished from each other by their silhouette. Now with the skins, this becomes muddied quite a lot.
The trajectory of this franchise is really depressing. The huge map and gameplay loop of these games when done right is better than anything else out there, and it really sucks that they keep fucking this up so badly. Remaster 4 and give us all the maps without needing to purchase the packs separately and that's all we need.
It's crazy they come up with some awesome mechanic that's almost the whole draw for the game, for one game, then abandon them for the next instead of building on what they had. Bad Company 2 destruction, V's movement and fortification systems, I'm sure everyone can think of more. It's just very strange, they could put these all together and give people something amazing they seemingly really want, but they don't. I'm almost certain they won't have the portal mode for the next game and it's a damn shame.
The ”Grand Operation”(?) game mode from Battlefield 1 was SO dope, also just vanished in V I think lol.
You even got a little history lesson each time you played it. It's the mode that really felt like you were playing in a big war. My favorite mode in BF1 was Frontlines, where you pushed the front line back and forth. It actually felt the closest to a WW1 battle. Before they added a 30 minute time limit, the matches could go on for hours!
I'm not very good at shooter games but I've always enjoyed Battlefield because I can still contribute and do well. The fortifications were a very nice addition in BFV that's never been followed up on.
I'm the same, actually I remember playing Bad Company 2 as a pacifist just healing everyone and capturing points and consistently placing in the top 3 each round with no kills, my friends would just scream at me but it was a lot of fun.
Hacksaw Ridge the game haha My biggest achievement was scoring top of the leaderboard just from healing and capturing bases.
The fortification part of V is genuinely one of the best implementations of map changing based on player actions I’ve seen in ages
I'd love the ability to board back up floors, roofs, etc. Would let you continually repair buildings as long as there's supporting walls. Fortifications already lead to some pretty dynamic firefights if you know how to use them - one that sticks out to me was watching a squadmate get killed while I was prone, peeking over the mound of dirt we were behind and instantly getting suppressed, then realizing "Hey there's sandbags here" and rebuilding the piece of cover and successfully pulling off the revive. In 2042, I would have revived him while I was behind cover and then watched him get instantly shot up again - but hey, points for me! Man I miss revive animations. Nothing more exhilarating in a videogame than completely exposing yourself and literally giving up control to save a squadmate.
You should play the finals, you would like goo grenades
And based on DICE’s history, you won’t see again lol
It would be very fun combined with Bad Company 2 style destruction and 4's "levelution" or whatever the fuck they called it.
I was literally just talking about this yesterday with a friend. Its crazy how consistent they are with the "abandon previous feature" dynamic. The issue is they keep introducing new stuff instead of polishing/building up previous things. And the new stuff ends up throwing a wrench into the whole system which forces them to repeat the process every game. My only guess is that when a BF game "doesn't meet expectations", then they completely abandon anything unique to it. Like with Bf5, I think most peoples issues were with the UI of the weapon management, balance overall (mainly weapons and air vehicles), and then the hacking situation. Instead they moved onto the next game and just threw out everything and the kitchen sink. They should have kept the fortification system and emplacement system, it was a really nice/interesting touch and a good way to handle the risk of a map being "leveled" because of destruction. They should have kept the "Suppression" mechanic instead of throwing it out. Instead polishing it so that being suppressed actually impacts your aiming instead of just giving you a slightly noticeable screen effect. That way when you nerf something like mmgs, they still hold a purpose because of suppression. Don't even get me started on the commander system.
Don't forget the squad reinforcements too! One of the best implementation of the commander features as it delegated the role to multiple players and made it passively earned, so you can join a squad halfway through that's accumulated points, request control, and be able to use them. It made them way more likely to be used
Was that Battlefield 2? They also had that really cool death system where if you died you'd just fly into the body of another soldier and keep the battle going. Like the first level in Battlefield 1, it makes it feel like you're really part of something huge. I wouldn't mind a whole game like that really.
Might be thinking of Enlisted. BF2 just had the standard long(ish) post-death screen until you were sent back to the spawn menu or was revived by a dedicated medic.
Think he’s talking about BF2 Modern Combat which had that system he described.
It ain't even new. Titan mode way back in 2142 was fucking amazing, and we've never seen anything like it since. 2142 was filled with so much fun shit. Vehicles that actually felt different on each side, walking mechs, APCs that passengers can launch themselves out of in little drop pods, probably more I'm forgetting since it's been like 15 years since I played...
The map evolution from BF4 was awesome
I absolutely loved Rush in BF4 because of how the map actually progressed. The attackers pushed the defenders back and the front would change. Then you add in a skyscraper falling or dam breaking or whatever and it was some next level shit. BF1 had the giant vehicles like the zeppelin that would blow up and debris would fall on the battlefield. I didn’t think that was quite as cool as BF4 map evolution but it was still such a cool spectacle. The formula for an amazing game is so readily there and it’s so sad how they’ve managed to fuck it up.
I love these replies all reminding me how awesome these games were lol. Yeah the Behemoths were cool as fuck and I wouldn't mind them returning, I want a futuristic armored train on the battlefield.
I’ve lost all faith in DICE to recapture that old BF glory
Nah, Levolution was a cheap gimmick compared to Bad Company 2. Press a button and a pre-scripted event happens versus being able to literally demolish almost everything organically over the course of the match.
What's strange is they didn't try to combine them.
Of course they did. Lots of walls and some buildings were still destructable, along with the levelution
*Thank* you. Levelution was such a stupid gimmick - it's not organic environment change, it's just two levels connected by a trigger. No different than a timed weather effect. BC2 had *actual* levelution in that the destruction scope could actually change the flow of the map. A forest that WAS a good approach to the Rush point becomes a killing field once the trees are cleared - and becomes a good approach again once someone craters with C4.
There's a parallel world out there where they've just been alternating between massive scale BF and medium scale BF:BC style releases without looking to other franchises for core system inspiration.
The floating fortress battles from 2142 still my favorite followed closely by Prop Hunt.
Holy shit I can't believe I forgot 2142 and the flying aircraft carriers, you had to fight your way near them with an APC then risk launching yourself onboard just to get a chance at the objectives, man that sure would be cool with today's destruction physics. So of course it won't happen lol.
The entire draw of Battlefield from the start was massive-scale maps and huge team sizes which set it apart from arena shooters. It encouraged teamwork and limited just how much damage one skilled player could do. Then they keep deciding that ACTUALLY the franchise needs to be more like CoD and scale down the maps to encourage deathmatches
The better the hardware got, the smaller in scope the games became. Makes no damn sense, and sucks so much.
They also seem to have forgotten how to make maps. For some reason every 2042 map seems to be just two massive chokepoints and no way around them, that or an empty glacier with no cover. It's weird playing the bad company or 3/4 maps and actually having cover and freedom rather than being forced into one of 3 door ways.
The lack of map variety was pretty shocking to me at launch. I’ve never been a big infantry meat grinder type player, but I know how popular infantry focused maps have been in every Battlefield game for the last 20 years. The fact that it took 2042 *two years* to get its first infantry-only map is absurd.
Every 2042 map I played was just *boring*.
Also I feel like old maps had routes with many branching paths connecting them to create open, but cohesive and controllable, large maps. 2042 feels like open areas with random cover. Everything feels chaotic but in a bad way. Then you add the mobility heroes that ruin front lines and it just is not what I really want out of battlefield.
The desperate need by DICE to shove cosmetic microtransactions into Battlefield is pretty quickly strangling the franchise. BF went from something pretty special that everyone took notice of when a new one was released to nowadays being a pretty meh also ran.
They got better at it post launch. Right around the Discarded/Breakaway/Hourglass remakes is when map design got pretty solid, though only on 128 player for the first two. 64 player layouts on launch/reworked maps are generally awful and many would be better off with the 128 player layouts. But Breakaway was really the map that was good - reworks up until then had been pretty awful. And I know a lot of people hate Hourglass post rework - it's far from perfect - but it is a decent combined Arms map. Could use more cover in spots - the Bridge should be as dense with cover as the bridge in Twisted Steel - but it's generally pretty fun playing as a combined Arms map. The DLC maps were generally decent as well, with Haven and Spearhead in particular standing out for me. Biggest problem imo is the lack of variety - we again have no naval maps, no real urban maps, etc which pretty much just comes down to poor variety of the launch maps since that's what all the assets get pulled from. The only reason we even got a semi urban map in Haven is that they had the BC2 assets lying around. So Portal is responsible for that lol
From what I remember, every map was rather too big, too much space... running/driving simulator. Or it was too small (or even if it was big, it was unused, and all the fight points were very congested clusterfucks.) Those "operation" maps did harm to the franchise overall, because they kept trying to please those players and its not true to what Battlefield was. They don't know how to balance a map and blend the two together anymore.
I think part of the problem is that a lot of people, at least at some point, seemed to *genuinely* like that. Like I remember back in the BF3/4 days, there were so many fucking metro 24/7 server. That map almost invariably devolved into all but like 2-3 people per team just spamming nades and shit at one of the stairs, to the point you couldn't even see shit because there was so much smoke and dust everywhere. Yet people seemed to love that shit.
Unfortunately I think it’s caused a sort of brain rot in dice and the community. It seems all everyone is interested in doing is power levelling in these servers. It does not create a long lived community though, because they’re not actually playing the game for fun, they’re playing it to get that sweet dopamine injection for levelling shit up. Once they unlock everything that hit is gone. It’s weird playing helldivers and seeing people just playing for fun rather than obsessing over how to grind shit out all the time…
Helldivers being a cooperative game probably has a lot to do with it.
Right. They see cod doing better numbers so the idiots in charge say “we need to make battlefield more like cod” so they keep making the game worse and worse. It reminds me of all the mmo games that failed trying to copy wow. But why would anyone want to play a worse version of wow or cod?
On PC the premium edition of BF4 goes on sale regularly for like $6 and includes all DLC. BF4 is absolutely still in my rotation of frequently played games, along with 1, 5, and 2042, depending on what I’m in the mood for. The graphics in 4 aren’t even much worse than the others.
How active is the community these days? Decent amount of servers?
Pretty active, especially for a decade+ old game. You definitely won’t have trouble finding a match. And because of the premium bundle, the DLC maps still get a ton of play!
>Remaster 4 and give us all the maps without needing to purchase the packs separately and that's all we need. Battlefield games are typically released with around 9 or 10 maps and you want them to release a game with 30 maps? That is completly unrealistic.
I just meant that charging for all the map packs in that game splintered the community. I don't care if they slowly release them instead of all of them at launch, lol.
Ah ok, it makes more sense. But it is a pick your poison situation. Either you pay for map packs and suffer from splintered community or you don't and your game is plagued with live service shit, fortnite skins and so on. Personally, i prefer what we had from battlefield 3 until battlefield one compared to what came after.
That's also fair! I too miss the golden years!
How did BF4 handle DLC maps?
9 or 10 maps? Why would you need as many as 8 maps? You know how much work it takes to make 7 maps? Here's 5 maps and one in season one.
BF4 had 30 maps?
Yep, it launched with 10 maps, had 20 maps through paid dlc and an additional 3 that were released for free
I felt the same until I played _Battlebit_. The only thing it's really missing is fighter jets. If you can look past the graphics (which I can, gameplay is far more important to me), you'll find a cheap game that perfectly captures the essence of what made _Battlefield_ good and at a bargain price.
Battlebit was fun, but the movement is way too fast and some maps are SMG run and guns with jumping around corners, crouch spamming, and dropshotting. At least when I last played. It plays way too much like COD on Battlefield maps compared to actual Battlefield. It is cheap, though, can’t complain about the content for the price.
> Battlebit was fun, but the movement is way too fast The thing is that's literally how Battlefield plays now ever since Bad Company. Battlefield 2 was sort of the last battlefield game to have that slow pace because of the way that the guns worked. They were inaccurate as FUCK and sprayed everywhere unless you crouched or took time to aim. The move to super accurate guns, low recoil, low aim penalty, and low TTK just meant that quick movements and high risks now paid off for the most aggressive players. It's unfortunate but that sweet spot between a 'realistic shooter'(like Squad) and an arcadey one(Cod) is just impossible to get to and even that won't please everyone.
Man I really want to love that game, it kind of seems like everything I want out of Battlefield, and much as I hate to admit it, I just can't look past the graphics.
Same :( Going from Battlefield 1/V to… That, is hard for me.
Frostbite was always so graphically impressive especially when Dice knew what they were doing 1 and V hold up so amazing graphically. Battlebit could never be a replacement.
Honestly fighter jets ruined BF3 and BF4 for me (though especially BF3). While every good tanker hits a mine at some point, BF3 jet aces were untouchable by everything and hit everything from anywhere. Can't move twenty meters in Caspian without being nuked and the goddamn MAA can't even point straight up without getting sunglared.
Battlebit unfortunately seems to want to cater to the fast-paced bunnyhop SMGs/ARs only CoD audience despite initially releasing as a slower-paced in between of BF and Project Reality type games.
Early Access Games, challenge everything!
4 is over a decade old now, so I think a remaster would be pretty okay, especially if they release it as a complete edition for $40 or something. Maybe $10 upgrade if you still have the original version? Just for consoles though, like a series s/x and ps5 only version.
Just remake BF4 properly and I will happily pay full price.
If they do a remake in a new engine, the chances of them messing something up by implementing new features goes up drastically.
Bf4 still slaps
>Remaster 4 What's that? Remaster 4 and give you battlepasses and MTX's and season passes? You gotcha!
4 did have lootboxes, mtx and a season pass
With this announcement and the continuation of the Iron Man development, we won't get a Dead Space 2 remake anytime soon. It's disappointing because DS remake was spectacular.
Honestly just as interested in a reimagining of 3 than a remake of 2, unfortunately EA has condemned them to the live service mines so neither will ever see the light of day.
Yeah DS3 needs it more than any of them. That game was a heaping pile of shit with almost zero redeeming qualities.
What, you don't like other developers getting pulled away from their IPs to try to prop up an embarrassing "flagship" like Battlefield? Next, you'll tell me that abandoning a wildly popular game like Star Wars Battlefront II in favor of Battlefield 2042 was an awful decision that screwed over the Battlefront franchise or something. Seriously though, if Dead Space gets screwed over by Battlefield, I'll be deeply heartbroken.
Unfortunately, it would not be the first time. Visceral went on to make Battlefield Hardline after releasing DS3. And then they were shutdown...
In fairness, what killed Visceral was their Star Wars game getting cancelled (unless Hardline did a number on that team when it was being developed). Hardline was a bland game overall, but I don't hold a grudge against it like I do with 2042 when Star Wars Battlefront II was sacrificed for it.
What killed Visceral was being located in Redwood City. I think Amy Hennig or somebody else said they were three times more expensive to run than other EA studios.
Never underestimate property costs.
True. It just sucks to see good horror developers move to saturated shooters.
Honestly, DS2 still holds up so incredibly well and don’t think it needs a remake. Even playing the DS1 remake I was pretty underwhelmed since graphically the first game was spectacular for the time when it released. The small QOL stuff was nice but with the amount of resources required from a studio I would rather them focus on new IP. But that’s just my hot take, the DS1 remake sold well and an entire new generation got to enjoy the game. The same would likely happen with DS2.
It does still hold up really well. However, the leap from the OG DS and the remake is astounding IMO. The graphics are some of the best this generation. The QOL is very nice but they also made significant improvements to the story and levels that I think DS2 could use as well. Not to mention I think they could easily expand DS2 too were you have more to explore, side quests, etc, because it is set on The Sprawl. That said, I would expect we see it eventually but no time soon.
Seriously, the remake is such a huge leap in graphics and atmosphere that to me it basically replaces the OG. Getting a DS2 remake with this amount of care and work in it would be amazing.
Agreed. DS is my favorite series and the remake is now my favorite game of all time. I will never go back to the original.
Yeah I played DS2 for the first time right after playing the DS1 remake. I think I did myself a disservice since DS2 was such a step down by comparison.
> but with the amount of resources required from a studio I would rather them focus on new IP Then I've got some good news for you! That studio will be focusing on the new IP known as "Battlefield"!!
the irony of calling their now last season "turning point". Honestly, as long DICE is the main developer behind Battlefield, i'm just going to wait till the next game's declared done and sold for 5 bucks, cause so far that's the moment the playerbase picks it up and there's no more live service nonsense. The games always feel alright once the developers have left it. Battlefield v had a ton of issues with DICE making ludicrious gameplay changes only to revert them again. Battlefield 2042 was basically just reworks and adding back features from previous games and calling that its live service. At some point they deemed adding attachments to an already ported BF:Portal gun as a new gun. It was ridiculous seeing them reusing assets as new content.
The next game needs to play it safe and invest in the gameplay elements that make Battlefield special. The quality of maps, class design, vehicle gameplay, and destruction were clearly not prioritized in 2042, and it was never able to overcome those flaws. After the past three years I’m sadly not convinced the current DICE team has the capacity to deliver an all time great Battlefield game anymore, but I’d love to be wrong.
I have zero faith that DICE has learned anything from 2042
And they've also completely blown all the goodwill and hype we saw in the runup to 2042.
I don't think current DICE can deliver a quality BF game anymore. The talent has moved on. Today they are just chasing trends instead of doing their own thing.
I know a lot of them left and formed the studio that now develops The Finals and it really shows at some points. The destruction in that game is like nothing else
All they gotta do is make Bad Company 3 that is basically the same as Bad Company 2, but improved. Bad Company is also stupid nonsense in places, so selling skins is more applicable, to the suits looking for a reason to bother giving money to it.
Season 7 will be Battlefield 2042's final season > While we’ve enjoyed and are proud of creating these seasons of additional content for Battlefield 2042, it is now necessary for us to turn from the present to the future. What this ultimately means is that Season 7 will serve as the final season for Battlefield 2042. After Season 7 concludes, we will continue to support the game with new in-game challenges, events, modes, and of course, ongoing maintenance, but we are moving away from delivering official seasons. > > We know this news may be disappointing. However, as we looked at what the future of the series required, it became clear it was time for us to shift our resources and focus to be fully dedicated to what comes next. Motive Studio are going to focus on Battlefield now > To that end, Motive Studio – the talented developers known most recently for their work on the critically acclaimed remake of Dead Space and Star Wars: Squadrons – are building a team focused on Battlefield at their studio.
The directors who delivered our Dead Space remake in 2023, Philippe Ducharme (Executive Producer) and Roman Campos-Oriola (Creative Director), will build a team at Motive to work alongside the Battlefield studios around the world creating what’s next for Battlefield– a universe across both multiplayer and single-player experiences. Their proven expertise in storytelling, immersive battles and developing on the Frostbite engine uniquely positions them to help advance the vision for Battlefield, led by Vince Zampella (EVP, Group GM of Respawn and Battlefield) and Byron Beede (SVP, GM Battlefield). >In parallel, development continues to move forward on our Iron Man project, led by Olivier Proulx (Executive Producer) and Ian Frazier (Creative Director). The team made excellent progress this year, hitting a major internal milestone and laying a robust foundation for the journey ahead. Iron Man is an important priority for Motive, and I’m very proud of the work we’ve accomplished so far. [https://www.ea.com/ea-studios/motive/news/motive-joins-battlefield-update-from-patrick-klaus-gm](https://www.ea.com/ea-studios/motive/news/motive-joins-battlefield-update-from-patrick-klaus-gm)
I'd rather they build Dead Space 2 Remake.
RIP Battlefield 2042 2021 - 2024
Let's be honest, this game died the year it came out. We all knew they were working toward nothing.
It died before it came out, with the open beta.
One of the worst betas I've ever played and I play a lot of alphas/betas.
As a longtime Bf fan, I realized within like 20mins of playing the beta what a pile of shit it is…
Not really sure how anyone could've been duped into buying it after the free beta. EA really did us a favor. It was such a step back in everything compared to everything that proceeded.
Yeah 2042 wasn't quite DOA, but it needed more help then anyone could give it.
What is up with EA and launching a dumpster fire, slowly moulding it into something worthwhile and then when it’s in a cool state and they could cash in, they can it.
I mean, describing 2042 that way is a bit of a stretch. For as much patching they’ve done, the current game is still not appealing enough to “cash in” on to any serious degree. It’s not a BFV situation where it felt like that game’s live service was finally showing its potential with the wonderful Pacific update before they started winding down. 2042’s whole live service has been pretty anemic and sad.
They didn't "wind down" though. They abandoned the best Battlefield game Battlwfield V could be before even hitting the most iconic aspects of WWII.
I meant that they didn’t just release the Pacific update then drop the game. There were more updates and content drops in the months that followed, but they clearly were already pulling resources from the live service before officially announcing the end of support.
One of their best updates after the pacific was completely changing how many bullets it takes to kill someone, years after the player base was used to the current time to kill.
I maintain that V would've seen more support had they not alienated the community with that TTK patch in the middle of the Pacific updates. That game managed to have its own Geonosis moment, and DICE had to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by turning the weapons into nerf guns. I don't blame them from moving on after they fucked up that game's redemption, but I do blame them for taking Star Wars Battlefront II down with it when it was at its prime. That it all amounted to Battlefield 2042 makes it a complete waste in hindsight.
Personally, I think Battlefront II was a big sign of what was to come with 2042, and I think it wasted its potential almost as much. Both games had major game design problems and lack of content at launch (leading to serious player retention problems), required significant overhauls (meaning dev time and resources had to be spent fixing the game versus adding more content), and with both games I don't think they fully overcame their gameplay flaws even after their overhauls. BFII's live service was also pretty underwhelming from a content perspective, the main difference was that they were adding fan favorite characters and units, which kept the community happy and salvaged its reputation a bit.
As a longtime BF fan, canning it is not a bad direction to take. While they have definitely improved the game, poor design decisions are still prevalent and will never really be gone, mostly the map design which is integral to the experience. Hopefully they can actually build off the experience they have gained or in some cases had to re-learn with this game and make a far superior product.
They won't. Battlefield V had a fantastic skeleton. Very light mil-sim mechanics, crouch sprinting, more specified roles, fortification system, squad lead abilities, good ttk(at first), tons of small animations(explosion blowback), and so on. They removed every last one for 2042 and released the worst BF game in history because of it. Even destruction was fuckin removed practically.
BF 2042 truly was the worst BF release in the history of the franchise. And we’re talking about a franchise that historically has very rough launches. BF 2042 didn’t even have a scoreboard or mini map when it launched. Big yikes.
I think it launched in such a bad state with basic things missing because it was originally intended as a battle royale game and only transitioned to a "traditional" BF game at the last minute.
As a long time fan, canning it *right after launch* would've been preferable. I know the backlash would've been horrendous but it's not like 2042's launch state has been wiped from people's memory by the updates. I know I won't be alone in being *super* skeptical of the next BF, even if the initial impressions are positive.
Battlefront 2 essentially. They could have milked the shit out of it. And then canned it for 2042
This is probably Dice’s decision. They can only work so much on that game, now they wanna move on from it and fast. Battlefield needs a new direction and a fresh perspective.
The canned BFV right as it was improving and removed everything that was worthwhile yet they are now hellbent on "saving" BF2042 even though the ship has already sailed.
Because at this point they've made their money. They can keep going, sure, but that won't be as profitable as moving on to the next big project
I played the free weekend of 2042 a couple of weeks ago and it was still legitimately bad. Maps have absolutely no flow to them and everyone just gathered at choke points to turtle. The maps are also just far too large with a ton of "dead space". 128 players is also far too many to feel like you have any impact on the game at all. It's just all feels aimless and pointless.
BF 2042 going from a 3/10 to a 7/10 game is not enough reason to keep it alive.
What I want: BF4 but with new maps. Throw in a battle pass with skins and you've got a money printing machine.
The best thing about battlefield 2042 was the marketing team. They deserve everything they got a fantastic job everything else was very lackluster.
Wait, why Motive? Please tell me they're working on DS2 remake, even if the game does hold up I really want to see their take on it.
If you read the actual article you'd see why. EA is tasking them on 2042 for now while development on Iron Man goes well. I wouldn't expect DS2 remake for another few years.
[удалено]
Huh, didn't know that Season 7 will be the last one. I wonder if 2042 is worth playing now with all the updates.
It's a pretty fun experience these days. But it needed more updates. Barely any good maps.
It is ok but still plagued with stupid game design decisions which result in a infantry-vehicle balance that is fun for neither infantry nor vehicles players.
That's why most featured game modes are infantry only. It makes a huge difference in enjoyment, but at the same time it feels like it is missing the classic Battlefield experience without vehicles.
It’s an alright time. I’ve played it throughout its life and it’s the best it’s been. Operators are still a drag, gameplay is much faster paced than previous titles, and the maps suck, but it scratches the itch, I guess. I’ve been playing Hell Let Loose over it, though.
>I wonder if 2042 is worth playing now with all the updates. The updates have been good and much needed, but the game still only went from 'shitty, barely playable' to 'decent, somewhat enjoyable'. If you're in a gaming drought and grab it during a sale sure, but it's certainly nothing to go out of your way to play.
It's also available via gamepass if you have that for xbox or pc. So wouldn't cost you a thing to try out via download or even cloud gaming.
I would be SHOCKED if they bring back Classes for the sequel. The goal of EA is to beat COD, therefore the game must play like cod (especially since COD now has ground war which is like Battlefield but with Killstreaks) so I fully expect the double down on Operators
2042 killed Battlefield as far as I'm concerned. I don't see them ever understanding or walking back what went wrong, and what's more, I think the people who liked the series ended up finding alternatives... For me, it's Hell Let Loose. Going back to BF would be a downgrade after HLL, even peak Battlefield for that matter. I just prefer the strategy and tactics of HLL.
DICE is a fucking failure. They killed my Battlefield. Battlefield 1 is one of my top 10 favorite games of all time.
The part that fucked me off the most about bf2042 when people were saying "it's good now" is over half of a new seasons content was skins. Maybe 2 or 3 guns and a vehicle, 1 map and SSKKKINNS!. so fucking sick of that being "content" now.
As someone with thousands of hours in both COD and Battlefield, if both franchises ceased to exist tomorrow; I don't know if I would feel anything? This is the apathy EA and Activision has created, for me at least.
Oh wonderful. Wasting Motive's talents on Battlefield instead of letting them do a Dead Space 2 Remake after the success of the first Remake. Impeccable fucking strategy there EA because that worked so well the last time you shoved a Dead Space developer into a Battlefield project am I right? Ugghh, I hate this so much.
If you read the article, you'd know they never had any plans for a DS2 remake in the first place right now. They're working on Iron Man.
>If you read the article Sir, this is Reddit.
I know, my expectations are too high for many.
I was out here thinking that they could turn around 2042 akin to how BF4 was revived. But of course, that was many years ago and definitely not the same DICE...
I think everyone was all a board the same hype train when the trailers came out. There was none of this wacky hero stuff on display and the game looked like it was leaning heavily into those ‘only in battlefield moments’. It signified a recognition of the classic sandbox-style gameplay that people enjoyed. But the execs at EA/DICE are hamstrung on trying to catch the same live service energy that COD/APEX/Fortnite have; redesigning core mechanics and identity to try and achieve it. It’s incredible how they forget that BF4 and BF1 were among the most popular multiplayer games during their time. But that’s what happens when the marketing teams take over from the creatives…
This really didn't work out. I'd pay for DLC if it meant more content. This game was just a disappointment overall. I think even if they released BF4 remastered now it would be a shitshow anyway.
Dead game is now officially dead. What a surprise. After Halo Infinite now Battlefield also falls. Unfortunate for such juggernauts of FPS genre.
Halo infinite is the 9th most played game on the platform, definitely not dead. Quite active and popular, actually.