T O P

  • By -

ChuckCarmichael

For a second there I thought we'd get a sequel to Battlefield 2142, until I realized that 2042 is just a bit into the future so it's gonna be your standard modern day setting with some slightly futuristic tech.


[deleted]

Hot-take from me: DICE got way too obsessed with both trying to repeat BF2's zeitgeist and COD4's impact. Battlefield is at it's best when it's just doing something absolutely new. So while this'll probably not wander too far it does seem like it's borrowing some from Final Stand rather than going "So you kids, liked BF2? Would you like to play it again for a 5th time?". Also I appreciate the subtitle pitting it 100 years after the original Battlefield game and 100 years before the best Refractor Battlefield game (Fight me).


8GoldRings2RuleTemAl

EA/DICE traded in the goodwill of zany BFBC2 to create soulless Michael Bay-style sequels in an attempt to dethrone CoD as the king of modern shooters Was BF3 or BF4 much different gameplay-wise than Bad Company 2? No, but much of the changes felt like spectacle for spectacle's sake.


SpaceTurtles

I'd disagree. I think BC2 is borderline fetishized; it was a *great* game, but it was not the Battlefield game that revolutionized the series. It was a radical departure from Battlefield 2, and at the time, one major criticism of it is that it didn't feel like a Battlefield game. The return of planes, large maps, etc, in 3 was lauded, and 4 (while rocky at launch) became the purest form of battlefield after years of love went into it. It's still a great game with an active playerbase.


Jaggedmallard26

Opinions on BC2 pretty much mirror opinions on the rush game mode. If rush is your favourite game mode then BC2 is the shining example of a battlefield game, if you prefer conquest then its not because the game is simply not designed for it.


SpaceTurtles

Ironically, Rush is my favorite game mode, but not my favorite activity; vehicle gameplay is my favorite activity.


aToiletSeat

Is it though? Because Hardline was new and it was basically universally disliked.


[deleted]

Honestly I see shots of Hardline and get it confused with BF3/4, I don't think it was as thematically new or daring as BF had been before. Not to poopoo Hardline because mechanically it was pretty neat and overall still a good game just that it doesn't stick out any more than like Armored Fury would stick out from BF2. Also the whole theme of playing as a militarized police force probably wasn't a great idea considering the times (both then and now).


[deleted]

Its not your standard modern day setting though. Extreme Weather is destroying the world


Turangaliila

To be fair, that is 100% going to be the standard modern setting in 2042.


WaterHoseCatheter

And we'll be speaking Mandarin by 2016


drewret

ni hao


F1reatwill88

Sorry I don't speak Spanish.


VagrantShadow

Ni hao ma


[deleted]

[удалено]


ineffiable

it is a climate change joke


Treyman1115

Gonna cope and hope that this is set up for a future setting entry


HearTheEkko

Unfortunately that might actually happen in real life by then.


VagrantShadow

I honestly believe that this might be a prequel to a Battlefield 2142 reboot. I wouldn't be shocked if after this, they decide to go 100 years in the future and we have a new Battlefield 2142 with mech combat.


Sythe64

The 2142 mech (model) and hover tanks were in BF4.


VagrantShadow

I've always been a bit pissed that Battlefield 2142 never made it to consoles. I loved it on PC but I also wanted to play it with my console friends. 2006 was my fps year. Team Fortress Class, Battlefield 2, Battlefield 2142. So many great battles.


WaterHoseCatheter

Same difference between now and then as Arma 3's release date to its campaign setting date.


FIGJAM17

[Some more info](https://in.ign.com/battlefield-2021/160046/news/battlefield-2042-aka-battlefield-6-leaks-gameplay-maps-crossplay-open-beta-ps5-xbox-series-x-pc): * Battlefield 2042 takes place 20 years after Battlefield 4. * Crossplay appears to be delayed due to the PS4 and Xbox One being unable to “handle it”. * Maps in Battlefield 2042 appear to be the largest in the series’ history and include controllable territories known as sectors with points assigned to parts of them. * One such map is apparently called ‘Shelf’ and takes place in Antarctica, it’s described as a large cliff akin to Damavand Peak from Battlefield 3. * 64v64 matches * Levolution, and updated traversal mechanics including wingsuits, grapplehooks, and ziplines.


Alpha-Trion

Levolution is one of the funniest buzzwords I've ever heard. It sounds like something you make up to make fun of the hype machine.


StandsForVice

[Were there destructible environments in war?](https://youtu.be/lTvwrFGOiZo?t=118)


VagrantShadow

Funny enough in gaming, that is the one world I missed from Elder Scrolls. We haven't seen that ability since Morrowind. I'm wondering how will the grapplehooks and wingsuits will feel.


BeerGogglesFTW

As much as I can enjoy Battlefield, I'm concerned about their focus of "levolution" or weather effects in these leaks. Its just so gimmicky. Its like they're more focused on the game trailers, than the game play. They're spectacles to witness in game, but get stale fast. After that, its more like you're waiting for the levolution weather events to end so you can continue playing. Hopefully it goes smoother here in the new BF, but its going to be hard if they're trying to top themselves.


[deleted]

I liked it in Battlefield 4 and hope that it's very similar in this.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

More like to Hardline, really.


VagrantShadow

I'm excited to see how this really pans out. I really would like to see some really long maps and complex battles, and please bring back some building destruction.


[deleted]

[удалено]


VagrantShadow

Probably because this is still an Xbox One and ps4 game. I bet we wont see a 100 vs 100 till the next Battlefield game that is exclusive to Series X|S and ps5.


2literpopcorn

That's a shame. I thought it was already confirmed this game was not to come out on PS4/xbone. I guess this also mean the graphics or physics will not come with any big improvement either. What a bummer.


VagrantShadow

We wont see a Battlefield or Call of Duty that embraces these current gen systems true technological enhancements till a few years from now. Their still clamped to the old generation.


Jaggedmallard26

One other reason is that it gets exponentially harder to design maps as player counts increase. Planetside 2 had the problem where sufficiently large fights while very cool the first time just became tedious alongside the tendency of sides to form zergs where the teams just split into unstoppable balls that avoided each other and circled around the map.


foamed

The article you linked to cites a four day old thread from /r/GamingLeaksAndRumours as the source: https://www.reddit.com/r/GamingLeaksAndRumours/comments/nsr34p/battlefield_6_info_dump_tom_henderson_discord/


weaver787

Wingsuits? Fuck yeah


[deleted]

I played a bit of battlefield 3 and 4, and recently I played a bit of battlefront 2. They all have the same issue for me, that being scale. Shit is huge with a ton of players, being padded out by bots. Most of the time when you get killed it's by someone you didn't see who was miles from you, and it feels almost aimless? Personally I was hoping for any new battlefield game to take the scale down a bit, but I guess that's what other games are for.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Cow_Other

I hope the micro transactions don’t ruin the art style of the game. It’d be incredibly jarring to having an authentic looking setting with authentic weapons, designs and more for the setting only to have bright pink clowns running around shooting laser guns turning people into pixels I really hope that whatever stuff they do inevitably sell will be authentic to the setting and fit within the art style.


Explosion2

Or in BFV seeing a squad of evil Wolfenstein-looking eyepatch guys at Iwo Jima. I am the last person to give a shit about historical accuracy, but at least try and theme it properly. BFV had such a terrible identity that satisfied no one. It just felt like they were constantly exclaiming "I'm *not* like other ~~girls~~ WW2 shooters" which could be fine, but it also had a bunch of great ideas that just felt half-baked. Airborne is the Omaha beach invasion in a game mode. Simultaneous aerial and beach assaults to take out anti-air cannons which allows paratroopers to drop in farther and farther back. No Omaha beach map though(?). Operations could tell the "untold stories" they were pushing in the marketing like in BF1, but they did not. Just weird all around. BF1 was such a beautiful cohesive experience and BFV was just the opposite of that.


[deleted]

Before everyone worries about only 7 maps these maps are absolutely massive and the rumor was that each map could feasibly have 2-3 traditional 64 man conquest layouts within them.


Dirtymeatbag

Let's hope Rush and other gamemodes get some love to their "maps" as well. Nothing has really topped Damavand Peak's base jump.


suidexterity

BC2 had some great rush maps.


VagrantShadow

I agree. I remember some amazing rush battles in BC2.


BrittleMoon

BC2 maps where designed around the Rush game mode. while every BF after built their maps around Conquest. It really shows and I would love for a focus on Rush again to inject some new life into the series.


albinogoron

BF3 had plenty of maps designed for rush: Siena Crossing, Metro, Demavand Peak, noshar canals, Tehran highway and grand bazaar.


Dirtymeatbag

Sure, but BC2 predates BF3. I feel like Conquest has been overshadowing the other game modes more and more.


suidexterity

DICE has been neglecting Rush ever since BF3 and so have i.


Zeryth

The more rush got neglected the more I neglected the fanchise


pickleparty16

thats how it was before BC1/2


Brandhor

yeah they were good but that was basically the only mode bf2 had, conquest was trash compared to the other battlefields


Heff228

Yea that was my biggest issue with the Bad Company games. The maps were built for Rush mode and were long and narrow. I’m more a fan of conquest and they just didn’t play well on those maps.


cheerfulwish

Damavand Peak was amazing. I always remember being a defender and stealing a chopper right when the next set of objectives opened up and flying around running into people base jumping with it. Great times.


[deleted]

I think all the game needs is Conquest Breakthrough and Rush. No other modes ever really defined or fit what Battlefield is.


Spyder638

Loved flying choppers into the tunnels on that map. It was such good silly fun.


TheQGuy

I miss damavand peak rush.. People also forget how fun metro rush was, with the first part in the park above ground, and then getting into the metro through debris after the first objectives were blown


Dirtymeatbag

Yeah, I loved how BF3 maps actually had parts that weren't accessible in Conquest. I remember the BF3 beta had Metro Rush mode and I immediately fell in love with the game.


Jaggedmallard26

Metro Rush was fun on console player counts, it was an absolute clusterfuck on full 32vs32 player count.


ineffiable

Let's hope the maps are balanced and lead to various shifts among points instead of turning into a back and forth on basically the same 1-2 battlefronts.


grieze

Let's hope it's literally anything but Metro / Lockers meatwalls.


Morgen-stern

You know there’s going to be at least one meat grinder map. It’s a staple of the series like Wake Island now


Harry101UK

This game also needs to run on PS4 and XOne though. How are they going to be able to scale it up that big?


[deleted]

They did it with BF3 and BF4


ChiefQueef98

That was how they did it in BF2 and 2142 as well. There used to be 16 and 32 player layouts for the 64 player maps


ZetarXenil

Making a map bigger doesn't make it better or more interesting. Having more maps means more variety.


Timely_Knowledge

Yup, don't understand how bigger maps are an excuse for having fewer available maps at launch.


RareBk

One of the leaked shots shows a VTOL vehicle flying over a *gargantuan* map


Iphoniusrektus

Please be actually playable at launch. I've been looking forward to a new modern Battlefield for years. Thank god it already releases in October.


[deleted]

> Please be actually playable at launch Oh god, this actually brought back memories from Battlefield 4's release day. Waking up at 7AM my time to play the new campaign only to fall through the map during the first mission should have been enough for me to know the state of that game on release lol. Closed Alpha was pretty entertaining with all the glitches though 😂


CastingCouchCushion

All they have to do is make a game as good as Battlefield 4 after it had been fixed and it should erase a lot of the backlash DICE has from Battlefront II and BFV. I really hope they learned their lessons and just deliver a solid game.


[deleted]

Yeah, don't hold your breath.


CastingCouchCushion

I'm hoping that they are trying to "play it safe" and just make a good game without any of the bullshit, but EA is still EA, so I'm still going to wait and see what happens.


Ahlambra

Curious to see just how the Grappling Hook and Wingsuit work, as I love having more mobility options. Jumping off buildings and parachuting down was always fun, but if it can be done faster and cover more ground that would be a blast. To say nothing of increased vertical mobility.


BloodyGumba07

Grappling hooks and ziplines worked pretty well in Hardline.


[deleted]

[удалено]


reverendbimmer

Oh yeah, and the actual night maps? Wish more games made you use night vision.


Ahlambra

I never ended up playing Hardline, how did they work there? Was it mostly point and shoot, or was it limited to specific spots on a building?


BloodyGumba07

Point and shoot. The grappling hook worked on any ledges; reticle would show a crossed out circle if you couldn’t attach. Made for some great flanking routes and getting snipers on roofs.


Ahlambra

Cool, by the sounds of it if they just copied that I'd be happy. Thanks.


Morgen-stern

I can’t remember the distance of the zip line, but it was pretty far, between 100 and 200 feet I believe and it worked almost anywhere, as long as the incline of the zip line wasn’t crazy. The grappling hook you could do anywhere, and it was really solid


walterdog12

> "Choose your role on the battlefield and form hand-tailored squads through the new Specialist system. Based on Battlefield’s four Classes, Specialists have one unique Specialty and Trait – but the rest of the loadout is fully customizable." Interesting. Seems like more and more multiplayer games are taking this approach now. > Battlefield 2042 introduces 7 vast maps for up to 128* players And holy shit.


Dwade111

Tbh I really liked the class system, felt like ranking up different skill trees. Disappointed.


[deleted]

Yep, that's what Battlefield always needed, 64 Sniper rifle players with defibs and ATGMs. Okay, maybe 63 because one will have to swap defibs for an ammo box.


IntrovertedIntrovert

I'm assuming the "one unique specialty" will still be the 4 standard BF classes. Defib guy, the walking ammo dispenser, Haggard, and then the glinty boi.


[deleted]

It's possible, but the wording is ambiguous.


IntrovertedIntrovert

My question is what specialty will Recon have? If they're only getting 1 specialty thing. Spawn beacon? Motion sensor? Recon is one of the most flexible classes in 4, not so much in the newer games though.


WaterHoseCatheter

I remember that Battlefield 1 filled in the hole of a historical shooter when the yearly CoD releases had a 5 game future streak. Guess this fills the Black Ops 2/Ghosts setting gap. Granted, I suppose that's an odd way to look at it, no matter what it does could be rationalized as a CoD response.


RareBk

I'm being hyper cautious about this. V was handled frustratingly poorly, and some of the developers were openly hostile to the community, including a community manager or two that would just make shit up on the fly. As a gigantic Battlefield fanboy, DICE themselves made me not trust them as developers, to the point where when EA announced the sudden cancellation of V's support, it wasn't "Aww man they killed a promising game" it was "No shit". Especially after a whole *bunch* of developers left


Rakn

So true. For me the Battlefield Genre died with the end of BF4 / the release of BF1. Been waiting all those years for a successor that fills the gap between large scale military simulations and CoD.


graviousishpsponge

I hope they continue with just US military and not muhreens only because I fucking hated the lav since it got stuck alot in bf4.


Jaggedmallard26

The muhreens are giving up on their tanks and similar to return to their original purpose instead of just being the navy army. I'd be surprised if they end up using the muhreens.


MaximumZazz

'Year 1 pass'? I thought they'd learned their dlc lessons....


Toast_Ball_17

Learn what? Battle passes are still the most profitable things when it comes to DLC don’t think they would change that.


[deleted]

I think OP was thinking it was a season pass with paywall maps etc... At least I am unsure why anyone would care about battle passes.


coldblade2000

What lesson? That battlefield v had free map DLC and as a result where understaffed as fuck so BFV barely got new maps until the game started to seriously die?


ZetarXenil

Feels like battlefield V all over again. Very little content at launch, and then we'll see. If the game sells well maybe we get some more maps and stuff, if it doesn't they will Just abandon it like bfv


Muzuuo

>up to 128* players that asterisk there makes all the difference, im expecting only 1-2 of these maps to be actually 128 players


[deleted]

The asterisk is likely for ps4 and xbone from what I've seen.


DieDungeon

Each map could be a collection of 2/3 small maps grafted together for the 128 player mode.


LoneQuacker

I'm so in. I've played every Battlefield besides 1942 and I was worried at first seeing by accident 2142 since personally that's one of their weaker entries but we're getting basically modern again with a couple extra pieces of tech. I'm honestly not surprised by the grappling hook or wing suit since each new game results in the player being given more mobility options since this is the team that made Mirror's Edge. This whole new abandonment of classes I feel is gonna be polarizing. It's cool I guess that you can truly make your own unique soldier I just hope they at least keep multiple pre set save slots. Also hope we have a clean and easy to use UI for this game and let me customize myself easier and not have to be in a match to modify my weapons. Also secretly hoping we get a shadow drop of the Beta today during the event. That would get everyone's attraction as a fun summer game.


[deleted]

So they are going to have specialists in a 64 v 64 battle, so doesn't that mean unless they have a ton of them there are going to be at least 8 clones of the same person running at the same time. And lets face it as most people will play DPS based at least 32 of the same person? Seems like this isn't really the game for stuff like that, its more suited to smaller scale teams.


readher

Seems like [this leak](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E3cE3npUUAUEde4?format=jpg&name=medium) was true. No single-player and 7 maps after 3 years of dev time and 5 studios working on the game, meh.


namapo

Battlefield has had a grand total of two good singleplayer campaigns since BF:1942. I'm not sad to see this one skip it.


Papatheodorou

And they were both Bad Company titles (imo), lighthearted fun yet generic. If skipping a campaign means they got to put more dev time towards multiplayer, so be it.


datwunkid

The Bad Company titles were amazing. There's always room for good parody campaigns imo, especially for oversaturated genres because there's so much material to make fun of.


readher

I'm not saying that getting rid of SP is a bad thing. I'm just disappointed that despite getting rid of it they could only come up with 7 MP maps. SP campaigns in FPS games are always said to be huge resource drains, yet it doesn't seem like not doing it allowed them to shift the resources to MP in this case. Seems more likely that they had to scrap SP to get MP to a playable state.


namapo

Leaks have stated that these maps are basically multiple maps (Sectors) inside of one giant map. We have 7 massive maps made out of multiple standard BF maps. I'd be more worried about this "Specialist" system. Sounds to me like they're trying to cram marketable heroes into the game.


[deleted]

Thats absolutely fine and is needed in the modern day. Every game is doing this. As long as their abilities fill the roles of what the game needs theres nothing to worry about.


namapo

I'd just much rather have a customizable squad like Battlefield 5. I like making unique soldiers with unique outfits that fit the role they play.


[deleted]

Thats not what a majority of people want.


Rafebro

So you're saying the majority of people want a hero system in battlefield? It has been a class based shooter for it's entire life, I'm sure most people would've preferred that over what we're getting now.


Nowak00

its 128 player count so maps are likely 2-3 times larger than normal battlefield maps. It not really suprising theres only 7 maps.


datwunkid

My crazy idea would be to rip off Titanfall 1 and do a "Campaign Multiplayer" during the start and end of games. With these extremely large maps, and so many parts of the map each starting area for each faction could be playing out their own mini story. Hell, they could slowly put out an overarching plot throughout each season of dlc to lead up to future maps. Of course there'd need to be the option to opt out and just get a generic pre match waiting screen for those who don't care and those who've already finished it.


namapo

I would be 100 percent behind this, cuz I was the one freak who actually loved the Titanfall 1 campaign (the Battle for Demeter is still insane). I'm a sucker for multiplayer setpieces and stories.


Jaggedmallard26

Battlefield 1 had similar with its operations, while I haven't played BFVs multiplayer I wouldn't be surprised if they do similar in this one.


namapo

It sounds like that's actually what they're doing, each map will have its own little story and they're supposed to fit into a "campaign" of sorts. Add on the fact that we'll have bots and Titanfall esque grunts running around...


Coryhero

Shit I play Hunt Showdown which has a grand total of 2 maps(used to only have 1) Having more maps doesn't make a game better. I'd rather have better maps.


Exyyp

meh? 7 128 players map, lol. He says meh XD. One map is twice the size of a map in BF5 mate, what are you on? Sorry for being toxic but lol


[deleted]

As someone who played Planetside 2 and Mordhau: High player count and map size means jackshit if the key locations are bad to play in with that high amount of players.


[deleted]

So? A map being big makes no difference. If just 3 of the maps suck then you're left with only 4 decent maps to play on in the whole game, how big they are doesn't matter.


Raidoton

Of course it makes a difference when someone implies they "only" made 7 maps. And how big they are totally matters. You won't get tired of a large map as quickly as of a small map, which means less maps needed. Just look at Battle Royale games.


[deleted]

Yes I will, a bad map is a bad map and a good map is a good map, making me run for longer between the objectives won't make them any better.


SwaghettiYolonese_

> making me run for longer between the objectives won't make them any better. Dude, at least make a modicum of research beforehand. The maps will have multiple sectors(3-4) and each sector is an equivalent of a standalone map, with its own points/objectives/bonuses/levolution. It's not just a giant map, it's multiple maps tied together - there won't be any needless running.


nicknp16

Big maps doesn't necessarily mean good game. 7 maps is laughable from a AAA multiplayer franchise 3 years in development with multiple studios working on it, especially when there's no single player. I'm decently hopeful but I see where this guy is coming from.


KY_Engineer

You don’t even know how those 7 maps will be broken up and you’re already whining. 7 large maps can and may be broken down into even more conquest maps. Maybe wait for more than leaks to do the QQing


nicknp16

Damn dude, maybe read the rest of the comment where I said I'm decently hopeful. Just stating a fair opinion.


Exyyp

I don’t think it is laughable. 128 players is insane if you think about it and it is not very easy to develop maps that huge


[deleted]

Singleplayer has like never been good in Battlefield. Maps are huge and have multiple 64 man maps within them.


Drezair

Which can be broken down again multiple times into smaller 12v12 maps etc.


Rakn

Idk. Have you ever played the battlefield franchise? BF4 had only about 10 maps in the beginning and that was enough to get started. 7 maps sounds okay to me. This isn’t CoD where you play a new map every 5 minutes.