2042 is a hero shooter nobody asked for in Battlefield and sadly EA thinks it's the future of the series. So if it's not a 'Battlefield' game now, it will be later
I'm sure most players agree with you. Specialists are ruining the game. The only problems with Battlefield V were the uniforms and elite soldiers that didn't fit into WW 2.
But Battlefield V was a better game for Battlefield structure. Also most of maps are badly designed in Battlefield 2042.
Thanks to DICE again, we played Battlefield V without Western and Eastern front. Instead of taking lessons from their mistakes in Battlefield V, they made a worse game.
Developers ans designers are so inexperienced that instead of taking the good things from the previous game, they make it worse.
DICE please stop being a Call of Duty wannabe. Battlefield gamers need old Battlefield style games, not Hero Shooter style games.
If they released remaster all maps from Battlefield 1942 as premium content for Battlefield V. I'd buy it instead of Battlefield 2042.
People keep saying "specialists are ruining the game," but can never explain how they are ruining the game.
İs it so hard to understand why specialist ruined the game ?
Every faction has the same specialist as character, this is so wrong.
It's a design flaw against game logic, not just for Battlefield.
If every faction had different looking specialist, i would say specialist is better than old class system.
@EliteStrikeForce wrote:İs it so hard to understand why specialist ruined the game ?
Every faction has the same specialist as character, this is so wrong.
It's a design flaw against game logic, not just for Battlefield.
If every faction had different looking specialist, i would say specialist is better than old class system.
It's hard to understand how a cosmetic issue can be said to ruin the game. That is, to my view, a little overstated.
It's not even difficult to identify friend or foe.
@filthy_vegansOh yes they have... If you can't find or see, means you are ignoring.
Edit: Clone army in 2021 makes no sense. Bfv had character customization. I already said, 2042 is cheap and unprofessional.
@Man_iLoveFishing wrote:@filthy_vegansOh yes they have... If you can't find or see, means you are ignoring.
Edit: Clone army in 2021 makes no sense. Bfv had character customization. I already said, 2042 is cheap and unprofessional.
Repeating an opinion does not make it any more "true."
And if you can't support your opinion, I don't see what there is to discuss.
For instance, I play my games at the settings that will give me the most consistent, high-refresh-rate frame throughput. Battlefield, in this regard, is one of the better series as its lowest settings still look pretty good. In this respect, however, it implies that I am less interested in the appearance of the game than some others. It also implies that I tend to think more about how the game plays than how it looks. The game is far from unplayable and, as I noted above, I have little difficulty telling friend from foe. If I'm in doubt, however, I just shoot them, which soon clears up any questions.
I'd also point out (as I have elsewhere) that standard Battlefield classes are literally identical and it is only more recent games (1 and V) that have introduced more-or-less eleborate character customisation through skins. This was done over the service period of the games. BFV was released three years ago and its skins were released over the Tides of War campaigns and expansions. I already have multiple skins for Falck (my main) and every other specialist after only a few weeks. I don't see any inconsistency with previous games in the series at all here. I also made a suggestion for a colour editor that allows players to edit the base colour of their skins, with fixed highlights (such as the red bands on Tier 1 skins) to show the actual important information the player wants to highlight through the choice of skin. "It doesn't feel like Battlefield when they all look the same" is not therefore, in my opinion, a valid criticism, and it definintely isn't constructive.
As I mentioned up-thread, a lot of the reactions to the game invoke "feelings" about what Battlefield is and is not. That's a highly subjective and emotional basis on which to discuss the issues the game has, and doesn't lead to productive discussions. Classical rhetoric is divided into three appeals - pathos (appeal to emotion), ethos (appeal to the moral sense), and logos (appeal to rationality). I see a hell of a lot of pathos in these threads, the odd, undeveloped grumble about monetisation (charitably, the beginnings of ethos) and no hint of logos in threads like these.
In other words, you won't convince anyone who doesn't already agree, unless you're prepared to engage.
@Trokey66Indeed they looked like clones with different camos and overlays, but again at least they looked like soldiers and didn't give that much saturation in differences and as in characters. And previous battlefields had actual factions. RU/US/CH and so on.
Imo V introduced something new with customization and gave some flavor and depth to the game. I really didn't pay that much attention who i shot but felt like different person most of the times cause of variety was pretty okay. (Sometimes could tell who is rookie by the looks :D) And yet 2042 has that me team looking enemy, doesn't fit well against previous title, big downgrade. The problem is, back then i really didn't care but now i respect older customization more because it was better. And for those who and if think its "nostalgia" thing. Nope, in 101, V did that way better.
EDIT:
In case if someone thinks i'm talking rubbish, be my guest and compare, or imagine if we had that in 2042:
