Forum Discussion
I would suggest playing BF1. That game had great destruction. You could literally raze a building to the ground, which as you said, makes players change their tactics, for example instead of pushing down the center of the map, you would have to flank since the buildings no longer afforded good cover. This game doesn't have that and I suspect either they didn't have time to implement, or didn't have resource, or it wasn't part of the overall design.
I suspect with 128 players in the game the game engine has reached it's limit with destruction.
- SlipperyLiz4rd3 years agoSeasoned Hotshot@sk1lld Just another reason DICE should drop the idea of overcrowded 128 player maps. A more polished 64-player experience with proper destruction would be far more enjoyable. Sometimes less is more.
- sk1lld3 years agoLegend
- 3 years ago
If they want to have better physics in the game, they should first of all start by using the BFV or BF1 core, because those games were not as sterile and plastic, they actually felt like a living world with a soul. Physics and movements was always way better, especially in BFV.
- 3 years ago@SlipperyLiz4rd Sometimes?
More like every time with the main battlefield releases.
Every battlefield game apart from BC1 and BC2 which couldn't handle 64 players on that generation of console were 64 player. - 3 years ago@SlipperyLiz4rd This is the way…..
About Battlefield 2042 General Discussion
Recent Discussions
- 11 minutes ago
- 2 hours ago
- 5 hours ago
- 9 hours ago