@ZathexGreat post, and I agree completely. It's had it's moments here and there, but I think there's just too much missing or off. So when they change things like Liz's rocket, it unravels for you. Because you still have to overlook no server browser, terrible spawns, bad launch maps that they are trying to rework, matchmaking that consistently drops you into maps you don't want to play, 128 players shoved into maps that should be 64 players max, no vehicles on the map, on and on...
I agree with a lot of the other posts here too:
- 128 players is way too much. As @DigitalHype said, I feel like I'm getting shot from 360 degrees.
- like @Gterror8, I find myself sort of forcing myself to play. Really the only way I can play is to let go of the idea its a Battlfield game, and just play like its COD.
- I agree with @l_Grand_Vizir_l that BF1 was a turning point, and so much of what Battlefield was before has been stripped away with each release.
- As @sk1lld said, I too beleive BF4 to be the last truly great Battlefield. I still play and its a breath of fresh air. BF1 with the WWI theme is actually well done enough it also feels good to play.
Which brings me to a suggestion...maybe you and your friends should start playing the legacy games again, especially if your on PC or Xbox. You play 3 times a week? You could rotate between:
1) BF3
2) BF4
3) BF1
All 3 are alive and well and have enough playing to find games.
Played since 1942. Played online since BF2. The game as a whole doesn't really play that much different from previous titles, except its quicker, with better overall movement. The ultimate issue is honestly just player base for me. Its honestly atrocious these days. Teamplay takes a back seat to KDR seekers, and the general feel of play against other people is like a COD game.
There are also WAY too many obvious cheaters. People pulling off suspicious play repeatedly, like when they multikill you 3 or 4 times back to back no matter where you are, with minimal shots, always with a headshot. Or when you shoot a player point blank with the weapon that obliterates you, and they're carrying the one you had earlier when the roles were flipped, and you die instantly to a headshot two separate times in virtually the same way.
2042 is the most frustrating of the series to play overall, because I feel there is so much low level hacking going on that just isn't addressed at all.
I'm tired of them over designing and under developing. I'm tired of them spending so much time on silly gimmicks than delivering a good core gameplay experience. I'm tired of the games being broken at launch and taking months to fix. I'm tired of them having to make the same gameplay fixes every game and then forgetting to implement those fixes in the next game. I'm tired of them trying to fix what isn't broken with solutions that are objectively worse than what they already had. I'm tired of long standing gameplay issues being present for over a decade across multiple games not being addressed, improved upon or sometimes not even included in the next game.
What I want them to do is to start their whole design process from scratch. Scrap everything they think makes a Battlefield game and build the next game from the bottom up with objective, squad, communication and teamwork at the centre of gameplay. Battlefield should not be an ego shooter. It should not be a hero shooter, it should not be a battle royale or an extraction shooter. They need to stop chasing the current market trends and just make a good Battlefield game.
And they need to drop Frostbite. It's difficult to work with, horribly optimised and visually it is looking really dated for what it is providing.
@DPsx7 wrote:
@NoodlesocksSo you just want the same old recycled crap until the franchise burns out? That's how CoD works. BF can and should grow, lose the classes and restrictions. Focus on rush and conquest.
Ignoring trends gets you left behind.
It's not though, is it? Call of Duty is considerably different from what it was even a few years ago but whether you play the latest Call of Duty or the very original, you immediately recognise it as a Call of Duty game. Whether or not any of us likes Call of Duty, it would be disingenuous to pretend it hasn't grown and evolved over time while continuously providing what fans of the franchise expect from a Call of Duty game. It is why it has endured with immense success over multiple generations and platform shifts.
What I want is for Battlefield to have a quintessentially identifiable gameplay paradigm upon which each iteration is built upon and improved upon without deviating drastically from what a Battlefield game should be.
Following trends gets you Battlefield 2042.
I only got this game for free for the reasons noodlesocks outlined.
But the reason it's unenjoyable for me is because:
TTK is really fast, the closer a game is to 1 shot kill the more boring I find it.
Engagements are over too fast - it can take a while to find fights to have and players die in like 0.25 seconds. There's no playability.
The short engagements lead to a feeling of not wanting to move across the map or get involved in the game.
The short engagements lead to a feeling of unpredictability and a lack of control over my playing experience.
The short engagements lead to a feeling that everything is happening randomly.
The short engagements lead to a lack of wanting to engage with strategies or an ability to plan.
Players appear as small black dots.
Players are too small at distance and have a similar problem to battlefield 5, in that it's hard to see them when up close and lying down.
I believe players being hard to see/find means people lose confidence and move around the map less. If they lose confidence it's also harder to feel like you have a team due to them hiding or staying in a big lump.
If you use caspers drone you can see the behavior change in allies as enemies are marked and the confidence they get to engage and play when they know where enemies are. But it makes no sense to me for this to come from a player who has to choose to watch others play instead of being built into the game at design.
Players not having the confidence to look for or engage the enemy makes the gameplay boring and you lose any sense of teamplay.
I do like 64 vs 64, but some dead space could be cut down and positions like the stadium are tedious to play in due to design/lack of exits.
I was surprised by large maps not having fixed gun emplacements but maybe that's why vehicle balancing feels better at least against tanks.
The map button should be press not hold and the scoreboard button should be more visible. Deployable gadgets are even smaller than players and the ammo crate is way too tiny.
Sound through the tv and on war tapes seems to give double footsteps for the player and vehicle directional sound feels way off.
I do like that the teams get shuffled at end of game unlike in bf5. Though I'd have prefered the BF1 method.
So overall it's boring to me and hard to justify the space it takes up on the hard drive. I'd like to see a game with more control for the player in combat situations with some back and forth and soldiers you can actually see.
The only issues I have with the game right now are the TTK/TTD, hit registration and no server browser. There are some balance issues that need to be worked out also. But the first 3 I mentioned are paramount!
I hate putting 3 rounds into someone and only one counts as a hit server side. Not being able to pick the map and server I want to play on is criminal IMHO.
Battle Pass challenges and rewards do not motivate me to play. They never have. I am already annoyed with trying to do these chores. I play to win. Where are the rewards for that?
