@Digitalmessiah- The intended tone was actually mocking your "old people and casuals" line - which was lazy generalisation at best - by pointing to the "mimimimi gimme points!" mentality that sits just just-out-of-sight in wider society, but gets pretty in-your-face in gaming subcultures. It also implies that there's more than one way to look at an issue. For instance, if you look up at your forum avatar, you'll see on its left that your behaviour even on the forums generates a score. This kind of measurement is so commonplace it's banal, so it's no surprise really that it reproduces itself in the discourse of those it surrounds. That such constant, granular measurement exists does not mean that it's justified or healthy.
In other words, unclench. It's not the end of the world. It really isn't.
The end of round summary (not the outstanding performances summary with the cringy voice lines) highlights a stat from your round, not even necessarily the "best" stat (although it often is) or even one you care about. It's not public outside of the squad you're in either, which would undermine the (lazy) "everyone gets a medal" trope that many in the BF community think represents an interesting insight into DICE's thought process.
The game does indeed keep score - there are clearly a ton of metrics in place that the game can report on. I'd like to see "highest speed at impact when you forgot to open your chute," the associated "biggest mess left by a falling body" and "number of times you've dropped a hovercraft on your head." On top of that, the summary gives focus to other aspects of the game that contribute to victory. If all a player cares about is their KDR and score, then perhaps an arena shooter might be better suited to them. If everything we do in a game is to be measured, then why not highlight those aspects that contribute? We both know that a player can go 50:0 in a Nightbird and still be on the losing team, because victory in the game is not primarily about kills - an objective changing hands costs the enemy team 10 tickets over and above the bleed and kills/revives. From that perspective, it's important to question why KDR/score should be privileged in the reports, as it isn't necessarily in the best interests of the game-as-a-team-competition to highlight areas of performance that don't translate to victory.
This is not to say that kills and deaths are not important - it's the primary way to deny flags to the enemy. It does mean, however, that it is not the be all and end all of the game.
Is battlefield a game or a cinematic experience? Why not both? That's the point, in my opinion, of the "this one goes to 11" physics, visual and audio design of the chaotic battle experience. The visual effects, sound, and game physics could be a lot tamer (despite the issues with the muddy, overcompressed audio), but then it wouldn't have that Battlefield feel.
Would I like a scoreboard? Sure. Why not? Is it crucial to my enjoyment of the game? No. Is it a sign that DICE have gone woke and are treating their customers like elementary school children? Probably not.
@Digitalmessiah wrote:
@filthy_vegansthat's a really long-winded way to say you're just bored of multiplayer dude. Gives credence to what people say about the Battlefield community, which is that we don't even know what we want.
It is nothing of the sort, dude.
Your appeal to the nebulous mass ("what people want") is weaksauce. Communities are always diverse, with diverse wants and needs.
I know what I want, which is for Battlefield 2042 to support a wide range of styles of playing the <!> objective. The things that annoy me about 2042 are the things that annoy me about the players (and by extension the community): camping, not playing the <!> objective and whining about stuff that doesn't really matter much if you actually like to play the game rather than compare how long your PP-29s are.
I agree that the way they call these core elements "legacy features" is a bit of an insults.
Looking at the discussions here, I think everyone has a fair point however, Dice is fully responsible for causing this mess. Its like when your favorite Metal band suddenly writes really bad pop songs. Sure, evolving is part of everything. Im all for it. heck i even like the specialists abilities now because they do add (If somewhat unbalanced atm) fun new tactics that I enjoy (not really their look and sound tho). But you can't come out with another BF game, offer half of the contend an 8 year old predecessor had, remove everything that made BF well BF really and not expect some backlash. To top insult with injury, now calling those legacy features. Its laughable and really shows how detached they actually are.
Im curious if word of mouth actually will hurt sales. I really want 2042 to succeed but expected a lot better and my expectations weren't really over the top.
