DICE's silence

@Chief2GFDI think the problem isn’t the fixing, it’s the talking. If they said hey we will move spec ops to HZ, regular solders for AoW and add some more guns, scoreboard etc I don’t think people would be so upset even if they said it will take few months as long as people feel there is hope that they are making it the game they had spent their money on. If they keep thinking ops are the way and plan to milk selling skins they will have very little money made giving the amount of players leaving the game.

The back tracking in star wars battlefront 2 was huge, and it eventually became a much loved game. So it can be done. Whether EA is willing to let DICE properly fix 2042 is another matter.

---

@ABC-Warrior-real wrote:

The back tracking in star wars battlefront 2 was huge, and it eventually became a much loved game. So it can be done. Whether EA is willing to let DICE properly fix 2042 is another matter.

---

It's hard to compare Battlefront 2 to this though as the problems with 2042 are a completely different beast. 

With Battlefront 2 people were irritated by the monitisation, the gameplay was still there though. 

With 2042 the core is rotten and it doesn't feel like a Battlefield game. 

@Trokey66The fact that half of the games mechanics and features are designed for BR? You would not diversify the games design which has been a successful staple for the series just to try something another game has. It wasn't even innovative. They were chasing profit figures.

I was about to suggest it can be hard to visual how the game is designed perfectly for BR without working on games yourself but it's glaringly obvious. I mean the multiplayer backdrop gives it away before you even play a match. No Single Player? I wonder why.

Publishers don't just switch up a games design structure so much, especially when they need to please investors. You would only do so if you saw higher profits prospects which makes sense, as that seems to be what they were chasing. It's a very sound explanation until someone else proves otherwise.

---

@LeMairyHuff wrote:

@Trokey66The fact that half of the games mechanics and features are designed for BR? You would not diversify the games design which has been a successful staple for the series just to try something another game has. It wasn't even innovative. They were chasing profit figures.

I was about to suggest it can be hard to visual how the game is designed perfectly for BR without working on games yourself but it's glaringly obvious. I mean the multiplayer backdrop gives it away before you even play a match. No Single Player? I wonder why.

Publishers don't just switch up a games design structure so much, especially when they need to please investors. You would only do so if you saw higher profits prospects which makes sense, as that seems to be what they were chasing. It's a very sound explanation until someone else proves otherwise.

---

if it is glaringly obvious that the game was designed for BR it shouldn't be difficult for you to give us some concrete examples and explain how those are for BR and NOT for a typical FPS

My biggest surprise is really, EA could had it all:

If Battlefield is a franchise why not make various titles that appeal to certain gamers? 

Battlefield: Hazard Zone a stand alone BR title with specialists, maybe free to play. Let the kids go nuts and let them enjoy their Woody skins.

Battlefield 2042 should've been what we all loved about BF. Mayhem, destruction, levolution, squads, super fun vehicles and weapons. Keep it serious. 

Seriously, they would have killed 2 birds with a single stone. Same engine. They could have used variations of the maps for either. The Specialists would have made total sense in that way. They could have just looked at BF V and take what worked and go from there. It should have been a NO Brainer. Really. Heck, even the forum top Banner is featuring a plain soldier that's not even in the game. I rest my case.....