The launch maps in 2042 were atrocious. They didn't play well for 128 or 64 players, let alone even for 32 players. They were just bad in every way.
It's almost as though the map designers took a screenshot of a location in Google Maps and tried to replicate it 1 for 1 without considering how it translates to game-play.
The remade maps are by no means "Perfect", in fact, I'd argue they're still bad but they're now "playable" because of the added cover. Before the map adjustments, it truly felt like you were in walking simulator. There was clearly no inspiration from past Battlefield map design philosophy and it really shows.
At least with the remade maps, they feel "fine" for 64 players.
I mean, we didn't get a single Portal map, so it's obvious the map department in 2042 was the worst department overall. Runner up would be the UI department, took them just as long as the map department to get everything into a workable shape from scoreboards to squad management. Even now though, the commorose is still buggy as hell.
Rework is "fine" but doesn`t bring any new locations or something that would make the map interesting. Again, only dunes and high skyscrapers all over the place which is very uninspiring... just sand everywhere again. For me, as an infantry player, it's nice to see that some of the flags connect to one another at reasonable distances.
Older BF maps were usually made to fit the RUSH game mode style of gameplay. Nowadays it's mostly big open spaces where infantry stands no chance to double little birds in the air which kind of sucks... only 1vs1 jet but two 2vs2 choppers on Hourglass... ehh. This is kind of a letdown for me on 64 Hourglass... 2 little birds possible on 1 side... cmon.
Other than that the map plays fine but still in the environmental department the map feels like a 2003-era map rework or something... Once someone at DICE/EA realizes that the maps have to be made around RUSH and Domination Mode... then some of the map zones and the whole maps themselves are going to be more fun. For aerial players whatever is on the ground and can be killed is fine and they will not pay much attention to level design...
Overall for me, the map improved when it comes to at least flag distances and some cover for 64 players. I still feel like players choke themselves at 1 or 2 points, unfortunately. But it's nowhere on par with BF2, BC2, 3, or 4 thought in design... I would rather play BF2 or BC2 remaster on 16vs16 because old maps have a far better flow of gameplay and do look more interesting...
By the way, Battlebit doesn`t have auto healing but the action of two-stage healing has to be initiated by the player... Battlebit doesn`t have funky skins or at least yet... Battlebit level design actually includes CITY-MAPS-like areas... Battlebit has got a class system... have in mind that only 3 lads made that game...
I feel like 128-size maps feel like metro but in open space while you're getting shot from every possible distance by two little birds or bombed by a stealth chopper... just a great experience overall! Yeah, let`s blame METRO lovers! Not DICE level/gameplay design department and push for an infinite push for a high number of players on Conquest maps.
I think Hourglass was the worst map ever made in BF history. But I must say, that conquest on the reworked map, is even worse than it was on the original map.
The remake is the biggest joke I have ever seen. A total waste of time.
All maps should make it fun to play as infantry, infantry are the biggest number of players (by far). Vehicles should be in the game without ruining the game for infantry.
The maps in 2042 are some of the worst BF-maps ever made, and as others have stated, they cannot be designed for Conquest and other classic BF-modes.
By having such bad maps, they have made combined warfare the worst it has ever been and that is mostly because infantry cannot navigate the maps to avoid vehicles. Older titles had maps that were designed for both infantry and vehicles, the 2042 maps are made for who knows what.
