@Stew360 BF2042s inspiration came from Apex Legends, even creators admitted that. BF as APEX
BF2042 is even less stylized on BF2 than in previous games. Why, check out the maps - Strike at Karkand, Road to Jalalabad, Pearl Market, Sharqui Peninsula, Mashtuur City... doesn`t ring a bell as maps created mainly for Infantry gameplay? BF2 has a good portion of close combat maps in the base game and expansion packs. Do You recall any CITY MAPs servers? RUSH practically started with Strike at Karkands design and Infantry Only game mode. The map is very linear and players must practically push flag by flag. BF2 maps
I would say that BF2042 embraced even more COD and APEX mentality than previous BFs.
The problem does not strictly lie with 128-size maps, it`s more complicated than that. Everyone should realize that the creation of a proper 128 map is not an easy task, especially with CITY MAPs like environment. A number of objects have to be reduced, graphics have to be simplified, destruction has to be limited and levolution has to be removed for the server to squeeze enough performance. Tick-rate of servers has to go down as well. This is a huge screw-up on par with a push for a higher number of players mentality. Unless someone wants to play 256 maps with Roblox graphics GGs...
I can swallow the gay characters but when such a move screws up the readability of the game, no, hell no. In every supposedly different faction FLAK vs FALK skin, must be very immersive and really helps with distinguishing the friend from the foe. Well-established mechanics with a clear purpose have been removed. Reliance on other teammates with clarity of action is gone thanks to auto-filling/recharging, now sticking to a teammate is completely optional. In previous BFs, there were no ultimate meta builds and ultimately broken guns are available for everyone in Vehicular CQ nowadays. Obviously, people have a right to say nada, zero. Why PTFOing while farming with AS VAL awaits still, call it freedom of choice, the only thing that is missing at this point is a self-revive kit dear EA/DICE.
By far I am sure that the BF2 map called the Gulf of Oman 64 plays better than Hourglass 64. Even the new version of Hourglass poorly accommodates Infantry gameplay. Not to mention completely open spawn points in the middle of nowhere. The balancing is still non-existent because I spawn with only 3 AT rockets (btw BF2/3/4 have at least 4-5 rockets in inventory - but, yeah in BF2042 rockets travel very fast and there are practically zero drop-offs, little to compensate for, so targets are hit on the spot instantly) and Lis has 2 rockets with a cool-down! Wow, now I don`t have to rely on anything! And yes there are 2 choppers hovering in Hourglass 64 on one side! If the guy in AA sucks with three other pilots on one side then Infantry may pack themselves because almost nobody drops ammo (thanks to current balancing in which Ammo/Meds belong to the same class) and there are no ammo crates by the objectives. I am not against vehicular combat or enormous maps, but vehicular combat must be properly implemented with standard.50 cal trucks for 5 players instead of 20mm grenade launcher/minigun-only cars, and proper transport choppers instead of attack aerial tanks!!! Squad gameplay has to improve also!
Shockingly!!! I am going to say that I enjoyed the previous version of Hourglass as much as the original Orbital. But I still think that for infantry's sake and gameplay, a new one is slightly better because of the lower distances between flags and a bit more cover. I am not even interested in 128-size maps because of lower framerate and higher latency delays with possibly lower tick rates. So, people play whatever they like, but as an Infantry player, I prefer the new version of Hourglass (except for chopper farm one-sided-team situations) with limited means of deterrence not to mention destruction. I would rather play day and night BF2/BC2/3/4 maps than any map from 2042.
Let`s be honest. People play whatever they want, simple as that! I would like to play a proper modern military shooter with maps for Infantry as well as Vehicular combat so players are not limited to only Strike at Karkand Only vs El Alamein Only. Full-fledged community servers must be back again with various tickets, map lists (even one particular map in rotation), game modes, and so on.
@cso7777I liked the original Hourglass because it was big with LESS chaos. I would like: Big maps, better graphics, less players, need to play with vehicles, but some good infantry areas like the stadium was…Total opposite of what Battlebit offers.
It must be a great game and i am glad it exists for 24/7 Metro people so they can constantly run and gun but Battlefield is not and should not be about that. Battlefield is big maps, combined arms, tactical slower gameplay for me.
@JOGAGATYAFor me Hourglass is the worst map ever made in a BF-game, both before and after the remake (I play Conquest). For infantry it is one of the worst maps I have played.
BattleBit is more infantry focused, but often the infantry game-play is way more 'tactical' and slow than in 2042. The TTK in BattleBit is brutal and the maps have lots of cover (like a lot). You cannot just run around headlessly, you will get sniped, killed by a camper or you meet squads with up to 8 players all over the maps. In BattleBit a fight over an objective can take a long time and feel like a small battle (that takes minutes), in 2042 it is mostly done very fast and then everybody then moves on. The feeling of exiting infantry gameplay is missing in 2042, it becomes a KD-game and much less a battle between squads/teams. The biggest offender for 2042s bad gameplay are probably the maps, they are just badly designed and need a lot more cover to be good for infantry (while the "COD/Apex-movement" is also bad).
