If 2042 used Unreal Engine

---

@nixRidge wrote:

I'm not entirely sure why everyone keeps saying Battlefield should use the Unreal Engine. I've tinkered with it myself in game design class, and played tons of Unreal Engine games, but I just don't manage to see it. I think it would take a trained Frostbite developer just as much time to make new maps in Unreal as it would in Frostbite, if not more because they need to learn a new workflow. That was my experience moving from, for example, Godot to Unity and Unreal level creation. (I'm an amateur of course, DICE developers are not.)

Nevertheless, workflow aside, all the design principles remain the same. You still need the same amount of people on a team to create one map, people to create terrain, test the map, program any functions unique to the map, art and design teams to create assets and decorate the map, people that check the art and decor while pointing out anything that can be changed, the list goes on.

Of course I'm not trying to discredit your opinion, maybe you see something in an Unreal-powered Battlefield that I don't, but I personally also just find something about Unreal physics to be strange and off, and their temporal anti-aliasing solution is frankly just as bad as Frostbite's. It would definitely take a ton of work to get the Battlefield to feel like Battlefield if they moved on from Frostbite to any other engine, possibly a ton of work spanning multiple Battlefield titles.

---

I agree with your general premise, but I will say, it would probably give a significant influx of experienced developers to EA/DICE if it transitioned. Having a freely available SDK/IDE like Unreal allows people to use it in a game design class. I haven't looked super hard, but I'm not aware of any places teaching frostbite, just that if you get a job at EA you see it for the first time.