Let's compare BF 2042 and BF V maps just for fun shall we?

G flag spawned the bomber and the anti armour sniper rifle so it was worth fighting over.

Maps obviously are designed for Battle Royale, they have little or no cover in whole areas so you cant hide from choppers, tanks etc.

---

@FlatChat wrote:

---

@trip1ex wrote:

---

@DaveTheBrave_USA wrote:
@trip1exActually I think it is interest and moneys worth playability if the desert map in question is Hour Glass for instance, big long sand dunes and empty rectangular buildings with practically no cover or interest. Comparing it to the graphic arts of a destroyed city map is the point.

---

It's a desert map.  YOu have not played a big open desert map in BF before?   There's been a few.  BF1 had one.  BF1942.  There's been lots of other bigger more open maps.  I think there one  in BF2 and BF3.  BF4 had one.  

It's a pointless comparison to compare the graphical detail on a small city map to a big open desert map.  

And graphics don't equal playability.  All that graphical detail on that BFV map and it was a meh map.  Total where's waldo map.  Just hide in a corner and shoot guys that walk by.  Run around in circles.  I'm not hanging it on my wall.  I'm playing it.  

---

Hourglass is a city map which has been inundated with sand dunes caused by global climate changes and loss of vegetation in that region.

As such facilities should have a lot more destruction and degradation, including rusted car and truck hulks, which would provide a lot more atmosphere and cover. Tunnels, underground stations etc would also help gameplay and add interest.

It just appears that maps, like other things in 2042, were rushed out the door and lack good game design and attention to detail.

It's about immersion and suspension of disbelief.

---

Except it isn't a city map at all.  It's covered in sand.  IT's a desert map.   The desert encroached and covered most of a stadium, freeway, village, a few city blocks.  

@trip1exWhatever, it's a city in the desert, let's call it Dubai...

I have said it before, but say it again. The BF5 maps feel like actual places, where the 2042 maps feel like movie sets.

If we are talking atmosphere and detail though, BF1 was on another level where BF5 couldn't compete either

---

@BizzyVaping wrote:

, BF1 was on another level where BF5 couldn't compete either

---

Agree, BF1 had good asmophere and a good balance between details and visibility, 

I do not want BFV maps back. On PC, it worked on many maps like playing hide and seek.

Hourglass is one of the biggest disappointments. It feels like they made a desert. Added buildings and lowered them into the sand.
The way the sand is laying inside the buildings makes no sense either, it's 1:1 with the outside of the walls. Would think it would blow in and lay differently than outside.

---

@K3lroy wrote:

Hourglass is one of the biggest disappointments. It feels like they made a desert. Added buildings and lowered them into the sand.
The way the sand is laying inside the buildings makes no sense either, it's 1:1 with the outside of the walls. Would think it would blow in and lay differently than outside.

---

 Agree totally.  I've said it before I'm really sick of having to say it over and over. 

The maps in 2042 are pathetic in all ways.

Hourglass is bad and looks amateur.  Sand dunes everywhere, meters deep, but the roads and freeways are pristine, no sand on them.  There are green leafy palm trees and shrubs, but where is the water?  Palm trees do not grow in sand dunes.

Kaleidoscope is IMO the worst in design, realism and game play.  Everything is neat, no rubbish, well trimmed lawns and hedges, no destruction, no people. I've lived in some clean, tidy cities, including my own in Perth, but this is insanely sterile.