@ironbeast74 I would rather prefer smaller maps and balanced enough for 64 players. The lack of destruction is not a problem for me. The graphics is simply downgraded on maps for 128 players, I'm not talking about texture resolution.
The gameplay solutions are simply odd for me. Huge distances between flags, complete lack of cover, hard to squad up with friends and the list goes on. No TDM, SQTDM, Domination in rotation in core 2042. BF2 from 2005 has had more weapons at launch with 3 factions.
I may survive the specialists but the implementation is as cringy as the one liners at the end of the round.
Campaign was actually good in BFBC2. No campaign... fine for me. So how about lower price or more online content instead like maps, weapons, game modes - 2042... no, ohh perhaps santa skins and other content behind paywall.
But the main reason why people simply drop from the game after the release is poor optimisation on PC. The portal service tend to restart in the middle of the round. The amount of game breaking bugs is huge in numbers. Everything is served for even 110 bucks with a promise of further development.
Instead of innovating the company choose the easy path of copying solutions from other games and there is a sudden surprise at the release date. Higher player count doesn't automatically mean better gameplay solutions.
To me it's bright as a day that a person having final say in 2042 has never ever played previous BF titles and listened too much to research data specialists, instead of creating a trend by themselves.
I will play BF2042 someday, but for 12 bucks.
The sad thing is that Dice Stockholm takes also a credit for this mess and probably shouldn't.
