Battlefield happens to be a difficult franchise to resolve. Could it be historical or modern? Is it competitive or casual? Could it be a tactical, team-based experience, or perhaps is it merely a good place to frag out to your heart's content?
The answer to those questions is: Yes.
Battlefield means many things to lots of people, however i will explain what Battlefield means to me. Battlefield is all about making memories with my buddies. This is an action movie will be able to play with my buddies. If I would like to get into an extended infantry firefight, or cause wanton destruction in a tank, or strap explosives to some jeep and ram it into an opponent vehicle, I can. It is the series that nearly exclusively spawns those “remember that time” conversations.
What made earlier Battlefield games stand out is that they were specifically designed to create those conversations. The “only in Battlefield” tag might be a memetic advertising tool, there is however grounds why it resonates because of so many fans of the series. Through the tools and contexts available in their sandboxes, DICE specifically designed Battlefield games so that players could create their own emergent narratives.
As much as I enjoyed the series' recent foray back into historical fiction with Battlefield 1 and, to some lesser extent, Battlefield V, there was something missing. Yes, Battlefield 1 was incredibly immersive and atmospheric, and yes, Battlefield V preyed on my small weakness for World War II -themed shooters, but neither of those games created an environment that stimulated my imagination. Instead, they believed too grounded, too focused on killing, and relatively unconcerned with giving players the liberty the preceding titles had worked so hard to produce. In other words, they didn't seem like sandboxes in the manner that previous Battlefield titles had.
DICE obviously took note of that because of its latest entry, because Battlefield 2042 isn't just a sandbox of destruction-it's the entire damn playground.
In a world…
It's appropriate that Battlefield 2042 is set a couple of decades in to the future, since it leaves big chunks of its past behind in order to create a far more unlimited sense of freedom.
One of the most obvious omissions is really a single-player campaign. Compared to its rival, Cod, Battlefield's campaigns have rarely stood out as anything other than obligatory inclusions. Sure, the Bad Company spin-offs a minimum of featured protagonists with personality, and the Battlefield 1 War Stories achieved the novel effect of turning The first world war battles into action-packed thrill rides, however their narratives weren't iconic, possibly even essential, in the manner that, for instance, Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare's campaign was. Yes, Battlefield 3 had some standout moments, nevertheless its most memorable mission, “Going Hunting,” is basically just Modern Warfare's “Death from Above” done four years later.
It's type of ironic that DICE decided that Battlefield 2042 should be the first game because the series debuted on consoles to forgo a single-player campaign, great deal of thought has got the richest and most interesting backstory of any game within the series other than Battlefield 2142. Essentially, disasters and a global blackout have resulted in the collapse of pretty much every world government aside from the Usa and Russia, and people forced to flee their house countries to locate shelter and safety are known as No-Pats. As shown within the “Exodus” trailer, a mysterious figure named Oz sparks a series of events that lead to No-Pat soldiers getting stuck in the center of a proxy war between the two remaining superpowers. It's probably the richest narrative world that DICE has ever created, however it merely serves as the context for that game's multiplayer, rather than the setup for a campaign.
In lieu associated with a single-player story, Battlefield 2042 consists entirely of three distinct multiplayer experiences: All-Out Warfare, Hazard Zone, and Portal. All-Out Warfare is essentially 2042's traditional multiplayer experiences of Conquest and Breakthrough, however with 128-players on Xbox Series X/S, PS5, and PC; Hazard Zone is a squad-based, elimination-style mode where you need to extract with data drives; and Portal is- well, I'll reach Portal later.
Class act
Another irony of Battlefield 2042 is the fact that its most traditional experience, All-Out Warfare, turned out to be its most controversial before the game's launch. That's because it replaces the series' tried-and-true class system-some variation of Assault/Engineer, Medic, Support, and Recon characters-with the new Specialist system. Instead of four generic classes with specific gadgets and weapons, players are now able to choose among 10 Specialist characters, each with their own unique trait and specialty gadget. More importantly, while each Specialist is classified as playing a role much like Battlefield's previous classes, players can pick any weapon and any secondary gadget they need.
It's understandable why a vocal slice of the city would look at this idea in writing and absolutely lose their brains like they have for the last many months. The four-class system, at least in theory, made a rock-paper-scissors balance where some classes were proficient at some things, other classes were proficient at other activities, with no class was objectively stronger than another. Needing to balance 10 separate Specialists who are able to use whatever weapon they want appears like a nightmare, right?
It's an easy truth that the Battlefield community, generally, has simply no idea how it is talking about. The category system hasn't achieved a true balance-there will always be the stronger classes and the weaker (i.e., Support) classes. In Battlefield 4, the Medic (which was known as the Assault in those days) had use of both best guns in the game and the items that ensured that they heal themselves and teammates. In Battlefield V, the Medics once more had use of some of the strongest weapons hanging around, and they could also heal themselves, that was especially powerful given that game's attrition system. In Battlefield 1, the Scout class composed half of every team because of the one-shot “sweet spot” mechanic.
The other myth about Battlefield would be that the traditional class system results in more teamplay because every player knows what their specific role is, and that 10 separate Specialists who can use whatever secondary gadgets they want will kill teamwork. And yet probably the most prominent memes in the community is when often kill-hungry medics will simply walk over their downed teammates in search of the enemy instead of perform their duties and revive their allies. These guys how difficult it is to obtain Support players to decrease their ammo boxes, when that is literally the only real team-related task they ever have to perform.
I'm not likely to state that the Specialist system improves teamwork. It does not. But, more to the point, it does not disrupt the opportunity to take that initiative in order to do so. With regards to teamwork in Battlefield, the systems that DICE gives to the players have never and will never influence the players to do what they're designed to do. Instead, they let the true heroes-the individuals who actually play their roles in Battlefield games-do the job. And that is truly the point: If you want to heal, resupply, revive, or repair, Battlefield 2042's Specialist system still gives you all of the tools to do so. There's nothing stopping you from playing the team roles that Battlefield has always let you play. But the choices that team players now have to produce their ultimate teamwork-friendly loadout tend to be more robust than ever. It's nearly as if DICE stopped designing around the community it wants and designed around the community it's.
What the Specialists do offer are totally distinct play styles with gadgets which are genuinely fun to make use of. Whether it's MacKay's grappling gun, Paik's EMG-X scanner, Sundance's wingsuit and smart grenades, or Angel's loadout crate, every Specialist gadget has its own place and creates gameplay opportunities that more or less weren't possible in the past Battlefield titles. If Battlefield's class system needed to die so that I possibly could wingsuit around a roadmap, land behind enemy lines, plant a spawn beacon throughout my squad to maintain a sustained flanking attack, and throw a grenade that tracks enemy helicopters, then so be it.
The only gripe I have with the Specialists is that it will often be hard to inform the main difference between friendly and enemy soldiers. However, because the open beta, DICE has made considerable improvements to 2042's UI so that it's almost always obvious whenever a player is on your team, as the blue dot above their head is generally easy to understand. Still, it would have been better if DICE had created a different hue for character uniforms, based on which faction they're on. There are many cosmetics and skins to unlock for each Specialist, but none of them of them rely on which side you're fighting for. A simple red-versus-blue situation might have worked. The worst casualty to this product is that it makes playing without certain HUD elements for a more immersive experience-one from the great joys of any Battlefield game-practically impossible, if you don't wish to waste a ton of bullets firing on friendlies.
Locked and loaded
In tandem with the new flexibility of the Specialist system, creating custom loadouts and picking out novel combinations of weapons and gadgets is straight-up fun. Because we'd every weapon, gadget, and Specialist unlocked in the get-go for that review event I attended, I had been able to see the entire breadth of options that 2042 offers at launch, and I still feel like I barely scratched the surface.
Some of my loadouts echoed classic Battlefield class archetypes-my “Classic Support” build featured an LMG and an ammo box-while others were a bit more creative. My “Falck's Specialty” loadout, named for that game's medic Specialist, featured an armor plate, a shotgun, and smoke grenades so that I could enter into the experience and safely revive teammates. However, this loadout would have worked equally well with Dozer, an assault Specialist whose main gadget is a ballistic shield that lets him aggressively push enemies. When creating loadouts, I did not just seem like I was making a simple choice based on what weapon and gadget I needed to experience with; I felt like the game was giving me tools to creatively problem solve, depending on the situation my team found itself in.
What makes Battlefield 2042's loadout system so engaging is that it's flexible. If you don't like the weapon you've in the loadout, you can swap it for another one which most closely fits your present situation. Same goes for your gadget. That can be done from the Collection screen in the main menu, where all of the gear you've earned lives, however, you can also change your loadouts throughout a match when on the spawn screen.
Another new Battlefield 2042 gameplay addition is its Plus Menu, which helps you to select three sights, ammo types, underbarrel attachment, and barrels to possess available to change while in a match. Certain attachments can dramatically impact the way ammunition performs without pushing it away from boundaries of its intended weapon class. You can, for instance, swap your standard barrel and red dot sight for a longer-range scope as well as an extended barrel with an assault rifle to give you a little more range, but it's not going to rival a DMR or rifle forum for long-distance prowess. Some Battlefield players might pooh-pooh the concept of not fully restricted through the attachments you've put on your gun, but most players will appreciate the flexibility the Plus System offers. The only real catch is that once you are in a match, you can't change what three attachments per slot are available, so make certain you're happy with your alternatives before jumping in.
All told, Battlefield 2042 offers 22 weapons at launch in All-Out Warfare and Hazard Zone (even though there are considerably more in Portal). There are four SMGs, four assault rifles, two LMGs, three DMRs, three sniper rifles, three shotguns, and three sidearms. That might not appear to be a lot when compared with previous Battlefield titles, but those games had unhealthy habit of simply reskinning guns that performed exactly the same as other guns. The weapons in 2042 all feel completely distinct from almost every other one out of their respective classes. Besides, it will still probably take a day or two to earn every weapon, and several more days to unlock all of the attachments for each. I won't dispute the roster is slim when compared with other games within the series, but a minimum of the weapons that DICE has made available feel distinct from each other. More to the point, the gunplay is arguably the very best in the series so far, and the time for you to kill actually feels pretty balanced right off the bat.
Maps and modes
None of those elements-the Specialists, the weapons, the loadouts-would matter much if Battlefield 2042 didn't nail what matters most: the maps. Thankfully, 2042's maps aren't just some of the biggest within the series, but they're potentially the very best since Battlefield 3.
Not counting the six remade maps in Portal, Battlefield 2042 introduces seven new maps at launch: Orbital, Renewal, Discarded, Manifest, Kaleidoscope, Hourglass, and Breakaway. The truth that I typed all of those out without having to look them up speaks to how memorable each map is, each offering its very own distinct experience. Kaleidoscope, for example, consists of slick skyscrapers as well as an expansive park inside a dense urban environment. The beached freighter that acts as Discarded's centerpiece could be a whole map by itself, and Manifest's nighttime shipping yard setting is mazelike, claustrophobic and vertiginous.
Verticality has returned greatly of all of 2042's maps, creating a more dizzying feeling of scale and plenty of possibilities to take advantage of the game's enhanced parachute system. Back, too, are complex sights for hosting extended, dynamic firefights. Highlights include the stadium in Hourglass, the rocket factory in Orbital, and the border wall on Renewal. The points you are attempting to capture feel like they have a strategic significance-something that the past few Battlefields lacked, despite happening during both World Wars.
Larger maps also mean more distance to pay for, and that is where Battlefield 2042's vehicle call-in system comes in. Though it rarely worked correctly in the beta, the system worked flawlessly in the build of the game we played for review. You can call in any of the game's three transport class vehicles, including the hovercraft, as well as Ranger, the dog-like drone that follows you around and shoots at the enemies. If you find yourself walking an excessive amount of, you are probably just playing the sport wrong, because the call-in system is other people you know.
As far because the other vehicles are concerned, I only really feel capable of discuss the land-based ones. The tanks in Battlefield 2042 feel great; they're basically a mixture of Battlefield 4 and Battlefield V's armor. They maintain the same aiming system from BFV but they have similar controls and weaponry as in BF4. They feel strong, although not overpowered, as infantry players have more tools than ever before to disrupt them, including EMP grenades, Casper's drone, and Rao's ability to hack enemy armor. Even though you can now bring a rocket launcher together, I never felt like I had been overwhelmed with infantry trying to take me down. Tanks felt- good, as did the anti-air vehicles. I genuinely didn't have complaints, though I'm sure that will change as better tank players discover their hidden advantages and idiosyncrasies.
As for the aerial vehicles, I honestly do not know how to judge them, apart from Irrrve never felt like I was getting harassed by choppers. They're fun to fly, and they feel a little better to use than they did within the beta, but I'm not a passionate pilot so I can't talk to how good they're balanced. Still, the fact that choppers, jets, tanks, and transport vehicles can all exist within the same concentrated spaces on Breakthrough rather than feel completely overwhelming probably speaks both towards the balance within their design and the way the maps are laid out.
You see, what is important that 2042's maps offers are space. For my money, Battlefield: Bad Company 2-and Rush mode for the reason that game specifically-is still the very best that Battlefield has have you been, and that's because its map design and player count gave players room to breathe and move. Operations in Battlefield 1 and Breakthrough in Battlefield V both experienced their maps having relatively little space, which meant more messy, cacophonous pile-ons and less articulation in the violence. More space means more room to maneuver, to scheme, to succeed. In Bad Company 2, space exposed for pockets of action, little skirmishes that contextualized the general progression of a match.
Battlefield 2042's seven All-Out Warfare maps somehow manage to balance the chaos of Battlefield 1's maps with the room for sandbox experimentation and much more intimate fights of Bad Company 2. This really is best shown in Breakthrough, the now obligatory attack and defend mode where one team has to capture a sequence of sectors and also the other team attempts to stop them. The sectors in 2042's maps give players a wide berth to get into interesting positions and create memorable moments. However, if you wish to charge headfirst into the hellmouth, it can be done, too.
Breakthrough in 2042 is really something special with 128 players-there's spectacle, there's chaos, and there's tactics in one package. Due to the increased player count, it likely won't produce the momentary interpersonal rivalries that would pop up in Bad Company 2's Rush. But to me, regarding the gameplay opportunities it presents, it's the most enjoyable that Battlefield has been around a decade.
Conquest isn't as successful to find its stride in the 128-player landscape of 2042 as Breakthrough, but it still tries new things and hits more than it misses. DICE has made a big deal out of its new “clustering” technique for making Conquest use the enhanced player count, where rather than single capture points, you will find sectors made of multiple capture points, and teams have to hold all the capture suggests own that sector. Whenever a sector has two or three points, it's almost as if you are playing a smaller game of Domination inside the larger match of Conquest, and it can be really fun. Heck, you can spend entire Conquest matches in one sector, going back and forth having a handful of other squads, neither team fully capturing that sector.
But the majority of the sectors offer only a couple of capture points, which makes fighting them over considerably less intriguing and dynamic. Where clustering should encourage players to spend time locking down after which defending a sector, not wanting to quit the floor you worked so difficult to achieve, the one- or two-flag sectors feel just as disposable as Conquest in every other Battlefield game means they are feel. It isn't that it's unfun, because it still offers lots of opportunities for experimentation and sandbox tomfoolery. It is simply harder to take seriously, a lot more scattered, a lesser game mode and much more of an excuse to goof around. Which, despite everyone wanting every multiplayer game to be “competitive,” is okay.
Highway to the Hazard Zone
The second piece of the Battlefield 2042 triptych is Hazard Zone, a new squad-based mode that attempts to deliver the essence of the battle royale experience without actually being a battle royale game. Stuck approximately Hunt: Showdown and Escape From Tarkov, Hazard Zone succeeds in providing a mode in a Battlefield game that really requires teamwork, however it fails in presenting any real long-term stakes to keep players invested.
Each match of Hazard Zone takes place on a single of 2042's seven All-Out Warfare maps, randomly selected each time. Eight squads of four players (or six squads on last-gen consoles) are dropped in to the map and must acquire as numerous data drives from crashed satellites as they possibly can before extracting from the map. The issue is that there are only two possibilities to extract with data drives each match, meaning only two of the eight teams can actually escape using the maximum amount of reward.
Hazard Zone functions almost perfectly like a more competitive mode in 2042. Coordinating with your squad is extremely important, even throughout the match's preparation phase. Since each squad are only able to get one of each Specialist, you will need to decide who'll play which role and what Specialists will work best for the map and specific deployment point your team gets. Communication on the ground is essential as well, since players can easily get bumped out from the match, and a team with even one less player will find itself at a disadvantage. Though, like lots of battle royale games nowadays, you can use a redeploy beacon to get a teammate into the game. On top of that, matches only last 20 minutes for the most part, so you are in and out and onto another adventure within virtually no time whatsoever. The narrative surrounding Hazard Zone-the maps and graphics and voice over lines that contextualize the mode-is almost enough to keep players invested, particularly if they're already involved in 2042's overarching fiction.
There's something missing from Hazard Zone, but it's difficult to put my finger on what exactly that is. The primary point of each match is to extract with as many data drives as possible to be able to earn as numerous dark market credits as possible. Dark market credits permit you to purchase stuff like weapons from your personal Collection, gadgets, and perks before each match. These items you buy are meant to make it easier to survive within the Hazard Zone so that you can extract more drives and earn more credits, to purchase the things that can help you inside your next match, and so on, and so on.
I've asked myself why Hazard Zone seems so pointless as a mode, when almost every other mode is equally as pointless when you really think about it. And that i don't mean every mode in Battlefield games-I mean every mode in multiplayer games generally. Obviously, the goal of every multiplayer mode is to win. But exactly what do you really win? In a battle royale mode, you get to function as the last player standing. In team deathmatch, you get to have earned the most kills. They're either meaningful and meaningless, depending on the person. Why does Hazard Zone feel so meaningless without feeling whatsoever meaningful?
I think part of it is due to the way you win. It's not necessary to kill the rest of the players in the match. Actually, you might not even encounter other players. Though it's unlikely, you can extract with data drives without encountering another player-controlled squad. Not beating another player in a multiplayer game but nonetheless winning just doesn't seem sensible. There is zero sense of accomplishment, and zero stakes. You may still earn credits for killing AI-controlled enemies, so you'll most likely never walk away with out gained something.
What Hazard Zone really needs is definitely an incentive to win. Whether this is a ranked mode or even more substantial cosmetic rewards, that's up to DICE. But something is missing in the mode in its current iteration, and DICE needs to figure out what that's. The narrative context surrounding Hazard Zone is great; the prep phase, the action, the climate all produce a truly compelling experience within 2042's sandbox framework. It simply needs that one thing that will make players genuinely wish to choose it within the game's other modes-especially Portal.
Portal towards the Past
Battlefield Portal will undoubtedly be probably the most exciting thing about 2042 for a lot of players, especially longtime fans of the franchise. Portal lets you create custom Battlefield modes, browse and play others' custom modes, and experience remade versions of six classic Battlefield maps, along with the weapons and classes associated with them. Just being able to play standard Rush on updated versions of Bad Company 2's Valparaiso and Arica Harbor will be enough for some players, but Portal is a lot more than that.
In order to fully judge Portal, Personally i think like I have to break it right down to its most basic parts. First, let's talk about the remade versions of the six Battlefield 1942, Bad Company 2, and Battlefield 3 maps that are available in Portal (together with all seven of 2042's new maps) at launch. To say that Ripple Effect Studios (the EA studio formerly known as DICE LA that led development on Portal) completely nailed the maps could be an understatement. The designers who've updated these six maps for that latest version from the Frostbite engine have managed the tricky balancing act of retaining the spirit and gameplay of those maps while also modernizing them sufficient to ensure they are feel new again.
Valparaiso and Arica Harbor in particular are stunning, as well as the quite recent (at least when it comes to what engine they debuted on) Noshahr Canals and Caspian Border take advantage of the more contemporary tech. What's more impressive is when these maps somehow retained the same gameplay moments. I felt like I had been having flashbacks on Arica Harbor as I watched the attacking team across the bend making their way on the hill for the reason that map's second sector. Players were using the same flanking routes, exactly the same sniper spots, the very same tactics they used 11 year earlier. The only real map that felt enjoy it could use a bit more modernization was El Alamein, because the emptiness of its desert felt just like a stark contrast to everything else in 2042. However, I don't have the same nostalgic attachment to 1942 when i do in order to Bad Company 2, so adding an excessive amount of to El Alamein may have completely ruined the spirit of the items the original form of that map was trying to do.
The classes tied to each one of the three classic games have also received an update, though their inclusion in Portal left me feeling just slightly underwhelmed. Don't get me wrong: It had been great to experience with a (fairly generous) selection of the weapons and gadgets that appeared in those games, but there was still something slightly too modern, too Battlefield 2042 about them.
Part from the problem is the UI doesn't change between All-Out Warfare and Portal. The HUD, the loadout menus, everything looks the identical across the 3 experiences. While I such as the UI and HUD in 2042, navigating it to find the right weapon, attachment, and gadget for every title's classes felt a little cumbersome compared to their original versions. It's certainly not enough to ruin the expertise of playing as, say, a 1942 anti-tank soldier or Bad Company 2's red-beret-wearing medic, but sticklers for detail might feel just a little disappointed the original versions of the games' respective UIs and HUDs are missing. I was looking forward to only having the ability to judge my health like a Bad Company 2 character by how bloody my screen was, but the HUD includes exactly the same health bar no matter who you're playing as.
But, honestly, that's just me being picky. In addition important is the fact that even the simplest recreations of classic modes on classic maps featuring classic characters is a blast, even with some of the series' more contemporary updates, like having the ability to mantle via a window like a 1942 or Bad Company 2 soldier (yes, I'm so old that I remember a time when you couldn't do this in a first-person shooter). And it isn't just nostalgia: The weapons, maps, and classes in the earlier Battlefield games, now updated with a modern coat of paint, can fully stand up against every other map from the other modern shooter, Battlefield or otherwise. The maps included with Portal at launch are literally the best multiplayer maps ever designed, and today I'm able to say definitively that it's not my nostalgia speaking.
Customize it
The updated, classic maps are a small bit of the Portal puzzle. The main draw is the fact that Portal lets you create, play, and share custom Battlefield modes according to 2042's engine.
Creating custom modes is actually a two-step process. Through Portal's browser-based modification tools, you are able to go through a series of predetermined attributes that you could adjust using convenient sliders. The operation is essentially this: You choose a starting game mode from Conquest, Rush, Team Deathmatch, or Free-For-All; determine basic rules like player count per team, time period limit, and damage values; after which choose what game each team's soldiers originate from, what weapons can be found, and so on. You can even tweak things like movement speed, whether players will go prone, or even whether players can aim down the sights-and these are even adjustable per team.
But that's just the beginning from the customization process. If you choose Team Deathmatch or Free-For-All, you may also change the rules from the mode in the game's visual logic editor, which is so easy to use and so difficult to comprehend that even considering attempting to make an incentive gives me anxiety.
To showcase what players can create while using logic editor, DICE had us play a few wacky modes. The first mode, VIP Fiesta, tasked two teams with killing the other's randomly assigned VIP 15 times. After the VIP died, a new player with that team had become the VIP, and so forth. The catch was that every time you died, VIP or otherwise, you came in with a brand new, randomly assigned loadout. Another mode was basically a free-for-all deathmatch with an increase of player speed and increased respawn times. But the weirdest mode we played was a free-for-all deathmatch in which everyone had only rocket launchers. The catch to that particular one was that, in order to reload your rocket launcher, you possessed to leap 5 times.
VIP Fiesta and also the “jumping for rockets” (not “rocket jumping”) deathmatch modes perfectly illustrate Portal's promise and limitations. Both modes are intended using the visual logic editor, which lets you make rules that do not already exist, but it is also limited to just Free-for-All and Team Deathmatch. Ripple Effect stated that introducing the logic editor into the already structured objective-based modes like Conquest and Rush would essentially break those modes, but that excuse falls flat for me personally. Isn't whole idea of Portal to let players experiment, whether or not the final result is a total disaster? Doesn't the very concept of preventing players from doing this go against the spirit of the experiment altogether?
Beyond that, the simpler modifiers have weird limitations for them, though it's difficult to tell how dramatic those limitations are with out literally matches I've made with them. The movement speed modifier doesn't seem to go up to I would like, but I won't know what single.5 movement speed multiplier actually even appears like in-game until it launches and that i can test out my own creations. I found it disappointing that the maximum amount of enemy AI I can have on one team is 60 when, after reserving the area for 8 human players, I should have 120 open slots on the server.
But maybe I'm getting in front of myself when it comes to Portal. Even before Battlefield 2042 has launched, I've already created five or six modes using just the base customization options that I can't wait to experience. And that's without even teaching myself ways to use the logic editor. Whenever you element in the tools that Ripple Effect has included that will permit players to share their creations together, and also the potential for this to lead to a real grassroots community of creators appearing around the mode, you will naturally be astounded by what's already here.
All the small things
Considering how massive Battlefield 2042 is, it's not surprising that there are some small, nagging issues that DICE still needs to address.
While the build from the game I played for review (the same as the early access build, which is less updated than the full release build) fixed most of the bugs from the open beta, I still encountered a few issues. Sometimes, my character seemingly desynced, resulting in me the inability to aim down the sights or have any one of my bullets register. An insect that prevented players from being able to revive downed teammates also seemed not unusual among the reviewers. There is also a strange bug that made players way out within the distance seem like they were doing a cactuar impression when running.
I also experienced several bugs with my controller, most of which have been caused when I switched towards the alternate button scheme. Issues like not being able to cut my chute or ducking when attempting to change my variable sight persisted over the review event. Other times, I wasn't able to switch which character I needed to experience as, though this only seemed to happen in Portal. While I was playing laptop computer form of the game, it had been worrying that having fun with a controller presented some rare but substantial issues.
Even beyond bugs, there have been a few design decisions, mostly revolving round the UI, which i just didn't like. While enemies had health bars over their scalp, I still wish that the game told you how much damage you were doing per shot by rewarding you points-though it's possible that DICE didn't want players to earn XP per damage amount. Still, this is a fair bit of information that's at the moment missing in the Battlefield experience. The possible lack of a traditional scoreboard seemed to be somewhat strange, though it did reinforce the idea that playing for points is not as important as playing for fun. I definitely felt less stressed out and much more engaged without checking the scoreboard and comparing myself with other players every 10 seconds, so perhaps that's a positive thing after all.
Finally, you will find just a few readability stuff that seemed off. For one, I sometimes wasn't sure precisely what I was hacking as Rao, one of the Specialists. You could seemingly hold on the button and successfully “hack” something without aiming at something hackable. And Paik's EMG-X scanner were built with a cooldown, however it wasn't clear exactly when the cooldown was finished so when I could use the scanner again. Because of the controversy surrounding that Specialist, it is possible that DICE was still tweaking her right up to the review event.
But really, really the only issue I had with Battlefield 2042 on the fundamental design level was a lack of meaningful destruction in every level. As i realize that the scope from the game already presents certain processing constraints, there were a lot of structures which i felt I should have the ability to destroy, walls that were begging for any blasting, which were simply static structures. I get that you can't reduce every building, not only because it would crash the sport but additionally because you must have good level design. Still, the truth that the tornado doesn't tear down any structure that's stuck in its collision course definitely blunts the effect of what is easily one of the more awe-inspiring aspects of the sport.
Oh, right: There's a tornado
Until I typed that last sentence, I'd completely forgotten to write concerning the tornado and also the other new weather effects in the game. The short version is that this: They're great.
What I love concerning the tornado is the fact that DICE resisted the temptation to make everything revolve around it (not literally). When the tornado turns up, it adds a dynamic layer towards the match, especially when it's making a beeline directly in the point or sector you're trying to capture. It turns up rarely enough that it does not get boring, but often enough that players no longer run straight at it. It is really an element in the game, an Act of God disturbing the more destructive acts of humanity. You can even use it strategically: Once, the tornado showed up in the middle of a Hazard Zone match, and my squad used it to quickly travel over the map and ambush a group that was attempting to extract.
Other weather events like the sandstorm on Hourglass are more notable for the effect on the game's atmosphere instead of its gameplay. When i mentioned earlier, each map features its own feel, its own style, making them seem more diverse compared to what they are already. The elements effects simply add visual value to what's already there. Truly, every match I played during the review event felt like a new and refreshing experience.
Early days, but an encouraging future
Battlefield 2042 is really a massive undertaking in a lot of ways. It flips the series' traditional formula on its head while still managing to support the spirit of what makes Battlefield special in the first place. It tries something new with a more competitive, team-based mode. Also it gives players a whole platform to create their own Battlefield modes. It offers seven new maps, six remastered maps, over 75 weapons and gadgets, and vehicles that span a century-and it wraps all that in one convenient package.
Given DICE's history, whether Battlefield 2042 will launch without any extensive issues is not yet been seen, so consider my final score by having an asterisk. Besides, a three-day review event doesn't compare to time I'll inevitably spend playing farmville, and it feels impossible to fully grasp everything that 2042 provides in such a limited time frame. Specifically, as the game's overarching progression system, which lets you unlock weapons, gadgets, and Specialists, seemed fairly balanced, we already had everything unlocked from the get-go, so I can't fully say whether that system works as intended.
What I'm able to have to say is that Battlefield 2042 will go down among the most controversial games within the series' history, however when has a Battlefield release not been controversial with fans? Hardline turned it into a cops-versus-robbers affair. Battlefield 1 brought it back to World War I, a conflict that seemed impossible to turn into a triple-A shooter. Battlefield V literally rewrote background and changed its fundamental gameplay more times than I'm able to remember.
What matters most is the fact that Battlefield 2042 seems like a genuine Battlefield game the very first time in about eight years, when BF4 gave us all of the tools for any modern military sandbox. But in addition to that, 2042 feels probably the most like Battlefield by leaving behind lots of what the series is supposed to include. By ditching an aging class system and giving players the various tools to create their very own modes, 2042 offers a lot freedom, a lot of options, and thus many opportunities to create those memorable moments-the kind you and your friends discuss for a long time.
