I'd like the game to at least pretend to take itself seriously, and ejecting out of a plane to 360 no-scope a jet is anything but. Battlefield has been going downhill hard since Bad Company 2. Ever since then the game design has been shifted away from being tactical to catering to people with such low attention spans that they get bored if they aren't within grenade range of the enemy immediately upon respawning. If the trailer is this much of a mess then the game might as well be fortnite 2.
3DS Friend Code:
Armchair: 4098-3704-2012
0
HardtargetThere Are Four LightsVancouverRegistered Userregular
This isn't even a recent decision on DICE's part that could have been motivated by the political climate. It's been canon that the Battlefield Universe encounters a climate disaster/refugee crisis in the form of an oncoming Ice Age that renders most of the planet uninhabitable. That's literally the premise of 2142, a game which came out 15 years ago. While those were political issues at the time, they weren't as prominent as they've become within the past 15 years. With a title like 2042, this is obviously some sort of prequel to the 2142 story. So a climate/refugee crisis is kind of a given. DICE's hands are tied and they can't remove those topics if they wanted to without a huge retcon.
My concern with the game is that I couldn't stop cringing during that trailer. I'm honestly surprised that the soldiers didn't all line up and start doing that flossing dance. What the hell was that pile of garbage that they greenlit? I think it might have been worse than the chaotic hot mess that was the BFV trailer.
chaotic mess of soldiers. Seriously every frame is stuffed with as many soldiers that they can fit on screen at one time. They're just standing around in big blobs and not using any kind of tactics. Just a series of mosh pits where they're shooting each other.
Continuing to mosh pit fight while a rocketship is launching 50 meters away from you.
Centering the view on some soldier going out of his way to steal the dogtags. Sure it happens in the game, but a real soldier isn't going to bother wasting time with that so don't highlight it in the damn trailer.
I think that the little bird BTFOing the two KA-50's in that way was stupid. I can't take the game seriously if they don't even try to be serious in the damn cinemetics. They might have been KA-52s. I didn't look close enough and I'm not watching that again.
Another random mosh pit of soldiers standing around shooting each other for no reason on the top of a random skyscraper put aside their differences when the little bird says hello
The mosh pit kinda scatters despite the fact that they all have rifles that would be extremely effective against a little bird at that range.
They fling an ATV into the little bird... Again, they're not even trying to take themselves seriously
The fighter pilot ejects, has a anti-tank missile for some reason, shoots the chasing plane, and lands back in his jet. No. Just NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.
Wingsuit out of a TORNADO!!!!!! Why not just make it a sharknnado full of Megalodons at this point? That would be completely in-tone with the rest of that vomit.
I'm honestly surprised that the wingsuit guy didn't dab in mid-air as he flew past the camera in the final shot. It feels like my nightmares that modern DICE would revisit 2142 and piss on its grave are coming to fruition.
Also the the swarm of assorted special editions is a always a red flag.
Edit:
Also, the US / Russian pair off is odd. An EU vs China would be more logical since China will play a big role in the ultimate creation of the PAC, which was one of the major-powers in 2142. It makes me think DICE is trying to get in bed with the CCP and is terrified of casting china in a negative light whatsoever.
er have you played a Bf game before? This was all pretty normal lol, I think it's hilarious DICE leaned into it for a cinematic trailer
Been playing battlefield since the 1942 demo and I'm not remembering when people weren't having fun with goofy stunts in these games.
It's not a condemnation of DICE that this trailer leaned into the type of fun players create within their games.
yup exactly, i've also played since the 42 demo and have played literally every BF that has come out. The Trailer makes me very very interested for the gameplay reveal next week.
I'd like the game to at least pretend to take itself seriously, and ejecting out of a plane to 360 no-scope a jet is anything but. Battlefield has been going downhill hard since Bad Company 2. Ever since then the game design has been shifted away from being tactical to catering to people with such low attention spans that they get bored if they aren't within grenade range of the enemy immediately upon respawning. If the trailer is this much of a mess then the game might as well be fortnite 2.
But I don't take it seriously, and never have at any point. Battlefield is a mainstream shooter and I don’t think EA has at any point been designing with it a super serious military-sim audience in mind.
I'd like the game to at least pretend to take itself seriously, and ejecting out of a plane to 360 no-scope a jet is anything but. Battlefield has been going downhill hard since Bad Company 2. Ever since then the game design has been shifted away from being tactical to catering to people with such low attention spans that they get bored if they aren't within grenade range of the enemy immediately upon respawning. If the trailer is this much of a mess then the game might as well be fortnite 2.
I do get the desire for a game that treats itself a little seriously but isn't a bore to play (which Squad is). CoD used to pretend to be that, but slowly the game added more craziness cause that's what fans wanted.
But nothing I've seen with 2042 really shows a radical departure from the basic Battlefield formula I've known since Bad Company 1, and I've played every game (even 1 whole round of Hardline!) since.
The one thing that I was a little surprised at was DICE taking something World War 3 and rolling that into Battlefield's Conquest mode. For those that aren't familiar with WW3, they did the multiple flags to control a point (A1 and A2 had to be held to flip the A point). There were a bunch of things about WW3 that I liked, and the control point system was definitely one of them.
| Origin/R*SC: Ein7919 | Battle.net: Erlkonig#1448 | XBL: Lexicanum | Steam: Der Erlkönig (the umlaut is important) |
The best way to look at the cinematic release trailer is as a love letter to the players. That's why it was so over the top. It was a cinematic way of acknowledging the player and promising, without saying, that we're in mind when they made this game.
Whether it's true or not is irrelevant.
Bizazedo on
XBL: Bizazedo
PSN: Bizazedo
CFN: Bizazedo (I don't think I suck, add me).
It was a trailer of literal battlefield moments with a lot of nods to actual community content so I'm ok with. The reality is those events are EXCEEDINGLY rare, which is what makes them special.
Jumping out of a jet and RPG-ing the fighter is a shot for shot remake of this video
To me, 95% of the moment to moment battlefield gameplay takes itself seriously, or at least feels like a facade of some cinematic war experience. The sound design, visuals, and gunplay always feel grounded.
So the one time in five matches where someone legitimately tries to C4-Jeep/ATV suicide into things doesn't bother me.
The trailer is kind of weird in that it shows things that can happen in a game, but they're not in anyway common. I mean if they wanted to be really true to the gameplay then they'd show a fighter endlessly strafing an airfield as half the other team tries to spawn into an airplane that's going to get immediately blown up on the runway.
The trailer is kind of weird in that it shows things that can happen in a game, but they're not in anyway common. I mean if they wanted to be really true to the gameplay then they'd show a fighter endlessly strafing an airfield as half the other team tries to spawn into an airplane that's going to get immediately blown up on the runway.
Love letters don't generally dwell on the least liked parts .
XBL: Bizazedo
PSN: Bizazedo
CFN: Bizazedo (I don't think I suck, add me).
I was mostly surprised they didn't put c4 on the quad, what the hell was up with that?
Increased player count is interesting, not sure how many maps were hitting the full 64 though (I didn't spend a whole lot of time with 5). 128 seems like a lot of players.
I'm hoping this it like a litmus test for more future stuff and if it sells well we get a 2143.
I'm super excited for 128 players, it's going to be frantic.
I love the cheese levelutions, my favorite being level you play out on the ocean, where the storm rolls in withe crashing vessel. The waves they created during the storm were so crazy.
EDIT: I missed Cantido's comment but yes, glorious sound design. I needs it.
I super duper do not give a shit for the near future setting.
I was honestly hoping for a bigger, better BF4 but I had a funny feeling Dice was going to over correct after BFV, and yeah. Called it.
The things I really did like:
128 players.
More dynamic, next gen destruction.
A focus on smaller scale destruction.
More interaction with the environment.
Cluster zones for conquest.
AI mode.
The things I really did not like:
Specialists. The reactions on all the YouTube videos I've watched seemed to echo this. People don't want a team full of named, unique characters in Battlefield. Battlefield is about the Battlefield. You're really only there as a small part of the bigger event that's happening. Having a team fill of Borises all quipping in their unique Boris voices is gonna get old, real quick. Even if they end up being a call in like support units from Battlefront 2.
The plus system and unlocked classes. I like the defined squad roles in Battlefield and building gun setups to meet unique needs and having to balance out their shortcomings. Allowing any class to use whatever gun they want, and then swap attachments on the fly, seems counterintuitive to encouraging squad play or specializing in your rolls. It's hard enough playing with randos in a normal BF game when nobody wants to run ammo or they ditch the health crate for a grenade launcher. I absolutely see a meta emerging very quickly where only one or two weapons (thanks to that classic Dice balance) are ever competitive so basically the entire 128 person team will be running the exact same set up.
Dynamic weather based levolution. Levolution worked ok in BF4 because it was largely player triggered (maybe not Parasol Storm but I think most instances were). You could go the whole match without the skyscraper coming down in Siege of Shanghai, but if the fighting got really focused there you knew it was only a matter of time. Having the map wrecked by a big tornado sounds like it might be cool the first time it happens, but the third or fourth time it rolls through and fucks up your steeze could get old. Hell, just having the weather change like in BF1 was plenty cool, imo.
I'll still probably get this, assuming consoles are actually avaliable by then, because I love Battlefield. But after V it's on thin ice with me, and if this doesn't immediately impress I think I'm calling it quits with the series. I've gotten hundreds of hours of enjoyment out of the milsims like Squad and Hell Let Loose that I can just play those for that combined arms multi-player fps fix.
I'm even wary about 128 players. TBH, 64 player maps became big clusterfucks really quickly, and I often found that 48 player matches felt much better.
The maps should be much, much bigger to accommodate the extra player count. Previous gen versions will be capped at 64 players and the maps are going to be adjusted to account for it.
The breakthrough game mode is the one that's probably going to end up being the real ridiculous meat grinder but I could also see it being the most fun.
I'm not excited about them. I have a feeling they will be fine after a while, but there will be periods where certain ones become the meta and are all you see.
I just wish they stuck with their roots more, when with what they know worked than risk 2 back to back games that the community doesn't like.
I'd rather not have the specialists at all but I think some of the issue is Dice just hasn't explained exactly how Specialists work and how they replace the usual class load outs. Once we have a better idea they may be less odious.
But no the whole reason for them is this is a multi-player only live service game and they're going to be making their money off cosmetic upgrades for each unique character. It just feels real Call of Duty and that's not what people want from Battlefield. But then again, I don't know how you really do a live service type game without this kind of bullshit.
I honestly kinda miss Battlefield Premium. Let me go ahead and pay upfront for a year or two worth of content and then deliver it. Easy peasy. But I don't think specialist going to sink the game, they're just gonna be a sort of eye roll, shrug whatever kinda thing. The real make or break is going to be:
1. Stability at launch.
2. Actual, timely updates and content drops
3. Promised content is actually in game at launch this time
4. Dice doesn't fuck around with core TTK/gunplay mechanics, revert them after backlash, and then re-revert them later.
That's all they really need to do. If they screw that up though...
AxenMy avatar is Excalibur.Yes, the sword.Registered Userregular
edited June 2021
Ugh, specialists, ugh.
Now I get selling cosmetics and shit, but there is a better way! A more funnerer way!
Let players play Pretty Princess Dress-up! Let players design their own character. Let them unlock (or buy) uniforms, web gear, armor, helmets, gloves, boots, silly patches, knee/elbow pads, face masks, goggles, eye-pro and shemaghs my god the shemaghs!
And before people say, "Well how do you tell people apart?" Man, its not like you can right now anyway! A dude in camo 50m away looks like any other dude in camo.
Axen on
A Capellan's favorite sheath for any blade is your back.
And also being able to differentiate classes doesn't matter anymore since they unlocked the weapons. So a guy in a ghillie suit hiding in a bush could just as easily have a belt fed machine gun as a bolt action sniper rifle. That was a big complaint in BFV, you never knew what kind of soldier you were running up on because the "customization" removed any identifiable class features. You lost the ability to press an advantage or fall back from a fight you couldn't win because Hans over there could be an assault or he could have a wildly accurate mmg he can't aim and you won't know until he turns around and starts shooting. So to fix they they just... got rid of classes all together? I'm still not 100% sure.
Man the more I think about it the more this seems like Battlefield tossed a lot of its signature flavor out the window to sell cosmetics.
That gameplay reveal is gonna need to be real, real good.
Which, to be fair, setting it a little in the future and basing it around essentially mercenaries actually frees them up to do a lot of cool cosmetic stuff that they couldn't really do with like, WW2. Looking at you, Sunglasses Leather Jacket man.
But I give it one season before we start getting the MW treatment of increasingly goofy weapon skins/effects, charms, and outfits.
BFV had very few goofy items compared to say, MW or BOCW.
So if they keep it at that level I'm fine.
I'm just really tired of seeing punk rockers shootering layers in my war games. If you want punk rockers shooting layers, make that game! It sounds fun! By why make a realistic setting with realistic guns if you want to add anime girls and pink tanks later. Makes no sense to me.
0
Handsome CostanzaAsk me about 8bitdoRIP Iwata-sanRegistered Userregular
This isn't even a recent decision on DICE's part that could have been motivated by the political climate. It's been canon that the Battlefield Universe encounters a climate disaster/refugee crisis in the form of an oncoming Ice Age that renders most of the planet uninhabitable. That's literally the premise of 2142, a game which came out 15 years ago. While those were political issues at the time, they weren't as prominent as they've become within the past 15 years. With a title like 2042, this is obviously some sort of prequel to the 2142 story. So a climate/refugee crisis is kind of a given. DICE's hands are tied and they can't remove those topics if they wanted to without a huge retcon.
My concern with the game is that I couldn't stop cringing during that trailer. I'm honestly surprised that the soldiers didn't all line up and start doing that flossing dance. What the hell was that pile of garbage that they greenlit? I think it might have been worse than the chaotic hot mess that was the BFV trailer.
chaotic mess of soldiers. Seriously every frame is stuffed with as many soldiers that they can fit on screen at one time. They're just standing around in big blobs and not using any kind of tactics. Just a series of mosh pits where they're shooting each other.
Continuing to mosh pit fight while a rocketship is launching 50 meters away from you.
Centering the view on some soldier going out of his way to steal the dogtags. Sure it happens in the game, but a real soldier isn't going to bother wasting time with that so don't highlight it in the damn trailer.
I think that the little bird BTFOing the two KA-50's in that way was stupid. I can't take the game seriously if they don't even try to be serious in the damn cinemetics. They might have been KA-52s. I didn't look close enough and I'm not watching that again.
Another random mosh pit of soldiers standing around shooting each other for no reason on the top of a random skyscraper put aside their differences when the little bird says hello
The mosh pit kinda scatters despite the fact that they all have rifles that would be extremely effective against a little bird at that range.
They fling an ATV into the little bird... Again, they're not even trying to take themselves seriously
The fighter pilot ejects, has a anti-tank missile for some reason, shoots the chasing plane, and lands back in his jet. No. Just NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.
Wingsuit out of a TORNADO!!!!!! Why not just make it a sharknnado full of Megalodons at this point? That would be completely in-tone with the rest of that vomit.
I'm honestly surprised that the wingsuit guy didn't dab in mid-air as he flew past the camera in the final shot. It feels like my nightmares that modern DICE would revisit 2142 and piss on its grave are coming to fruition.
Also the the swarm of assorted special editions is a always a red flag.
Edit:
Also, the US / Russian pair off is odd. An EU vs China would be more logical since China will play a big role in the ultimate creation of the PAC, which was one of the major-powers in 2142. It makes me think DICE is trying to get in bed with the CCP and is terrified of casting china in a negative light whatsoever.
I think the point of the trailer went over your head a little bit. It's supposed to be a riff on super serious tacticool trailers where instead of behaving "realistically" (no game has ever actually done this FYI) they are all behaving like a bunch of battlefield players in a multiplayer match.
I mean, did you think they were trying to be serious when you got to the part where the guy ejects and shoots the trailing jet with a rocket, then lands back in the plane? Pretty sure that one gave the game away if nothing else did.
One thing that's genuinely surprised me is that everyone really doesn't like the specialists concept. It's just amazingly uniformly negative.
I don't think negative feedback will actually change anything (because DICE, and that this is so clearly a mechanic straight from the suits to monetise through), just an observation.
Rest of the game looks fine, I guess. 128 players is cool, and the maps look good. Interested to see how they deal with the removal of weapon locking, to avoid situational weapons (SMGs, shotguns) going unused, and the inevitable meta meaning single specific kits are all that's used.
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
Trailer had my attention for about five seconds before I realized it said 2042 and not 2142.
There's absolutely nothing about this that looks different from the last multiple outings I've ignored. Battles such a big chaotic mess that it's just an endless meatgrinder where you rarely have any personal impact on anything. Overpriced DLC for an already-full-retail-price game and/or battlepass to strip out some grind. Nigh-endless grinding for unlocks. At least if they moved the game into the future, they can try for some creative shit like actually-new vehicles, not just what amounts to reskins and mild updates to existing stuff they've already made.
Show me something actually interesting, like a new Bad Company where the gameplay design is more than just flinging two huge piles of bodies at each other. Otherwise, yawn.
At this point, I'd say I'm open to seeing more details and postponing criticisms until after I've at least played the beta. I'm fine with specialists...from the sounds of it, it's just another take on classes but without being saddled to being locked to a certain category of gun.
About 64v64, though...I dunno, as long as they have the maps scalable to particular player counts (like how they did in BF2 and 2142) it could be just fine. I tend to do pretty well in 32-48 player servers, so, again, just going to have to wait and see. Although...the ability to use AI controlled bots to fill out the numbers could bring me around to 64v64.
| Origin/R*SC: Ein7919 | Battle.net: Erlkonig#1448 | XBL: Lexicanum | Steam: Der Erlkönig (the umlaut is important) |
0
AxenMy avatar is Excalibur.Yes, the sword.Registered Userregular
At this point, I'd say I'm open to seeing more details and postponing criticisms until after I've at least played the beta. I'm fine with specialists...from the sounds of it, it's just another take on classes but without being saddled to being locked to a certain category of gun.
About 64v64, though...I dunno, as long as they have the maps scalable to particular player counts (like how they did in BF2 and 2142) it could be just fine. I tend to do pretty well in 32-48 player servers, so, again, just going to have to wait and see. Although...the ability to use AI controlled bots to fill out the numbers could bring me around to 64v64.
My issue with Specialists, and why they are not like classes, is that they are Heroes from a hero-shooter in a game that shouldn't have such things.
They each have an unique active ability and a passive. So one dude has a grappling hook active and another can shoot a syringe to heal people. We only know of 4 right now, out of 10 I think.
A Capellan's favorite sheath for any blade is your back.
Posts
Armchair: 4098-3704-2012
er have you played a Bf game before? This was all pretty normal lol, I think it's hilarious DICE leaned into it for a cinematic trailer
Already announced 128 player matches for pc and next gen consoles. 64 players on last gen
It's not a condemnation of DICE that this trailer leaned into the type of fun players create within their games.
yup exactly, i've also played since the 42 demo and have played literally every BF that has come out. The Trailer makes me very very interested for the gameplay reveal next week.
But I don't take it seriously, and never have at any point. Battlefield is a mainstream shooter and I don’t think EA has at any point been designing with it a super serious military-sim audience in mind.
Have you played Squad?
But nothing I've seen with 2042 really shows a radical departure from the basic Battlefield formula I've known since Bad Company 1, and I've played every game (even 1 whole round of Hardline!) since.
Whether it's true or not is irrelevant.
PSN: Bizazedo
CFN: Bizazedo (I don't think I suck, add me).
Jumping out of a jet and RPG-ing the fighter is a shot for shot remake of this video
To me, 95% of the moment to moment battlefield gameplay takes itself seriously, or at least feels like a facade of some cinematic war experience. The sound design, visuals, and gunplay always feel grounded.
So the one time in five matches where someone legitimately tries to C4-Jeep/ATV suicide into things doesn't bother me.
Love letters don't generally dwell on the least liked parts
PSN: Bizazedo
CFN: Bizazedo (I don't think I suck, add me).
Increased player count is interesting, not sure how many maps were hitting the full 64 though (I didn't spend a whole lot of time with 5). 128 seems like a lot of players.
I'm hoping this it like a litmus test for more future stuff and if it sells well we get a 2143.
I'm super excited for 128 players, it's going to be frantic.
I love the cheese levelutions, my favorite being level you play out on the ocean, where the storm rolls in withe crashing vessel. The waves they created during the storm were so crazy.
EDIT: I missed Cantido's comment but yes, glorious sound design. I needs it.
I was honestly hoping for a bigger, better BF4 but I had a funny feeling Dice was going to over correct after BFV, and yeah. Called it.
The things I really did like:
128 players.
More dynamic, next gen destruction.
A focus on smaller scale destruction.
More interaction with the environment.
Cluster zones for conquest.
AI mode.
The things I really did not like:
Specialists. The reactions on all the YouTube videos I've watched seemed to echo this. People don't want a team full of named, unique characters in Battlefield. Battlefield is about the Battlefield. You're really only there as a small part of the bigger event that's happening. Having a team fill of Borises all quipping in their unique Boris voices is gonna get old, real quick. Even if they end up being a call in like support units from Battlefront 2.
The plus system and unlocked classes. I like the defined squad roles in Battlefield and building gun setups to meet unique needs and having to balance out their shortcomings. Allowing any class to use whatever gun they want, and then swap attachments on the fly, seems counterintuitive to encouraging squad play or specializing in your rolls. It's hard enough playing with randos in a normal BF game when nobody wants to run ammo or they ditch the health crate for a grenade launcher. I absolutely see a meta emerging very quickly where only one or two weapons (thanks to that classic Dice balance) are ever competitive so basically the entire 128 person team will be running the exact same set up.
Dynamic weather based levolution. Levolution worked ok in BF4 because it was largely player triggered (maybe not Parasol Storm but I think most instances were). You could go the whole match without the skyscraper coming down in Siege of Shanghai, but if the fighting got really focused there you knew it was only a matter of time. Having the map wrecked by a big tornado sounds like it might be cool the first time it happens, but the third or fourth time it rolls through and fucks up your steeze could get old. Hell, just having the weather change like in BF1 was plenty cool, imo.
I'll still probably get this, assuming consoles are actually avaliable by then, because I love Battlefield. But after V it's on thin ice with me, and if this doesn't immediately impress I think I'm calling it quits with the series. I've gotten hundreds of hours of enjoyment out of the milsims like Squad and Hell Let Loose that I can just play those for that combined arms multi-player fps fix.
The breakthrough game mode is the one that's probably going to end up being the real ridiculous meat grinder but I could also see it being the most fun.
I joined BFV very late after it went free on games pass, and turning up my in level 0 plane/tank vs fully upgraded pros wasn't a great feeling.
Or heck, make them side-grades rather than straight up improvements
This would be great but it would disincentive the micro transactions
You don't rock the boat with a come back game.
My son on the other hand, he'll want every new pass and skin pack etc...he's part of the Warzone and Fortnite generation
I just wish they stuck with their roots more, when with what they know worked than risk 2 back to back games that the community doesn't like.
But no the whole reason for them is this is a multi-player only live service game and they're going to be making their money off cosmetic upgrades for each unique character. It just feels real Call of Duty and that's not what people want from Battlefield. But then again, I don't know how you really do a live service type game without this kind of bullshit.
I honestly kinda miss Battlefield Premium. Let me go ahead and pay upfront for a year or two worth of content and then deliver it. Easy peasy. But I don't think specialist going to sink the game, they're just gonna be a sort of eye roll, shrug whatever kinda thing. The real make or break is going to be:
1. Stability at launch.
2. Actual, timely updates and content drops
3. Promised content is actually in game at launch this time
4. Dice doesn't fuck around with core TTK/gunplay mechanics, revert them after backlash, and then re-revert them later.
That's all they really need to do. If they screw that up though...
Now I get selling cosmetics and shit, but there is a better way! A more funnerer way!
Let players play Pretty Princess Dress-up! Let players design their own character. Let them unlock (or buy) uniforms, web gear, armor, helmets, gloves, boots, silly patches, knee/elbow pads, face masks, goggles, eye-pro and shemaghs my god the shemaghs!
And before people say, "Well how do you tell people apart?" Man, its not like you can right now anyway! A dude in camo 50m away looks like any other dude in camo.
Man the more I think about it the more this seems like Battlefield tossed a lot of its signature flavor out the window to sell cosmetics.
That gameplay reveal is gonna need to be real, real good.
Which, to be fair, setting it a little in the future and basing it around essentially mercenaries actually frees them up to do a lot of cool cosmetic stuff that they couldn't really do with like, WW2. Looking at you, Sunglasses Leather Jacket man.
But I give it one season before we start getting the MW treatment of increasingly goofy weapon skins/effects, charms, and outfits.
You can already dress up all your classes the same in V. So that's not new to 2042
So if they keep it at that level I'm fine.
I'm just really tired of seeing punk rockers shootering layers in my war games. If you want punk rockers shooting layers, make that game! It sounds fun! By why make a realistic setting with realistic guns if you want to add anime girls and pink tanks later. Makes no sense to me.
I think the point of the trailer went over your head a little bit. It's supposed to be a riff on super serious tacticool trailers where instead of behaving "realistically" (no game has ever actually done this FYI) they are all behaving like a bunch of battlefield players in a multiplayer match.
I mean, did you think they were trying to be serious when you got to the part where the guy ejects and shoots the trailing jet with a rocket, then lands back in the plane? Pretty sure that one gave the game away if nothing else did.
Resident 8bitdo expert.
Resident hybrid/flap cover expert.
I don't think negative feedback will actually change anything (because DICE, and that this is so clearly a mechanic straight from the suits to monetise through), just an observation.
Rest of the game looks fine, I guess. 128 players is cool, and the maps look good. Interested to see how they deal with the removal of weapon locking, to avoid situational weapons (SMGs, shotguns) going unused, and the inevitable meta meaning single specific kits are all that's used.
Old PA forum lookalike style for the new forums | My ko-fi donation thing.
There's absolutely nothing about this that looks different from the last multiple outings I've ignored. Battles such a big chaotic mess that it's just an endless meatgrinder where you rarely have any personal impact on anything. Overpriced DLC for an already-full-retail-price game and/or battlepass to strip out some grind. Nigh-endless grinding for unlocks. At least if they moved the game into the future, they can try for some creative shit like actually-new vehicles, not just what amounts to reskins and mild updates to existing stuff they've already made.
Show me something actually interesting, like a new Bad Company where the gameplay design is more than just flinging two huge piles of bodies at each other. Otherwise, yawn.
At this point, I'd say I'm open to seeing more details and postponing criticisms until after I've at least played the beta. I'm fine with specialists...from the sounds of it, it's just another take on classes but without being saddled to being locked to a certain category of gun.
About 64v64, though...I dunno, as long as they have the maps scalable to particular player counts (like how they did in BF2 and 2142) it could be just fine. I tend to do pretty well in 32-48 player servers, so, again, just going to have to wait and see. Although...the ability to use AI controlled bots to fill out the numbers could bring me around to 64v64.
My issue with Specialists, and why they are not like classes, is that they are Heroes from a hero-shooter in a game that shouldn't have such things.
They each have an unique active ability and a passive. So one dude has a grappling hook active and another can shoot a syringe to heal people. We only know of 4 right now, out of 10 I think.