*** Battlefield 2042 (Console) ***
- Thread starter antijoke
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Feb 2007
- Posts
- 13,241
- Location
- London
Ok thanks, won't bother then.
It's still good just wish it was given a visual upgrade. Gunplay is awesome still but I was getting a headache as the blurryness was bad.
Just installed BF1 instead as personally better than the newest one 5.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Mar 2013
- Posts
- 9,349
Hmm battlefield between joy pad and mouse, wonder how that will turn out
.
.
Associate
- Joined
- 22 Mar 2004
- Posts
- 703
.....but there are a massive amount of aim assist on consoles. There absolutely shouldn't be crossplay.
Using a pad without aim assist isn’t the easiest. I would assume they would separate pad users and m & kb users into separate lobbies like COD did. But I agree 100% crossplay should only be with the consoles and PC separate.
Urgh, why does Dice (???) want to ape COD so much - Seasons, really!
They should look at Battlefield 2, Bad Company 2 and Battlefield 3 - those games provided some of the best elements of the franchise imo and were the pinnacles of Battlefield for me.
Having been with the series since BF1942 on the PC (not the god awful 2142 though!) – it has always been a firm favourite with me, and though I do occasionally enjoy the fast pace of COD, BF was always the ‘thinking man’s game’ imo – what with all those pesky vehicles.
Here’s hoping it’s not another steaming pile like BF 4, BF 1 and BF 5 (sorry “Vee”).
They should look at Battlefield 2, Bad Company 2 and Battlefield 3 - those games provided some of the best elements of the franchise imo and were the pinnacles of Battlefield for me.
Having been with the series since BF1942 on the PC (not the god awful 2142 though!) – it has always been a firm favourite with me, and though I do occasionally enjoy the fast pace of COD, BF was always the ‘thinking man’s game’ imo – what with all those pesky vehicles.
Here’s hoping it’s not another steaming pile like BF 4, BF 1 and BF 5 (sorry “Vee”).
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Mar 2013
- Posts
- 9,349
Ban him from this thread
.Agreed. 2142 is still the best.Ban him from this thread
I'm not confident they will release something I really want.
It's been going downhill for sometime and now it looks like they are adding "must have" features to compete with cod but they will be broken in some way on release.
Cross play is terrible, watch them not have the option to turn it off at first!
It's been going downhill for sometime and now it looks like they are adding "must have" features to compete with cod but they will be broken in some way on release.
Cross play is terrible, watch them not have the option to turn it off at first!
They aren't copying COD. They're copying Fortnite. That game was one of the first to introduce a battle pass and it makes so much money that every other publishers wants in on the action.
Indeed - I used to love putting C4 on a building, as a team camped inside; then dropping the place
Yes BFBC2 was insane!
I'm still actively playing BF5 too, jump on for a few rounds a week. Overall i still think the game is good - the graphics are much better than previous games, i think most people just aren't a fan of the historical warfare genre rather than the modern warfare.
My main bugbear though - cheaters being the biggest issue - the anti-cheat systems on this game are practically non-existent. Thankfully they're not present in every game, but are more frequently than not, but seems they can play some very long stints before they get an account ban. I appreciate they don't have the resources (or even want to spend the resources) to assess every cheat report, but the easiest and best mechanism is to implement server vote kick. The majority of players are decent and would vote to kick the player even if they were on their team and giving an obvious win.
The other minor annoying thing is there's clearly a number of players who are under 18 who play, you can tell because of the immature trash talk. In most cases you can just hide the chat, but it just seems wholly unnecessary seeing as it's supposed to be an 18+ game, so you'd expect to be playing with other adults.
It's a tricky concept to balance.
Buying them whether it's in-game currency or real cash gives everyone access to the same weapons from the start - although in-game currency can take some time to build up.
XP levelling, especially after the game has been out for several months makes it very hard for new players to be competitive. They basically get the **** guns and no mods, and are expected to compete against players who have unlocked the best guns and best mods and despite already having an advantage of knowing the game mechanics and map layouts etc, will also have the advantage of having a better weapon.
Essentially if you make it too much of a rough start for new players after the game is 6+ months old, then the player base dies pretty quickly.
I honestly think modern warfare did a decent job of this, you had the battle pass but I only actually paid for it once and would unlock credits allowing you to buy the next month and have some left over to buy the odd gun but you would also unlock everything else that mattered.
Attachments would unlock through the use of the gun, but even if you sucked would unlock fairly regular.
I don't think any of the unlocked weapons provided a massive advantage over the base set, more some suited a play style that you may have.
Having played a bit of BFV, I just don't feel an attachment to a certain weapon and unlocks for that weapon seem to take ages.
The pay for the good guns and everyone has that option puts me straight off within a week as I'm at a disadvantage unless I'm willing to spend money on the game I've already paid more than I'd like for.