1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

*** The Official Battlefield 2042 thread***

Discussion in 'PC Games' started by jonneymendoza, 13 Feb 2021.

  1. Delvis

    Caporegime

    Joined: 7 Nov 2004

    Posts: 29,640

    Location: Buckinghamshire

    As long as each class has some sort of extra ability / weapon allowance I really don't see the issue, it's just a skin at the end of the day
     
  2. chroniclard

    Capodecina

    Joined: 23 Apr 2014

    Posts: 20,484

    Location: Hertfordshire

    Had a few games of conquest, found it extremely boring. Used to quite like conquest on BF4. :confused:
     
  3. adam cool dude

    Capodecina

    Joined: 22 Oct 2002

    Posts: 21,337

    Location: Boston, Lincolnshire

    For me the map felt too big with very little cover. A little bit like Caspian Border in size but Caspian Border had plenty of foliage for infantry around capture points.

    Map design has really gone down hill over the past few years. I cannot really remember any maps from BF1 and V but I could reel lots of classics from 3 and before. 3 had 9 launch maps. I think 2042 will only have 7 original.
     
  4. V F

    Capodecina

    Joined: 13 Aug 2003

    Posts: 19,110

    Location: UK

    It's not turning out good?
     
  5. NZXT30

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 3 Aug 2010

    Posts: 2,411

    It seems this will be an one-off chance to get a BF with big maps, there is way too much complaining about it. I expect the next BF to go back to COD like clusterf**k we've come to expect since that Metro map.
     
  6. V F

    Capodecina

    Joined: 13 Aug 2003

    Posts: 19,110

    Location: UK

    What happened to the days when they actually made really good games?
     
  7. Tombstone

    Capodecina

    Joined: 17 Aug 2007

    Posts: 22,388

    I enjoyed it, dont know if I would label it "really good" , I'd probably describe it as good with the potential to be really good when I get to play the release.

    The way I look at it is pretty simple, I do not for any reason play a game that I do not like , for a significant length of time. Why would I, why would anyone, I mean I would have to be a masochist to spend time in life voluntarily doing something I dont like right? I play a game for a few hours if I like it I continue to play, if I dont like it I cease playing (the same method I also apply to tv shows, films and books), additionally to that I base the worth of the games I have bought on a £ per hour system, if I pay 35 quid for a game and get 35 hours out of it then I deem that to be good value for my money etc.

    Which brings me to the BF2042 beta, now I played this beta for a smidgeon under 20 hours, which tells me that clearly I was liking it as I didnt stop after a few hours as previously mentioned above. So, question 1 in my mind, do I like it, yes logically I do or I wouldnt spend 20 hours on it.

    Question 2 in my mind, will it meet my £ per hour system for being value for my money. Well, I got circa 20 hours from the beta, which would have equated to a cost of £20. That would seem to suggest that yes I will pretty comfortably hit the 40 hours required to be equivalent to a price of £40 and thus, yes its looking likely that I will hit a minimum £ per hour. All which results in question 1 being yes and question 2 being yes, which = buy.

    Simples :D
     
  8. Matty8787

    Hitman

    Joined: 2 Jan 2016

    Posts: 625

    Location: Yorkshire

    I found it pretty good overall, couple of weird animations aside.

    Will be buying the gold edition.
     
  9. Delvis

    Caporegime

    Joined: 7 Nov 2004

    Posts: 29,640

    Location: Buckinghamshire

    Aye, I didn't do 20 hours but put a fair whack in it. I'll buy the standard but I'm not forking out extra just for a few skins ...they'll no doubt release bloody expansion packs as well which will do my nut in
     
  10. TriedandTested

    Capodecina

    Joined: 11 Jul 2004

    Posts: 15,675

    Location: Neptune

    Indeed. The map was big but more than manageable on foot, zip lines, sliding and parachuting. Mental people are saying it's too big! This is BF!!
     
  11. skiersteve12345

    Gangster

    Joined: 24 Aug 2015

    Posts: 262

    Its big but boring af, its like planet coaster when you start a new park and are given just a massive blank field but instead of rides they added a rocket some warehouses and called it a day lmao
     
  12. DoggyX

    Gangster

    Joined: 21 Oct 2004

    Posts: 204

    Location: West Yorkshire

    For me it wasn't that the map was too big, it was just felt a bit empty and most of what buildings there were felt a bit small and too one dimensional. The whole map design seem's lazy, even the rocket taking off or exploding didn't hold much purpose apart from a visual - which after you have seen it once... was near it several times during both situations and didn't die as I would of expected to (same for tornado).

    Honestly don't know what to think about it all, been waiting for something new for so long after the arse that is Cold War and what Warzone quickly became...
     
  13. Scania

    Capodecina

    Joined: 25 Nov 2004

    Posts: 24,987

    Location: On the road....

    Tried it, didn’t expect to enjoy it and I didn’t, had a game of BFBC2 straight afterwards and really enjoyed it….

    Until EA remaster Battlefield 1942 or indeed Battlefield 2, I’m not bothering with another in the Battlefield franchise.
     
  14. Pitta

    Associate

    Joined: 4 Dec 2020

    Posts: 15

    The map imo felt like it was designed for a BR game halfway through. you have three fighting hotspots and then nothing. throws the pacing right off.
     
  15. nitram100

    Mobster

    Joined: 7 Aug 2009

    Posts: 4,731

    Location: London

    Same, played bc2 and bf4. My god bfbc2 is still amazing, the map design and hite reg are so damn good. Best game of the franchise easily.
     
  16. SpudMaster

    Mobster

    Joined: 23 Jun 2004

    Posts: 3,249

    Location: blackburn

    Problem for me is I think BF Portal is probably where I'd spend most of my time. I had this feeling before trying the beta. Find a nice server in Portal with old school rules and classes.

    I their current implementation Specialists seem to take away the team work aspect. Hardly anyone was using ammo and med packs and why would you when you can take something else that will benefit you more. Med packs are pretty pointless now anyway. Get shot, hide for a few seconds and wait for health to regen....:rolleyes:
     
  17. spiki

    Hitman

    Joined: 18 Oct 2005

    Posts: 865

    Maybe what I said was unintentionally unclear. On the CDKeys' listing it states Platform: Origin.
     
  18. Gerard

    Caporegime

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 36,278

    Location: Ireland

    Same with vehicles, they regen to 100% now. They started this regen gimmick with vehicles in bf3 but it was a limited amount, bfv had no vehicle regen, now all of a sudden they go full retard on regen across the board.
     
  19. Tombstone

    Capodecina

    Joined: 17 Aug 2007

    Posts: 22,388

    I actually agree with this, I think that conquest will actually be the weakest of the three modes, Hazard Zone and Portal is where most people will play imo. The conquest mechanic is showing its age somewhat but Hazard Mode and Portal both sound very interesting and I could see those two modes getting quite the following.
     
  20. SpudMaster

    Mobster

    Joined: 23 Jun 2004

    Posts: 3,249

    Location: blackburn

    Yeah exactly, or just conquest with classic rules that needs more teamwork. Meant to say in previous post is that the problem I have right now is I wasn't a big fan of the beta but could see myself playing Portal if I find a server I like but I don't want to pay full price for the game and find this isn't the case.