What the shit. Why in the world would they get rid of the server browser? I still have nightmares about the god-fucking-awful matchmaking in BC1 and BC2.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
List of things removed from BF2042 compared to previous entries compiled by Reddit
- Thread starter dex3108
- Start date
What the shit. Why in the world would they get rid of the server browser? I still have nightmares about the god-fucking-awful matchmaking in BC1 and BC2.
Why do you guys all seem to focus on 1 or 2 things on the list to try and discredit it (campaign, maps)? Why do you all continue to ignore many of the basic features that have existed in nearly every entry in the series until this one?
Literally not one person in this thread that is raging about the existence of this list seems to actually have a good counter point and rather rages against the very idea of the list instead. Maybe it's because people don't actually have a good reason for so many removed features so it's easier to attack the person.
It really feels like people are completely willing to excuse shitty products just so they can dunk on the "Gamers".
While I think parts of this list are unfair (it's technically correct that there's 'no classes' but that doesn't exactly mean anything given the reason why 'classes' are gone lol), I don't think it's unreasonable for players to expect that features in the previous game of a very long-running multiplayer-focused series are carried forward into future games. Now it might be some feature are cut for specific and understandable reasons. But there's a lot in BF2042 that should never have been cut - even basic stuff I was genuinely shocked wasn't there like leaderboards in-game and voice chat. And with Halo Infinite now out, I'm not sure why I'd bother buying BF2042. I'm perfectly happy to pay £60-70 for a really high-quality AAA FPS experience - I am always happy to pay for quality. But it seems super clear that isn't what we're getting here, at least at launch. I don't mind the lack of campaign (haven't cared about a BF campaign since BC1+2). I don't even theoretically mind the limited number of maps given their size and variety. But increasingly I think the 128 player cap was a mistake. Think they should have stuck to 64, and keep the maps smaller, tighter, more focused, and use the extra resources to create a few more. But that's with hindsight I guess.
Beyond that, the game just... isn't that fun, at least to me. The 128 player feature isn't all that great as it runs into one of two problems: either everyone's so spaced out that it's frankly just an abstract thing, or you end up with a chaotic clusterfuck of spawncamping, ridiculous sniping one-shots, etc. The number of vehicles is kind of fucked too. And I'll be honest, I really don't think it's very graphically impressive either. It looked very flat on my Series X, almost like it hasn't popped in yet. I thought Halo was much more visually impressive. And the 128 players is probably the main reason for that; but in that case, I'd rather have stuck to 64 players or frankly even less. The UI is a complete mess, the guns don't feel all that great, and it's just not fun spending so much time running around trying to find something to do on these huge maps or getting constantly spawncamped or trashed by the other team sending in three tanks to your base etc. I've had a much better time just booting up Halo Infinite and jumping into the quick-play matchmaking. The matches are 5-10 minutes, I consistently have fun in every match, it looks and feels great, and though I'm not very good I know that's on me and it never feels frustrating or unfair.
Beyond that, the game just... isn't that fun, at least to me. The 128 player feature isn't all that great as it runs into one of two problems: either everyone's so spaced out that it's frankly just an abstract thing, or you end up with a chaotic clusterfuck of spawncamping, ridiculous sniping one-shots, etc. The number of vehicles is kind of fucked too. And I'll be honest, I really don't think it's very graphically impressive either. It looked very flat on my Series X, almost like it hasn't popped in yet. I thought Halo was much more visually impressive. And the 128 players is probably the main reason for that; but in that case, I'd rather have stuck to 64 players or frankly even less. The UI is a complete mess, the guns don't feel all that great, and it's just not fun spending so much time running around trying to find something to do on these huge maps or getting constantly spawncamped or trashed by the other team sending in three tanks to your base etc. I've had a much better time just booting up Halo Infinite and jumping into the quick-play matchmaking. The matches are 5-10 minutes, I consistently have fun in every match, it looks and feels great, and though I'm not very good I know that's on me and it never feels frustrating or unfair.
You know, the more I look into this, the less baseless it feels. VOIP and Zeroing are both features that didn't exist until BF4.
Honestly, the beta was super weak. I just remember thinking how I couldn't tell who was on my team --- and then going online and seeing everyone else saying the same thing. Surely, someone must have seen this while testing.
Also, it really felt like it was trying to be CoD when BF was always about teamwork. I thought for sure that I Was going to get the game but I dont think Ive had a beta soured me so quick
Also, it really felt like it was trying to be CoD when BF was always about teamwork. I thought for sure that I Was going to get the game but I dont think Ive had a beta soured me so quick
Right, but that's their problem and I'm not going to stop holding them accountable for refusing to listen and learn. There's no good faith argument where "less maps = bad" holds water here and isn't deserving of discussion. It's dumb. But I don't disagree with you that superficial surface level content checklists are largely what appease to people in the mass market, unfortunately, so here we are.
It'd be downvoted into oblivion because it's not conforming to the angry rabble pissing in each others mouths over The List that has a bunch of Stuff that wasn't in the game (or was and just changed but, you know, fuck context).
We've seen this time and time and time again with countless games that fall out of positive public opinion. All the rabble want is some obnoxious Crowbarcat video compilation of animation bugs so they can scream on forums/reddit/twitter/4chan/social media how funny video show game bad.
Mass Effect: Andromeda was the same. We could talk abut the lukewarm story that undermines its own potential with lazy retreading of trilogy ideas and concepts. We could talk about the stiff combat and meat sponge enemies. We could talk about the overly busy, lived-in environments that are still somehow sterile and boring. We could talk about the bland fetch quests and dry writing. We could talk about how Frostbite feels like it's on the fringe of falling apart even as you navigate menus. But, you know, My Face Is Tired :D :D :D :D game bad.
Yes, it's a shitty list, because it's just a dumb fucking checklist of stuff divorced from context as to why those changes may have taken place, nullifying an argument as to why those changes might be good or bad, by reducing the argument down to a binary "DOES IT EXIST Y/N, COS N = BAD". They didn't remove classes, they changed and reworked them; how they're set up and limited, how they're presented to the player and organised. And it's ass. I think the new specialist system is awful and doesn't lend itself to a better playing game, and I firmly believe DICE made the wrong decision. But it looks nicer on a shitpost list of Gamer Rage to put "NO CLASSES" as if that statement, in of itself, has any meaning or relevance without the discussion surrounding it.
The list is critiqued because it's lazy. And lazy is a critique aimed at gamers who do not want to unpack and discuss things, to outline where a product/project is faulted and why, because rambling off a checklist is easier than having a nuanced discussion about the content and context. So why on earth would I give it any due credit?
If you followed my posts (including, ironically, the one you're quoting) surrounding this game you'd know I don't like it. I didn't like the beta and I don't like the release. So I'm clearly not rushing to defend a "shitty product". But it's easier to assume that, handwave criticism towards lazy discussion, and continue the echochamber dogpile.
Or, in short: a stupid fucking list of "stuff removed" divorced of context or reason or discussion is not in of itself valuable discussion. It doesn't tell us why Battlefield 2042 is good or bad or where it works or where it doesn't. Some things listed highlight genuine problems and inexcusable absence of features of content. Some parts are fair observations but nevertheless nitpicks that are not indicative of why the game has issues, so much as disappointment at feature absence. Lazy discussion does not befit addressing why the game is what it is, warts and all.
What other game did dice have to work on to lose so many people this comes out with such a lack of features? Dice made battlefront and battlefield games last gen, and now its only one product and they are still failing in consumer eyes?
I've never been a CoD fan (last one I bought was Cod Modern Warfare II in 2009) and always liked Battlefield since the beginning of the franchise. I must say I've seen the quality of the games dropping down after BF4 (even BF4 launch was quite a clusterfuck). Seeing this list is not surprising. They started cutting stuff back in BF1.
It might be harsh but I feel it's time for DICE Sweden to move to something else and leave the franchise to whoever they co-developed 2042 with. Also might be a good time to ditch Frostbite engine and move to Unreal 5 or something more easier to work on. we've been hearing for years that Frostbite is really hard to work with, I imagine it doesn't help with the amount of bugs this game has...
It might be harsh but I feel it's time for DICE Sweden to move to something else and leave the franchise to whoever they co-developed 2042 with. Also might be a good time to ditch Frostbite engine and move to Unreal 5 or something more easier to work on. we've been hearing for years that Frostbite is really hard to work with, I imagine it doesn't help with the amount of bugs this game has...
Oh come on. So many of these things that are removed aren't even just common to Battlefield but common to Multiplayer shooters in general. Their removal doesn't make the game any better and the game itself only serves to highlight their absence. And yes, the lack of basic features that have existed in the series being removed really does make everything worse, people can't even FUCKING SELECT WHAT SQUAD THEIR IN, A FEATURE THAT HAS EXISTED SINCE 2005. Is that a fucking nitpick now? Is having a scoreboard a nitpick? Is having some decent UI customization so it isn't awful a nitpick? Should games not be compared to what the previous games did and did better?
You seem way more concerned with not hurting the dev's feelings than with the actual issues of the game. You give token comments about things you don't like but then go way harder on attacking people who are critical of it.
Can't wait for BF2044 where there is no squads at all, no UI customizations, no teams, and even bigger maps and everyone people just complain about how "gamers" are being so unreasonable and they should just take what is given to them.
I don't think they can move it to any of the co-developers, cause one is now completely a support studio after working of nfs games for the last decade I believe, the other is primarily also a racing studio that also helped with co-development on a bunch of games & are now in charge of leading nfs, and the other whilst being appropriate to take over, seems like they want to do their own thing instead after this (ripple effect).
Though I would love if ripple effect took over because between doing major post launch support for 4 to fix the game, and now portal, they seem to know how to keep the community happy.
I wonder if they'll be approached to make a spin off like they did with visceral, down the road though.
off topic, but I would have loved to see visceral tales on another bf game again. RIP 😔
You're deliberately making wild assumptions about my intentions while ignoring everything I'm actually saying and unpacking (why on earth would I talk about how this is my least favourite variation of conquest, how disappointed I was with the beta and the release, and how I genuinely feel the many specific changes to the Battlefield blueprint are stupid and don't work, if I was at all interested in preserving the dev's feelings? would they not be more hurt by "your design is poor" than "the game launched with bugs"?) and seem more concerned about flag waving the list as some smoking gun while taking criticism towards this action as a personal slight. That's on you and I'm not interested in this weird petty insistence to pick a side.
yeah you have no indication which part of the world you are connecting to
also the game sometimes puts you in matches that are nearly done
This isn't really new with this game. I had the same thing happen to me on BFV, and from what I can remember BF4, BF3, etc. I just end up quitting and try rejoining another match.
Definitely needs a server browser though
The list itself has a lot of points that undermine what it's going for, and there are better ways to convey and express how much of a departure this game is from the previous installments. Including points like the single player campaign not being present is very silly.
I've only played the beta and will use the EA Play trial to try the game again, but to my knowledge the game's fundamentals have (unsurprisingly) remained the same. The main change that still befuddles is me how they nuked the class system out of their main game mode. I understand this was a clear attempt to try to "modernize" and create a revenue stream by selling cosmetics for these specialist characters, but surely they didn't think this would go well, both from a design standpoint and reception?
The most immediate parallel I can think of is if a brand new mainline Call of Duty game came out and had the Create-A-Class system removed and replaced with hero characters with fixed loadouts and abilities. With BF2042, DICE pretty much eliminated one of the most defining characteristics the Battlefield franchise is known for.
I've only played the beta and will use the EA Play trial to try the game again, but to my knowledge the game's fundamentals have (unsurprisingly) remained the same. The main change that still befuddles is me how they nuked the class system out of their main game mode. I understand this was a clear attempt to try to "modernize" and create a revenue stream by selling cosmetics for these specialist characters, but surely they didn't think this would go well, both from a design standpoint and reception?
The most immediate parallel I can think of is if a brand new mainline Call of Duty game came out and had the Create-A-Class system removed and replaced with hero characters with fixed loadouts and abilities. With BF2042, DICE pretty much eliminated one of the most defining characteristics the Battlefield franchise is known for.
Just comes with the territory i think.
A complex mp game with 60+ players, vehicles etc. must be a nightmare to keep from falling apart.
The games were always buggy, even when running on the refractor engine before frostbite.
I don't expect this to change unfortunately
They're not selling specialists IIRC. They're going to come in as free updates.
Also, specialists are kinda weird. They're essentially classes but with special unique abilities.
I touched on previously that the wasy DICE internally tests their games is awful because they likely go into a play test with the knowledge of how they think these games should be played and when everyone has the ability to communicate with each other properly. When in reality the game is played far different. Im certain DICE employees go into play tests playing the game like you would see in those fake teamwork trailers. Hey you go Falk I'll go Angel he goes Sundance and they go Casper! We should all run different gadgets! In reality tho everyone a majority of players aren't doing this organisation especially with gadgets, thats why the class system worked far far better because you could have literally anything you wanted in combo. This glassdoor review hits the nail on the head:
EA Wanted to know how they could get FIFA Ultimate Team into Battlefield? Specialists are your first steps.
EA Wanted to know how they could get FIFA Ultimate Team into Battlefield? Specialists are your first steps.
You cant just make a list but remove all context from it. Game is rough right now but it just makes shit look worse than it actually is.
For example, Yes there are less maps, but the new 2042 maps are fucking ENORMOUS compared to other BF games. So enormous that it seems that 128 people playing on them cant fill the space in some of the larger ones so instead it seems like DICE wants to funnel everyone into a few areas surrounded by a gameplay wasteland.
No class system doesn't even make sense when the original classes are still there, but they're exclusively in portal it seems.
This doesnt take away from the fact that there are absolutely some things that should not be missing from the game like the distance indicators for downed players/medics.
Id like someone to take this list and actually try to add some meat to it rather than list off a bunch of bullet points.
For example, Yes there are less maps, but the new 2042 maps are fucking ENORMOUS compared to other BF games. So enormous that it seems that 128 people playing on them cant fill the space in some of the larger ones so instead it seems like DICE wants to funnel everyone into a few areas surrounded by a gameplay wasteland.
No class system doesn't even make sense when the original classes are still there, but they're exclusively in portal it seems.
This doesnt take away from the fact that there are absolutely some things that should not be missing from the game like the distance indicators for downed players/medics.
Id like someone to take this list and actually try to add some meat to it rather than list off a bunch of bullet points.
Yeah, like I said, the additions don't make up for what was removed. The only actually innovative thing in that list is Portal and they just nerfed the everliving shit out of it so that you can't even progress while playing it.
Completely agree with this. Do complain about the current state of 2042 if you are having issues with it, but implying that any recent BF launch was feature complete is dishonest and quite honestly toxic for the conversation. BFV had a ton of content in its trailers that was either delayed or scrapped entierly.
It's absolutely crazy. I've been playing all week and TRYING to have a good time. But instead it's just massive frustration and no fun. Last night I shit the game down and launched BF4. The game started and it was like taking a sip of cold, refreshing water. Everything in BF4 Is just perfection. I know it wasn't always like that-but I don't have much confidence that DICE can reshape this current product into something wholly different.
I don't feel that simply having the same amount of weapons as the previous games is an absolute must-however. In BF4, every LMG felt different to use. There was value in switching from one to another to find that sweet spot that you like. In 2042 there's only a few to choose from and so far they don't seem to each have an individual identity that makes them feel distinctive to use.
Voice chat and persisten lobbies are the only thing actually missing from the game at launch.
Scoreboard and server browser is there, reworked from past games. Does it work? That's a different discussion, but it's not "missing" from the game.
The scoreboard in the left side shows the 5 best squads in the game + yours, and the points that, as a squad, they have. Total number of kills, total numbers of revives and captures. People might like to see ALL of individual players, but in a game where people are literally complaining about WHERE'S MAH TEAM PLAYERS you have a scoreboard entirely focused in squad teamwork. How can I not critize people for not understanding that?
Oh so you want to know how are you doing? Well, on the right side of the scoreboard you have ping, kills, revives, assists, captures, ribbons progress...
The scoreboard this time provides a lot more useful information than just looking at your kill count to pat yourself in the back. Is that better? I don't really see an issue with it, maybe the game should have a toggle between legacy and 2042 and that would solve it for the people who miss the old system. Is it "MISSING FEATURE FROM THE GAME, 1/10"? Absolutely not.
so yeah, people who like and dislike the game are criticizing this list and the way people are being completely unreasonable with their criticism because that's what it is: complete internet hyperbole with 0 intention of having a better game, with sparkles of legitimate issues that need to be addressed.
Right? There's a certain sense of irony where you've got people creating backlash about the new scoreboard that focuses in on squad-specific and more detailed stats when the old one was a quick check for score, kills, and deaths. Folks have championed for decades that Battlefield is about squad-based teamwork and objective focus, but when a scoreboard reflects exactly that, it's a bad thing. Why the desire for a lone wolf scoreboard?
I enjoyed BF 2142 and BF3 a lot, then BF4 came and it was such a mess at the start that it just soured the whole thing.
I was pretty excited about this one, but then I saw some of the beta stuff, and it seemed to have all of the stuff from BF I didn't quite like.
I enjoyed levels that were pretty streamlined and focused on pushing a battle forward. Not the massive and open battles where you're just running forever between bases.
BF as a whole is a pretty cursed franchise. It feels like you can split its core mechanics to three different games, with vastly different playerbases. Half of the stuff that has been removed in the OP, are stuff I don't really care about missing, but then it just seems to miss other stuff I would rather want.
Hell Let Loose seems fun though.
I was pretty excited about this one, but then I saw some of the beta stuff, and it seemed to have all of the stuff from BF I didn't quite like.
I enjoyed levels that were pretty streamlined and focused on pushing a battle forward. Not the massive and open battles where you're just running forever between bases.
BF as a whole is a pretty cursed franchise. It feels like you can split its core mechanics to three different games, with vastly different playerbases. Half of the stuff that has been removed in the OP, are stuff I don't really care about missing, but then it just seems to miss other stuff I would rather want.
Hell Let Loose seems fun though.
Squad management, server browser, map zoom, scope zoom adjustments are no brainers. I'm so confused as to why would even think of removing these things.
I remember being annoyed for dice removing commander and spec ops from BF3 but I get it. These omissions are clear downgrades, and nothing to replace them.
I remember being annoyed for dice removing commander and spec ops from BF3 but I get it. These omissions are clear downgrades, and nothing to replace them.
It shouldnt be like this, why are people so accepting of a half or broken buggy game? It wasnt oke then and it isnt oke now. So many publisher/devs do this again and again and people still keep buying it. There is no need for them to change or go the extra mile. Like i said missing features aside, the performance and bugs are so easily reproducable there is no way they didnt see it. Its just a deadline and we need to ship it and fix it in the coming months. Its a dispicable practice that scams people out of their money. Generate a lot of hype, show trailers, make promises and then the release is nothing like the game you expected or where promised. And i truly believe this is because of bad management, leaders and the publsihers. You cant tell me a dev that has been working his ass of likes to see his game fail or see al the negativity. You did not work years on a project with this intention. Or this is really the best they can do, and all the veteran devs are gon and replaced by cheap labor and starters and put them under enormous pressure and low pay.
Just a couple amendments :D
There are ATVs. There's even a trophy for a defensive roadkill with one.
There also is a third person animation, but for gameplay purposes you instantly are in the seat which is great
You won't find much low pay labour in Stockholm! :)
Wasn't proposing that people should be happy with whatever a publisher releases. I (and the poster I quoted) just stated that people claiming previous BF releases were "so much better and feature complete" are bullshitting themselves and others. There's enough piling on and complaining already, we don't need to bring destructive revisionist history on top of that.
Clearly DICE haven't had enough time to complete projects and this has been an ongoing issue for a very long time. I remember when BF3 (I think? Or was it 2?) was ramping up for release and they filmed a map designer for an interview and he had the biggest bags beneath his eyes that I have ever seen. I totally agree that they should have more time for projects or reduce scope further (perhaps split up conquest and breakthrough/rush releases) to make it more manageble.
It's clear that they bite off more than they can chew and entitled gamers will scream at the top of their lungs if you don't tick every feature you've worked on the last two decades. Should they crunch more? Should they release unprofitable products? No, either support one live service for the generation or reduce the scope of each release. Don't slavishly follow unreasonable requests of the fans.
No server browser and No persistent servers?
Welp good thing I havent jumped in just yet, cuz Halo infinite is still the business.
Welp good thing I havent jumped in just yet, cuz Halo infinite is still the business.
Forbes: 'Battlefield 2042' Is A Total Disaster And Gamers Are Not Happy
they literally lifted the list from Reddit.
they literally lifted the list from Reddit.
Imo the server browser is set up in a terrible way
In this game it's relegated to portal mode - and portal mode has a limit on the amount of servers. If you look, you see maybe 5-6 servers that have people playing.
you also don't gain xp, or unlock attachments.
the main mode should have a browser plus portal's browser. If I want to play TDM on a 2042 map, I have to use portal, which means I gain no xp. Another thing is the server with tdm may not even be populated, due to the nature of portal at the moment. This was not an issue in BF4 because you had private servers, dedicated servers that always ran and were populated. They also didn't cap XP
I love the random use of less and fewer in that reddit thread. Could have used some of that Stannis magic.
I agree, it's not set up in good way, but it's not missing from the game. It's a thing to improve on.
As for the XP, my guess is that they don't want people to max out very quickly. It's something that happened in BFV, people maxed out and then complained that didn't have anything else to unlock or earn, even before the first month of launch.
As a fan of the series the community around launch is a tiring experience.
As someone who has literally played and became an old man with the BF series since the very beginning (granted not in a very serious manner since BF3) I can share that I finally got around to checking it out last night and I have never felt as confused and lost with a BF game as I did with this one.
What I mean is despite having way less time these days to dedicate to gaming, BF has always been the series I could not play for extended amounts of time and just hop right back in and feel at home. I could contribute. I could have fun. I could play the game I always have known and loved.
Last night, although there were a whole bunch of things telling me it was a BF game, it just did not feel like a BF game is the easiest way I can put things.
What I mean is despite having way less time these days to dedicate to gaming, BF has always been the series I could not play for extended amounts of time and just hop right back in and feel at home. I could contribute. I could have fun. I could play the game I always have known and loved.
Last night, although there were a whole bunch of things telling me it was a BF game, it just did not feel like a BF game is the easiest way I can put things.
Makes me sad. I really wanted this game to be good. It's so damn awful. What were they thinking?!..
Oh well just reinstalled BF3..
Oh well just reinstalled BF3..
